Denying Her Voice: The Figure of Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature [1 ed.] 9783666551055, 9783525551059

Citation preview

Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements Edited by Armin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson and Vered Noam Advisory Board Katell Berthelot (University of Aix-Marseille), George Brooke (University of Manchester), Jonathan Ben Dov (University of Haifa), Beate Ego (University of Osnabrück), Ester Eshel (Bar-Ilan University), Heinz-Josef Fabry (University of Bonn), Steven Fraade (Yale University), Maxine L. Grossman (University of Maryland), Christine Hayes (Yale University), Catherine Hezser (University of London), Alex Jassen (University of Minnesota), James L. Kugel (Bar-Ilan University), Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Carol Meyers, (Duke University), Eric Meyers (Duke University), Hillel Newman (University of Haifa), Christophe Nihan (University of Lausanne), Lawrence H. Schiffman (New York University), Konrad Schmid (University of ­Zurich), Adiel Schremer (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Segal (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Aharon Shemesh (Bar-Ilan University), Günter Stemberger (University of Vienna), Kristin De Troyer (University of Salzburg), Azzan Yadin (Rutgers University) Volume 23

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Hanna Tervanotko

Denying Her Voice: The Figure of Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISSN 2197-0092 ISBN  You can find alternative editions of this book and additional material on our Website: www.v-r.de Cover image: Miriam in the Sarajevo Haggadah © National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina. © 2016, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U. S. A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by textformart, Göttingen

Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Style and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.2 History of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.2.1 Biblical Female Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.2.2 The Figure of Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1.3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1.3.1 Historical-Critical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1.3.2 Literary-Theoretical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1.3.2.1 Intertextuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 1.3.2.2 Bakhtin’s Concept of Dialogism . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1.3.3 Feminist Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 1.4 Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2. Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.1 Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.1.2 Text Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.1.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.1.4 Stylistic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.1.5 Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.1.6 Female Prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2.1.6.1 Female Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . 54 2.1.7 Miriam in Exodus 15:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 2.1.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 2.2 Miriam in Laws: Deuteronomy 24:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2.2.2 Text Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 2.2.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 2.2.4 Literary and Redaction Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2.2.5 Miriam in Deuteronomy 24:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2.2.6 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 2.2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

6

Contents

2.3 Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15 . . . . . . . . . 68 2.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2.3.2 Text Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2.3.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 2.3.4 Stylistic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 2.3.5 Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.3.6 Miriam in Numbers 12:1–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 2.3.7 Redaction Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 2.3.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 2.3.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 2.4 Miriam’s Death and Burial: Numbers 20:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 2.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 2.4.2 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 2.4.3 Death and Burial of Female Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2.4.4 Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 2.4.5 Miriam in Numbers 20:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.4.6 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.4.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 2.5 Miriam in the Lists I: Numbers 26:59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 2.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 2.5.2 Women in Numbers 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 2.5.3 Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 2.5.4 Miriam in Numbers 26:59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 2.5.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 2.5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 2.6 Miriam’s Leadership: Micah 6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 2.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 2.6.2 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 2.6.3 Miriam in Micah 6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 2.6.4 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 2.6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 2.7 Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 3. Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 3.1 Texts from Judea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 3.1.1 Miriam in Lists II: 1 Chronicles 5:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 3.1.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 3.1.1.2 Women in 1 Chronicles 1–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 3.1.1.3 Text Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 3.1.1.4 Miriam in 1 Chronicles 5:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 3.1.1.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 125 3.1.1.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Contents

7

3.1.2 Miriam as the Daughter of Amram: The Visions of Amram a,c,d,e,g 126 3.1.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 3.1.2.2 Women in the Visions of Amram . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 3.1.2.3 Miriam’s Marriage (4Q543 1 6 = 4Q545 1 I, 5–6) . . 131 3.1.2.4 Miriam’s Mystery (4Q546 12 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 3.1.2.5 Miriam’s Birth (4Q547 9 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 3.1.2.6 Miriam in the Family Genealogy (4Q549 2 8) . . . . 142 3.1.2.7 Miriam in the Visions of Amram . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 3.1.2.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 145 3.1.2.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 3.1.3 The Extended Song of Miriam: The Reworked Pentateuchc (4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 3.1.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 3.1.3.2 The Extended Song of Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 3.1.3.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 3.1.3.4 Victory Songs Attributed to Women . . . . . . . . . . 151 3.1.3.5 Other Versions of the Song of Miriam . . . . . . . . . 154 3.1.3.6 The Relationship between the Songs of Miriam in the Reworked Pentateuchc and the Pentateuch Targumim 156 3.1.3.7 Miriam in the Reworked Pentateuchc . . . . . . . . . . 159 3.1.3.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 161 3.1.3.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 3.1.4 Miriam and the Infant Moses I: Jubilees 47:4 . . . . . . . . . . 162 3.1.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 3.1.4.2 Women in Jubilees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 3.1.4.3 Analysis of Jubilees 47:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 3.1.4.4 Miriam in Jubilees 47:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 3.1.4.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 170 3.1.4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 3.1.5 Miriam’s Punishment Renarrated: The Apocryphon Pentateuch B (4Q377 2 I, 9) . . . . . . . . . . 172 3.1.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 3.1.5.2 Fragment 2 of 4Q377 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 3.1.5.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 3.1.5.4 Miriam in the Apocryphon Pentateuch B . . . . . . . 178 3.1.5.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . 179 3.1.5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 3.1.6 Excursus: The Levites in the Second Temple Period . . . . . . 180 3.1.6.1 The Texts through the Persian Era . . . . . . . . . . . 180 3.1.6.2 The Texts of the Hellenistic Era . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 3.1.6.3 Miriam as Levite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 3.1.7 Conclusions Regarding the Hellenistic Texts from Judea . . . 191

8

Contents

3.2 Texts from Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 3.2.1 The Interpretation of Miriam in the Septuagint . . . . . . . . 193 3.2.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 3.2.1.2 Exodus 6:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 3.2.1.3 Exodus 15:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 3.2.1.4 Deuteronomy 24:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 3.2.1.5 Numbers 12:1–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 3.2.1.6 Numbers 20:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 3.2.1.7 Numbers 26:59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 3.2.1.8 Micah 6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 3.2.1.9 1 Chronicles 5:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 3.2.1.10 Miriam in the Septuagint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 3.2.1.11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 3.2.2 Miriam Referring to Moses’s Marriage: Demetrius the Chronographer, Fragment 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 211 3.2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 3.2.2.2 Analysis of Fragment 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 3.2.2.3 Miriam in Demetrius the Chronographer . . . . . . . 215 3.2.2.4 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 216 3.2.2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 3.2.3 Miriam and the Infant Moses II: Exagoge 18–26 . . . . . . . . 217 3.2.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 3.2.3.2 Analysis of Exagoge 18–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 3.2.3.3 Miriam in Exagoge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 3.2.3.4 Relationship with Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 3.2.3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 3.2.4 Conclusions regarding the Hellenistic Texts from Egypt . . . 224 3.3 Miriam in the Texts of the Hellenistic Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 4. Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4.1 Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . 229 4.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 4.1.2 Women in the Texts of Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 4.1.3 Texts Referring to Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 4.1.4 Miriam in Philo’s Historical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 4.1.4.1 De vita contemplativa 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 4.1.5 Miriam in Philo’s Allegorical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 4.1.5.1 Legum allegoriae 1.76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 4.1.5.2 Legum allegoriae 2.66–67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 4.1.5.3 Legum allegoriae 3.103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 4.1.5.4 De agricultura 80–81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 4.1.6 Philo’s Interpretation of Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

Contents

9

4.1.7 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 4.1.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 4.2 Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 4.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 4.2.2 Women in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum . . . . . . . . . . . 252 4.2.3 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 9:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 4.2.4 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 20:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 4.2.5 Miriam in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 4.2.6 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 4.2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 4.3 Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 4.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 4.3.2 Women in the Texts of Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 4.3.3 Antiquitates judaicae 2.221, 2.226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 4.3.4 Antiquitates judaicae 3.54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 4.3.5 Antiquitates judaicae 3.105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 4.3.6 Antiquitates judaicae 4.78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 4.3.7 Josephus’s Interpretation of Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 4.3.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 4.3.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 4.4 Miriam in the Texts of the Roman Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 5.1 Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 5.2 Role of Women in Ancient Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 5.2.1 Marriage Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 5.2.2 Women’s Prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 5.3 Implications of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 1. Bibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 2. Editions and Reference Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 3. General Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

Acknowledgements

This study is  a revised version of my doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Helsinki and the University of Vienna in 2013. The outline of the present study follows the earlier version, but I have revised the manuscript thoroughly on the basis of the feedback that I received at the defense and afterwards. First, I would like to thank my supervisors, Prof. (emerita) Raija Sollamo and Prof. Armin Lange, for all of the support and encouragement I have received from them during the past several years. Their knowledge, wisdom and enthusiasm have been fundamental for my academic life, and this research would have been very different without their steady mentoring. Such a co-supervision between two institutes was possible under the umbrella of a Cotutelle de thèse-agreement signed by both universities. While it created a lot of paperwork for all of us, such cooperation broadened my academic horizon significantly, and I benefitted tremendously from the co-supervision. Raija and Armin, you both remain academic examples for me. I would equally like to thank the reviewers of my dissertation, Prof. Sidnie White Crawford, Prof. Gerhard Lager and Prof. Lawrence Schiffman. I am particularly grateful to Prof. Sidnie White Crawford for accepting the invitation to be my examiner at the public defense. I treasure a warm memory from the defense and the celebration afterwards, in large part due to Sidnie’s presence on that day. She made several meticulous remarks on my work, and I have tried to incorporate them into this work. I am grateful, moreover, to several colleagues in Helsinki, Vienna and Belgium for their support, help and collegiality: Prof. Anneli Aejmelaeus, Dr. Jutta Jokiranta, Dr. Outi Lehtipuu, Prof. Martti Nissinen, Dr. Mika Pajunen, Dr. Juha Pakkala, Dr.  Hanne von Weissenberg, Prof. Dorothea Erbele-Küster, Prof. Florentino García Martínez, Prof. Eibert Tigchelaar, Dr. Nóra Dávid, Prof. Günter Stemberger and Dipl. Theol. Matthias Weigold. The Helsinki Qumran-symposium and the Groningen-Leuven Encounters on the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided me regular opportunities to present my work. Completing this work would not have been possible without the financial support I have received. I extend my gratitude to The Finnish Academy, who funded the project “Conflicting Identities: Social and Religious Identities in Light of the Qumran Material from the Judean Desert” that was led by Prof. Sollamo. Apart from this grant, The Finnish Concord Fund and The Finnish Cultural Fund funded my research. In addition to these, I have received multiple grants enabling travel to congresses and finalizing this manuscript from the Faculty of Theology and the University of Helsinki. The Academy of Finland and Post Doc pooli supported my stay at Yale.

12

Acknowledgements

While revising the manuscript I received help from Prof. Karin Finsterbusch, Prof. Bennie Reynolds, Prof. Ian Werrett, Prof. Jed Wyrick, and Dr. Sami Ylikarjamaa. They all read various sections of the work. I also benefitted from my frequent conversations with Prof. John Collins, who was my mentor during my research stay at Yale. Olivia Stewart carried out the task of correcting the English of my manuscript. At several places she not only revised my English but also made me sharpen my own thinking with her challenging questions. Any remaining mistakes are due to my own negligence. There are several people outside the academic world who have contributed to this work in more indirect ways. Most importantly I would like to name my parents Raisa Tervanotko and Tapio Tervanotko (1952–2009), and my sister Laura Tervanotko. They have always encouraged me to pursue my dreams and believe in myself. At the very final stage of writing my dissertation my in-laws Rosa Tribuzio and Vito Buonsante provided necessary help. My friends have been there for me at all times. I am truly grateful for you all. My son Elio has grown up surrounded by books, and to my delight he shares my passion for ancient stories. Writing alone is never as much fun as discovering new things with him. More than to anyone else, I owe gratitude to my spouse, Vito A. He has witnessed every step of this project since its very beginning, and he has offered his unfailing support throughout the process. Thus, it is to Vito A. that I dedicate this book with love, rakkaudella, con amore. Brussels, December 2015 Hanna Tervanotko

Style and Abbreviations Style and abbreviations generally follow P. H. Alexander et al. (eds.), The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999).

Primary Sources Aet. De aeternitate mundi Agr. De agricultura ALD Aramaic Levi Document A.J. Antiquitates judaicae apocrPent. B Apocryphon Pentateuch B B. J. Bellum judaicum b.Meg. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah b.Sanh. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin b.Šebu. Babylonian Talmud, Shevu’ot b.Sotah Babylonian Talmud Sotah b.Ta’an. Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anit Cant Canticles CD Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document Cher. De cherubim Congr. De congressu eruditionis gratia De vita contemplativa Contempl. Contra Apionem C. Ap. Chr 1–2 Chronicles D Deuteronomist source Dan Daniel Decal. De decalogo Deut Deuteronomy DSS Dead Sea Scrolls Esth Esther Exod Exodus Exod. Rab. Exodus Rabbah Ezek Ezekiel Flacc. In Flaccum Fug. De fuga et inventione Gen Genesis H Hodayot Hist. Historiae Hos Hosea Hypoth. Hypothetica

14

Style and Abbreviations

Ios. De Iosepho Isa Isaiah J Jahwist source Jdt Judith Jer Jeremiah Josh Joshua Jub. Jubilees Kgs 1–2 Kings KJV King James Version L.A.B. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum Lam Lamentations Leg. Legum allegoriae 1–3 Legat. Legatio ad Gaium Let. Aris. Letter of Aristeas Lev Leviticus 4QLev-Numa Leviticus-Numeria (4Q23) LXX Septuagint M Milhamah Macc 1–4 Maccabees Mal Malachi Mek. Exod. Mekilta on Exodus Mic Micah Migr. De migratione Abrahami m.Ketub. Mishnah Ketubbot m.Naš. Mishnah Nashim m.Nidd. Mishnah Niddah MMT Miqsat Ma’aśê ha-Torah Mos. De vita Mosis 1–2 MT Masoretic Text Mut. De mutatione nominum Neh Nehemiah NRSV New Revised Standard Version Num Numeri 4QNumb Numerib (4Q27) Opif. De opificio mundi P Priestly source 1QpHab Pesher Habakkuk Plant. De plantatione Post. De posteritate Caini Praep. ev. Praeparatio evangelica Praem. De praemiis et poenis Prob. Quod omnis probus liber sit Prov Proverbs Ps Psalms QE Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 1–2 QG Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1–4 Qoh Qohelet

Style and Abbreviations

15

RP Reworked Pentateuch Serekh ha-Yahad (Manual of Discipline) S Sam 1–2 Samuel Sobr. De sobrietate Somn. De somniis 1–2 SP Samaritan Pentateuch Spec. De specialibus legibus 1–4 Strom. Stromata Syr. Syriac T Temple Scroll Tanh. Tanhuma Tg. Neof. 1 Targum Neofiti 1 Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan VA Visions of Amram Vg. Vulgate Virt. De virtutibus VL Vetus Latina Wis Wisdom of Salomon Zeph Zephaniah

Secondary Sources AB ABD ALGHJ AGJU

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums AnBib Analecta biblica ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung ArBib The Aramaic Bible ARM Archives royales de Mari ArOr Archiv Orientální ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament BN Biblische Notizen BRev Bible Review

16 BZAW CBC CBQ CBQMS CHANE CHJ CRINT CSCO CSCT DJD DSD DSSSE DSSR EHAT EncJud EvT FAT FOTL FRLANT

Style and Abbreviations

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Cambridge History of Judaism Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Encyclopaedia Judaica Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GCS Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament HAR Hebrew Annual Review HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HR History of Religions HRCS Hatch, E. and H. A. Redpath. Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament HSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HTB Histoire du texte biblique HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary IDBSup Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume Int Interpretation JAJ The Journal of Ancient Judaism JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JFSR Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion JJS Journal of Jewish Studies Joüon Joüon, P. A. Grammar of Biblical Hebrew JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods

Style and Abbreviations

JSJSup

17

Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series JTS Journal of Theological Studies KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament LCL Loeb Classical Library LHB/OTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon NCB New Century Bible NEchtB Neue Echter Bibel NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDB New International Dictionary of the Bible OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology OTL Old Testament Library OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha OTS Old Testament Studies PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece RB Revue biblique RevQ Revue de Qumrân RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies SBLABS Society of Biblical Literature Archeology and Biblical Studies SBLAIL Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature SBLCP Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations SC Sources chrétiennes Sem Semitica SemeiaSt Semeia Studies SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SRB Studies in Rewritten Bible STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah StPB Studia post-biblica SVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Text Textus

18 ThWAT TSAJ TS VT VTSup WBC WMANT WUNT ZAW ZBK AT

Style and Abbreviations

Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Theological Studies Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum/Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare Alten Testament

1. Introduction There is neither  a first nor last word and there are no limits to the dialogic context (it extends into the boundless past and the boundless future). Even past meanings, that is, those born in the dialogue of past centuries, can never be stable (finalized, ended once and for all) — they will always change (be renewed) in the process of subsequent, future development of the dialogue. At any moment in the development of the dialogue there are immense, boundless masses of forgotten contextual meanings, but at certain moments of the dialogue’s subsequent development along the way they are recalled and reinvigorated in renewed form (in a new context). Mikhail M. Bakhtin1

The task of this study is twofold. On the one hand, I will analyze the treatment and development of the literary figure of Miriam as a literary character in ancient Jewish texts. I will do this by taking into account all the references to this figure preserved in ancient Jewish literature from the exilic period to the early second century C.E.: Exod 15:20–21; Deut 24:8–9; Num 12:1–15; Num 20:1; Num 26:59; Mic 6:4; 1 Chr 5:29; the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q365 6 II, 1–7; 4Q377 2 I, 9; 4Q543 1 I, 6 = 4Q545 1 I, 5; 4Q546 12 4; 4Q547 9 10; 4Q549 2 8); Jub. 47:4; the Septuagint; Demetrius Chronographer frag. 3; Exagoge 18; texts by Philo of Alexandria: Contempl. 87; Leg. 1.76; 2.66–67; 3.103; Agr. 80–81; L.A.B. 9:10; 20:8; and finally texts by Josephus: A.J. 2.221; 3.54; 3.105; 4.78.2 On the other hand, in the light of poststructuralist literary studies that treat texts as reflections of specific social situations, I will ask what the depiction of Miriam in ancient Jewish literature tells us about the reception of women in different eras and contexts. 1 Mikhail Bakhtin, “Toward  a Methodology for the Human Sciences,” in Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (trans. Vern McGee; ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999), 159–172, 170. 2 The oral traditions of some compositions that are known as the rabbinic texts were surely known in the early first century C.E. This is the case with the Tannaitic compositions such as the Mishnah. Other rabbinic texts can also mirror ideas that go back to the Second Temple era. Despite these views, the rabbinic literature is generally dated to the period post 70 C.E. E. g., Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Early Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 279–290. Moreover, when the rabbinic literature is discussed, many of the texts are given a rather large time span. Recently, Paul V. M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2011), 55, claim the Targums were written mostly between 70 and 600 C.E. Hence, the earliest forms and strata of the rabbinic

20

Introduction

1.1 Background The term “ancient Jewish literature” that appears in the title of this study requires some clarification. In this context this term is used to designate texts composed in a specific time period. Ancient Judaism is often described as a period from the Babylonian exile to the seventh century C.E. The latter date marks the time when the Babylonian Talmud was written. In this study the understanding is that ancient Judaism can be divided into two eras: antiquity and late antiquity. The period of antiquity comprises events from the Babylonian exile to the Bar Kokhba revolt (135 C.E.), whereas late antiquity is the time after the revolt until the seventh century C.E. My study concentrates on the period of antiquity, and the texts deriving from that era will be quoted as “ancient Jewish literature.” The inspiration of ancient Judaism is notably reflected in the rich textual corpora. Most of the texts of this study were actually composed after the exile, but some of them may have even earlier origins. This applies particularly to the texts that belong to the Hebrew Bible. Some compositions could have been known in some form before the exile. Despite their earlier provenance, they went through an extensive editing that lasted for centuries. Therefore it can be assumed that none of them was actually finished before the exile. Apart from denoting the time period when the compositions that this study examines were produced, the term “ancient Jewish literature” also points to the content of the material that this work deals with. The Jewish literature of this era has been transmitted to our time under different labels. Apart from the Hebrew Bible, which is a fixed collection, ancient Jewish literature has been divided into other different groups, categories or collections of texts such as “the Apocrypha,” “the Pseudepigrapha” or “the Dead Sea Scrolls.”3 It is now a scholarly commonplace to maintain that these categories are problematic in many ways. They are broad and they do not describe the content of the texts accurately. Furthermore, “Pseudepigrapha” reflect the status that later traditions have given these texts rather than their actual content, whereas the title “the Dead Sea Scrolls” texts that would with certainty go back to the Second Temple period are difficult to establish. In this study I have consciously left these texts out, claiming that despite reflecting ideas that can go back to antiquity, they probably received their final form later in the first centuries C.E. Hence, they do not provide firsthand information concerning the interpretation of the figure of Miriam. Nonetheless, the rabbinic texts will be taken into consideration when they offer complementary information for the texts of this study in parallel material. 3 I acknowledge that various Christian denominations recognize different canons. They include different texts (or books) in their Old Testament canons. This remark is not crucial for my study, because the status of the texts of the Hebrew Bible included in this research is not questioned. Moreover, while using the term “Hebrew Bible” instead of “Old Testament” my intention is to emphasize the Jewish origin of these texts.

History of Research

21

points mostly to the history of discovery of these texts.4 Hence the various titles attributed to the ancient Jewish texts contain difficulties. First, by referring to the texts taken into consideration in this study as “ancient Jewish literature” my intention is to highlight that despite the later categories applied to them, they represent the rich literature of the given time period. The texts are examples of literature — produced during that time without further categories of significance. Second, the title “ancient Jewish literature” emphasizes that all the references to Miriam are given equal weight in the analysis. They serve as important witnesses to the interpretation of women in general and the figure of Miriam in particular.

1.2 History of Research 1.2.1 Biblical Female Figures5 It has been recognized for a long time that ancient literature is not value neutral. It reflects the ideas of its own time and its voice belongs to the people of its time. The Hebrew Bible has been described as  a “men’s book.” It was written by an “urban elite of male religious specialists.”6 Therefore, various texts of the Hebrew Bible reflect these selected men’s interests and manly language. Traditionally this 4 The definition of “the Apocrypha” (or the Deuterocanonical Books) is rather clear. This collection contains the majority of the books included in the LXX, but not in the Hebrew Bible. Meanwhile, “the Pseudepigrapha” is far more difficult to determine. For discussion concerning the terminology see, e.g., Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Modern Invention of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” JTS (2009): 1–34; Molly M. Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Categories,” in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting the Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (ed. Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala, Marko Marttila; BZAW 419; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 93–120; Eibert Tigchelaar, “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (ed. Eibert Tigchelaar; BETL 270; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 1–18. 5 I use the term “Biblical” here as an anachronism. Some ancient female figures are known primarily because of their appearance in the Hebrew Bible. Yet I acknowledge that by the time that most of the different texts of Miriam studied in this research were written, there was no “Bible” as we understand it today. 6 Phyllis Bird, Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 53. Further, see Carol Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 11–13. Here I refer to the Hebrew Bible because the rest of the literary corpus I deal with has not yet been addressed from a perspective that emphasizes women’s marginality in the texts. See Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status (TSAJ 44; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 42, who writes concerning the Jewish texts of the Greco-Roman era: “The way the literary sources treat women as a group is reminiscent of the intellectual attitude adopted towards other groups categorized as ‘outsiders’. This can be explained by the obvious fact that all the sources of the period were propounded by and for educated Jewish men.”

22

Introduction

was received without much criticism. It was accepted that women were given less importance in religious and historical texts and hence also in the Hebrew Bible. Significantly, since the 20th century, the attitudes towards the lack of women in the Hebrew Bible and related literature has changed. It has been recognized that the weakness of the historical-critical method, which has been the primary method of Biblical studies in past centuries, is that the method assumes it is possible, at least to a certain extent, to reconstruct ancient realities through the texts. Reaching the historical realities of those who are present in the texts is somewhat possible, but reaching the realities of groups that are under-represented in the texts remains problematic. Evidently women, who only seldom appear in ancient literature, belong to those that are under-represented in the texts. Moreover, it has been pointed out that the attitudes to women reflected in the texts cannot be taken as actual history concerning women, as they often do not present a truthful image of historical women.7 During the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the so-called second wave of feminist interest, feminist biblical scholars proclaimed that the texts of the Hebrew Bible preserve only marginal references to women.8 After making this observation, however, second wave feminist researchers did not rest with this view. The minor role that female figures seemed to play in the Hebrew Bible led researchers to ask about women’s place in ancient Jewish texts. Since then, questioning women’s role in the Hebrew Bible has been done on various levels. On the level of methodology, scholars have established an approach that seeks to challenge the previous status quo that women are just simply not present in the texts. This feminist or gender perspective discusses questions related to gender and sex and equality between men and women in ancient Jewish texts, arguing that even if women’s presence is marginalized, questions related to them are still present in the texts.9 7 Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 41–42. 8 The first wave of the feminist movement belonged to the end of the nineteenth century. The best-known literary product of this era is Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman’s Bible (2 vols; New York: European Publishing Company, 1895 and 1898). Cf. the third wave of the feminist movement that is often argued to have started in the 1980s and to continue to the present, but whose exact boundaries are a subject of debate. For a variety of perspectives that are still applicable, see Carolyn Osiek, “The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives,” in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship (ed. Adela Yarbro Collins; SBLCP 10; Atlanta; Scholars Press, 1985), 93–105; Alice Ogden Bellis, “Feminist Biblical Scholarship,” in Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books and in the New Testament (ed. Carol L. Meyers, Toni Craven and Ross S. Kraemer; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 24–32. 9 See e.g., Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship (ed. Adela Yarbro Collins; SBLCP 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); Bird, Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities, and Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books and in the New Testament.

History of Research

23

Those women that are present in the texts (named or unnamed)  have been studied from various perspectives. Several studies examine the role of women in their ancient Jewish context.10 Also, commentaries that highlight the presence of specific women in the Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha are now available.11 While women in the context of the Hebrew Bible have been carefully analyzed, much less work has been concentrated on the rest of ancient Jewish literature. The lack of research can be partly explained by the history of research. Almost all of the texts found at Qumran and in the nearby caves were not published until the middle of the 1990s. Therefore it is only recently that all the textual material regarding this collection has been made available. The DSS have profoundly challenged our ideas of canon and shed new light on texts that were important in the period following the exile.12 The texts questioned the earlier self-evident supremacy of the Hebrew Bible (and the Masoretic Text) and raised other texts next to it as equal witnesses to ancient Judaism, thus calling for new attention to a broader corpus of ancient Jewish literature. All in all, the DSS have contributed to  a re-evaluation of the significance of all ancient Jewish texts in the field of Biblical Studies. In the field of the DSS, it was Eileen Schuller who first called for the role of women, which was previously claimed to be non-existant, to be revised.13 Schuller’s claim, that the community of Khirbet Qumran was not a celibate community but that it consisted of both men and women, was soon followed by others.14 Schuller’s 10 E.g., Athalya Brenner, The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in Biblical Narrative (The Biblical Seminar 2; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985); Meyers, Discovering Eve; Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine. 11 Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, eds., The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition (Louisville, KY.: Westminster: John Knox Press, 1998); Athalya Brenner, ed., Feminist Companion to the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, now Continuum, 1993–2003). 12 For the significance of the DSS to the study of Pseudepigrapha, see Loren T. Stucken­bruck, “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 143–162, 157–161; Tigchelaar, “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures,” 1–13. 13 Eileen M. Schuller, “Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects (ed. Michael O. Wise et al.; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722; New York: New York Academy of Science, 1994), 115–32; eadem, “Evidence for Women in the Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (ed. J. S.  Kloppen­ borg and S. G.  Wilson; London: Routledge, 1996), 262–285; eadem, “Women at Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Critical Assessment (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2:117–144; eadem, “Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Research in the Past Decade and Future Directions,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem July 6–8, 2008 (ed. Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Shani Tzoref; STDJ 93; Brill, 2010), 571–588. 14 In particular and almost contemporarily with Schuller, Lawrence H.  Schiffman, who already in 1992 discussed women and the DSS in “Laws Pertaining to Women in the Temple Scroll,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel

24

Introduction

studies led the way for other studies to follow up on how women are actually depicted in the DSS.15 These studies have challenged earlier ideas concerning the celibate community profoundly and called for a re-evaluation of the role of women in ancient Judaism. Concerning the study of women in the DSS and the Pseudepigraphic texts, the titles of many of the above cited studies show that various studies usually make use of only one text. The studies concentrate on analyzing that one text’s portrayal of women. Meanwhile an analysis that would ask about the image and depiction of a particular female figure in multiple sources and would compare the results with each other is still missing.

1.2.2 The Figure of Miriam Among the female figures of the Hebrew Bible, the figure of Miriam has also been analyzed previously. Two monographs focus on Miriam: Rita Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only Through Moses? A Study of the Biblical Portrait of Miriam (SBLDS 84, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) and Ursula Rapp, Mirjam: Eine femi­ nis­tisch-rhetorische Lektüre der Mirjamtexte in der hebräischen Bibel (BZAW 317; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002).16 These studies acknowledge the fragmentary picture ­Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 210–228; see also, idem, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 127–144; John Strugnell, “More on Wives and Marriage in the Dead Sea Scrolls: 4Q416 2 ii 21 [Cf. 1 Thess 4:4] and 4QMMT B,” RevQ 17 (1996): 547–557; Cecilia Wassen, Women in the Damascus Document (Academia Biblica 21; Atlanta: SBL, 2005); Eyal Regev, “Cherchez les femmes: Were the yahad Celibates?” DSD 15 (2008): 253–284; Tal Ilan, “Women in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Oxford Handbook to the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Timothy H.  Lim and John J. Collins; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 123–146. 15 Maxine Grossman, “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document,” DSD 11 (2004): 212–239; Moshe J. Bernstein, “Women and Children in the Legal and Liturgical Texts from Qumran,” DSD 11 (2004): 191–211; Sidnie White Crawford, “Mothers, Sisters, and Elders: Titles for Women in Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian Communities,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. James R. Davila; STDJ 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 177–191; eadem,“Not According to Rule: Women, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran,” in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in  Honor of Emanuel Tov (ed. Shalom M. Paul et al.; VTSup 94; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 127–150. 16 Before these book length studies Miriam was analyzed next to other female figure of the Hebrew Bible. See e.g., Phyllis Bird, “Images of Women in the Old Testament,” in Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (ed. Rosemary Radford Ruether; New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 68–85; John H. Otwell, And Sarah Laughed: The Status of Women in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 158, 173, have inquired about Miriam’s position as a prophetess and her status in the cult. Meanwhile, Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W. Anderson; Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1972), 182–183, has dealt with Miriam as a character that appeared next to Aaron and Moses, being first associated with Aaron and only later with Moses.

History of Research

25

of Miriam that is preserved in the Hebrew Bible and both suggest that once there was a larger tradition around this figure, but a significant portion has been lost forever. The methods of these two books to overcome the gaps in the narration of the Hebrew Bible concerning Miriam are different. Burns grounds her analysis in the traditional historical-critical methodology. This is particularly clear in her analysis concerning the Pentateuchal passages referring to Miriam. There Burns bases her study notably on Martin Noth’s earlier work.17 Apart from the historical-critical perspective, Burns also engages with the texts of the neigh­ boring ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures, finding parallels between some ANE texts and the references to Miriam.18 Fundamentally, throughout her study Burns argues that whereas the title prophetess (Exod 15:20) should be understood anachronistically in Miriam’s case, the depiction of Miriam in the Hebrew Bible corresponds better to a figure that had a cultic function. Burns finally raises the possibility that Miriam was a priestess. The methods and conclusions of Ursula Rapp’s study are different. First of all, Rapp thoroughly examines the passages of the Hebrew Bible from the perspective of literary criticism, using rhetorical analysis as her key method. This allows Rapp to pay particular attention to Miriam’s speeches and interaction with other characters and to give the figure a more pronounced voice in the Hebrew Bible. Through her literary analysis, Rapp reaches conclusions concerning the history of the Miriam texts. In her conclusions she divides the texts into those that deal with Miriam positively and those that display a more critical attitude towards her. She concludes that the former group, which understood Miriam as one of the early leaders next to Moses and Aaron, represents the voices of those people who remained in Judah during the Babylonian exile and who later advocated after the return for a more egalitarian and non-hierarchical religious leadership system. Apart from these monographs several articles that analyze the figure from various perspectives are dedicated to the figure of Miriam. Generally, an interest in Miriam’s role as a prophetess characterizes several studies. As the Hebrew Bible does not give an explicit answer to the question concerning the nature of Miriam’s prophecy, scholars have tried to overcome the gaps in the narration by using different methods. Some studies seek to give Miriam a more pronounced voice by carefully reading all of the references to her preserved in the Hebrew Bible.19 17 Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions; idem, Exodus: A Commentary (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1962), and Numbers: A Commentary (trans. James D. Martin; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1968). I will return to the relationship between the studies of Noth and Burns during the analysis of the Pentateuchal passages. 18 The term ancient Near East applies to the ancient civilizations of the region that corresponds roughly to the area that is today known as the Middle East. 19 Marie-Theres Wacker, “Mirjam: Kritischer Mut einer Prophetin,” in Zwischen Ohnmacht und Befreiung: Biblische Frauengestalten (ed. Karin Walter; Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 44–52; Phyllis Trible, “Bringing Miriam Out of the Shadows,” BRev 5 (1989): 14–25, 24; eadem, “Subversive

26

Introduction

Meanwhile, others have argued in light of historical analysis20 or social science theories21 that it was possible for women to hold prominent position in early Israelite history. Furthermore, several recent studies aim at separating the levels of literature and history. They argue (similarly to Rapp’s more extensive analysis) that Miriam represented a specific prophetic group in the Persian time vis-à-vis the groups represented by the figures of Moses and Aaron.22 What characterizes these articles in general is that their writers appear to argue most of the time that Miriam was granted more space in the early narratives, whereas the later references to her narrow her function. This thesis finds remarkable parallels in the way that women in general are treated in the Hebrew Bible. It appears that they were granted more space in earlier texts and in non-organized context where they are primarily in charge of house cult and organization. Justice: Tracing the Miriamic Traditions,” in Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson (ed. Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 99–109; eadem, “Eve and Miriam: From the Margins to the Center,” in Feminist Approaches to the Bible (ed. H. Shanks; Washington D. C.: Biblical Archeological Society, 1995), 15–24; J. Gerald Janzen, “Song of Moses, Song of Miriam: Who is Seconding Whom?” CBQ 54 (1992): 211–220; Mercedes García Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament — Torah (ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Mercedes Navarro Puerto and Andrea Taschl-Erber; The Bible and Women: An Encyclopedia of Exegesis and Cultural History 1.1; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 329–374; translation of eadem, “Mirjam als politische Führungsfigur beim Exodus,” in Hebräische Bibel/Altes Testament — Tora (ed. Irmtraud Fischer, Mercedes Navarro Puerto and Andrea Taschl-Erber; Die Bibel une die Frauen 1.1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010), 305–346. 20 Carol Meyers, “Miriam, Music, and Miracles,” in Mariam, the Magdalen, and the Mother (ed. Deirdre J. Good; Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2005), 27–48, and the most recently, Wilda C. Gafney, Daughters of Miriam: Women Prophets in Ancient Israel (Minne­ apolis: Fortress Press, 2008), who studies the prophetesses of the Hebrew Bible in the context of the ANE. 21 Susan Ackerman, “Why Is Miriam Also among the Prophets? (And Is Zipporah among the Priests?),” JBL 121 (2002): 47–80. 22 Rainer Kessler, “Miriam and the Prophecy of the Persian Period,” in A Feminist Companion to the Bible to Prophets and Daniel [Second Series], 77–86; translation of idem, “Mirjam und die Prophetie der Perserzeit,” in Gott an den Rändern: Sozialgeschichtliche Perspektiven auf die Bibel (ed. Ulrike Bail und Renate Jost; Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1996), 64–72; Irmtraud Fischer, “The Authority of Miriam: A Feminist Rereading of Numbers 12 Prompted by Jewish Interpretation,” in A Feminist Companion to Exodus-Deuteronomy [Second Series], 159–173; translation of eadem, “Die Autorität Mirjams. Eine feministische Relektüre von Num 12 — angeregt durch das jüdische Lehrhaus,” in Anspruch und Widerspruch (ed. Maria Halmer et al. Klagenfurt: Mohorjeva Hermagoras, 2000), 23–38. For the literary constructivist theories, see Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman (JSOTSup 310; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 200–224. Cf. Ilana Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 6–12, who uses postconstructivism. I will return to Pardes in 1.3.3.

History of Research

27

Meanwhile hierarchical systems marginalize them, and they are seldom granted a leadership position.23 What is common to all these publications is that they almost exclusively deal with the depiction of Miriam preserved in the references of the Hebrew Bible.24 They make little use of other ancient Jewish texts that mention the figure of Miriam. That gives an impression that the references of the Hebrew Bible are the sole witnesses to this figure. The presence of this female figure in wider early Jewish literature has rarely been studied. So far only two studies authored by Sidnie White Crawford aim at drawing the various Miriam traditions together.25 White Crawford’s studies deal with some of the previously unknown material. She focuses most notably on the extended Song of Miriam preserved in the Reworked Pentateuchc, as well as on a text known as the Visions of Amram that refers to the figure of Miriam several times. Both texts belonged to the Qumran corpus. When discussing them, White Crawford takes into consideration not only the Hebrew Bible but also other ancient Jewish texts. Even though White Crawford does not include all the references to Miriam preserved in the Qumran library or the mentions in wider early Jewish literature in her studies, she demonstrates what the other studies focusing on the Hebrew Bible only suggest: that the tradition around this figure was evidently larger than what is depicted in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible preserves only  a part of the Miriam tradition. Her studies also suggest that when all ancient Jewish literature concerning Miriam is taken into account, the results will be slightly different than when the analysis concentrates only on the Hebrew Bible. This conclusion suggests that in the next steps of Miriam studies one needs to ask how this figure is depicted in all those early references that have not been taken 23 Ackerman, “Why Is Miriam Also among the Prophets,” 47–50; Phyllis Bird, The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus,” in Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. P. D. Miller et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 397–419; Tikva Frymer Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Ballantine Books, 1992); 118–177; Meyers, Discovering Eve, 164, points out that women could be professionals but they were not supported from public funds. Their public role was narrower than that of their male colleagues. Meyers (Discovering Eve, 189–196) further argues that women’s role became more limited when the household unit lost its importance. According to Meyers, this happened when the monarchy became stronger. 24 Cf. Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 76–85, which takes into consideration the different text forms attesting to Miriam and some rabbinic literature when analyzing this figure. 25 Sidnie White Crawford, “Traditions about Miriam in the Qumran Scrolls,” Studies in Jewish Civilization 14 (2003): 33–44, and “Miriam” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1:566–567. See also, George J. Brooke “Power to the Powerless — a Long-Lost Song of Miriam,” BAR 20 (1994): 62–65; repr. in idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 272–281, who studies the Miriam tradition in the light of the extended Song of Miriam preserved in the Reworked Pentateuchc (4Q365).

28

Introduction

into account earlier. How does the portrayal change when these texts are read together? Does the Hebrew Bible preserve a partial depiction of Miriam, and if it does, what are the themes or characteristics of Miriam that are excluded from the Hebrew Bible? What influences the changing depiction? Studying the ancient Jewish texts that were not included in the Hebrew Bible offers new insights for the development of concepts and ideas related to Judaism. This also applies to the reception of female figures such as Miriam within Judaism. It is necessary to take all references to Miriam in ancient Jewish texts into account in order to build a comprehensive view of how this figure was interpreted in early Jewish traditions. These preliminary observations set the agenda for this study.

1.3 Methods On the one hand, the aim of this study is to ask how the figure of Miriam is depicted in the texts of the Second Temple era. On the other hand, the inquiry is equally concerned with what these portrayals tell us about the status of women in the Second Temple period. The latter perspective requires the analyses to be read through historical lenses. In what follows I will elaborate the combination of methodologies applied in this study in more depth.

1.3.1 Historical-Critical Approach When the figure of Miriam is analyzed on the level of texts, I make use of historical-critical methods, such as text criticism and literary criticism. Moreover, I apply vocabulary analysis in order to distinguish intertextual dependencies between various passages referring to Miriam. Only after the texts have been thoroughly analyzed can questions regarding intertextuality and women’s history be posed. As noted earlier, the research history regarding the various texts is uneven. Some passages concerning Miriam have been analyzed thoroughly, while others have barely been considered.26 Furthermore, the texts that are analyzed in this study vary greatly. Some are better preserved, while others can be tracked only through quotations or are otherwise preserved in  a fragmentary manner. Moreover, because of the varying nature of the texts, all methods cannot be applied to each text. For instance, the texts belonging to the DSS are fragmentary, and therefore the first step in analyzing a particular DSS passage is to reconstruct it. Some of the texts are preserved in only one copy. Therefore traditional text criticism cannot be applied to them. 26 See 1.2.2.

Methods

29

Given this slightly uneven starting point regarding the nature of the texts and their research history, I do not attempt to apply all methods to each text. Rather, depending on the nature of each passage, I use those particular methods that are the most suitable, i. e., that reveal the most regarding what kind of Miriam tradition is preserved in the passage. While the intention is to avoid categories that retroject later categories into the ancient texts,27 the analyzed compositions cannot be introduced randomly either. The texts are studied in a rough historical timeline. The survey starts with those texts that are dated the earliest, and then this analysis gradually moves towards the first century C.E. and the latest texts. This chronology provides a diachronic view of the texts. Furthermore, this rough historical framework allows for a comparative perspective on the texts. It permits a discussion of how various Miriam traditions evolved, how later traditions depend on the earlier ones, creating  a dialogue with them, and what the particular characteristics for each historical era were. This approach enables us to trace the various theological and historical motives and priorities prominent in the historical framework. Furthermore it allows us to identify some procedures that were used to downplay the figure. Putting the texts into a chronological framework has its challenges. While the date of the texts is discussed to a certain extent in this study, dating the earlier texts remains particularly difficult. Many texts analyzed in this research have a complicated literary history, and in particular the history of the Pentateuch remains largely debated. Scholars disagree on how and when the sources were put together.28 Despite the general disagreement, there is a significant consensus that amidst the difficulties concerning the Pentateuchal text, the only source that still stands is the so-called Priestly source. It is recognizable due to its characteristic vocabulary and themes.29 It often parallels the “non-P” text, and sometimes it even presupposes the rest of the text material.30 Some of the recent studies concerning the Pentateuch make use of the general agreement concerning this source by positioning various layers of the text in particular in relation to the Priestly source (P). While the P layer holds, the rest of the bulk can be referred to as 27 See 1.1. 28 For recent discussions on this topic, see e.g., Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz, eds., The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 29 For the arguments on how to identify P, see e.g., Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E. (trans. Siegfried S.  Schatzmann; SBL Encyclopedia Series 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 164–187; David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, Ky.: West­ minster John Knox, 1996), 48–113. 30 David M. Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 292.

30

Introduction

simply as “non-P.”31 I will make use of such a division in this study as well. By such a methodological approach I do not intend to claim that other sources do not exist. Rather, by focusing on the source that most of the scholars agree upon my aim is to highlight the difficulty in isolating the rest of the sources. Therefore, when discussing the Pentateuchal passages I will first distinguish P and then relate the rest of the passage to P. I am aware that some parts of the Pentateuchal texts that are taken into consideration in this study were already written earlier. I will address them as “non-P” and discuss them separately.32 Recent studies date P to the Persian era.33 This date serves as a marker for my study. While some of the Pentateuchal passages taken into consideration in this study certainly date to earlier eras, my starting point is that the Pentateuchal texts, as we know them, were

31 Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Väterheschichte Pentateuch (WMANT 57; Neukirchen-­ Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984); idem, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990) replaced the Documentary Hypothesis with his theory of two main compositions: D and P. While most scholars agree on P per se, the nature of this layer continues to be discussed. It is possible that P was a separate source. It could also have been a redactional layer (thus, e.g., Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973]). This discussion is not crucial for the present study, which does not focus on the nature of the Pentateuchal sources. 32 Julius Wellhausen dated “J-source” roughly to the Assyrian period (ca. 850–750 B.C.E.) arguing that it was difficult to give precise information concerning the time before. See, Thomas Römer, “The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research,” in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid; SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2006), 9–28, 13.  In the next century ­Gerhard von Rad’s theory (Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament [ed. Rudolf Smend; 4th ed.; Theologische Bücherei 8; Munich: Kaiser, 1971]) that the J-source was composed during the time of Solomon became influential. Von Rad’s theory was developed further by later scholars. See e.g., Noth, History of Pentateuchal Traditions and Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Scholars such as Martin Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungs­ punkten beider Literaturwerke (ATANT 67; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981); John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1992); idem, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994); and Christoph Levin, Der Yahwist (FRLANT 157; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) locate J in the exilic era. Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 339–350, advocates that most of the Pentateuchal narrative was composed during the exile and immediately after it. 33 P was traditionally received as the latest stratum of the Pentateuch. Already Wellhausen dated P to the exilic or post-exilic era. Albert de Pury, “The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Pentateuch,” in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, 50–72, 70–72; Gerstenberger, Israel in the Persian Period, 8, 165. Cf. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 293–325; idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), argues that the Priestly layer was completed in the course of the exile. More recently, Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 297–303, dates P to the late exilic era or the early Persian era, stating that it continued to be modified in the Persian era.

Methods

31

not completed before the Persian era.34 Hence, in the chapter that discusses these earlier texts that refer to Miriam, they are referred to as “texts of the Persian era.” The overall purpose of this study is not to be a source- or redaction-critical analysis of the given texts or to discuss the prehistory of the Pentateuch; its objects lie elsewhere. Therefore I limit the space allocated for this theme in the overall discussion. Moreover, when it needs to be addressed, I largely depend on the work of other scholars. Where literary-critical problems that influence the portrayal of Miriam occur, they are discussed separately.35

1.3.2 Literary-Theoretical Approach 1.3.2.1 Intertextuality It is characteristic of the texts included in this study that there is clearly some kind of connection between the Miriam traditions preserved in the earlier and the later texts. For example, the same themes and narratives that are present in the Pentateuch appear in the later texts. Nonetheless, when discussing the earlier passages, namely those that belong to the Pentateuch, I do not intend to suggest that those passages were the “original” Miriam traditions and the later ones are automatically their rewritings. It is difficult to pinpoint a division between “original” tradition and later interpretation. Rather all traditions (i. e., texts36), even those present in the Hebrew Bible, were changeable. Moreover, authors do not create texts from their own minds; they compile them from already existing traditions. Such dependency between literary works creates  a literary phenomenon called intertextuality.37 This concept is not new within Biblical scholarship. Intertextuality within the Hebrew Bible, where later texts use earlier ones, such as 1–2 Chr using 1 Sam–2 Kgs extensively, has been recognized since the 19th century, and that position has 34 As  a matter of fact,  a number of scholars who maintain that the Pentateuch consists of several redactional layers argue that the text was not completed until the Hellenistic era. It is possible that some passages continued to be edited. Yet, as I deal with the Hellenistic texts — those that certainly date to the Hellenistic era — in a separate chapter, it makes sense to date the compositions of the Hebrew Bible before those texts. 35 It should be emphasized that the two monographs dedicated to the Hebrew Bible references to Miriam (Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only Through Moses and Rapp, Mirjam) discuss the literary history exhaustively. 36 Lat. texere, “weave,” “plait,” “construct with elaborate care,” already contains the notion of change. 37 The term “intertextuality” was launched by Julia Kristeva in the 1960s when she discussed the work of the Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975). For Bakhtin, see 1.3.2.2. For the diachronistic or historical nature of intertextuality, see Ellen van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives,” BibInt 5 (1997): 1–28, 1–3.

32

Introduction

remained unanimously accepted in the field of Biblical Studies.38 While the term intertextuality has been applied to different approaches, given the scope of this study and the nature of the texts, of which many are so-called rewritings, I will limit myself to that aspect of intertextuality.39 Notably, various terms have been developed to describe as accurately as possible this phenomenon where texts within the Hebrew Bible and related literature display dependency on other texts. One of the terms in question is “Rewritten Bible.” This term was coined by Géza Vermes, who describes the process as follows: “In order to anticipate questions, and to solve problems in advance, the midrashist inserts haggadic development into the biblical narrative — an exegetical process which is probably as ancient as scriptural interpretation itself.”40 Later the term was refined by Philip S. Alexander,41 Emanuel Tov,42 and Moshe J. Bernstein.43 While the term “Rewritten Bible” has now been in use for a long time, the discussion concerning its accurate use goes on.44 It has become increasingly evident that its use is not 38 Wilhelm Martin L. de Wette, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (2 vols.; Halle: Schimmelpfennig, 1806–7). For contemporary views on the relationship between Sam-Kgs and Chr, see Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 73–74. 39 For the use of the concept “intertextuality,” consult, e.g., the following studies: Spike ­Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (Kampen: Kok, 1989); Gary A. Phillips, ed., Post-structuralist Criticism of the Bible: Text/History/Discourse (SemeiaSt 51; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); Francis Watson, ed., The Open Text: New Directions for Biblical Studies? (London SCM Press, 1993); Vernon K. Robbins, “Historical, Rhetorical, Literary, Linguistic, Cultural and Artistic Intertextuality: A Response”, Semeia 80 (1999): 281–303; Daniel Marguerat and Adrian Curtis, eds., Intertextualités: La Bible en échos (Geneva: Éditions Labor et Fides, 2000). 40 Géza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1964), 95. 41 Philip S.  Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 99–121, understands Rewritten Bible texts as narratives that can be described as histories. Their styles are rather free, and they replicate the biblical books. They weave the material they draw from the biblical compositions into their retelling of the events. 42 Emanuel Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” DSD 5 (1998): 334–354. Tov’s view is that the difference between the biblical and the rewritten text lies in the authority of the text. Whereas the biblical text has authority, the rewritten text that integrates new elements probably lacks it. Cf. Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism ­(JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), who claims that reworking the text means updating and developing its content in  a way that is claimed to be an authentic expression of the already authoritative text. 43 Moshe J. Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible: A Generic Category Which has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Text 22 (2005): 169–196. Similarly to Tov, Bernstein understands the rewritten text as a composition that rather freely adds new details to the narrative. 44 E.g., Anders Klostergaard Petersen, “Rewritten Bible as  a Borderline Phenomenon —  Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?” In Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honor of Florentino García Martínez (ed. Anthony Hillhorst, Émile

Methods

33

without problems. The major issue concerns the term “Bible” and its implication for the concept of a canon that did not exist when the texts were written. A term that implies a later understanding of the texts does not describe them accurately.45 Other terms have been offered to describe the texts that rewrite earlier traditions in order to avoid the problem of language and, in particular, the terms that imply any canon. George J. Brooke46 and Sidnie White Crawford47 have used a term “Rewritten Scripture.” Whereas this term does not explicitly point to a defined collection of authoritative texts, it recognizes that the texts had some status and importance in their own time. Biblical scholars have also employed other terms to describe the intertextual relationship between earlier and later Jewish texts. Harold L. Ginsberg introduced the term “parabiblical,” which he understood to be close to midrashim. The difference between midrashim and parabiblical texts, according to Ginsberg, was that the latter do not quote the earlier text directly or comment on it.48 This term has been refined by Emanuel Tov, who calls it literature “closely related to the texts and themes of the Hebrew Bible.”49 Finally, Robert A. Kraft introduced the term “parascriptural,” observing that the same phenomenon also occurs in those texts that are not included in the later canons (i. e., Bibles).50 This Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar; JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 285–306; Erkki Koskenniemi and Pekka Lindqvist, “Rewritten Bible, Rewritten Stories: Methodological Aspects,” in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered: Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland, August 24–26, 2006 (ed. Antti Laato and Jacques van Ruiten; SRB 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 11–39. For a summary for the recent discussion see Daniel A. Machiela, “Once More, with Feeling: Rewritten Scripture in Ancient Judaism — A Review of Recent Developments,” JJS 61 (2010): 308–320. 45 For the research history, see Armin Lange, “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” in In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature (ed. Philip Alexander, Armin Lange and Renate Pillinger; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3–40, 13–16. 46 George J. Brooke, “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible,” in The Bible as a Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; London: The British Library, 2002), 31–40. 47 Sidnie White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008). 48 Harold L. Ginsberg, review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary, TS 28 (1967): 574–77. 49 Emanuel Tov, “Foreword,” to Qumran Cave 4.  VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), ix. Cf. Armin Lange and Ulrike Mittman Richert, “Annotated List of the Texts from the Judean Desert Classified by Genre and Content,” in The Text from the Judean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judean Desert Series (ed. Emanuel Tov; DJD 39; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 115–64, 117. For  a somewhat different phrasing, see Florentino García Martínez, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 218. 50 Robert A. Kraft, “Para-mania: Beside, Before, and Beyond Bible Studies,” JBL 126 (2007): 5–27.

34

Introduction

varying discussion concerning the terminology demonstrates the difficulty of finding vocabulary that precisely defines the intertextuality in question. All the previously discussed vocabulary can be criticized for being anachronistic and for creating misunderstandings concerning the formation of a canon.51 Most recently, the scholars of ancient Jewish texts have turned to literary theories, and, with the help of Gerard Genette’s theory of paratextuality, this term has been employed in biblical studies.52 Armin Lange writes in In the Second Degree: “On the basis of authoritative texts or themes, the authors of paratextual literature employed exegetical techniques to provide answers to questions of their own time, phrased, for example, as answers by God through Moses or the prophets. The result of their exegetical effort is communicated in the form of a new work.”53 Hence the term paratextual, which is more neutral than the vocabulary that points directly or indirectly to canon, is helpful when the relationship between earlier and later texts is discussed.

1.3.2.2 Bakhtin’s Concept of Dialogism It was earlier stated that ancient Jewish texts developed in  a historical context (“the authors of paratextual literature … provide answers to questions of their own time”54). This statement implies that the texts did not develop in a vacuum, but that they evolved in historical contexts and in dialogue with their own time. While Gerard Genette’s literary theory regarding paratextuality has been successfully employed previously into the study of ancient Jewish texts, its weakness is that the theory does not have a horizon that would grasp the socio-economic background.55 In order to combine the concept of intertextuality with a socio-historical context where the respective texts were composed and that is reflected in the texts, 51 Lange, “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” 16. For discussion regarding the above presented terms, see Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” 93–120. 52 See n. 45. In this book some of the writers prefer the term hypertextuality, whereas others chose the term paratextuality when describing the phenomenon of intertextuality. See esp. Lange, “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” 19–20; idem, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Vol 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 164–168, employs the term paratextual when discussing texts such as Jub. and T. 53 Lange, “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” 20. 54 Ibid. 55 See e.g., Graham Allen, Intertextuality (2nd ed.; London: Routledge, 2000), 92–94, who describes Genette as a structuralist.

Methods

35

I turn to the poststructuralist approach that became prominent in the second half of the 20th century. Unlike their predecessors, structuralists, poststructuralists did not deal with literature merely from the point of view of linguistic structures or sign-symbols. Several theorists instead believed that the texts also reflect wider concerns. More concretely, I will use the approaches of the Russian literary theorist Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin. Despite writing in the first half of the 20th century (in contrast to the other representatives of poststructuralism), he is considered  a representative of the movement.56 His ideas became known in Western Europe especially through Julia Kristeva’s works in the 1960s and 1970s.57 This study links with Bakhtin’s ideas in two ways that are profoundly intertwined. A key term for Bakhtin’s literary theory is dialogism, a theme which is prominent in several of his texts.58 First, Bakhtin insists that each thought (which he calls an utterance) requires an answer. For Bakhtin, the term utterance captures the human-centered and socially specific aspect of language lacking in formalism (contra the structuralists).59 Concerning the dialogic nature of utterances Bakhtin writes: “The word lives, as it were, on the boundary between its own context and another, alien context.”60 Elsewhere Bakhtin explains: “A word is a bridge thrown between myself and another. If one end of the bridge depends on me, then the other depends on my addressee. A word is territory shared by both addresser and addressee, by the speaker and his interlocutor.”61 56 For Bakhtin’s life, see Katerina Clark and Michael Holquist, Mikhail Bakhtin (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984). 57 See n. 37. It has been suggested that Bakhtin was not known to a wider audience earlier because he wrote in Russian. Julia Kristeva, who was born in Bulgaria and knew Russian, translated Bakhtin’s key ideas for the French speaking audience. See, e.g., Julia Kristeva, Semeio­ tikè: Recherches pour une sémanalyse (Paris: Seuil, 1969), 143–173. Translations of Kristeva’s work are collected in Toril Moi, The Kristeva Reader (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986). Note that the number of texts written by Mikhail Bakhtin himself remains disputed. He is sometimes credited as author of the books written by Medvedev/Volosinov. In this study I follow the treatment of Geoff R. Webb, Mark at the Threshold: Applying Bakhtinian Categories to Markan Characterisation (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 5, who refers to all these potential writers as the “Bakhtin circle.” See Craig Brandist, The Bakhtin Circle: Philosophy, Culture and Politics (Sterling, Va.: Pluto Press, 2002), which brings together the overall contribution of the circle. 58 E.g., Mikhail Bakhtin, “Discourse in the Novel,” in The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (ed. Michael Holquist; trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist; University of Texas Press Slavic Studies 1; Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press, 1981), 259–422. 59 For Bakhtin’s critique of formalism, see “Critique of Formalism,” in The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov (ed. Pam Morris; Bristol: Edward Arnold, 1994), 135–160; Clark and Holquist, Mikhail Bakhtin, 186–196. 60 Bakhtin, “Discourse in the Novel,” 284. 61 Bakhtin and Volosinov, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (trans. Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik; Studies in Language; New York: Seminar Press, 1973), 86.

36

Introduction

Importantly, unlike Russian structuralists in general, Bakhtin does not treat utterances in isolation from their wider contexts.62 First, Bakhtin distinguishes another level of dialogue in intertextual references. Bakhtin also stresses that texts cannot be approached in a mere linguistic way. Rather the dialogical relationships between the texts must be determined by hearing similar voices in them.63 When a reader recognizes dialogues between the texts, the reader will draw from the other texts to assist in the construction of characters in the next text at hand.64 This means that the text or speech is in dialogue with earlier texts in a dialogic manner. It builds on earlier works.65 This approach becomes particularly fruitful when the intertextual relationships of rewritings are observed.66 The text analyses incorporated in this study demonstrate that later references to Miriam seemingly develop earlier traditions in different ways. Bakhtin’s approach, which outlines the dialogic nature between the texts, helps by observing that a reference to an earlier Miriam tradition expects the reader to be familiar with it. Second, Bakhtin argues that people learn language from life, and not from dictionaries, and that an author chooses the language that best fits his or her purposes. Consequently,  a text reflects private and individual factors, but also wider concerns. Through the individual utterances the social and historical voices make their way into the texts. For Bakhtin, language is always part of definite social relations, and this in turn is part of broader political and economic systems.67 “Verbal communication can never be understood and explained outside of this connection with a concrete situation … Language acquires life and historically evolves precisely here, in concrete verbal communication, and not in the abstract linguistic system of language forms, nor in the individual psyche 62 Bakhtin stands in clear opposition to the Russian structuralists (who are usually known as formalists) who dealt with language as signs. For how to use Bakhtin for discussing the socio-historical context of Biblical texts, see, Barbara Green, Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship (SemeiaSt 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2000), 61–62. 63 Mikhail Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics (ed. Caryl Emerson; trans. R. W. Rotsel; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1999), 182. 64 Webb, Mark at the Threshold: Applying Bakhtinian Categories to Markan Characterisation, 31. 65 Allen, Intertextuality, 18.  As mentioned earlier, Bakhtin addressed linguistics in various  other ways. Here I make use of only two theories. For the other theories, consult his literature. 66 While Bakhtin’s ideas regarding intertextuality have been recognized previously, rewriting poses a new context for it. As far as I am aware, this viewpoint has not yet been applied when the concept of rewriting has been explored previously. 67 Bakhtin, “Discourse in the Novel,” 300. The Marxist character of Bakhtin’s literary theory has long been recognized. See, e.g., Allen, Intertextuality, 17, and the literature quoted there. Nonetheless, while Bakhtin’s dependency on the ideas of his own time, and in particular the socialist movement, needs to be acknowledged, he does not think that literature is a report on society that changes only after a conflict. Rather, Bakhtin claims that literature reflects social idioms, not social facts.

Methods

37

of speakers.”68 Nonetheless, accepting that language reflects broader systems does not lead to thinking that things were necessarily as they are described in texts, but that historical reconstructions must be cautious.69 My study engages with this Bakhtinian aspect by claiming that the texts that discuss Miriam, i. e., a female literary figure, do not merely reflect attitudes towards this figure. Rather, following Bakhtin’s idea concerning the social aspects of texts, their treatment of Miriam should be regarded as a reflection of how women were received at the times they were composed. While Bakhtin grounds his theories primarily in 19th-century Russian novels, his literary insights have been used previously in biblical studies.70 Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism has been demonstrated to be fruitful in the scholarship of biblical studies. It provides a basis to discuss the context of the text and to analyze what kind of language is used in specific settings. Apart from that, dialogism has been used to trace multiple voices present in the texts. All in all, I will be using Bakhtinian insights as  a framework in which to elaborate further the results of the historical-critical analyses. I will return to the Bakhtinian ideas especially in sections where I discuss the relationship between a particular Miriam tradition and the earlier texts and in the conclusions of this study.71 68 Bakhtin, “Language as Dialogic Interaction,” in The Bakhtin Reader, 48–60, 59. I find that the Bakhtinian view of texts comes close at this point to the historical-critical approach, which situates the sources in their history. Similarly e.g., Martti Nissinen, “Reflections on Historical-Criticism,” in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen (ed. Joel M. Lemon and Kent Harold Richards; SBLRBS 56; Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 479–505, 486–493. For combining methods of literary criticism and historical criticism, see F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “Rethinking Historical Criticism,” BibInt 7 (1999): 235–271. Green, Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship, 61, points out that Bakhtin wrote over several decades and he returns at several points to his discussion concerning language’s existence in specific social situations. His theory, therefore, is not adequately demonstrated or coherent. Nonetheless, he does argue vigorously that historical contexts need to be included in every level of reading. 69 This is recognized e.g., by Green, Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship, 61, who emphasizes that biblical scholars should not take the Bakhtinian principle as encouragement to make overly bold reconstructions. 70 See Walter L. Reed, Dialogues of the Word: the Bible as Literature According to Bakhtin (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 15; van Wolde, “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives,” 1–28; Green, Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship, 190, and the literature quoted there. More recently, e.g., Juliana M. Claassens, “Biblical Theology as Dialogue: Continuing the Conversation of Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Theology,” JBL 122 (2003): 127–144. Moreover, the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature has entertained  a session where Bakhtinian ideas and their relevance for biblical scholarship have been tested. 71 As a clarification, it should be noted that the scope of this study is to analyze the figure of Miriam, and that does not allow me to engage more fully in Bakhtinian ideas, e.g., by providing Bakhtinian readings of the passages that refer to Miriam. Such readings would require a different analysis of the texts from that intended in this study.

38

Introduction

1.3.3 Feminist Criticism As pointed out in 1.2.1 where I discussed the history of research, feminist biblical scholarship can be understood in different ways. Some scholars think that placing a female figure at the center of the study is already a methodological choice and can be thus interpreted as  a feminist method.72 In this respect this study does participate in the discussion concerning gender and sex in ancient Jewish literature. Further, I employ  a “hermeneutics of suspicion,”  a methodological principle launched by Paul Ricoeur that has been later advocated by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza for the study of ancient texts that lack seeming references to women. The scholar should not settle with this first-hand view but ask critically why women are absent from the narrative, and is it possible that the text tells something about women after all.73 Nonetheless, my firm opinion is that such studies are not a segregated area of scholarship (i. e., women’s concern74), but that they have wider horizons. By analyzing the people and contexts that produced the texts and their reception history, studies focusing on women do not deal merely with women but with ancient Judaism at large. Importantly, Mikhail Bakhtin does not demonstrate interest in feminism or gender in his texts.75 Despite this, several scholars have found his literary theories helpful from the feminist point of view as well. In the field of biblical studies, Ilana Pardes has employed the Bakhtinian concept of dialogues in her analyses.76 She draws in particular on the Bakhtinian term heteroglossia and argues that it helps recover female voices from the texts that present them in uneven ways.77 72 See e.g., Wassen, Women in the Damascus Document, 14–15; Bernadette Brooten, “Early Christian Women and Their Cultural Context: Issues of Method in Historical Reconstruction,” in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, 65–91. Marie-Theres Wacker, “Methods of Feminist Exegesis,” in Feminist Interpretation: The Bible in Women’s Perspective (ed. Luise Schottroff, Silvia Schroerer, and Marie-Theres Wacker; trans. Martin and Barbara Rumscheidt; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 63–68, does not deal with feminist exegesis as  a method of its own, but rather as a tool to reveal matters in the text that are relevant for the research concerning women. 73 See Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza “The Will to Choose or to Reject: Continuing Our Critical Work,” in From Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (ed. Letty M. Russell; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 125–136; eadem, “Remembering the Past in Creating the Future: Historical-Critical Scholarship and Feminist Biblical Interpretation,” in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, 43–64, 55–64. 74 See, e.g., Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction” in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, 1–2. 75 Green, Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship, 58. 76 Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach, 4–5. See n. 22. 77 Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach, 4–5. Carol Adlam, “Ethics of Difference: Bakhtin’s Early Writings and Feminist Theories,” in Face to Face: Bakhtin in Russia and the West (ed. Carol Adlam et al. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 152–159,

Aims

39

In this study, the concept of intertextuality will provide further Bakhtinian contributions to feminist scholarship. The intertextual viewpoint that recognizes the socio-historical perspective allows us to analyze what kind of rewriting granted Miriam (i. e., women) more space, and what kind of textual elements narrowed her down.78

1.4 Aims This study is divided into three parts. Chapter 2 deals with the Miriam traditions preserved through the Persian era. They provide the earliest witness to Miriam. I recognize that the text of the Hebrew Bible was not fixed at this time, but that it existed in various forms.79 I include the other old forms of the Hebrew Bible, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Qumran manuscripts, and the LXX (­ Vorlage)  in particular in the text-critical analysis when they differ from the MT and attest to a textual variation.80 The portrayal of Miriam will be discussed vis-à-vis the oldest traditions preserved in them. This chapter reveals  a rough portrayal of Miriam as an early Israelite leader. She appears next to Moses and Aaron in the early texts, but the family relation among the three is not consistent. The figure is first connected with Aaron and then with Moses. In the later references the three characters appear as siblings and furthermore as Levites. The kinship appears to be a later literary creation in order to stress their significance. The family connections with other remarkable characters brought them added value.81

suggests that his analyses help to observe the gender-biased attitudes in the texts and to correct them. Here I should emphasize that this method comes close to the “hermeneutics of suspicion” advocated by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. See n. 73. 78 Myriam Diaz-Diocaretz, “Bakhtin, Discourse, and Feminist Ethics,” Critical Studies 1 (1989): 121–139, 131, 135. For a critique of this theory, see Mary O’Connor “Horror, Authors, and Heroes: Gendered Subjects and Objects in Bakhtin and Kristeva,” Critical Studies 3–4 (1993): 242–258, 257. 79 See, e.g., Eugene Ulrich, “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus,” in Congress Volume Basel 2001 (ed. André Lemaire; VTSup 92; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 85–108; Emanuel Tov, “The Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture: Reflections in Light of the LXX and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in From Qumran to Aleppo (ed. Armin Lange, Matthias Weigold and József Zsengellér; FRLANT 230; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 11–28. 80 The term Vorlage is used to designate the Hebrew text(s) used by the translator(s). In the case of the LXX we do not have the Hebrew source text at hand. Hence we work “backwards,” i. e., reconstructing the Hebrew text from the perspective of the translation (retroversion). 81 When arguing that the kinship between these figures developed gradually, I depend in particular on Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale Near Eastern Researches 7; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977).

40

Introduction

The later chapters discuss the texts that derive from the Greco-Roman period. Chapter 3 focuses on narrations from the Hellenistic era (ca. fourth−first century B.C.E.) until the Romans took over Judea and Egypt.82 The texts analyzed in this chapter are divided accordingly into those deriving from Judea and those from Egypt. The texts of this period continue to build up a portrayal of Miriam. Most notably, the texts deriving from Judea discuss Miriam’s family relations and her tribal affiliation. Her belonging to the Levites brought improved credentials for the entire tribe. Meanwhile, the Egyptian Jewish community produced literature relevant for this study. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, belongs to this time. While the Vorlage of the LXX was taken into consideration already in the previous chapter, this section focuses on the LXX as  a text that reflects the Hellenistic Jewish interpretation of Miriam. The interpretation of Miriam in the LXX displays several disparities vis-à-vis the MT. Some of them reflect characteristics of contextual interpretation, such as the portrayal of ­choruses. These features are also noticeable in those portrayals of Miriam preserved in the Pentateuchal renarrations that depended on the LXX. Chapter 4 proceeds to the last era of this study, that of the Roman occupation of the eastern Mediterranean.83 This era began in the middle of the first century B.C.E. and continued until the Eastern invasions of the land. As I pointed out at the beginning of this section, concerning the Roman era, I will limit my discussion to the texts up to the Bar Kokhba revolt (135 C.E.).84 It is also worth noting that in terms of genre and location, the texts presented in this chapter are characterized by even more disparity than those presented above. Each section that deals with  a passage referring to Miriam contains  a short introduction where I briefly present the immediate context in which the reference occurs. In some instances where the immediate context is not sufficient to understand the respective passage, a more extensive introduction to the surrounding literary material is required. From time to time I have extended the discussion purposely. Such longer discussions take place especially when the treatment of women in general or of Miriam in particular in  a given text has already been explored. Their purpose is to provide a background for the analysis. At the end of each chapter I discuss the portrayal of Miriam in that specific period and elaborate how the image has changed vis-à-vis the texts studied earlier. It should be pointed out that chs. 3 and 4 are somewhat emphasized in this analysis. This somewhat involuntary stress can be explained on the one hand by the already existing literature regarding the figure of Miriam in the Hebrew 82 Pompey the Great conquered Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E. This marks the beginning of the Roman occupation of Judea. Egypt fell into the hands of the Romans a little after that. See Chris Seeman and Adam Kolman Marshak, “Jewish History from Alexander to Hadrian,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 25–56, 37–41. 83 Ibid. 84 See 1.1.

Aims

41

Bible,85 and on the other hand by the lack of previous research regarding later material. The results of my overall analysis are presented in ch. 5.  This study fills lacunae pointed out in previous scholarship and sheds new light on the interpretation of the figure of Miriam as a character of ancient Jewish literature. My conclusions will provide evidence that supports the suggestion that the picture of Miriam preserved in ancient Jewish texts is richer than the Hebrew Bible suggests. I will argue that Miriam continued to be an important figure in ancient Jewish literature. Her function extends beyond the role of household responsibility that is often assigned to women in antiquity. The peak of Miriam traditions fall in the third and second centuries B.C.E. when this figure was used to promote the Levite family. After this period, the figure of Miriam lost her prominence, at least in part, and she became the target of different interpretations. She did not fit into the ideal of a woman in the Roman era, and she became more marginalized in a number of texts.86 In light of the overall literature that refers to Miriam, it is somewhat surprising that the portrayal of her in the Hebrew Bible is a narrow one. This study equally sheds new light on the reception of women in ancient ­Jewish literary traditions. Furthermore, in light of the Bakhtinian idea of dialogues I shall argue that the reception of women was not as narrow as has sometimes been suggested. This conclusion, which will be expounded in detail in my study, calls for a closer analysis of other female figures as well.

85 See 1.2.2. 86 For studies concerning Miriam in Rabbinic texts, see e.g., Naomi Graetz, “Did Miriam Talk Too Much?” in Exodus to Deuteronomy: A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 231–242; Devora Steinmetz, “A Portrait of Miriam in Rabbinic Midrash,” Prooftexts 8 (1988): 37–61. For the depiction of Miriam in early Christian patristic tradition, see Agnethe Siquans, Die alttestamentlichen Prophetinnen in der patristischen Rezeption: Texte — Kontexte — Hermeneutik (HBS 65; Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2011).

2. Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era 2.1 Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21 2.1.1 Introduction The Song of Miriam in Exod 15:20–21 is closely connected with the events described in Exodus 14, namely the Israelites’ crossing of the Sea of Reeds. Miriam’s song celebrates this event by praising God who “threw horse and rider into the sea.”1 Exodus 14:19–31, which describes crossing the Sea of Reeds, contains various overlaps and disparities that have led scholars to believe that this passage combines traditions that derive from various separate sources. Many think that, in spite of their being profoundly intertwined in Exod 14:19–31, at least two of the earlier sources can be distinguished, and they narrate the sea events in different ways. One of the text layers, which is often thought to represent an earlier tradition than the second one, suggests that the Israelites could cross the sea because God brought a mighty east wind all night and that made the sea into dry ground.2 Whereas this narrative attributed the miracle allowing the crossing of the sea to God, the later layer (often quoted as P) stresses the role of Moses in these events. Rather than God, the parting sea is thanks to Moses, whose extended arm makes the waters split (Exod 14:21).3 The narratives concerning the returning of the sea display similar differences. The earlier source narrates that when the sea returned in the morning to its original place, God threw the Egyptians in the sea’s midst. In the later P tradition, the Egyptians go through the divided sea after the Israelites. The merit of the returning sea is again given to Moses (Exod 14:27–28) whose extended arm makes the waters go back. Seemingly Moses’s presence 1 When discussing Miriam’s song’s connection with Exodus 14, I will limit myself only to the specific part of the chapter that deals with crossing the Sea of Reeds and in particular how the miracle took place. This is described in vv. 14:19–31. This passage provides a more concrete background for Exod 15:20–21 than Exod 14:1–18, which focuses by and large on the Israelites’ escape from Egypt, i. e., events prior to the sea events. 2 Christoph Levin, “Source Criticism: The Miracle at the Sea,” in Method Matters, 39–61, attributes to this source vv. 14:19b, 20, 21 (partly), 24, 25 (partly), 27 (partly), and 30.  For an almost identical distribution of the verses, see Marc Vervenne, “The ‘P’ Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The ‘Sea’ Narrative (Ex 13,17–13,31) as a Test Case,” in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies (ed. C. Brekelmans and J. Lust; BETL 94; Leuven: Peeters, 1990), 67–90. 3 Levin, “Source Criticism: The Miracle at the Sea,” 42, attributes to this source vv. 21 (partly), 22, 23, 26, 27 (partly), 28, and 29. Similarly Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 293.

44

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

is highlighted in the P version of the story, whereas in the earlier tradition his function is rather to point to the help that comes from God. Two songs follow the miraculous event of crossing the sea in Exod 15. The first of them in Exod 15:1–19, “The Song of the Sea,” is presently attributed to the figure of Moses,4 while the latter of the songs in Exod 15:20–21 is ascribed to the figure of Miriam. The opinions of scholars vary regarding the relationship between these two songs. Some claim that the Song of Miriam depends on Exod 15:1–19.5 This may seem logical given that in its present context in the Hebrew Bible, Miriam’s song follows the Song of the Sea in Exod 15. Moreover, the Song of Miriam notably repeats one line of the Song of the Sea: “Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown into the sea” (Exod 15:21 NRSV).6 Also this remark could suggest that the Song of Miriam did not merely depend literarily on the Song of the Sea, but that Exod 15:21 is a repetition of Exod 15:1.7 Other researchers have proposed the opposite scenario regarding the relationship between the two songs. They think that the style of the Song of Miriam 4 Some concerns regarding the authenticity of this attribution “Song of Moses” have been raised. Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” JNES 14 (1955): 237–250, were the first to propose that actually Exod 15:1–19 was first known as the Song of Miriam. They think (“The Song of Miriam,” 237) that it would be difficult to explain the association with Miriam as a secondary development. In this scenario, verses 20–21 provide the opening of the song; André Caquot, “Cantique de la mer et miracle de la mer,” in La protohistoire d’Israël: De l’exode à la monarchie (ed. E.-M. Laperrousaz; Paris: Cerf, 1990), 67–85 and Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea Ex 15:1–21 (BZAW 195; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), 20, accept their theory regarding the opening of the song and deals with it as a single literary unit. The approach that emphasizes the figure of Miriam in Exod 15 has been welcomed by several recent scholars who claim that the redactor made Moses the hero and relegated Miriam to the female chorus. Brenner, The Israelite Woman, 51–56; Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, “Some Recent Views on the Presentation of the Song of Miriam,” in A Feminist Companion to the Bible: Exodus to Deuteronomy, 200–206. As my focus is on the preserved text and how Miriam is interpreted in that, the question of whether verses 1–19 belonged to Miriam at some point is left open here. While accepting that the poem of Exod 15:1–19 may not have originally been composed for Moses due to several literary problems, I will call the song “The Song of the Sea” in what follows. 5 This was predominantly the position of the American school of the 20th century. William F. Albright, The Archeology of Palestine (3rd edition; Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Books, 1960), 233. Cross and Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” 237, think it is indeed the same verse, but taken from  a different cycle of traditions (see n. 4). William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB2A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 548–549. Cf. George W. Coats, “The Song of the Sea,” CBQ 31 (1969): 1–17. Brevard S. Childs, “A Tradition-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition,” VT 20 (1970): 406–418, 410, presents a less firm opinion of the songs and also discusses the German-Nordic school (see n. 8 below). In some of his studies (e.g., The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary [OTL, Philadelphia; Westminster Press, 1974], 248) Childs expresses an opinion close to those who see the Song of Miriam as the earlier of the two. 6 All quotations of the Hebrew Bible follow the translation of the NRSV unless otherwise indicated. 7 Cross and Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” 237.

Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21

45

is more archaic than the one attributed to Moses.8 The brevity of this song provides another argument for its priority. It is more probable that the tradition expanded a shorter version of the song into the longer Song of the Sea than vice versa (lectio brevior lectio potior). This theory suggests that the nucleus of the song is the Song of Miriam of Exod 15:21, which was later extended with an additional 18 verses that now comprise the Song of the Sea. Some of the scholars expressing this view claim that the Song of Miriam actually represents the earliest literary traditions of the Pentateuch.9 The contents of these songs favor this theory. Importantly, the Song of the Sea reflects theology that differs from the simple Exod 15:20–21 or even from the depiction of the events of Exod 14:19–31. Whereas the latter concerns merely the Israelites crossing the Sea of Reeds and the miraculous events, Exod 15:1–18 not only assumes crossing the sea, but also people arriving in the place they have been appointed (cf. Exod 15:13, 17). Exodus 15:1–18 moreover refers to a holy place (‫ )מקדש‬that is established on a mountain. This could point to any sanctuary, and Sinai, Zion and Gilgal have all been proposed as possible images.10 Exodus 15:1–19 does not refer merely to the Egyptians, but vv. 15:14–15 do mention enemies. This seems to reflect a more complex understanding of the Israelites’ rivals. Moreover the person of the song questions its connection with Exod 14. The song addresses the Israelites in the third person plural (Exod 15:17). Hence, it is difficult to imagine that the same Israelites performed the song. Rather the song appears to propose that the singer does not belong to the same group that crossed the sea.11 All in all, the language of this song is ambivalent. Whereas it seemingly celebrates God, references to various events that go well beyond Exod 14 question this 8 This has been the traditional position of the German-Nordic school: Paul Heinisch, Das Buch Exodus, übersetzt und erklärt (HSAT 1.2; Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934), 122, thinks that 15:21 (and perhaps also 15:1) comprises the oldest part of the passage; see also Noth, Exodus, 121–122; Aarre Lauha, “Das Schilfmeermotiv im Alten Testament,” in Congress Volume Bonn (VTSup 9; Leiden: Brill, 1963), 33; Frank Crüsemann, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel (WMANT 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 19–38. I do acknowledge that this traditional division and the positions of these “schools” have changed recently as studies such as Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 3, shows. Other scholars admit that tracking the literary history of these two passages is almost impossible. E.g., John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Waco, Tex: Word Books, 1987), 209; Irmtraud Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen: Zu einer geschlechterfairen Deutung des Phänomens der Prophetie und der Prophetinnen in der Hebräischen Bibel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002), 65–66. 9 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 39–40 Contra e.g., Propp, Exodus, 548–549, who does not accept this argument but calls this principle “a relic of nineteenth-­ century evolutionistic thought.” 10 Dozeman, Exodus, 326. 11 See Coats, “The Song of the Sea,” 7–9, for a complex analysis of genre. He argues that the hymn contains elements of thanksgiving psalm, declarative praise and enthronement formula. These together constitute a rather complex literary history.

46

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

composition’s purpose. Various inconsistencies of the song argue that its literary material was not uniform and that it derived from separate sources.12 Finally, as the horizon of the song, as it is preserved in the Hebrew Bible, is well beyond the events described in the present context, it was not composed for this context.13 Meanwhile the brief Song of Miriam, which follows the style of  a victory celebration, is more at home in this context.14 It follows the style of other songs that follow a victory or a battle (Judg 11:34; 1 Sam 18:6), where women play an important role. The simple style of Miriam’s song also fits the context literally. It does not contain literary elements that would contradict the narrative of Exod 14. Rather, it provides a logical continuation for the narration of Exod 14. Moreover, coming back to the literary strata of Exod 14, one could see the Song of Miriam being incorporated with the earlier literary tradition of Exod 14:19–31.15 This tradition, which emphasizes the role of God in the crossing of the sea, could be followed by a simple song that precisely focuses on praising God’s saving acts. One can envision that the figure of Miriam had a role in the celebrative events that followed crossing the sea and escaping the Egyptians.16 Meanwhile, the more elaborate Song of the Sea fits poorly in the early tradition of Exod 14. Based on these remarks I think that the Song of Miriam provides an earlier witness for the tradition regarding the Sea of Reeds than the Song of the Sea.17

2.1.2 Text Criticism ‫ובמחלת‬ ‫בתפים‬ ‫אחריה‬ ‫הנשים‬ ‫כל‬ ‫ותצאן‬ ‫בידה‬ ‫התף‬ ‫את‬ ‫אהרן‬ ‫אחות‬ ‫הנביאה‬ ‫מרים‬ ‫ותקח‬ (Exod 15:20–21 MT) ‫בים‬ ‫רמה‬ ‫ורכבו‬ ‫סוס‬ ‫גאה‬ ‫גאה‬ ‫כי‬ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫שירו‬ ‫מרים‬ ‫להם‬ ‫ותען‬ One text critical remark that concerns Miriam’s celebration in Exod 15:20–21 will be pointed out and that concerns the people who participated the celebration with Miriam. The version preserved in the MT states that in Exod 15:20 it is 12 Childs, Exodus: A Commentary, 245. Cf. Cross and Freedman, “The Song of Miriam,” 237, who claim that the Song of the Sea is preserved in an excellent state. Moreover, they suggest that it mirrors the pattern of old Canaanite and early Hebrew poetry. 13 Thus, e.g., Heinrich Holzinger, Exodus erklärt (KHC 2; Tübingen: Mohr, 1900), 45, views it as a post-exilic composition. 14 The term “victory celebration” is from Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 39. 15 Here I do not want to suggest that the Song of Miriam was composed by the same hand that composed the earlier tradition layer of Exod 14:19–31. 16 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 39–40, claims that Miriam’s performance in Exod 15:20–21 is of cultic character. It was intended to celebrate the Divine Warrior and therefore it was more at home in liturgical events. This will be discussed in sections 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 when addressing the history of the song and the portrayal of Miriam in Exod 15:20–21. 17 Similarly see n. 8. 

Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21

47

“all the women” (‫ )כל הנשים‬who follow her. This could give the impression that Miriam’s victory celebration took place only in a group of women. Meanwhile, other details of Exod 15:20–21 argue against an exclusively women’s celebration. Notably, Exod 15:21, which preserves the song, attests that Miriam before voicing the song itself “sang to them” (‫)ותען להם‬. In this context the personal (objective) pronoun “(to) them” (‫ )להם‬appears in the third person plural masculine. This could be an indication that according to the author the celebration did not take place merely among women, but men also joined it.18 Even more so, the masculine plural form appears again at the beginning of the song when Miriam asks people to sing. She addresses the group (‫ )להם‬in the second person plural masculine “sing” (‫)שירו‬. These examples that witness to the masculine forms challenge the view that Miriam performed only among women. They do not indicate, however, whether Miriam performed within a group that consisted of only women or a group that had both men and women. This uncertainty regarding the group with whom that Miriam performed is addressed in other early witnesses to Exod 15:21. The LXX translates Miriam’s answering them (which in the MT appears in the third person masculine ‫)להם‬ with a gender-neutral translation (αὐτῶν). Moreover, the LXX, Vg., and Tg. Ps.-J. preserve the verb “to sing” in the first person plural cohortative (‫נשירה‬, “let us sing”).19 As the first person plural does not distinguish masculine and feminine it allowed different interpretations: Miriam could perform with a group of women or with a mixed group.20 These variations have some consequences for the depiction of Miriam in Exod 15:20–21. Their most notable variation concerns the verb form “to sing.” While in the MT Miriam addresses a group in the second person plural and asks them to sing, the text forms that attest to the verb in the first person plural cohortative seem to emphasize that Miriam herself sang along with the people. She not only addressed them, but she was also present in the celebrations among the others.21 Based on the principle of lectio difficilior, it is more plausible that the MT preserves the more original version of the song than the LXX, Vg., and Tg. Ps.-J. 18 Though the masculine suffix can also refer to a group of women. GKC § 32n. 19 Cf. Exod 15:1, which begins with the first person singular: “I want to sing” (‫)אשירה‬. 20 Because the presence of women in Exod 15:20 is explicit, I do not think that these translations, despite their gender-neutral tone, assume Miriam to address only men. 21 Many scholars have proposed that Miriam and other women sang to the men in response to the Song of Moses: Cornelis Houtman, Exodus (trans. Sierd Woudstra; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; 3 vols.; Kampen: Kok, 1996), 2:295. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 548, compares the ong to the “duet of Deborah and Barak in Judges 5.” In my view Exod 15:1–21 does not imply any dialogue between the two figures. Rather I propose in the later sections of this study that the idea of the dialogue is a later interpretation of the events prominent in the Hellenistic and Roman era.

48

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

that employ the cohortative. The first person plural cohortative form appears to be a later interpretation, an attempt to clarify the text of Exod 15:21. A similar tendency to interpret the text is notable also in the later renarrations of Exod 15:21.

2.1.3 Vocabulary Analysis Exodus 15:20 is the first passage where the Hebrew Bible refers to the figure of Miriam. The origin of the name is unknown. Miriam is accorded two epithets in Exod 15:20–21. First, Miriam is referred to as a prophetess. As the term “prophetess” (‫ )נביאה‬will be analyzed extensively in section 2.1.5, I will now focus on the second epithet attributed to Miriam. Exod 15:20 introduces her as Aaron’s sister (‫)אחות אהרן‬. The term sister (‫ )אחות‬denotes familiar relation. The most frequent use concerns kinship, but it can also point to a clan affiliation, or to physical closeness (e.g., Jer 3:7).22 Importantly, when the Hebrew Bible refers to women, they are usually referred to in relation to their closest male kin. Such kin was most often the woman’s father or husband, but brothers could be mentioned too. Most of the appearances of the term “sister” (‫ )אחות‬occur in the Gen narratives.23 There the term carries a generally positive connotation. Brothers take revenge after the defilement of their sister, Dinah (Gen 34:13, 14, 27, 31). The term “sister” is used throughout Gen 24, which discusses Rebekah. Further, Rebekah is introduced as “the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean” in Gen 25:20. Her brothers bless “their sister” when she leaves (Gen 24:30, 59–60). Sometimes the term sister appears in genealogies.24 Remarkably Jacob’s relationship to Laban is defined through Laban’s sister: “Jacob, his sister’s son” (Gen 29:13). Only once in Genesis does the term sister appear to have a negative connotation. This is when the term sister applies to the unwanted (foreign) affiliation of Esau’s wife.25 In the Exod narratives the term sister points to the unnamed sister of Moses (Exod 2:4, 7) who follows from a distance what is happening to the baby Moses.

22 See e.g., HALOT 1:31. 23 Karla G. Bohmbach, “Names and Naming in the Biblical World,” in Women in Scripture, 33–40, 35, thinks that this may be due to the domestic focus that Genesis holds. This allowed women to play a prominent role. 24 Gen 4:22; 36:3, 22; 46:17. More references to sisters are found in other genealogical lists such as in 1 Chr 1–9. I will deal with some of these lists in detail in the sections concerning Num 26:59 and 1 Chr 5:29, both of which appear in the middle of lists. 25 “Esau went to Ishmael and took Mahalath daughter of Abraham’s son Ishmael, and sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife in addition to the wives he had” (Gen 28:9).

Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21

49

Evidently, Exod 2 does not mention Aaron. Hence a kinship between the three characters, Aaron and Moses and the anonymous sister, is not assumed in Exod 2. Rather, from the passage we gather that Moses had a sister, but that her identity was not known. Exodus equally knows the sister of Aaron in Exod 15:20 where the figure of Miriam appears.26 Interestingly, Exod 15:20 introduces only Aaron as Miriam’s closest kin, whereas Moses’s kinship is not assumed. In this context, where the Song of Miriam follows the song attributed to Moses, the absence of Moses’s kinship is particularly striking. Given the importance that family relations have in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible, and the prominence of Moses in this particular narrative where he has just performed a song, the lack of reference to Moses in Exod 15:20 can only indicate that a kinship between him and Miriam was not assumed.27 Therefore, it seems that the Exod narratives (Exod 2:4, 7; 15:20) that mention “the sister” assume that both Aaron and Moses were known to have sisters. However, these literary sister traditions are not united with each other.28 The term “drum” (‫ )התף‬appears in Exod 15:20 with the definite article. This instrument is related to occasions of large celebrations. It is usually mentioned in the context of arrival or departure celebrations (e.g., Gen 31:27; Judg 11:34; 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 6:5; 1 Chr 13:8). This feature fits well with the context of Exod 15, which refers to arriving on the shore after crossing the Sea of Reeds. The psalms encourage the use of instruments when God is praised (e.g., Ps 81:3; 149:3; 150:4).29 Meanwhile, the prophetic texts specify the use of the term. It belongs to joyful occasions, whereas when the sound of the timbrel stops, it means that God punishes people (e.g., Isa 5:12; 24:8; 30:32; Jer 31:4). This also demonstrates this instrument’s close association with festivities.30 In addition to use in 26 Notably, Aaron’s wife is also referred to in relation to her nearest kin, her father and her brother. “Aaron married Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar” (Exod 6:23). Sometimes in the Hebrew Bible the men are also referred to in relation to their female relatives, e.g., 2 Sam 17:25 mentions the sister of Zeruriah, and in 1 Kgs 11:19, 20 the unnamed sister of Queen Tahpenes (of Egypt) is also referred to as the wife of Hadad the Edomite. 27 Similarly Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (trans. James D. Martin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 209–210; Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 81–84. Cf. Rapp, Mirjam, 213–215, who argues that Aaron and Miriam form an opposition against Moses in this context. Similarly Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen, 68. 28 Bruno Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus: übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 138 and Propp, Exodus, 547, think that the reason behind this is that the source of Exod 15:20 knows Miriam only as the sister of Aaron. 29 Houtman, Exodus, 2:294 30 Carol L. Meyers, “Miriam the Musician,” in A Feminist Companion from Exodus to Deuteron­omy, 207–230, examines the connection between Exod 15:20–21 and ancient terracotta statues that depict women playing drums. This could indicate professional use of drums. See also eadem, Exodus (The New Cambridge Bible Commentary; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 116–119.

50

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

general celebration, drums were also used in religious practices. According to 1 Sam 10:5, drums (together with other instruments) accompanied the prophets who were in ecstasy.31

2.1.4 Stylistic Analysis In light of the results set forth in the previous steps of this analysis I will now consider the literary style of Exod 15:20–21. This will enable us to discuss more concretely the history of this passage. Let us first consider Exod 15:21. This is a quotation from Miriam’s address to the Israelites (i. e., the masculine “them”). Miriam asks the Israelites to sing praise to God. This indicates that the verse belongs to a context of praise. Moreover, the contextual parallels with the various victory songs of the Hebrew Bible, such as Judg 5:2–31 and 2 Sam 22:2–51, have led scholars to suggest that this song should be placed within the same genre of literature.32 Exod 15:21 resembles the style of various victory songs that were performed to God on occasions of victories over enemies. Hence, Miriam’s song finds itself best in the context of songs performed after victory. The content of the previous verse, namely Exod 15:20, supports this theory. It contains evident elements of prose narration. This verse contains verbs that appear in consecutive imperfect: “she took” (‫ )ותקח‬and “they went out” (‫)ותצאן‬. The beginning of Exod 15:21 continues a similar style: “she sang” (‫)ותען‬. All of these verbs anchor the beginning of the passage of Exod 15:20–21 into a prose narrative. The verbs, and especially the presence of women (‫ )כל הנשים‬fit a context of victory songs that were also performed by women.

2.1.5 Literary Criticism While the passage of Exod 15:20–21 does not preserve major text critical problems apart from the verb form of “sing,” which has been dealt with in relation to text criticism (2.1.2), its transmission history still asks for clarification. Given the brevity of the passage, this task is not easy. Nonetheless, it should be taken into 31 This notion has led some people to suggest that Exod 15:20–21 portrays Miriam as an ecstatic prophetess. E.g., Josef Scharbert, Exodus (NEchtB 24; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989), 66. I do not agree with this view. Meyers, Exodus, 117–119, has convincingly demonstrated that musical instruments were used for multiple purposes. Thus, their use was not limited to inducing ecstacy. Moreover, nothing of Exod 15:20–21 seems to indicate that Miriam was in ecstasy. Rather, keeping in mind what the several references to women’s singing and dancing in celebrations indicate, the function of the song appears to be a victory celebration. 32 Holzinger, Exodus, 50; Baentsch, Exodus, 137; Dozeman, Exodus, 342.

Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21

51

account that the relationship between narration and poetry is usually interpreted by viewing the narration as secondary to the poetry.33 It has been argued that poetry that reflects a specific rhythm (meter) and sound can preserve the form of the text more easily than a prose narrative that was more likely to expand at some point. This correlation can be observed, for instance, in the case of Judg  4–5. There the poem comprises the origin of the passage whereas the prose has probably “grown” around the poetic nucleus.34 A similar situation could also be possible in the case of Exod 15:20–21. In this passage the Song of Miriam (15:21) could have consisted of the early independent account of the sea events (i. e., the events described in Exod 14:19–31). It addresses God’s saving acts: the horses and riders are thrown into the sea. These verses are enough to know that God saved the Israelites. They were probably enough to connect the song with the Exodus events for those familiar with them. Meanwhile the performer of the song has a secondary importance for v. 21. The song does not mention Miriam. Nor is her presence evident through verb forms or other remarks, i. e., they do not imply  a female singer. Hence, given that nothing in the content of the song connects it with the figure of Miriam, it could also have been composed for another figure. Also other remarks concerning the passage support the notion that v. 15:20 is secondary to v. 15:21. First, Miriam’s speech that preserves the masculine form is not in line with the previous context where all the women (‫ )כל הנשים‬follow her. Moreover, it has been pointed out that the narrative of v. 15:20 could follow either Exod 14:29, which narrates the Israelites crossing the sea, v. 14:30, that narrates that God saved the Israelites on that day, or v. 14:31, concerning the Israelites finally believing in God and in Moses.35 Exodus 15:20, which narrates spontaneous praise led by women, could provide a logical continuation for these events.36 Miriam’s song would fit that context better than the Song of the Sea 33 Cross, From Epic to Canon, 32–35; Childs, Exodus, 248–249. 34 This seems to be  a commonplace in the studies of Judg. E.g., Robert S.  Kawashima, “From Song to Story: The Genesis of Narrative in Judges 4 and 5,” Prooftexts 21 (2001): 151–178. Cf. William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946), 35, who points out that in spite of this, it is plausible that the first narrative form of a tradition was still prose. 35 Holzinger, Exodus, 45, places Miriam’s song after 14:31. Erich Zenger, “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus XV 1–21,” in Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (ed. John A. Emerton; VTSup 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 452–483, 461, suggests that Exod 15:19–21 belonged after Exod 14:29. Similarly Rapp, Mirjam, 203–207; Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen, 65. 36 The Song of Miriam in its current context follows the prose of Exod 15:19, where the Israelites have just crossed the sea. This verse might be a later redactional addition in order to separate the two songs. Holzinger, Exodus, 45; Baentsch, Exodus, 137; Heinisch, Exodus, 124. Cf. Propp, Exodus, 484, who does not assume that v. 19 provides  a frame for an expansion. Rather he thinks that the verse summarizes the Song of the Sea and returns the reader to the period of Exodus after the anticipated future events.

52

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

that now follows Exod 14:31. It is noteworthy that in Exod 15:1–19 Moses is said to praise God without any mention of celebratory acts, such as musical accompaniment or dancing, taking place. Furthermore, Exod 15:19 repeats what has already been said about the Pharaoh and his warriors earlier in Exod 14:27, 28. This repetition that takes the narrative back to the prose could indicate that an expansion of the text is being closed. Hence, the repetition in Exod 15:19 may be an attempt to return to the narrative thread after an editorial expansion.37 These observations make the current context of the song attributed to Moses even more questionable. If this scenario that places the Song of Miriam in Exod 14:31 or 14:29 is accepted, it could indicate that Exod 15:20 was composed to connect Miriam’s celebration with the crossing of the Sea of Reeds in Exodus 14.38 This functions as a transitionary passage for the following verse, the song. It was pointed out in 2.1.1 that a good portion of Exod 14 is assigned to P. Therefore its connection with Exod 15:20–21 may derive from the Persian era. Meanwhile, Exod 15:21 could derive from another, independent tradition. Interestingly, Exod 15:20 is the only passage that links Miriam with the Exodus events, whereas Exod 14 outlines Moses’s role in the saving events. This observation suggests that the Song of Miriam existed earlier, independent of its present context. All in all, we can conclude this passage by saying that Exod 15:21 was an early tradition concerning the events of the Sea of Reeds. While it is unknown whether it was composed for Miriam originally, from early on it was attributed to this figure. While Exod 14 does not give Miriam any role in the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, Exod 15:20–21 witnesses to her presence there.

2.1.6 Female Prophecy The term “prophetess” (‫ )הנביאה‬that appears in Exod 15:20 is unexpected in this context. Neither the passage itself nor the surrounding context provides any evident reason for the use of the title. Miriam does not seem to carry out any act that could be a sign of a prophetic function in Exod 15:20–21. On my view, her voicing a victory song as such is not a strong argument in favor of her prophetic role because it seems rather to be related to the celebrations.39 Due to the lack of features that could explicate Miriam’s prophetic function, some have suggested 37 See n. 36. 38 The early commentaries that employ a source critical approach note that 15:20 and 15:21 may have belonged to different sources. E.g., Holzinger, Exodus, xvii, 45; Baentsch, Exodus, 137–138. 39 Contra Propp, Exodus, 547, who suggests that Miriam’s prophetic office is related to her musical performance; Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 80.

Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21

53

that the title “prophetess” in Exod 15:20 should be understood as honorific in its nature. The title might have been given to Miriam anachronistically.40 It may be due to a lack of other evident offices that could be attributed to women. In order to make such an assumption, the term “prophetess” and its appearances in the Hebrew Bible should be examined. In what follows, I will briefly examine the use of the term “prophetess” in the Hebrew Bible and, moreover, prophetesses’ functions in the ancient Near East. Only after that can one argue more firmly about Miriam’s role in Exod 15:20–21. Before turning to the actual analysis, the term “prophecy” needs definition. This study adopts Manfred Weippert’s explanation for this term. Prophecy is present when  a person through cognitive experience (a vision, an auditory experience, an audio-visual appearance, a dream or the like) becomes the subject of the revelation of  a deity, or several deities and, in addition, is conscious of being commissioned by the deity or deities in question to convey the revelation in a verbal form (such as prophecy or a prophetic speech) or through nonverbal communicative acts (symbolic acts), to a third party who constitutes the actual addressee of the message.41 This definition has been widely used in studies concerning prophecy.42

40 Johannes Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1974), 96, n. 71, 99–100; Brenner, The Israelite Woman, 61; Burns, Has the Lord indeed Spoken only through Moses, 79; Hennie J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and in Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (OTS 49; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 561. Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 342, adopts a mediating position concerning the use of the title “prophetess.” While she accepts that the title is anachronistic, she claims that such an anachronism survived repeated editions of the Hebrew Bible’s material only because the editors chose to associate Miriam’s memory with prophecy. 41 This working definition is by Manfred Weippert, “Prophetie im Alten Orient,” Neues Bibel Lexikon 3 (2001): 196–200. Translation to English by Martti Nissinen in idem, “What is Prophecy? An Ancient Near Eastern Perspective,” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (ed. John Kaltner and Louis Stulman; JSOTSup 378; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 17–37, 20.  42 Weippert’s definition has been used in the field of Biblical Studies when prophecy of the Hebrew Bible has been compared with literary traditions witnessing to inquiring divine will that derive from other ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. Apart from the article of Nissinen referred to above (see n. 41), see e.g., David L. Petersen, “Defining Prophecy and Prophetic Literature,” in Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives (ed. Martti Nissinen; SBLSymS 13; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 33–44, 39–40; Armin Lange, “Literary Prophecy and Oracle Collection: A Comparison Between Judah and Greece in Persian Times,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. Michael Floyd and Robert D. Haak; LHB/OTS 427; New York & London: T & T Clark International, 2006), 248–275; idem, “Oracle Collection and Canon: A Comparison Between Judah and Greece in Persian Times,” in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon (ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 9–47.

54

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

2.1.6.1 Female Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible The ancient archives of Mari and Assyria both attest to prophetesses’ functions in what is known as the ancient Near East (ANE). They attest to both professional and non-professional (lay) women’s prophecy.43 Functions of the professional and lay prophets were somewhat similar, as both categories signify communication with the Divine.44 All in all, the ancient texts demonstrate that the role of the female prophets was not marginal. This offers us a new perspective on the environments in which the texts of the Hebrew Bible were composed. These environments were familiar with women who functioned as professional prophets or who otherwise received divine messages. Women’s prophecy in the Hebrew Bible should be considered with these environments in mind. Strikingly, only four named women are referred to as prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible: apart from Miriam, Deborah (Judg 4:4), Noadiah (Neh 6:14), and Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14–17; 2 Chr 34:22–28). Apart from these women that are referred to by their names, another female prophet appears in Isa 8:3. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible the female prophets are referred to more obliquely.45 Interestingly, we will see the acts of the female prophets only partially reflect the classical understanding of prophecy defined above. The figure of Deborah is known as a prophetess (‫)אשה נביאה‬46 and a judge (‫אשת‬ ‫)שפט‬. She provides consultation in disputes and performs as a military leader next to Barak in Judg 4. In Judges 5 Deborah recites a victory song. The passage outlines her role as an advisor. According to Judg 4:4–5 she advises people. She hears people’s disputes and petitions God on their behalf. Her role as an advisor is particularly emphasized in her consultation with the military leader Barak. It is possible that her function as an advisor was related to her prophetic role. The 43 Bernard F. Batto, Studies on Woman at Mari (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974); Jean-Marie Durand, Archives Épistolaires de Mari I/1 (ARM 26/1; Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations, 1988), 386; Martti Nissinen, References to Prophecy in Neo-­Assyrian Sources (SAAS 7; Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998); Daniel E. Fleming, “Prophets and Temple Personnel in the Mari Archives,” in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis; JSOTSup 408; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 44–64, 50–53; Jonathan Stökl, “Female Prophets in the Ancient Near East,” in Prophecy and the Prophets in Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day; T&T Clark: London, 2010), 47–61. 44 For discussion on these terms that refer to women, see Stökl, “Female Prophets in the Ancient Near East,” 47–61. 45 For instance, on my view Joel 2:28 testifies that both men and women prophesied: “Then afterwards I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.” 46 Scholars have pointed out the peculiarity of the term ‫ אשה נביאה‬vis-à-vis ‫הנביאה‬. See H. G. M. Williamson, “Prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible,” in Prophecy and the Prophets in Israel, 65–80, 68–70; Jonathan Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison (CHANE 56; Leiden, Brill, 2012), 188.

Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21

55

oracle that she delivers to Barak could derive from the Divine. In this way she can be seen as mediating between the people and God. Moreover, in a broader ANE context, the title judge may also hint at some type of divination.47 Deborah is also referred to in familial terms. She is referred to as ‫אשת לפידות‬ in Judg 4:4. It is not clear whether this is to refer to her family relation (conjugal) or to qualify her (descriptive), because remarkably, the term ‫ אשת לפידות‬can be translated both “Lapidoth’s wife”48 and “a fiery woman, a woman of fire.”49 She is called “a mother in Israel” (‫)אם בישראל‬. This title, which reflects a familial term, may apply to Deborah’s function and in particular specify her relationship with Israel. One can envision a parent who goads her children to fight.50 The title “mother” appears to point to a leadership position in ancient Jewish texts.51 The prophetess (‫ )הנביאה‬Huldah is consulted after the book of law is found in the temple. Huldah appears as a respectable figure in this passage. The author has included Huldah’s familial credentials in order to add to her name and reputation. She is described as a married woman. Not she, but her husband is provided with a two-generation pedigree and a respectable occupation, as he is guardian of the clothing. They reside in Mishneh. This is expressed by the verb ‫ישב‬, thus leaving it an open question whether Huldah was thought to live there or whether it was 47 In an ANE context the term ‫ שפט‬could indicate some sort of divinatory act. For instance, at Ugarit a similar verb was used to indicate a consultation with the Divine. Some ritual followed this consultation. Hence, “judgment” could be closely linked with religious action. Here I am indebted to Mark S. Smith, and his classes on Judges in autumn 2009 at the New York University. See also Williamson, “Prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible,” 68. 48 Traditionally the term has been interpreted as “the wife of Lappidoth.” E.g., Robert G. Boling, Judges: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB 6A; New York: Doubleday, 1975), 95, suggests that “Lappidoth” was actually Deborah’s husband’s (i. e., Barak’s according to Boling) nickname; Walter Groß, Richter (HThKAT; Freiberg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder GmbH, 2009), 260, 269. Meanwhile, Barnabas Lindars, Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 182, thinks there is nothing to commend this theory. He also discusses whether ‫ אשת לפידות‬could be understood as a descriptive phrase, but thinks it is equally improbable. 49 This translation is emphasized in Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 85, 90, who uses the translation “fiery woman.” Gafney argues that the structure of “Lapidoth’s wife” is unusual and that the name “Lapidoth” does not appear anywhere else in Judg. 50 Meyers, Discovering Eve, 159. Lindars, Judges 1–5, 239, agrees that the title applies to Deborah’s office and function in the community. He suggests that similarly to Prov 1:8, which discusses  a father’s teaching responsibility,  a prophetess and mother could have such tasks. Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 92, claims that this title equally implies that “as a mother Deborah provided political and military security for all of her children.” See further, Groß, Richter, 314. 51 In light of later texts that use the term ‫ אם‬see Hanna Tervanotko, “‫’ אם‬em,” in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten (ed. Heinz-Josef Fabry and Ulrich Dahmen; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 1:201–204 and eadem, “‘Obey me like your mother’ (L.A.B. 33:1) Deborah’s Leadership in Light of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 33,” JSP 24 (2015): 301–323, demonstrates that the title “mother” attributed to Deborah adds to her function as a political leader comparable to the other early Israelite leaders.

56

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

the place where she practiced her profession.52 The passage states clearly that the delegation went to meet Huldah. This is expressed by the verb ‫הלך‬. Because of that and the name of the quarter of the city (Mishneh), the text implies that people had to go out of the palace to meet Huldah. This suggests that Huldah did not reside in the palace, but it does not exclude the possibility that she acted as a court prophet (see below). Despite the lack of explicit evidence demonstrating Huldah’s links to the king or to elements that would undoubtedly make her a court prophet, it is difficult see her completely detached from the monarch. There are many references to prophets in the Hebrew Bible who conveyed divine messages to the kings. Especially before an impending battle or in times of war, prophets are reported to have delivered oracles.53 In some instances the prophet comes to meet the King in the palace (e.g., Nathan comes to David in 1 Kgs 1:22–23), but it is more frequent in the Hebrew Bible that the political leaders go to meet the prophets for consultations (e.g., 2 Kgs 3:13).54 Thus, the prophets do not appear to reside in the palace. Given kings’ close contacts with prophets in general, and King Josiah choosing Huldah for his consultation in particular, it is difficult to see Huldah as an independent prophet without any connection to the reigning monarch. Further, 2 Kgs 23 describes King Josiah taking heed of Huldah’s advice and initiating a cultic reform. Some scholars, e.g., Robert R. Wilson, think that this preserved text evidence is sufficient to profile Huldah as  a prophet who belongs to the royal court.55 If such a general conclusion cannot be drawn, it seems that at least on this particular occasion Huldah performed as  a prophet who belonged to Josiah’s court.56 Finally, Huldah’s prophecy starts with the classic messenger formula “thus says the lord” (‫ כה אמר יהוה אלהי ישראל‬2 Kgs 22:15–16). The purpose of this formula 52 This quarter of the city, as its name implies, was a new quarter. It is also mentioned in the prophecy of Zeph 1:10 and in Neh 11:9. 53 “When David rose in the morning, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Gad, David’s seer, saying, ‘Go and say to David: Thus says the Lord: Three things I offer you; choose one of them, and I will do it to you’” (2 Sam 24:11–12). In addition, Nathan appears to have functioned as David’s prophet when he delivers divine messages to the king (2 Sam 7:4–17; 12:1–17; 1 Kgs 1:8, 10, 22–37). 54 David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1983), 84. 55 Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 220, 223. See also Jonathan Ben-Dov, “Writing as Oracle and as Law,” JBL 127 (2008): 223–239, who thinks that although from the eighth century onwards Israelite prophets were accustomed to delivering their admonitions to the entire population rather than confining their audience to the court, traditional court prophecy still maintained its status in later periods, and cultic prophecy was oriented toward the king. Ben-Dov thinks that Huldah probably belonged to the cultic prophetic institution. See also, Lowell K. Handy, “The Role of Huldah in Josiah’s Cult Reform,” ZAW 106 (1994): 40–53. 56 I thank Jonathan Stökl for this remark.

Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21

57

was to indicate a consciousness of the divine origin of the message and to claim authority for the speaker as it does in e.g., in Jer 9:23 and Isa 44:6.57 It has been pointed out that this passage is clearly influenced by the Deuteronomists. This has led to different speculations concerning Huldah’s identity.58 The prophetess Noadiah is referred to within a list that mentions other wellknown prophets that oppose Nehemiah (Neh 6:14).59 Reasons for the opposition are not settled. Some earlier studies have suggested that Noadiah and the other prophets opposed Nehemiah’s work of wall building.60 More recently other scenarios have been proposed, for instance that the group of prophets wanted to declare Nehemiah the new King and Nehemiah denies these accusations.61 Recent studies interpret Noadiah as the leader of this group, not least because she is mentioned by name before “the rest of the prophets.”62 At the very least, the passage reflects that Noadiah as a woman was considered equal to the other (male) characters present in this passage, such as Tobiah and Sanballat, and she must have been known at her time.

57 Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, 89. 58 Gary N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam (HSM; 2 Vols.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 1:131–133; Handy, “The Role of Huldah in Josiah’s Cult Reform,” 40–53. Diana Edelman, “Huldah the Prophet — Of Yahweh or Aserah?” in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings (ed. Athalya Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 231–250, has claimed that the syntax of the passage, and especially the obscure reference to Mishneh, may betray a later redaction of the passage. Edelman suggests that Huldah was originally a prophet of Aserah, who was later turned into servant of YHWH. More recently, Tal Ilan, “Huldah, the Deuteronomic Prophetess in the Books of Kings,” lectio difficilior 1 (2010): 1–16 (online: http:// www.lectio.unibe.ch/10_1/ilan.html), has proposed that Huldah must have been part of the reform initiative of the Deuteronomists. She was important because she belonged to a marginal group of prophets who, at a certain moment in history, made an alliance with a King of Judah and came to occupy positions of power. 59 The LXX uses the masculine term “prophet” when referring to Noadiah and understands Noadiah to be a male in using the masculine article in Neh 6:14: μνήσθητι, ὁ θεός, τῷ Τωβια καὶ τῷ Σαναβαλλατ ὡς τὰ ποιήματα αὐτοῦ ταῦτα καὶ τῷ Νωαδια τῷ προφήτῃ καὶ τοῖς καταλοίποις τῶν προφητῶν, οἳ ἦσαν φοβερίζοντές με. For a text critical review of this passage, see Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 190. For some studies on Noadiah, see Brenner, The Israelite Woman, 60–61 and Alice Laffey, Wives, Harlots and Concubines: The Old Testament in Feminist Perspective (London: SPCK, 1990), 204–205. 60 For discussion, see Williamson, “Prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible,” 67. 61 Ibid. 62 Brenner, The Israelilte Woman, 60–61; Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 564; Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 114; Martti Nissinen, “The Dubious Image of Prophecy,” in Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East (ed. Jonathan Stökl and Corrine L. Carvalho; Society of Biblical Literature ancient Israel and its Literature 15; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 26–41, 31–34, asks cautiously whether this passage has any historical background or if it should rather be read as a theological construction.

58

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

As mentioned, apart from these women that are named prophetesses, the Hebrew Bible refers to female and male prophets a number of times. Moreover, women can be linked to prophetic acts without a specific mention that they are prophets, thus meeting Weippert’s definition of prophecy.63 Against this background one can conclude that female figures of the Hebrew Bible could certainly be linked to acts that are known to be “prophetic” by their later definitions. At least some groups accepted the phenomenon of female prophecy. In spite of the fact that only a few prophetesses are referred to in the Hebrew Bible, the cultural contexts in which ancient Jewish texts were produced were familiar with both men and women appearing in prophetic roles.

2.1.7 Miriam in Exodus 15:20–21 Exodus 15:20–21 offers  a portrayal of Miriam that links her with the Exodus events, namely with the celebration of the Israelites’ miraculous crossing of the Sea of Reeds. In the memory of the people who composed the passage, Miriam belonged to this tradition. The identity of Miriam is specified with two separate titles in Exod 15:20. She is referred to as “the prophetess” and as “sister of Aaron.” It is not uncommon to see these titles together. As pointed out above, the prophetess Huldah is similarly referred to with a notation of her next of kin (cf. “the prophetess Huldah the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah, son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe” 2 Kgs 22:14). Hence, it is possible that female prophets, similar to women in general, were referred to both by their profession and by a relation to their closest kin (male guardian). Despite this, kinship did not of itself justify the prophetic function. The figures of Deborah and Noadiah are prime examples of that. Therefore, on my view, Exod 15:20 and the reference to “Aaron’s sister” provide Miriam with family credentials, but they do not motivate her prophetic role. She was not an unknown prophetess; the author of the passage knew her family background. Meanwhile, Exod 15:20 does not assume a kinship between Miriam, Aaron and Moses. Hence, it is important to emphasize that the earliest reference to Miriam in the Hebrew Bible does not assume her to be Moses’s sister.64 63 E.g. Ezek 13:17–23. On this text, see Nancy R. Bowen, “The Daughters of Your People: Female Prophets in Ezekiel 13:17–23,” JBL 118 (1999): 417–33. Important characters such as the patriarchs of the Pentateuch are connected to dream visions. Abraham and Jacob have visions about the future and their role. While women do not share these visions, some prominent female figures do communicate with the divine. The most evident example is Sarah (Gen 18:9–15). The Pentateuchal renarrations attest to women’s divine dreams. E.g., Jub. 35:6. 64 Noth, Exodus, 122. This point will be expandeded later in this study, when I analyze the passages that attest to Miriam’s family relations more explicitly. Cf. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 84, who argues that Miriam is associated with Aaron due to her

Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21

59

The second title attributed to Miriam, “the prophetess,” has raised questions because Miriam does not seem to perform any evident acts that could be interpreted as signs of her prophetic role. Therefore her playing music and dancing have led several people to think that the core of Miriam’s prophecy was the singing and dancing.65 This association has its origins in a theory that some prophets were likewise described as singing and dancing (e.g., Deborah in Judg 5:1–30).66 The weakness of this view is that prophets were not the only people leading this type of celebration. Hence, a person did not need to be a prophet in order to lead such a celebration. Seemingly, Exod 15:20–21 does not provide  a simple answer to the inquiry regarding Miriam’s prophecy. The analysis of the female prophets in the Hebrew Bible demonstrates that the use of the title “prophetess” was probably very complex and the Hebrew Bible, in comparison with the ANE material, preserves only traces of that. Therefore, regarding Miriam we can conclude that it is of importance that a reference to Miriam as a prophetess has been preserved in the Hebrew Bible that otherwise only seldom refers to women as prophets. The brevity of Exod 15:20–21 makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions regarding the history of this passage. Despite this, some details argue that Exod 15:20 may not be the earliest mention of Miriam known in ancient Judaism. The introduction to Miriam in Exod 15:20 is done very subtly, and the figure of Aaron is not introduced at all. Moreover, given the earlier suggestion that the song of v. 15:21 may be an earlier composition than the prose of v. 15:20, one could think that the song was attributed later to Miriam, who was already a known character. The song and the celebrative role attributed to Miriam clearly aimed at emphasizing this figure. Exodus 15:20–21 is the first preserved literary mention of Miriam, and hence it cannot be compared with other texts in order to track the development of the literary tradition. Nonetheless, the study of Exod cultic function. Propp, Exodus, 547, sees two different possibilities. In light of source criticism he argues that the source of Exod 15:20 did not know Miriam’s kinship with Moses. On the other hand, he thinks it is possible that Aaron as Miriam’s senior brother is mentioned here and that she is particularly associated with him. Moses does not exist in Exod 15:20. 65 See n. 39. 66 Some people have elaborated this theory regarding music and prophetic role. Noth, Exodus, 123, aimed at combining prophecy and musical activities by characterizing Miriam as an ecstatic. Ecstasy and cultic song seemed to have belonged closely together in ancient Israel (e.g., 1 Sam 10:5). Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 18, has argued that the characteristics of Miriam’s performance in Exod 15:20–21 do not demonstrate her acting as a prophetess. Rather, in Burns’ view, Miriam’s performance displays similarities with ritual actions used in Israel’s celebrations in honor of the Divine Warrior. Burns finds that the closest parallel to Miriam’s singing and dancing can be found in Jdt 15:12–14. This passage explains that all the women followed Judith in her celebration after a military victory. Men also joined the events but in a different function. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 38–39, further argues that various witnesses to the literature of the ANE demonstrate that the timbrel was used for cultic purposes.

60

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

15:20–21 suggests that when this passage reached its present form, people were already familiar with the figure of Miriam, who was connected with the crossing of the Sea of Reeds.

2.1.8 Summary Literary evidence of the ANE attests to female prophecy being a widespread phenomenon in antiquity. References to women who were somehow in contact with God are preserved in various sources deriving from the ANE. In comparison with this extensive material, the Hebrew Bible presents women’s prophetic activities as a much more limited and somewhat marginal phenomenon. Sometimes even the little evidence preserved in the Hebrew Bible has been questioned, e.g., by suggesting that the title “prophetess” was anachronistic for women. In contrast, in the light of my analysis in this chapter, I argue similarly to Wilda Gafney and others that the remaining evidence of prophetic activities attributed to women in the Hebrew Bible should not be understood anachronistically. Rather, the references to female prophets demonstrate that women were known to act as mouthpieces of the Divine. Exodus 15:20 preserves a reference to Miriam as ‫הנביאה‬. Because the passage does not provide a specific interpretation of the use of this title, my understanding is that the passage refers to the figure of Miriam, who was known to be a ­prophetess, but whose prophetic role is not specified here. The early prophetic tradition is not preserved in the Hebrew Bible, but the later references to Miriam that will be included in my study will illuminate this view.67 By the time Exod 15:20 was written, Miriam was known as a prophetess. The reference to Aaron gave her family credentials. Meanwhile, the notable lack of kinship terminology between Miriam, Moses and Aaron appears to indicate that the text derived from an era when kinship between them was not assumed. Given that the kinship between these figures becomes a prominent element in the late Persian era,68 this gives Exod 15:20 a date earlier than that. Taking into consideration the archaic form of Miriam’s song of Exod 15:21 and the correlation between Exod 15:20–21 and the P-source in Exod 14, it seems likely that the Song of Miriam was composed earlier than the P-source. 67 I am aware that it may not be methodologically sound to reconstruct missing literature with later texts because it creates  a circular argument. Nonetheless, it is widely accepted that later texts (i. e., the literature belonging to the DSS) offer complementary views to the incomplete early literature. See, e.g., Armin Lange, “The Significance of the Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library for the Understanding of the Hebrew Bible,” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (ed. André Lemaire; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 171–218. 68 The theme of kinship will be explored in sections 2.3, 2.5, and throughout section 3 of this study.

Miriam in Laws: Deuteronomy 24:8–9

61

2.2 Miriam in Laws: Deuteronomy 24:8–9 2.2.1 Introduction The figure of Miriam is referred to in Deut 24:8–9. The immediate context (Deut 23:15–25:19) of this passage contains regulations covering broad areas. Deuteronomy 24:1–5 deals with the marriage laws, focusing in particular on the question of divorce; Deut 24:6 addresses taking millstones as pledges; Deut 24:7, kidnapping; Deut 24:10–13 preserves the regulation concerning loans and pledges; and Deut 24:14–15 requires people to respect the poor. These examples demonstrate that the various rules that appear in Deut 24 do not share an evident common theme. Because of a lack of a common theme that would connect the various rules together and the lack of any other organizing element in this passage (Deut 23:15–25:19), it is best characterized as  a collection of miscellaneous laws.69 In light of this description, which does not provide a helpful basis for evaluating Deut 24:8–9, I will deal with this passage independently from its surrounding context.70

2.2.2 Text Criticism ‫לעשות‬ ‫תשמרו‬ ‫צויתם‬ ‫הלוים כאשר‬ ‫הכהנים‬ ‫אתכם‬ ‫יורו‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫ככל‬ ‫ולעשות‬ ‫מאד‬ ‫לשמר‬ ‫הצרעת‬ ‫בנגע‬ ‫השמר‬ (Deut 24:8–9 MT) ‫ ממצרים‬ ‫בצאתכם‬ ‫בדרך‬ ‫למרים‬ ‫אלהיך‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫עשה‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫את‬ ‫זכור‬ The infinitive form of the verb “to do” (‫ )לעשות‬appears twice in Deut 24:8. In particular, the verb in Deut 24:8a that appears together with the waw-conjunctive 69 Alfred Bertholet, Deuteronomium (KHC; Freiburg: Verlag J. C. B. Mohr, 1899), 75, refers to laws that have a humanitarian character (translation mine) when discussing Deut 24:5–25:4; Calum M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1974), 202–203, calls ch. 24 “The Egyptian Series” because some laws (e.g., 24:8–9) refer to the Exodus period; A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979), 108, refers to “laws on purity and humanitarian behavior in the people of Yahweh” (Deut 23:1–25:19); Georg Braulik, Deuteronomium II: 16:18–34:12 (NEchtB 28; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992), claims that Deut 24:8–25:3 (excluding 24:19–22) comments the eight commandment of the Decalogue. Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 448; R. E. Clements, Deuteronomy (NIB; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 463, refers to the passage Deut 23:19–25:4 as “justice and compassion in the community”; Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy (OTL; Louis­ville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 283, as “marriage and community welfare.” These examples, which are all rather vague, illustrate the difficulty in finding a common category for these laws. 70 The disparity of this chapter and the unevenness of the laws will be further demonstrated when we turn to the literary history of Deut 24:8–9 in 2.5.4. Cf. Rapp, Mirjam, 194–200, and Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen, 83–85, who read Deut 24:8–9 in relation to the marriage laws of Deut 24:1–5.

62

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

bears similarities to that of Deut 15:5.71 The content of the two verses (Deut 15:5; 24:8), namely the stipulation to follow carefully the orders that God gives, is quite similar. The SP and the LXX (Vorlage) do not preserve this conjunction in Deut 24:8. Hence it is possible that this conjunction was added to the MT with a view to harmonizing the passage with Deut 15:5.72 Meanwhile, the LXX and the SP contain another interesting variant for Deut 24:8. Regarding Deut 24:8b, they preserve the term torah (‫ )הרותה‬while discussing what should be taken into account alongside regulations that the priests and the Levites advise. Hence the SP and the LXX read: “do according to the Torah” (‫)ולעשות ככל התורה‬.73 The term Torah appears in various passages of Deut, outlining the importance of the law. Appearing at the end of v. 8, the term appears to be a later addition to the already existing verse.74 Notably, the singular and plural forms vary throughout Deut 24:8–9. This feature is called Numeruswechsel. “Remember” (‫“ )זכור‬your God” (‫)אלהיך‬ attests to singular forms. Meanwhile the plural forms (second person plural masculine suffixes) appear elsewhere in Deut 24:8–9: “Levitical priests advised you” (‫)אתכם‬, “When you were coming” (‫)בצאתכם‬. Notably, the Vg. differs from other text editions in “when you were coming” (‫ )בצאתכם‬of Deut 24:9a. While other witnesses to this passage preserve a plural form, the Vg. attests it in a singular form. Given the frequency of Numeruswechsel in Deut (see e.g., Deut 23:5; 25:17), the singular form that appears in the Vg. could be explained as an attempt to harmonize the difficult passage where the number of verbs and suffixes changes. Hence the Vg. version of Deut 24:9a is probably secondary for the MT.75

71 “[I]f only you will obey the Lord your God by diligently observing this entire commandment that I command you today” (Deut 15:5). 72 This is preserved in the apparatus. For the relationship between the verses, see Timo ­Veijola, Das 5.  Buch Mose Deuteronomium: Kapitel 1,1–16,17 (ATD 8.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 315. 73 Translation by the present author. 74 Mayes, Deuteronomy, 324. For the principle of “lectio brevior,” see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 305–306. 75 Note that Numeruswechsel not only appears in this passage but is also characteristic of Deut. It has been used to distinguish different literary layers of Deut. Georges Minette de Tillesse, “Sections tu et sections vous dans le Deutéronome,” VT 12 (1962): 29–87, suggested that the “you sections” preserved in the second person singular belonged to the “original Deuteronomy” whereas the parts that address the audience in the second person plural were attributed to the Deuteronomistic redaction. Minette de Tillesse picked this theory up from earlier scholars such as Willy Staerk and C. Steurnagel. The earlier works are reviewed in Christopher T. Begg, “1994: A Significant Anniversary in the History of Deuteronomy Research,” in Studies in Deuteronomy (ed. F. García Martínez, A. Hillhorst, J. T. A. G.M. van Ruiten and A. S. van der Woude; VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 1–12. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken

Miriam in Laws: Deuteronomy 24:8–9

63

2.2.3 Vocabulary Analysis The legal setting of this passage is emphasized in the vocabulary of Deut 24:8. The verbs “to follow, to keep” (‫ )שמר‬and “to do something” (‫ )עשה‬appear three times. They emphasize the significance of keeping the regulations in this text. Here the verb ‫שמר‬ appears in the Niphal imperative. Therefore the significance of the verb is passive: “to be kept, guarded, be careful.” Most of the appearances of the verb ‫ שמר‬in the Niphal are in Deut (Deut 2:4; 4:9, 15, 23; 6:12; 8:11; 11:16; 12:13, 19, 30; 15:9; 23:10). The passages where this verb appears in the Niphal exhort the people to be very careful regarding various issues, for instance foreign peoples or not serving foreign gods. The verb “to do” (‫ )עשה‬indicates not only observing, i. e., learning, but also performing the regulations.76 A verb that attests to ordering and commanding (‫ )צוה‬is also used in this context. These verbs elucidate the legal nature of Deut 24:8. Meanwhile, the style of Deut 24:9 is different. It does not appear to refer to the rules. Rather the verb “to remember” (‫ )זכר‬is generally used for didactic purposes, where the purpose of the remember-formula is to remind the audience about an earlier encounter in order to motivate the present command. The verb is particularly characteristic of those passages of Deut that point to the events described in the book of Exodus.77 The other terminology of Deut 24:9 also differs from 24:8. The terms Miriam (‫)מרים‬, God (‫ )יהוה אלהיך‬and tsara’at (‫ )צרעת‬do not appear in the previous verse. The term tsara’at is often translated as “leprosy” due to its Greek translation (λέπρα).78 Yet while the description of tsara’at resembles that of disease, it does only through Moses, 105–106, suggests that those terms that are preserved in singular form attest to the earlier command, whereas the plural terminology was added to it later. More recently it has been argued that using Numeruswechsel as a criterion to determine the literary growth of the text is oversimplification. See Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A ­Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London & New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 73–74. Cf. Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 367, takes Numerus­ wechsel together with other remarks as evidence of different editorial hands in Deut 24:8–9. 76 Tigay, Deuteronomy, 42–43. 77 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 327; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 163. Veijola deals with this topic also in “Du sollst daran denken, dass du Sklave gewesen bist im Lande Ägypten: Zur literarischen Stellung und theologischen Bedeutung einer Kernaussage des Deuteronomiums,” in idem, Leben nach der Weisung: Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten Testament (FRLANT 224; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 48–68. 78 John F. A. Sawyer, “A Note on the Etymology of tsāra’at,” VT 26 (1976): 241–245. Due to the lack of a satisfying translation for this term, I prefer using the original term tsara’at. This term appears altogether 32 times in the Hebrew Bible. Of these, 26 are in Lev where the term is widely discussed. For a recent discussion of the term and its appearance in the Lev laws and prose narratives, see Joel S.  Baden and Candida R. Moss, “The Origin and Interpretation of

64

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

not correspond to any known disease.79 In Num 5:2, the unclean — those who have tsara’at, a discharge, or that are impure because of being too close to a corpse — are said to go outside the Israelites’ camp. Similar isolation appears in 2 Kgs 7:3. Further, some references to tsara’at indicate that this sickness was understood as a punishment. For instance, in 2 Chr 26:20 Uzziah’s tsara’at is interpreted as a punishment for his wrongdoings.80 Other passages, however, reflect a different interpretation of it. In Exod 4:6 God puts tsara’at in Moses’s arm as  a sign of the divine power to perform miracles (notably this reference to tsara’at also implies that the skin — like Miriam’s in Num 12:10 — was white). Moreover, the term appears in particular in Lev 13–14, which focuses on priestly duties when tsara’at occurs or is suspected. In this context it is said to appear in objects (e.g., Lev 13:47–59), thus seeing it merely as a disease is questionable. All in all, the translation “leprous” is controversial and has not been widely accepted.81 The object of this passage is to warn people of tsara’at, remind them that it was God who gave it to Miriam, and to emphasize how one can avoid it. The priests’ responsibilities concerning it in are outlined in Deut 24:8.82 While this mention of tsara’at in v. 8 cannot be taken as a direct witness to the Levitical laws concerning tsara’at formulated in Lev 13–14, some scholars think that these laws are alluded to here.83 The priests that are referred to in Deut 24:8 are called “the Levitical priests” (‫)הכהנים הלוים‬. The Levites are mentioned in several passages of Deuteronomy. Sometimes the text outlines in particular their profession as “the Levitical priests” (i. e., Deut 24:8).84 It is of importance that Deut 24:8 mirrors an understanding according to which the Levites could deal with tsara’at. sāra’at in Leviticus 13–14,” JBL 130 (2011): 643–662. Notably, the authors distinguish between the narratives where tsara’at appears as punishment and Lev 13–14, where such an element is absent. 79 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 768–889, renders the term “scale disease.” For comments on this desease, see Leviticus 1–16, 816–824. 80 Likewise in 2 Kgs 5:7 and Job 2:7, where God allows Satan to test Job with a skin-disease. The post-biblical Jewish literature sees tsara’at as a particular punishment for malicious talk, e.g., b. Sotah 15a, b. Šebu. 8a. 81 Dorothea Erbele-Küster, Körper und Geschlecht: Studien zur Anthropologie von Leviticus 12 und 15 (WMANT 121; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), 5–6; Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 817, says tsara’at “it is part of the Priestly system of impurity.” 82 Mayes, Deuteronomium, 324–325; Braulik, Deuteronomium, 180. 83 Braulik, Deuteronomium, 180; Martin Rose, 5.  Mose 12–25: Einführung und Gesetze (ZBK AT 5,1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994), 282–283; Udo Rüterswörden: Das Buch Deuteronomium (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar: Altes Testament 4; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk 2006), 160. 84 Deut 17:9, 18; 18:1. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 169–170, claims this term is a standard designation in Deuteronomy; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase. The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 146 n. 63. Additionally, in the passages Deut 21:5 and 31:9, the priests are called “sons of Levi” (‫הכהנים בני‬ ‫) לוי‬. I will return to the Levites in 3.1.6 where they will be discussed in more detail.

Miriam in Laws: Deuteronomy 24:8–9

65

Finally, the expression “your coming out of Egypt” (‫ )בצאתכם ממצרים‬is of interest. This phrase, which refers to Egypt, suggests that the writer of v. 9 linked Miriam’s tsara’at with the events of the Exodus. Deuteronomy 24:9 seems to connect in particular with the Exodus theme, i. e., leaving Egypt as the verb “to remember” (‫ )זכר‬indicates. The writer(s) had in mind both Lev 13–14 (in particular in 24:8) but their literary dependency on the Levitical rules cannot be established. Rather we should conclude that they knew these traditions in some form.

2.2.4 Literary and Redaction Criticism The vocabulary analysis concerning Deut 24:8–9 shows the two verses differing from one another, particularly in their terminology and style. This is  a strong indication that they were not composed by the same hand. The verse that is more at home in this context (i. e., the passage that deals with laws) is 24:8, and it has been proposed that this verse contains earlier material than v. 9.85 Seemingly v. 9 does not add anything new to the content of the ruling concerning tsara’at. This observation raises questions about the connection between vv. 8–9. Moreover, the reference to Miriam is unusual. Verse 8 highlights the role of the Levitical priests in taking care of tsara’at. This could be seen as an attempt to promote them as qualified people in charge of tsara’at.86 In this light it is peculiar that the next verse reminds the audience of Miriam and her tsara’at. At least from the Hellenistic era on the figure of Miriam was known as a member of the Levites!87 Miriam’s tribal affiliation is not explicitly mentioned in Deut, but it should not be excluded that the author of Deut 24:9 was aware of such a tradition. This observation sheds more light on the relationship between vv. 8 and 9. It is difficult to imagine how referring to Miriam’s tsara’at would support the Levites. Then the only logical explanation would be that the two verses derive from different sources. This suggestion finds further support in the vocabulary of Deut 24:9. It has been recognized for a long time that the editors of Deut used a specific language. Some of the characteristic vocabulary reflects the Exodus events. The phrase “your coming out of Egypt” (‫)בצאתכם ממצרים‬ is a typical example of this. 85 Rose, 5. Mose, 282; Here I do not argue for the unity of that verse. It is possible that it also contained editions and additions. As it does not refer to Miriam, it is not my primary interest. Cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 324–325, and Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 102, who claim that the earlier stratum of Deut 24:8–9 contains the part of the passage that addresses the audience in the second person singular form. 86 Milgrom, Leviticus, 816–824. Both Deut 24:8–9 and Lev 13–14 reflect this. Meanwhile, it is of interest that, while in Deut it is Moses who addresses this to the Israelites, in Leviticus (13:1) it is God who tells these laws to Moses and Aaron. 87 I will come to this point in 2.5 and ch. 3.

66

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

This expression appears in several other passages of Deut that display similarities with 24:9 (e.g., Deut 23:5; 25:17). These passages are argued to belong to the same editorial layer of the text.88 These observations indicate that 24:9 belongs to a later redaction of Deut. If we accept that the rule of v. 8 is earlier than v. 9, it is easy to see the prose narrative of the latter as an addition to the already existing law.89 This redaction evidently does not derive from a distinct source. Rather it should be viewed as a sort of “commentary” to Deut 24:8, providing a practical example for the rule.90

2.2.5 Miriam in Deuteronomy 24:8–9 Given the demonstrated legal interest of Deut 12–26, and the infrequent reference to various characters in this book, it is of importance that Miriam is mentioned in Deut 24:9. Moreover, it should be mentioned that Miriam is the only female figure whose name appears in Deut. Deuteronomy 24:9 highlights that God gave tsara’at to Miriam, but the reason for it is not spelled out. The fact that v. 9 was inserted into an already existing passage carries significance for our study on Miriam. This suggests that such a tradition that attests to Miriam’s tsara’at was known for the audience of the text that was just reminded “remember what…” It may have been one of the best-known examples of tsara’at, and thus people could recall it by a subtle reference. It assumes that anyone who heard about Miriam’s tsara’at was familiar with that tradition (cf. the “remember” formula). While some other scholars propose that this implies to Num 12, which will be analyzed in the following section of this study, I do not think it is necessary.91 From the point of view of this study the importance of this passage is that it claims for Miriam a notable position in the memory of 88 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 327; Rose, 5. Mose, 283; Braulik, Deuteronomium, 181. Cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 324; Sigfried Kreuzer, “Die Exodustradition im Deuteronomium,” in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (ed. Timo Veijola; Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 62; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 81–106, 98. Note that here I again consciously consider v. 9 as it is preserved. Rapp, Mirjam, 197–198, thinks that all three passages that use the Exodus terminology elaborate the theme of the Israelites’ relationship with foreign peoples, e.g., Moabites, Amalekites, Midianites and Cushites. 89 E.g. Kreuzer, “Die Exodustradition im Deuteronomium,” 98. 90 Veijola, Deuteronomium, 117–118, 206, 233–236, argues that, e.g., Deut 4:36–40*; 7:7–11; 9:1, 3–6 are examples of such commentaries. As Veijola’s analysis does not extend to 24:9, the assumption that this verse should be seen as a “commentary” is mine. My impression is that the passages that Veijola identifies as “commentaries” discuss the content of the text in much the same way as Deut 24:9 does. 91 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 106, thinks that Deut 24:8–9 refers to Moses’s healing of Miriam in Num 12. Also Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 367, assumes some dependency on Num 12.

Miriam in Laws: Deuteronomy 24:8–9

67

the Israelites. Strangely, even though the incident itself is not a positive tradition concerning Miriam, it implies that she was an important character. That may have been the reason why her tsara’at was integrated with v. 8. This combination pointed out that even significant persons could be afflicted unless the rules were followed carefully. Bachmann argues that the fact that the rule had to be reinforced so strongly is a sign that it did not have, when incorporated into and maintained in the legislation, the force needed to impose itself based upon its own worth.92

2.2.6 Relationship with the Earlier Texts The earliest stratum of Deut (the so-called Ur-Deuteronomy) is usually dated to the late 7th century B.C.E. This date has been traditionally established on the basis of associating Deut with the book of law re-found in 2 Kgs 22–23.93 After that the text went through process(es) of editing and revising that probably went on until the last centuries of the pre-Christian era.94 In light of my analysis of Deut 24:8–9 I am inclined to think that the studied verses do not belong to the earliest part of Deut. Rather the section dealt with here seems to date to a later period, and Deut 24:9 is the later of the two verses (8–9). The authors of the two verses were somehow aware of the stipulations of Lev 13–14, and aimed at further commenting on the ruling concerning tsara’at.95 Hence, tsara’at is the link between vv. 8 and 9 that otherwise are independent from each other. 92 Ibid., 368. 93 The foundation myth of the book of Deuteronomy is summarized in Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 49–56. The critical views concerning the historicity of the book finding motif are expressed especially on p. 51, where the author demonstrates how the book-finding motif is a common concept in ancient literature and it legitimizes changes in religious, economical or political matters. Thus Römer claims (p.  55) that “The biblical presentation of Josiah and his reign cannot be taken as a document of primary evidence……His reform was certainly not based on the discovery of a book, but the first edition of Deuteronomy may well have been written under Josiah.” Veijola, Deuteronomium, 2, dates the text to the time of King Josiah. By contrast, Juha Pakkala, “The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy,” ZAW 121 (2009): 388–401, has argued that the earliest edition of Deut has a post 586 B.C.E. origin. 94 Veijola, Deuteronomium, 5, claims that the redaction process of Deut continued until 300 B.C.E. Thus the development of the text extends over centuries. 95 Rapp, Mirjam, 196–200, reads 24:9 in relation to debates concerning the Israelites’ relationship with foreign peoples, where Miriam is a reminder of an earlier debate concerning foreign wives. Rapp thinks that Deut 24:8 outlines the importance of the priests and the Torah in contrast to Miriam, who represents the prophetic movement. Rapp, Mirjam, 196–200, further connects Miriam’s prophecy with the question of marriage, also arguing that Deut 24:8–9 appears among marriage laws (Deut 24:1–5). I do not agree with this argument. The marriage laws of Deuteronomy are spread out (e.g. 21:10–17; 22:13–29; 23:1; 25:5–10), and it is difficult to see how they could consistently be linked with the surrounding passages. Therefore, with regard to Deut 24, I rather consider these as miscellaneous laws.

68

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

Deuteronomy 24:8–9 refers to the Exodus as an event that was remembered and to Miriam’s role in it. While it does not display any features that could connect it with Exod 15:20–21 studied above, it indirectly points to the same era. The author of the passage connected Miriam’s tsara’at with the epoch when the group left Egypt. Remembering Miriam’s punishment and referring to it in a composition suggests that Miriam was known for having a role in the tradition concerning the Exodus and that that role was significant.

2.2.7 Summary The figure of Miriam appears in Deut 24:9 as an admonition concerning the avoidance of tsara’at. This passage establishes the figure of Miriam with the Exodus tradition by recalling “when you were coming out of Egypt.” Miriam, a well-known figure already connected with the tradition of coming out of Egypt, is used as a warning example of what may happen unless the rules are carefully followed. Otherwise the passage does not express any view on why Miriam received tsara’at, usually interpreted as punishment in prose texts.96 Interestingly, the figure seemingly appears in this context independently and without any evident connection to Aaron and Moses.

2.3 Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15 2.3.1 Introduction Numbers 12:1–15 is the most extensive passage of the Hebrew Bible referring to Miriam.97 The chapter appears in the context of the Israelites wandering in the desert of Sinai. Numbers 12:1–15 is framed by references to an itinerary. According to 11:34–35, the Israelites move from Kibroth-hattaavah to Hazeroth, and Num 12:1 makes a reference to their staying in Hazeroth. At the end of the 96 See Baden and Moss, “The Origin and Interpretation of sāra’at in Leviticus 13–14,” 643–662. 97 By limiting this chapter to Num 12:1–15 and therefore leaving v. 12:16 out of this analysis I acknowledge that Num 12:16 belongs to the so-called travel itinerary that surrounds the passage. It has little to do with 12:1–15. Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 333, writes concerning 12:16: “This verse is a postscript added by P in an effort to reconcile the discrepancy between Num 10:12 where we read that the Israelites had already begun their march northward to the Wilderness of Paran and Num 11:35, where we read that they were still in the southern Sinai peninsula, having just arrived at Hazeroth.” Other scholars, e.g., Noth, Numbers, 97; Philip J. Budd, Numbers (WBC; Waco. Tex.: Word Books, 1984), 133; Rapp, Mirjam, 54, 123; Rolf P. Knierim and George W. Coats, Numbers (FOTL 4; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 179–180, also take this verse as an editorial addition.

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

69

story, in Num 12:16, the Israelites are said to move on to Paran. This itinerary provides a rough framework for the narrative of Num 12:1–15.

2.3.2 Text Criticism (Num 12:1 MT) 98 ‫לקח כי אשה כשית לקח‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫הכשית‬ ‫האשה‬ ‫אדות‬ ‫על‬ ‫ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה‬ The verb “to speak” (‫ )דבר‬appears in Num 12:1 in the third person sg. fem. (‫)תדבר‬. Therefore the verse has sometimes been argued to read that it was initially only Miriam who spoke against Moses (‫ב‬ ‫;דבר‬ cf. Num 12:8; Job 19:18; Ps 50:20; 78:1), and the name of Aaron was added to the verse at a later stage.99 Before deciding on this, both the grammar and the literary context should be analyzed. First, the third person singular form of the verb in 12:1 does not always apply only to one person. In some cases Hebrew grammar allows it to refer to both figures equally.100 Thus, there is no grammatical support for the view that Aaron was inserted into this context only later. However, other evidence suggests that the name of Aaron is  a later addition in Num 12:1. Most strikingly, the fact that Miriam’s name appears first is in favor of this interpretation. Presenting Miriam first seems to be a conscious choice by the author, in particular, because in Num 12:4 the characters appears in reverse order, and Miriam’s name follows Aaron.101 I will return to this possibility below. 98 “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married for he had indeed married a Cushite woman” (Num 12:1 NRSV). Meanwhile, Fischer, “The Authority of Miriam,” 161–162, translates the ‫ דבר ב‬that appears in Num 12:1–2 as “spoke to,” arguing that it is impossible to translate the same linguistic phrase differently in two successive verses. Similarly, Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 342. Rapp, Mirjam, 32, translates Num 12:1 as “talked about.” 99 Bruno Baentsch, Numeri: übersetzt und erklärt (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1903), 510; Noth, Numbers, 94: “Aaron appears only as a result of the fusion of this fragment of tradition with the subject that follows in v. 2.” George W. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness (Traditions of the Old Testament; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1968), 261; Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 67; Horst Seebass, Numeri (BKAT 4.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 58.  100 Joüon 2:552: “In the third person the agreement of the verb presents a very large number of anomalies. As  a fairly general rule, the verb agrees in number and gender with the noun (or pronoun) to which it refers. However there is a certain tendency to prefer the singular to the plural, mainly when the verb precedes.” HCK, 468: “The predicate preceding two or more subjects may likewise be used in the plural; not infrequently, however, it agrees in gender and number only with the subject closest to the verb.” Cf. Gen 33:7. 101 Nevertheless, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus place the name of Miriam before the name of Aaron in Num 12:4. Thus they read: “God said to Moses and Miriam and Aaron.” This was pointed out earlier by e.g., Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 65 n. 66. Note that a similar argument has been used to argue that Noadiah takes a lead in Neh 6:14. See Williamson, “Prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible,” 67 and section 2.1.6 of this study.

70

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

(Num 12:6 MT) ‫ויאמר שמעו נא דברי אם יהיה נביאכם יהוה במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר בו‬ Numbers 12:6 poses several text critical problems. The beginning of 12:6 reads: “And he said” (‫)ויאמר‬. Notably, this sentence does not explicate a subject, but the context determines that the speaker is God. Meanwhile, other ancient witnesses to this verse attest to the name of the Divine as the speaker. The Qumran manuscript 4QNumb reads: ‫ויאמר יהוה אליהם‬.102 In the LXX the subject is implicit, as it is in the MT, but unlike the MT, here an object (to whom) appears: καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς. The Lucianic version of the LXX and the Syr. also preserve the name of God after the verb “(he) said.” In light of the varying text evidence, it is possible that Num 12:6 of the MT preserves a copying mistake. God’s name (‫ )יהוה‬probably belongs to the beginning of the verse, after the verb ‫ויאמר‬.  A scribe who copied the Vorlage of the MT made an error and copied the name into the next line: ‫ונביאכם יהוה‬. This explanation would account for the disparities between the different manuscripts as to where the term God appears. This explanation is supported by the difficulties that occur in the rest of 12:6. The term ‫נביאכם‬ is problematic. Num 12:6 in the MT reads, “When there are prophets among you (‫)נביאכם‬, I, the Lord make myself known to them in visions.” In particular, the syntax of the MT (‫ )נביאכם יהוה‬is difficult to interpret in this context. The second person plural suffix generally indicates “your (pl.) prophet (sg.).” Some scholars interpret that the name of the Divine that appears immediately after the term prophet indicates God’s prophet.103 Other text forms shed some more light on the history of this passage. The reading of VL and Vg. (“inter vos propheta Domini”) indicates that the Vorlage they translate attests ‫ נביא בכם‬instead of the ‫ נביאכם‬that appears in the MT. Given that the reading preserved in the Latin versions solves the problematic v. 6 partly, I agree with those scholars that claim that the version of the MT contains a copying mistake.104 The preposition ‫ ב‬dropped out during the copying process 102 Nathan Jastram, “4QNumb,” Qumran Cave 4, VII: Genesis to Numbers (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; DJD 12; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994): 205–67, 216. 103 Rapp, Mirjam, 37, thinks that these terms imply that the specific prophets referred to in this context are indeed God’s prophets, in contrast to the “false prophets.” Furthermore, she suggests that the Hebrew text contained the preposition ‫ל‬ before the term ‫יהוה‬. That would make the connection with God and prophets clearer. Similarly, Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen, 69, 76. Later the preposition dropped from the text. Meanwhile, GKC § 128 discusses this particular case and concludes that the suggested translation (genitive) is not possible, and the text appears to be corrupt. 104 Carl Friedrich Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium (Biblischer Commentar über Die Bücher Mose’s; Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1862), 234, suggests the text reads ‫;נביא לכם‬ August Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua (EHAT; Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1886), 66, suggests ‫ נביא בכם‬or ‫ ;נביא מכם‬J. S. Kselman, “A Note on Numbers XII 6–8,” VT 26 (1976): 500–505; Burns, Has The Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 51; Budd, Numbers, 132;

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

71

and then the suffix became affixed to the noun ‫( נביא‬prophet).  It is unlikely that the reading would be “corrected” and result in an incomprehensible version. Meanwhile, the Latin versions treat ‫ יהוה‬as a genitive (“Domini”), and thus do not explain how the term ‫ יהוה‬should be associated with ‫נביא‬.105 The most satisfying solution is that ‫ יהוה‬is intrusive in its present position, having been miscopied from its original position immediately after the verb at the beginning of the verse and that this part of the verse originally read just ‫“( אם יהיה נביא בכם‬If/when there is a prophet among you”). ‫יביט ומדוע לא יראתם לדבר בעבדי במשה‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫ותמנת‬ ‫בחידת‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫ומראה‬ ‫בו‬ ‫אדבר‬ ‫פה‬ ‫אל‬ ‫פה‬ (Num 12:8 MT)  It is possible that v. 8 also preserves  a copying mistake or other corruption. The various manuscripts attest to different readings that are difficult to explain otherwise. The LXX, the Syr. and the Pentateuch Tg. read ‫במראה‬.106 Meanwhile a Qumran manuscript, 4QLev-Numa, which preserves parts of Num 12:8, adds waw conjunctive here: ‫ובמראה‬.107 (Num 12:12 MT) ‫בשרו‬ ‫חצי‬ ‫ויאכל‬ ‫אמו‬ ‫מרחם‬ ‫בצאתו‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫כמת‬ ‫תהי‬ ‫נא‬ ‫אל‬ Concerning v. 12, the BHS apparatus suggests that the third person masc. sg. suffix connected with “his mother” (‫ אמו‬apparently refers to the mother of the fetus) and “his flesh” (‫בשרו‬, referring to the half consumed flesh of the fetus) preserved in the MT is a scribal correction (tiqqun soferim). This verse was corrected according to the Masorah from earlier readings that preserved first person plural forms “our mother” (‫ )אמנו‬and “our flesh” (‫ )בשרנו‬which were considered Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1993), 220; Seebass, Numeri, 60. Contra David Noel Freedman, “The Aaronic Benediction (Num 6:24–26),” in No Famine in the Land: Studies in honor of J. L. McKenzie (ed. John W. Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), 35–48, 42–44, who thinks that no emendation is necessary and translates “if there is among you a prophet of Yahweh” (following VL and Vg.) and Levine, Numbers 1–20, 329–330, who thinks that the suffixed noun ‫נביאכם‬ could be an anticipatory genitive and translated “if there should be a prophet of yours, [who is] of the Lord”; Similarly S. David Sperling, “Miriam, Aaron and Moses: Sibling Rivalry,” HUCA 70 (2000): 39–55. 105 See the discussion in n. 104 and in particular Freedman, “The Aaronic Benediction (Num 6:24–26),” 42–44, who is willing to ignore the interrupted construct chain because this is poetry, and comes back to the same translation offered by VL and Vg. (“si quis fuerit inter vos propheta Domini”); Rapp, Mirjam, 37. 106 Dillmann, Numeri, 66, points out that this reading creates a parallelism with the term ‫בחידות‬. This reading is also reconstructed in 4QNumb. See Jastram “4QNumb,” 216. 107 Dillmann, Numeri, 66, argues that the reading of the LXX, the Syr. and the Pentateuch Tg. is earlier than the MT. Meanwhile, the reading of the SP ‫בממראה‬ in the edition of August Freiherr von Gall, Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner, IV. Teil: Numeri (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1914), 295, is a mistake. The text of the SP agrees with the MT.

72

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

irreverent towards Moses.108  The earlier version located both Moses and Aaron in the text by referring to the family relation (i. e., “our mother”). In the present form the text distances Miriam’s punishment from them. The LXX adds the third person sg. fem. to the term flesh: τῶν σαρκῶν αὐτῆς.109 (Num 12:13 MT) ‫לה‬ ‫נא‬ ‫רפא‬ ‫נא‬ ‫אל‬ ‫למאר‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫אל‬ ‫משה‬ ‫ויצעק‬ The term ‫ אל‬that appears in v. 13 can indicate two different things depending on the vocalization: the name of God (’el) or negation, i. e., “do not” (’al). While the MT preserves a reading in favor of “God,” the negation “do not” fits in this context better. In this case the sentence reads: “Please don’t! Please heal her!” The name of God, ‫אל‬, does not appear anywhere else in Num 12. God is called ‫ יהוה‬throughout this passage.110 The different textual witnesses to Num 12 do not differ drastically. The text was fairly well settled by the time from which our manuscript evidence derives. The earliest preserved witness to Num 12 is 4QLev-Numa, which goes back to the second century B.C.E.111 4QNumb is a little younger, as the text is dated roughly to the beginning of our era.112 These texts, together with other witnesses, demonstrate that most of the disparities of Num 12 are small clarifications for the content of the text. As we have seen, most of the differing readings appear in Num 12:6, whereas Num 12:12 contains an ideological polishing concerning the figures of Moses and Aaron.

2.3.3 Vocabulary Analysis Numbers 12:1 attests to Moses’s marriage to  a Cushite woman (‫)האשה הכשית‬. The reference to “a Cushite woman” is one of the most noteworthy terms of this passage and it needs clarification especially because in Exod, Moses is married to Zipporah (Exod 2:18–20; 4:26) who is of Midianite origin (Exod 2:21). As Moses’s wife is said to be of two different origins, Midianite and Cushite, many scholars 108 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 66. For the interpretation of this verse, see Alan Cooper, “The ‘Euphemism’ in Numbers 12:12: A Study in the History of Interpretation,” JJS 32 (1981): 53–64. Cooper argues that the problems of this verse cannot be solved by source criticism. 109 “It devours half her flesh” (Num 12:12). Trans. Peter W. Flint, in New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). Electronic online edition: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ 110 Dillmann, Numeri, 66; Baetsch, Numeri, 514; Levine, Numbers 1–20, 333, argues similarly: “The Masoretic pointing was probably inspired by the context because Moses was addressing God. In biblical Hebrew, ‫ נא‬never directly follows a noun. The suggested reading follows logically from the previous verse: let her not be.” The name ‫ אל‬appears rarely in Num: Num 16:22; 24:4, 16, 23. 111 Eugene Ulrich, “4QLev-Numa,” in Qumran Cave 4, VII: Genesis to Numbers, 153–176, 154. 112 Jastram, “4QNumb,” 211.

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

73

have assumed that the texts refer to one figure, i. e., that Zipporah and the Cushite woman are the same figure.113 Meanwhile, others argue, on the basis of the narrative of the Pentateuch, geography and ethnicity (i. e., that Cush and Midian cannot be easily mixed), that Moses married Zipporah and the Cushite woman separately.114 I am inclined to follow those voices. On my view both the land of Cush and the people “Cushites” are well known enough in the Hebrew Bible that it is hard to think they would be confused with the area of Midian and M ­ idianites.115 In contrast, the two places sometimes appear together in passages that deal with different peoples and areas, but as they refer to different geographical locations, it is rare that one would fail to differentiate them. Therefore on my view the Zipporah and the Cushite wife traditions should be initially seen as separate traditions concerning Moses’s wife. What connects these traditions is that both of them attest to Moses being married to a foreign woman.116 113 Various Jewish texts from Late Antiquity apply midrashic techniques to identify the Cushite wife as Zipporah, e.g., Philo’s Leg. 2.66–67 and the Tg. Neof. 1 and Tg. Ps.-J. on Numbers. Similarly some modern scholars, e.g., Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 204, identifies the Cushite wife with Zipporah; Wacker, “Mirjam,” 49; Fischer, “The Authority of Miriam,” 162–164; Rapp, Mirjam, 67–68; Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 345–346, n. 23. 114 Dillmann, Numeri, 64, suggests that Moses married the Cushite wife after Zipporah’s death. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 328, claims that Moses married the Cushite woman while Zipporah was away. Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 82, argues that Zipporah was sent away permanently. According to Exod 18:23 Zipporah was sent away but joined Moses later together with her father Jethro. Furthermore, Keil, Numeri 231–232, and Baentsch, Numeri, 512, point out the difficulties in identifying the geographical areas of Midian and Cush. Seebass, Numeri, 62 argues on an ethnic basis (Gen 25:2) that the Midianites and the Cushites could not be confused with one another. 115 The terms Cush (‫ )כוש‬and Cushite (‫ )כושי‬appear a number of times in the Hebrew Bible. An etymological explanation for this term is given in Gen 10:5–7, which lists the sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. Hence, the term derives from a name. The land of Cush is referred to in several passages (e.g., Gen 2:13; Esth 1:1). Meanwhile, the term “Cushite” (‫כושית‬, ‫ )כושי‬refers to the Cushites as people (ethnicity, color of skin). It appears, e.g., in 2 Sam 18:32; Jer 38:7, 10; 2 Chr 12:3; Amos 9:7; Zeph 2:12. These appearances suggest that individual Cushites moved outside their own country and were known in foreign lands. Various references to Cush and Cushites demonstrate that this area was known for many centuries. Its people were distinguished from other populations presumably primarily by their skin color. Cf. Jer 13:23: ‫היהפך כושי עורו ונמר חברברתיו גם אתם תוכלו להיטיב למדי הרע‬. For a complex study on Cush, see Necia Desiree Harkless, Nubian Pharaohs and Meroitic Kings: The Kingdom of Kush (Bloomington, Ind.: Author House, 2006). 116 Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 168–169, has suggested that perhaps these variants do not attest to different traditions of Moses’s marriages. Rather they could be viewed as independent versions of the same story, i. e., that Moses had  a foreign wife. For the various traditions concerning Moses’s marriages, see Tessa Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature,” JJS 29 (1978): 111–122, 117–122; Donna Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” JSJ 14 (1983): 135–56, 144–148; Karen Winslow, Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives: Exogamist Marriage and Ethnic Identity (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity; Lewiston, N. Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005), 1–89.

74

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

This brings us to the significant remark concerning Num 12:1. It is of interest that the Cushite wife is mentioned in the first place. Often ancient Jewish literature displays uneasiness regarding foreign marriage. The earliest mentions of polemics concerning foreign wives appear in Deut, e.g., Deut 7:1–6, but the question becomes particularly acute in later post-exilic texts such as Ezra and Neh that totally prohibit mixed marriages and urge men who have taken foreign wives during the exile to send them back.117 These passages reflect the debate concerning intermarriage, and in this light it is somewhat surprising that the Pentateuch preserves references to Moses’s own marriage to  a foreign woman (or women, if Zipporah and the Cushite wife are understood to be separate traditions). Importantly, one cannot read any open criticism in Num 12:1, i. e., anything that would make it evident to the audience that the author of the passage did not approve of Moses’s marriage to a foreign woman. This leads us to think that this passage may have been composed earlier than the views reflected in the texts prohibiting foreign marriage.118 Otherwise Num 12:1 may originate in  a context where the disapproving opinions concerning foreign wives did not influence it. Some postexilic texts, e.g., the book of Ruth, reflect an accommodating attitude towards mixed marriages. The ensuing conversation is said to take place in the tent of meeting (‫אהל‬ ‫)מועד‬. This term appearing in Num 12:4 is one that is found throughout the Pentateuch, in particular in narratives concerning the wilderness period.119 The tent of meeting is located outside the Israelites’ camp and one has to “go out” (‫ )יצא‬in order to go there. The tent of meeting appears most often in passages that deal with Moses’s meetings with God, or in the texts that elaborate the tasks and 117 Regarding intermarriage in post-exilic Judaism, see Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judean Community,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple Community of the Persian Period (ed. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards; JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 243–265; Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92 (1999): 3–36. Hayes argues that the reason for prohibiting intermarriage was the ritual impurity of the foreign spouse; Armin Lange, “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls,” BN 137 (2008): 17–39, sees intermarriage as  a religious problem for the ancient Jewish communities. Marrying foreign spouses could lead the people of the community to venerate foreign gods, too. 118 Cf. George Buchanan Gray, Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965), 121–122, who reads this differently. He argues that Num 12:1 addresses the question of foreign marriage. He claims that because foreign marriage was a problem only in later Judaism, Num 12:1 should be dated much later than the main narrative of ch. 12.  119 Exod 29:10, 30, 44; 30:16, 26; 31:7; 33:7; Num 2:17; 3:8, 25; 4:25, 30; 7:89; 8:15, 24; 11:16; 17:8, 23; 18:4; 19:4. Also Lev 1:1. For literature, see Richard J. Clifford, “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting,” CBQ 33 (1971): 221–227; Alan M. Cooper and Bernard R. Goldstein, “At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical Narrative,” JBL 116 (1997): 201–215; K. Koch, “‫עמוד‬,” ThWAT 5: 744–750.

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

75

duties of the Levites. Moreover, the tent appears in several chapters of Lev that concern the cult (chs. 3, 4, 6, 8), yet the more relevant function of the tent for the present passage is that it serves as a site of occasional theophany.120 The less frequent references to the tent in the book of Joshua (Josh 18:1; 19:51) support the view that it is particularly linked to the Moses traditions and the time spent in the wilderness. The expression in Num 12:5 that God appears in a pillar of cloud (‫)בעמוד ענן‬ appears to be an attempt to avoid an anthropomorphic depiction of God. As the Divine comes down and talks with Miriam and Aaron, one could imagine that God was also seen.121 Therefore, the appearance in the cloud clarifies that this was not the case. The term pillar of cloud is widespread in the Pentateuch.122 This type of description of God, which avoids an anthropomorphic depiction, is in contrast to passages where God appears as a human (e.g., to Abraham in Gen). In comparison with the passages that depict God in human form, the passages that avoid anthropomorphisms are argued to be later.123 Numbers 12:6 claims that God speaks with prophets in dreams (‫במראה אליו‬ ‫)אתודע בחלום אדבר בו‬. Speaking in dreams is a prominent feature in the Hebrew Bible, and a theme far too broad to be tackled appropriately here.124 Thus, let me focus on how dreams appear in the Pentateuch narratives. In the Gen narratives, the prominent male figures receive divine messages while sleeping (Gen 15:1, 12; 28:12–13; 41:16). Notably, these dreams are not limited to the heads of the families. For instance, Joseph has divine dreams too. First he dreams them as a young boy and later he functions as a dream interpreter.125 Hence, even if dreaming was considered a normal function of a prophet, whose function was to receive and transmit the divine will, other people who were in contact with God could have

120 See Cooper and Goldstein, “At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical Narrative,” 201–215. 121 Numbers 11:24–25 also refers to God coming in a cloud and uses the verb “to come down” (‫)ירד‬. From the perspective of both terminology and content, this verse presents an idea similar to Num 11:14–17, 24b–30, where the topic of leadership is also discussed. Numbers 11 confirms that the tent of meeting is situated outside the Israelite camp and one has to “go out” to it. In Num 11–12 God comes down in a pillar of cloud to speak within the tent. 122 E.g., Exod 13:22; 14:19; 33:9–10; Num 11:16–17, 25; 14:14; Deut 31:15. See D. N. Freedman and W. E. Willoughby, “‫ענן‬,” ThWAT 6:270–275. 123 William Johnstone, “Pillar of Cloud and Fire,” NIDB 4:530; Theodore J. Lewis, “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel,” JAOS 118 (1998): 36–53, 52–53. 124 Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich, Der Traum im Altem Testament (BZAW 73; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1953), 125–150. The founding work in this field is A. Leo Oppenheim’s The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956). See also, M. Ottoson, “‫חלום‬,” ThWAT 3: 991–998. 125 For the interpretation of the patriarch dreams, see Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), e.g., 219–224.

76

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

divine dreams as well. These dreams qualified them as somehow selected people who communicated with God. The divine dreams of Gen are notably revealed only to the male members of the families. Although the Pentateuch rarely attests to the divine plans revealed to women, it does sometimes happen. An angel appears to Hagar in Gen 16:7–12 while she is escaping and reveals to her the future of her child and his relevance in the divine plan. In Gen 25:23 God tells Rebekah that she will give birth to contending twins. The means of communication is not explained. The passage simply states that Rebekah inquired of God. While these narrations can be interpreted as divine communication with women, it is true that they do not contain the particular features of the dreams that are connected to the patriarchs.126 The main point of this passage that contrasts dreaming, as an instrument of the prophets to communicate with God, and Moses’s prophecy seems to be to emphasize that Moses had direct contact with God. In other words, whereas dreaming was considered a normal function of a prophet, Moses had a special role as God’s spokesman without any intermediaries in Num 12:6–8.127 To some extent the description of Miriam’s tsara’at in Num 12 links with the priestly procedures set forth in Lev 13–14 (see 2.2.3). First the illness is diagnosed (Num 12:10). Then an act of atonement where Moses is the mediator, i. e., the priest, takes place (Num 12:13). Finally Miriam is shut outside the camp for seven days (Num 12:15). Note that seven days was the standard length of confinement according the priestly legislation (cf. Lev 13:4, 26). At the end of the passage we read that the Israelites did not move before Miriam was brought back. This hints that she returned to the camp only upon her recovery from tsara’at and when she was declared clean.128 A sentence that remains somewhat obscure in this passage appears in Num 12:14, which refers to “her father spitting in her face” (‫)ואביה ירק ירק בפניה‬. The third person fem. sg. suffixes on “her father” and “her face” must refer to the figure of Miriam. Earlier it was pointed out that in some narratives tsara’at 126 See the discussion concerning female prophecy in 2.1.6. See further Ackerman, “Why Is Miriam Also among the Prophets,” 47–50. I will return to Miriam’s dreaming in 3.1.2 and 4.2 127 Rapp, Mirjam, 90–98. Note that sometimes derams and visions are associated with false prophecy. E.g., Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 54, points out that in Jer 23 dreams and visions are equated with false prophecy. However I do not think that false prophecy is an important theme for Num 12. The passage rather addresses prophecy in general vs. Moses as the prophet who speaks with God directly. 128 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 75. Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 203, makes a tentative speculation that if there are connotations of blackness in “Cushite” (Num 12:1 cf. Jer 13:23), then this would be an ironic punishment (i. e., Miriam becoming “white” because of the tsara’at). Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 83–84 thinks there are difficulties in reading Miriam’s whiteness as “a sort of poetic justice for her racist objection to the marriage by being turned white for speaking against a presumed interracial marriage” (i. e., the assumption of racism behind the text).

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

77

is understood as a punishment.129 Spitting (‫ )ירק‬can also indicate a punishment because it was understood as a sign of shame. Saliva itself was not considered a source of uncleanness. Yet people thought that it could transmit already existing (fluidic) uncleanness such as menstrual blood or semen (Lev 15:8).130 As a contamination of impurity could not happen concretely, it is best understood in an abstract way as becoming unclean in general.131 Other passages make a closer connection between spit and shame: Deut 25:8–10, which deals with levirate marriage, says that a man who refuses to marry his brother’s widow can have his face spat on as a sign of public humiliation. Hence, he receives a public mark of guilt in front of his community. Shame is also reflected in the book of Job where the main character describes his situation, saying that people spit in his face (Job 17:6; 30:10).132 In light of these examples, Miriam’s expulsion (Num 12:15) should be understood to be a consequence of her tsara’at. It was a regular procedure to shut the contagious person outside the community (Lev 14:2).133 Numbers 12:14 increases the punishment. Probably if her face was spat on, that would indicate she was punished. Yet this would not normally lead to being shut out of the community. Nevertheless, the mention of “her father” (‫ )אביה‬in Num 12:14 needs clarification. The father figure does not appear elsewhere in the story. Nor does the Hebrew Bible narrate any event where Miriam was punished by her father. One possibility is that perhaps the significance of spitting in the face was particularly strong if a close family member did it. If Miriam’s father spat in her face she would be despised even in the eyes of her own family. Fathers were in control of the upbringing and education of their daughters. Some ancient texts also encourage fathers to look after their daughters in order for them not to bring shame 129 See 2.2 and for a more comprehensive treatment of this theme, Baden and Moss, “The Origin and Interpretation of sāra’at in Leviticus 13–14,” 643–662. 130 See also the description by Josephus regarding spitting in the community (B. J. 2.147) and the DSS where spitting is prohibited during meetings (1QS VI, 13; 4Q306 1 4). As such it is not prohibited. Prohibitions were apparently aimed at respecting other people. These references are clearly later than Num 12. Nonetheless, due to lack of more contemporary references they can shed some light on how spitting was interpreted in ancient Judaism. 131 Erbele-Küster, Körper und Geschlecht: Studien zur Anthropologie von Leviticus 12 und 15, 115–134. Sperling, “Miriam, Aaron and Moses: Sibling Rivalry,” 45 n. 40, suggests that whether spittle was positive or negative depended on the intent of the spitter. 132 Isa 50:6 describes the Lord’s suffering servant as one who submits himself to all sorts of dishonor and punishment by accepting being mocked and having his face spat on. In this case the acceptance of receiving such bad treatment serves to build an image of a humble person who submits himself to any torture, i. e., punishment. 133 Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 819, who thinks Miriam is not treated as a contagious person in Num 12:14, but rather he sees her treatment being similar to that of a corpse. In the Priestly impurity system tsara’at is close to death. Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 819) connects this notion with Num 12:12 where Aaron refers to Miriam as “like a corpse.” Also, Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 348 deals with tsara’at as some type of punishment.

78

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

on the family.134 Probably fathers were then equally responsible for the eventual punishment of their daughters. It has also been suggested that the punishment in this context is an allusion to a punishment of a girl who was found guilty in some shameful way.135 This practice is difficult to prove. Hence, it is sufficient to say that impurity prevented the punished person from participating in the cult. The person was shut outside the community. What we can conclude regarding tsara’at is that its purpose, together with the reference to spitting in this context, might have been to portray the figure of Miriam in a negative light in Num 12.  This vocabulary analysis reveals that the vocabulary that Num 12 employs varies. It contains terms and ideas that cannot derive from the same context. At least historically the ideas reflected in the vocabulary point to different eras. Moses’s Cushite wife indicates  a time when intermarriage, in particular Moses’s own, was perhaps not viewed negatively, or at least it was not considered a theme that could not be incorporated into literature (cf. later ancient Jewish texts that I will address below). This may go back to the pre-exilic period. Meanwhile, the idea of God appearing in a pillar of cloud as an instrument to avoid anthropomorphic description and, in particular, the treatment of tsara’at date to later periods. In light of these examples of the varying vocabulary, we can conclude that Num 12 does not embrace just one topic. Rather, it seems that this text is a combination of different themes: Moses’s marriage, the prophets’ communication with God and dealing with tsara’at are all brought together in Num 12. 

2.3.4 Stylistic Analysis In view of the evident terminological and thematic disparity that Num 12 reflects, its literary style and coherence should also be considered. Several scholars have argued that Num 12:1–15 is not sound stylistically.136 Attention has been given 134 For references in ancient texts, see Sir 7:24; 42:9–11. For discussion, Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 48–50. Bernard P. Robinson, “The Jealousy of Miriam: A Note on Num 12,” ZAW 101 (1989): 428–432, 431 n. 7, refers to situations where women were punished by their family members. This may have been a usual procedure. 135 Noth, Numbers, 97. Noth refers to Deut 25:9 in this context. As this passage refers to an unaccomplished levirate marriage and in particular to a man who refuses to marry the widow of his brother, it does not provide much further light on our situation. 136 Scholars have argued this from the 19th century onwards. See e.g., Dillmann, Numeri, 63–64; Baentsch, Numeri, 510–511; Paul Heinisch, Das Buch Numeri (HSAT II/1; Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936), 53–54; Noth, Numbers, 95; Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 51–61; Seebass, Numeri, 61; Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 349. Cf. Budd, Numbers, 133, who finds evidence to argue against the literary disunity. Knierim and Coats, Numbers, 181, likewise treat the passage as a literary unit. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 328–333, 338–343, makes only a few source critical remarks. Therefore, while his position is not explicit, he seems to assume that the passage derived mostly from one source. Rapp, Mirjam, 133–137, also argues for a literary unity. Gafney, Daughters of Miriam,

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

79

particularly to Num 12:6–8, which stands out from the surrounding context. In contrast to other direct quotations of Num 12:1–15 (vv. 12:2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14), which contain mostly one, sometimes two sentences, 12:6–8 preserves a longer speech. This address belongs in its present context to God.137 Moreover, apart from addressing Moses, Aaron and Miriam in 12:4 and getting angry with “them” in 12:9,138 nothing connects 12:6–8 directly with their present context. Rather, several features of this passage differ from the rest of the material. First, the introductory formula “hear my words” (‫ )שמעו נא דברי‬of Num 12:6 stands out in this context. As God has already spoken in Num 12:4, it is peculiar that the listeners are addressed only here. Moreover, the speech of vv. 6–8 is directed to Aaron and Miriam. Yet they are not mentioned in it. Moreover, these verses do not continue the prose narrative that is predominant in the previous verses. Rather, God’s address is written in a poetic style. The elevated style and the proposed poetic structure of the passage characterize it, and it is difficult to link these verses with the surrounding prose material.139 They have been argued to derive from a separate source.140

2.3.5 Literary Criticism Apart from the remarks that set vv. 6–8 aside from the rest of Num 12, the passage also contains other inconsistencies. The verses Num 12:1 and 12:2 that refer to Miriam and Aaron together differ from each other in theme: Num 12:1 addresses Moses’s marriage to a Cushite woman, whereas in Num 12:2 Aaron and Miriam challenge Moses’s exclusive leadership. Therefore, it seems likely that these two verses attest to two separate incidents. Their disunity is supported by variations 81, reads the section as  a literary unit, though she claims that it is heavily redacted. These references demonstrate that scholars do not hold a common idea of how this literary section came into existence. The literature concerning this section is so immense that I cannot take it all into consideration in my discussion. Hence in what follows my main purpose is to highlight the Miriam theories of this highly debated section. 137 This is discussed in 2.3.2. 138 I. e., ‫ — בם‬the personal names are not present in this sentence. Furthermore it has been suggested that this pronoun belongs to a later redaction. I will discuss this more in detail in 2.3.5. 139 Heinisch, Numeri, 54; Ehrlich, Der Traum im Alten Testament, 137; Noth, Numbers, 95; Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 52; Lothar Perlitt, “Mose als Prophet,” EvT 31 (1971): 588–608; repr. in idem, Deuteronomium-Studien (FAT 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 1–19, 6; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 203–204. 140 Perlitt, Mose, 6–8, identifies Num 12:6–8 with Dtr language. Several scholars find characteristics of Canaanite and early Hebrew poetry in Num 12:6–8 and date it early. William F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (London: Athlone Press, 1968), 1–46, 37–38, thinks it is an archaic poem preserved by J. Similarly Kselman, “A note on Numbers 12:6–8,” 504. For discussion concerning the early date of this passage, see also Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 234; Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 52–53. I will return to this in 2.3.7.

80

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

in the grammatical forms. Numbers 12:1 refers to the figures in the third person sg. fem. while Num 12:2 uses the third person pl. masc. If Num 12:1–2 had been composed as a unit, i. e., written at the same time by the same person, one would expect the same grammatical form to appear throughout the passage. As it does not, and the grammatical form in vv. 12:1–2 changes, it is logical to think that the two verses were not composed as a unit.141 In section 2.3.2 I suggested that on the basis of the grammar of Num 12:1 and the surrounding literary context it is possible that Miriam was thought to take a lead in the dispute. Moreover, it is of interest that Miriam does not carry any epithet in Num 12.  Whereas in Exod 15:20 she is introduced notably as  a prophetess and Aaron’s sister, these titles do not appear in Num 12. The lack of an epithet is even more striking when it is considered how often Miriam and Aaron are presented together in Num 12: vv. 1–2, 5, 10. Moreover, in v. 4 they appear together with Moses. Therefore at the beginning of the passage (12:1, when the characters are introduced for the first time)  Miriam could have been referred to as “the sister of Aaron,” as the female figures were often referred to via their close male relatives (see 2.1.6, 2.1.7). Alternatively, if the figure of Aaron was emphasized in Num 12:1, his name could have appeared first. As neither of these possibilities occur, on my view it is another sign that the dispute of Num 12:1 was thought to belong primarily with Miriam.142 The end of Num 12 strengthens this view. Remarkably the punishment that takes place in vv. 10–15 concerns only Miriam. On these bases it seems to me that the name of Aaron in Num 12:1 is a later addition to the verse that narrated Miriam challenging Moses.143 I will come to the motivation behind this addition in a moment. Meanwhile, let us now turn to Num 12:2. As mentioned above, the reason for the confrontation in Num 12:2 is the question voiced by Miriam and Aaron, namely whether God spoke only through Moses. Significantly, the names of the figures do not appear in v. 2. Hence none of the characters is taking a lead in this question (cf. 12:1, where Miriam seems to act as the forerunner). The presence 141 Contra Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 94, who views the criticism of the Cushite wife as a pretext employed by Miriam and Aaron in order to challenge the prophetic priority of Moses. Fischer, “The Authority of Miriam,” 159–173, reads the passage as a textual unity, arguing that the question of prophecy was closely connected with the question of foreign wives in the (Persian) context where this tradition emerged. Most recently, Karen Strand Winslow, “For Moses had Indeed Married  a Cushite Woman: The LORD’s Prophet Married Well,” lectio difficilior 1 (2011): 1–18, has read verses 12:1–2 as a literary unit. 142 Noth, Numbers, 93; Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 68; Seebass, Numeri, 58; Armin Lange, Vom prophetischen Wort zur prophetischen Tradition: Studien zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte innerprophetischer Konflikte in der Hebräischen Bibel (FAT 34; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 176; Fischer, “The Authority of Miriam,” 162, also assigns the speech to Miriam, whereas Aaron is simply mentioned alongside her. 143 Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 269.

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

81

of both Aaron and Miriam in this sentence is indicated by the verb form third person pl. masc. (‫)ויאמרו‬. As this question does not follow any evident challenge addressed to them, it (Num 12:2) seems to me a rhetorical one. It sounds as if both Aaron and Miriam’s own position before God was somehow contested or questioned. Moreover, Moses does not stand up to challenge Miriam and Aaron for their query.144 Therefore the conflict is not actually between Moses and Miriam and Aaron, but with God and the latter two.145 Speaking with God is a prominent theme that is further elaborated in the rest of Num 12. The passage provides contradicting views on the Divine in general and God’s communication with Miriam, Moses and Aaron in particular. On the one hand, God tells Miriam, Aaron and Moses to go to the tent of meeting (Num 12:4), where God appears in a pillar of cloud to talk with them (Num 12:5). On the other hand, while speaking to Miriam and Aaron, God explains that only Moses can enter into direct communication with the Divine, whereas prophets receive divine information in dreams. This declaration is surprising in a context where Aaron and Miriam are indeed directly addressed! It supports the point made earlier that it is unlikely that the speech was originally addressed to them.146 After the speech God leaves (v. 9). Finally, the picture concerning communication with the Divine becomes even more perplexing when we consider that Moses speaks with God only after God (i. e., the cloud) has left (vv. 13–14). Evidently the passages concerning speaking in the tent of meeting and the communication with Moses initially belonged to different traditions. The rest of Num 12 contains more problems of literary consistency. Numbers 12:9 highlights that God became angry with both Miriam and Aaron (“them” ‫)בם‬. Despite this, God punishes only Miriam, whereas Aaron remains unharmed. 144 Rapp, Mirjam, 39, suggests this is because Moses is not present in the situation and thus does not hear the query. 145 Many scholars locate this narrative within the vast tradition of murmuring stories (e. g., Num 11) that contribute to the difficulties that the Israelites encountered in the wilder­ ness. See e.g., Noth, Numbers, 93; Levine, Numbers 1–20, 338–343; Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 343–345. Cf. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, 261, who does not allocate Num 12:1–15 to the traditions of the murmuring motif. Hence he deals with this passage only in an appendix to his work. Despite this, Coats accepts that the conflict is between Miriam, Aaron and God (p. 39–40). Simon J. de Vries, “The Origin of the Murmuring Tradition,” JBL 87 (1968): 51–58, 52, similarly thinks that rather than the murmuring motif, Num 12 mirrors a struggle for leadership of a limited group of people. 146 See the previous section 2.3.4 where some stylistic observations concerning why it is likely that Num 12:6–8 were composed separately from the rest of Num 12 are made. Cf. Fischer, “The Authority of Miriam,” 168, who maintains that Miriam and Aaron “participate in an epiphany of God in the tent of revelation (vv. 4b, 5), but not in the direct talk of God with Moses (vv. 7–8).” Fischer further argues that the removal of the cloud denotes and allows the direct communication with Moses. Rapp, Mirjam, 90, distinguishes a shift of addressee in this passage. She argues that whereas v. 6 is directed to Miriam and Aaron (the verse is in the second person pl. masc.), the rest of the passage focuses on Moses.

82

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

This suggests that the pronoun “them” (‫ )בם‬belongs to a later redaction when Aaron was added into the storyline.147 Meanwhile, Aaron’s presence is apparent in Num 12:10–11 where Aaron turns to Moses for Miriam’s sake and asks him to forgive them for their sin. The first person pl. that appears in this verse indicates that Aaron himself took part in the conflict (‫בי אדני אל נא תשת עלינו חטאת אשר נואלנו‬ ‫)ואשר חטאנו‬.148 Hence, while a direct bridge between vv. 2, where Aaron and Miriam question Moses’s authority, and vv. 10–15 cannot be built, in the present composition the verses appear to be connected. The contents of Num 12:9–15 differ notably from the contents of Num 12:1–8. The theme of prophecy is not referred to explicitly in the latter part of the com­ position. Rather the focus of vv. 9–15 seems to be on Moses’s communication with both Aaron and God and the measures to heal Miriam that seemingly follow those set in Lev 13–14. Moses’s communication with God can somewhat explain how vv. 10–15 connect with the previous contents (i. e., the verses that deal with prophecy). The tradition concerning Miriam’s healing further demonstrates Moses’s unique position. Moses addresses God directly and on his request Miriam recovers. These verses could have been integrated with the dispute regarding Moses’s role because they seem to confirm what is said about Moses’s communication with the Divine. Moses, unlike other prophets, spoke with God directly.149 The role of Aaron in 12:2–15 sheds some light on his role in 12:1. He is present in the dispute concerning prophecy (Num 12:2, 4–8). At the end of the passage that deals more closely with Miriam’s punishment his function is to bid Moses to turn to God (Num 12:11–12). He does not appear in the passage otherwise. As he was present in the tradition concerning the consequences of challenging Moses (where he is surprisingly not punished but acts as a mediator for Miriam), this may have been a reason why Aaron’s name was added in Num 12:1. The purpose of the later addition was to affirm Aaron’s presence in the discussion from its beginning.150 This indicates that the passage went through a process of redaction. 147 Noth, Numbers, 82; Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 72; Seebass, Numeri, 60–61. 148 Rapp, Mirjam, 181. 149 Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 271. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 78, agrees it was the common theme of challenging Moses that made the two traditions merge. Nonetheless, her views differ slightly from mine: she claims that the tradition of 12:1, 10–15 is the earlier one that was later combined with the tradition concerning prophecy. Rapp, Mirjam, 143, thinks that the whole passage went through  a redaction that concerned prophecy. Hence, it is difficult to separate the earlier and later strata concerning it. 150 Cf. Holzinger, Numeri, 46, who suggests that the text read originally: “Miriam Aaron’s sister” ‫אחות אהרן‬, and only later did Aaron appear as a confederate in the argument. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, 262–264, thinks that Aaron may have been incorporated in this narration at a later stage when the rivalries between the Levites and the Aaronic priesthood took place. Cf. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 72–73 and Rapp, Mirjam, 142–143, who claim that vv. 1 and (9)10–15 belong to the same stratum of the text.

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

83

As  a result it is difficult to distinguish the sources behind the text.151 In what follows, therefore, I will continue to analyze the figure of Miriam on the basis of different traditions behind Num 12, considering Miriam’s role in them.

2.3.6 Miriam in Numbers 12:1–15 In the previous section (2.3.5) I concluded that the name of Aaron should be considered a later addition to Num 12:1. Consequently, the core of the conflict involved Miriam’s criticism of Moses for his Cushite wife. As pointed out above, the reason for the criticism is disputed.152 Given the brevity of the passage it is difficult to get a sense of the original reason for it. Rather, what can be gathered from Num 12:1 is that the question that the figure of Miriam asks in Num 12:1 regarding Moses’s wife is very personal.153 Miriam was a known as a character who could make such inquiries. She could address Moses’s personal matters. This remark indicates that already the earliest layer of Num 12 connected the two characters to one another at some level. Whether this is an implied kinship relation is not evident in the preserved text. The rest of Num 12, however, may add to the question of their relationship. Significantly, in Num 12:11 Aaron turns to Moses and ask him to forgive him and Miriam for their sin. The first person plural used throughout indicates that Aaron and Miriam acted together (“Oh, my lord, do not punish us for a sin that 151 This is reflected by various studies that do not separate the various sources from one another. See n. 136. 152 Here I assume that the correct translation of ‫ דבר ב‬of v.1 is to speak against (see the discussion in 2.3.2). This criticism has been interpreted differently. Rabbinic midrashim (e.g., Sifre Numeri 99, Exod. Rab. 1.13) claim that it was because, since God spoke with him, Moses had given up marital life, and Miriam criticized him for that. Fischer, “Authority of Miriam,” 166, assumes the conflict is about Moses sending Zipporah back to her father’s house (Exod 18:2), i. e., divorcing her. Naomi Graetz, “Miriam: Guilty Or Not Guilty,” Judaism 40 (1991): 184–192, esp. 185, thinks that Miriam was punished because women in ancient Jewish society were not supposed to act as leaders to men, and Miriam taking the initiative of criticizing Moses insisted on her own rights. Rapp, Mirjam, 187–193, reads here the criticism of mixed marriage that was prominent in the Persian era. Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 82, suggests that the motive behind the dispute was Miriam criticizing Moses for his second wife. The later chs. (3–4) of this study will demonstrate that this was a topic of interest already in antiquity. Various ancient texts addressed this matter. Those chapters will equally demonstrate that the later references to Num 12:1 interpreted the conflict in a different light and that many commentaries neglected it because it was viewed as shameful. Those investigations will bring further evidence for my theory that in Num 12:1 the incident appears as an early conflict between the figures. For references in the ancient texts see Winslow, “For Moses Had Indeed Married a Cushite Woman,” n. 18 and the references quoted there. For a more complex discussion, see eadem, Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives, 169–196, 266–297. 153 Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, 262, calls it “uniquely personal” among the literature of the Hebrew Bible.

84

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

we have so foolishly committed”). The first person plural indicates that the two characters confronted Moses together. Therefore, similarly to Moses and Miriam who were somehow connected, apparently Miriam and Aaron were united by some type of a bond. Further, it should be pointed out that the rest of the passage employs familial language. Aaron’s plea to “our mother” and “our flesh” in Num 12:12, 14 that are now absent in the text point clearly to a kinship between him and Moses. The change to “his mother” and “his flesh” that now refer to the fetus of v. 12 suggest it is plausible that their kinship was purposely erased from this passage. All in all, it seems to me that the passage suggests that Miriam was considered close to both Moses and Aaron. Yet, due to the lack of strict kinship terminology I am hesitant to call the three “siblings.” I am not sure whether they were understood as two brothers and a sister.154 We can only emphasize that the passage does not include any explicit kinship terminology that would indicate a family relationship between the characters. Meanwhile, Num 12 clearly adds to Miriam’s role as  a prophet. This is particularly stressed in the question that Miriam and Aaron voice in Num 12:2. Significantly, God addresses Miriam in Num 12:4 and 12:6–8. The Divine indeed also speaks directly to Aaron and Miriam. The entire passage of Num 12:2–9, therefore, which addresses the theme of prophecy, should be read as Miriam being involved in the question of prophecy.155 According to Num 12 there was once  a tradition that attested to Miriam questioning Moses’s prophecy. Such  a query was possible and made sense only if she had some authority herself. This notion takes the reader back to the context of the tradition. As Exod 15:20–21 refers to Miriam’s role as  a prophet, Num 12 discusses the period following Exodus. Miriam’s prophetic function was connected with that time. Furthermore, in Num several people are punished for their wrongdoings. Some of them are punished by death, e.g., Korah, Datan and Abiram in Num 16. In their case, death is a result of publicly opposing Moses. Miriam is punished in Num 12, and especially 12:14, which mentions shutting out of the camp, should be understood to emphasize the public shame that Miriam’s punishment had.156 154 Cf. Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 180, who considers them siblings in this passage. Contra, Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 79, who rejects the idea of kinship in Num 12. 155 Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 180, 182; Trible, “Subversive Justice,” 103–106; Seebass, Numeri, 67. Rapp, Mirjam, 117–122, points out that the most active role of Miriam is limited to these verses. Nevertheless, Rapp (Mirjam, 192–193) assigns Miriam  a role as  a prophet. Cf. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 78–79, who thinks that these verses may attest to a larger tradition that contained a clearer account of her prophetic activity. She thinks that as such Num 12 does not add to the reception of Miriam as  a prophet, but that Miriam acts as a representative of a priestly group in this passage. 156 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 72, 79; Ashley, Numbers, 228. See section 2.3.3. The analysis of the terminology reveals that spitting was also regarded as

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

85

Despite being punished vis-à-vis the punishment of the other characters of Num, it is remarkable that Miriam’s opposition to Moses in Num 12:1–2 does not lead to more severe consequences than tsara’at. This point strengthens the hypothesis regarding her prominence. All in all, the three traditions preserved in Num 12 carry important consequences for the reception of this figure. They indicate that Miriam appeared in various traditions that at least the later tradition connected with the wilderness era. While her inquiry concerning the Cushite wife may have been rather personal, the questioning of Moses’s exclusive role as God’s prophet is not  a private matter. Rather it seems to voice the concern of  a larger community.157 People remembered her later as a character that held a prominent office in the tradition. Similarly to Moses and Aaron, who communicated with God, Miriam was rememberd as being in contact with Divine.

2.3.7 Redaction Analysis Numbers 12 deals with three different traditions: Moses’s Cushite wife, prophecy and Miriam’s tsara’at. Previously I argued that it was the theme of prophecy and communication with God that made Num 12:2–9 and 12:10–15 merge (see 2.3.5). The first part explains how Moses’s communication with God differs from that of other prophets, whereas the latter part demonstrates how the two communicated directly. This position becomes particularly clear in v. 8, where Moses is said to talk face to face, i. e., literally “mouth to mouth” with God.158 Moses’s supreme position before God is recognized in various studies concerning Num 12.159 In light of this prominent portrayal of Moses before God in comparison with that of other prophets, Num 12 raises some questions about the role of Moses shameful. Nonetheless, my impression is that spitting is a punishment that was done rather by a family member. See the discussion in 2.3.3. 157 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 79. Fischer, “The Authority of Miriam,” 169 and Rapp, Mirjam, 191–193, suggest that Miriam’s function in this text is to be a representative for  a group that claimed inclusive prophecy in the Persian period in contrast to the group that promoted merely Moses (i. e., exclusive prophecy). They both derive their conclusions from the study of Kessler, “Miriam and the Prophecy of the Persian Period,” 77–86, who interprets the figures of Num 12 as follows: Moses as the representative for the Torahgroup, Aaron for the cult, and Miriam for prophecy. A political conflict is also envisioned by Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 347. 158 Being face to face with God appears elsewhere: Gen 32:30; Exod 33:11; Deut 34:10 (‫פנים‬ ‫אל פנים‬ Num 14:4; Deut 5:4). Of the above-mentioned passages, all except Gen 32:30 and Num 14:4 refer to God and Moses. In other books the expression ‫פה‬ ‫אל‬ ‫פה‬ can equally point to other figures, e.g., Jer 32:4; 34:3. See Perlitt, Mose, 4; Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 271, 273. 159 Most prominently this is done by Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 50, who argues that the whole of ch. 12 focuses on Moses rather than on the figure of Miriam.

86

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

because the figure does not have the same prominence here. Miriam and Aaron talk about Moses (Num 12:2), and God tells the three characters (Moses included) to go to the tent of meeting (Num 12:4). While Aaron and Miriam are addressed in vv. 6–8, Moses remains silent in the background. In the other traditions distinguished in Num 12, the role of Moses does not change drastically, but he remains  a passive character. The dispute concerning the Cushite wife (Num 12:1) is evidently initiated by Miriam, who talks about Moses’s wife with Aaron, who is suggested to be a later insertion here. Moses’s silent response to the accusations in v. 3 has been interpreted in different ways. It has been suggested that silence was an appropriate response to the accusations marking that they remain unresolved.160 On the other hand, it seemingly delays the discussion between God, Aaron and Miriam, and thus it can also be viewed as a later insertion into the narrative.161 What is significant for my study is that the role of Moses remains passive even in this verse that discusses him explicitly. The last tradition of Num 12 in sequence, that concerning Miriam’s tsara’at (vv. 10–15), features Miriam’s illness and its cure. Finally in this part of Num 12 the role of Moses becomes more visible. Most concretely, Moses features in vv. 11–14 when Aaron first addresses him, then Moses speaks to God, and God answers him. At the end of the passage, Num 12:15, the narration turns again to Miriam and her recovery from tsara’at. Moses is not mentioned again. These observations challenge the notion that Moses has the central role in Num 12.162 Given his rather narrow function throughout the passage, it seems questionable whether the Moses figure could have been the primary motif to link these different themes together. Meanwhile, my analysis suggests the figure of Miriam has  a more central function. Miriam is present in all three traditions identified in Num 12. My remarks concerning these traditions claim that ­Miriam’s function in all of them is so vital that it is difficult to imagine that she was added into any of them later on. Rather, she seems to be the subject in them. More explicitly, these traditions seem to be traditions of Miriam. Therefore, it appears to me that rather than the figure of Moses, it was the figure of Miriam that brought the different themes together in Num 12.163 As we have already considered the connection between vv. 2–9 and 10–15 above, let us evaluate how vv. 1–2, which I assign to different sources due to their notable differences, could have merged. What connects these separate verses (and traditions) is that they both attest to Miriam, and to a certain extent also 160 Ibid., 63. 161 Noth, Numbers, 95; Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness, 261. 162 Similarly Rapp, Mirjam, 111–112, who points out that in spite of being assigned the supreme position before God, the character of Moses remains weak throughout Num 12 and less heroic than the figure of Miriam. 163 Ibid.

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

87

Aaron challenging Moses. At some point these traditions were read together, and perhaps they also became intertwined. Later periods could have interpreted them as two reflections of the same dispute.164 Furthermore, a thematic link between a conflict and Miriam’s punishment is sound. Miriam, who first challenged Moses, was then punished. It did not matter that originally the punishment tradition (i. e., Num 12:10–15) was not connected with the earlier disputes (Num 12:1–2). It provided an explanation of how the conflict ended. Miriam was punished. These examples show that it was the figure of Miriam that brought together these individual traditions that evidently originated from different periods but could somehow be linked together. They all deal with Miriam and her function in the wilderness era. It was pointed out that the present arrangement of the text discusses Moses’s prophecy. The text provides an answer to how his position differs from that of the other prophets. While this theme does not appear in all the traditions, it certainly connects the traditions together in the present text. This belongs to  a level of redaction. Scholars have previously suggested that whereas the earliest Moses traditions do not recognize him as  a prophet, the so-called Deuteronomistic (Dtr) editing of the Pentateuch added this feature to his profile.165 This idea matches well with Num 12.  The Dtr editing that emphasized Moses role as  a prophet would explain how such otherwise different traditions, and especially 12:6–8, which do not seem to fit this context, were integrated. Apart from the portrayal of Moses, Miriam’s role as a prophet should be analyzed together with Aaron. It is important that the Pentateuch does not provide a clear-cut image of Aaron. In some Pentateuchal narratives Aaron appears in  a controversy with Moses. He participates in the murmuring in the wilderness (Exod 17–18) and initiates the worship of the Golden calf (Exod 32:1–35). These narratives do not portray Aaron as a supportive brother figure to Moses. In contrast, other narratives develop  a priestly role for him, which assumes communication with God.166 These examples demonstrate that the profile of Aaron was also not fixed in the early texts. 164 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 79. This is a popular model of interpretation in our time too. See n. 141. 165 Various scholars think that the tradition that attests to Moses as the chief prophet should be attributed to the Dtr school and Dtr editing of the Hebrew Bible. Noth, Numbers, 93; Perlitt, “Mose,” 6–8; Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, 155–156; idem, “Early Israelite Prophecy,” INT 32 (1978): 3–16; Sperling, “Miriam, Aaron and Moses: Sibling Rivalry,” 51; Lange, Vom prophetischen Wort zur prophetischen Tradition, 176–181; Christophe Nihan, “Un prophète comme Moïse (Deutéronome 18,15): Genèse et relectures d’une construction Deutéronomiste,” in La construction de la figure de Moïse – The construction of the Figure of Moses (ed. Thomas Römer; Transeuphratène Supp 13; Paris: Gabalda, 2007), 43–76, 75–76. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 271, 273, calls this redactional layer “post-D layer”. 166 Propp, Exodus, 212, 231. See my discussion regarding the lists that develop the kinship in 2.5.

88

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

Due to the marginal P material and extensive redaction it is difficult to date Num 12. It is possible that the three Miriam traditions that are intertwined in Num 12 go well back in history. At least the dispute concerning Moses’s foreign wife (Num 12:1) suggests  a date earlier than the Persian era. Despite the early origins of some of the traditions the passage contains  a later redactional layer that narrowed down Miriam as an independent figure and brought the figure of Moses into the center of the passage. Such  a shift seems to reflect  a later interpretation of Miriam than Exod 15:20–21.167 While it is difficult to estimate the date of the Dtr editing or processes of editing that could have taken place during several centuries, other details of the passage, such as the connection between the three figures and the rules concerning tsara’at, suggest a Persian-era date for the passage.168

2.3.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts Many scholars assume some sort of dependency between Deut 24:9, which reminds the audience “what God did to Miriam,” and Num 12. Because the former passage preserves just one sentence while the latter refers to a more complex literary tradition, many scholars have interpreted Num 12 as the more “original” version of the tradition. On their view, the author of Deut 24:9 knows this literary tradition in some way and makes an explicit reference to it.169 I assume that there is an intertextual relationship between the two passages. Deut 24:8–9 and Num 12:10–15 refer to tsara’at and Miriam in the wilderness context. This is not coincidental. Rather it is easier to envision that they both go

167 Ackerman, “Why Is Miriam Also among the Prophets,” 51–54, 63–80, claims that the period of liminal anti-structure reflected in Exod 15:20–21 comes to an end in Num 12. There Miriam’s claim for prophetic status is received as presumptuous, and she is punished. I do not think that the interpretation of women is so clear-cut that the earlier texts allow them more space and the later ones narrow them down. The more complex picture will be elaborated in the conclusions of this chapter. 168 Several scholars accept this theory. E.g., Levine, Numbers 1–20, 106–108; Thomas Römer, “L’École deutéronomiste et la formation de la Bible hébraïque,” in The Future of The Deuteronomistic History (ed. Thomas Römer; BETL 147; Leuven: University Press, 2001), 179–193, 188–189; Kessler, “Miriam and the Prophecy of the Persian Period,” 77–86; Fischer, “The Authority of Miriam,” 165–166; Rapp, Mirjam, 191–193; Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 278, places his “post-D” layer to the exilic and post-exilic periods. 169 Tigay, Deuteronomy, xxiv, argues that Deut not only used other sources (i. e., the pentateuchal material in this case), but it also expects its audience to know their contents. Here Tigay in particular refers to the sentence “what happened to Miriam.” Several other scholars assume that the writer of Deut 24:9 was aware of the traditions preserved in Num 12, e.g., Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 104; Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy, 215; Rapp, Mirjam, 200.

Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15

89

back to the same or similar tradition. Authors of both traditions are seemingly aware of the story that linked Miriam with tsara’at. Having said that, I am hesitant to make further conclusions concerning the relationship between the two texts. The vagueness of the references (esp. Deut 24:8–9) prevents us from establishing a literary dependency between the two texts.170

2.3.9 Summary Multiple themes and terminology that derive from different eras are indications of the extensive editorial process that brought Num 12 together. On the level of the themes, I have suggested that it was the figure of Miriam that connected the various traditions of Num 12. She appears prominently in all of them and seems to hold the chief function throughout the narrative. Numbers 12 affirms Miriam’s prophetic role of Exod 15:20–21. I do not think there is an intertextual dependency between Exod 15:20 and Num 12:2, 6–8 that witness to Miriam as a prophetess. The people who wrote these texts were familiar with a tradition regarding Miriam as a prophetess, but they refer to it differently. Numbers 12:2, 6–8 stress that Miriam was thought to communicate with the Divine somehow.171 Her communication could happen through divine dreams or visions that are mentioned in Num 12:6. When Miriam was punished for her wrongdoings, the consequences were milder than they were for the other Israelites who stood up to challenge Moses. When Miriam was sent outside the camp, the people did not continue their journey. The fact that Miriam challenges Moses twice is not insignificant. These observations suggest not only that there were various Miriam traditions and Num 12 hints at them only vaguely, but also that in some of these traditions Miriam was a prominent figure who could stand up against Moses. She seems to have held a position that was of interest for a larger community. Miriam, whose reputation is doubted in this passage and who is put in  a questionable light, was known for her connections with Aaron and Moses by the time Num 12 was compiled. Yet due to the light in which she is portrayed in this passage, the nature of the relationship between Miriam, Aaron, and Moses is not clear. This brings a tension to Num 12. Simultaneously with this somewhat 170 Note that intertextuality can be understood in different ways, including designating dependencies between non-literary works. See Allen, Intertextuality, 169–193. Genette’s concept of hypertextuality (see Gérard Genette, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree [trans. Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky; Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press, 1997], introduction) accepts such use. 171 See 2.1.6 where the use of this title is studied in detail; Hanna Tervanotko, “Speaking in Dreams: The Figure of Miriam and Prophecy,” in Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East, 147–168.

90

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

negative depiction of Miriam, there were efforts to bring Miriam into closer literary contact with the figures of Aaron and Moses. This makes me think that the traditions where Miriam appeared as a challenger to Moses are earlier than those where she appears as a family member. Furthermore, Num 12 demonstrates that whereas Miriam was known as  a prophet in the early traditions, later redactions marginalized that role. The later interpretation of Miriam appears to mirror structures that were uneasy with women in prophetic activities. It has been suggested that such an attitude belongs to a later era and hierarchical structures. I think that is too vague a statement. Later analyses of this study will demonstrate that different ideas could coexist.

2.4 Miriam’s Death and Burial: Numbers 20:1 2.4.1 Introduction Numbers 20:1 attests to the death of Miriam.172 Like the other characters that belong to the first generation of the Israelites that escaped from Egypt, Miriam dies before entering the promised land. As the Pentateuch lacks evidence of any Israelite of the first generation in Israel, it is assumed that all of them, including the most prominent figures, died during their wandering in the wilderness.173 Notably, most of the deaths take place without mention, and even those figures that play  a key role in the chapters concerning the wilderness era, such as Zipporah, Jethro or Hur, simply disappear from the narration. Their deaths do not seem to be of interest in the Pentateuchal traditions, where only the deaths of selected characters are reported. In the previous section (2.3) it was observed that some died as a consequence of their rebellion against Moses during the wilderness period. These death records do not display evident features of historical narration. Rather, they are 172 Regarding Miriam’s death in Num 20:1, see Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 116–119, who deals with v. 1 separately from its wider context. Contra Rapp, Mirjam, 233–315, who extends her discussion concerning v. 1 to the rest of Num 20 and connects it with the themes of people’s murmuring (vv. 3–5), announcements of Moses’s and Aaron’s death (v. 12), of water (vv. 2–13) and the report of Aaron’s death (vv. 22–29). Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen, 80–82, does likewise. 173 People start to complain in Num 11, and by the end of ch. 25 they have all died, save Caleb, Joshua and Moses. Caleb is promised in Num 14:24 that he will get to the land. This is confirmed in Josh 21:11–13, which attests to Caleb living in the outskirts of the cities of refuge. For the death accounts in Num in general, see Denis T. Olson, The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch (BJS 71; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985); William H. C. Propp, “The Rod of Aaron and the Sin of Moses,” JBL 107 (1988): 19–26; Adriane B. Leveen, “Falling in the Wilderness: Death Reports in the Book of Numbers,” Prooftexts 22 (2002): 245–272.

Miriam’s Death and Burial: Numbers 20:1

91

characterized by a particular theology. They emphasize that people cannot enter the land of Israel if they fail to follow various regulations set forth by God.174 Some people die because of the failing of others. The last rule is applied to Aaron and Moses, who did not rise against God, but who were prohibited from entering Israel. Aaron is told that he will not enter Israel because of the Israelites’ failure to observe divine regulations (Num 20:24), and a similar motivation is given for the death of Moses (Deut 32:50–51).175 Apart from these reasons that motivate their deaths as punishment for “collective sinning,” the deaths of Aaron and Moses bear further similarities. Both characters are known to die on mountains (for Aaron, Num 20:28, and for Moses, Deut 34:5). This is not a coincidence, for mountains hold special importance in several passages of the Hebrew Bible. God gives the law on a mountain, meets Moses on a mountain and establishes a temple on a mountain. Therefore, it is not surprising that the deaths of these significant characters also take place on mountains. After the deaths of Aaron and Moses, the Israelites mourn for them for 30 days. While the characters, Moses and Aaron, die, their positions do not disappear, but continue to flourish. Each figure has a successor who guarantees the continuity of his position in the future. The heir of Aaron’s ministry is his son Eleazar (Num 20:26–28), and Moses’s successor is Joshua (Num 27:18–23). All in all, these features of death on a mountain, a 30-day mourning period and the continuity of their position are not mere historical facts regarding the deaths of Moses and Aaron. Rather, the narration reflects a particular interest in the cult. For the writer, it is important that the deaths of Aaron and Moses follow certain procedures. Hence, the writer interprets their deaths in a light that would follow the proper cultic norms.176 The death of Miriam in Num 20:1 varies drastically from the other deaths narrated in Num. When Miriam’s death account is compared with those of Aaron and Moses, its particular characteristics stand out. Uniquely, Miriam dies 174 See e.g., Num 27:3, where the daughters of Zelophehad argue for their rights of inheritance: “Our father died in the wilderness; he was not among the company of those who gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah, but died for his own sin; and he had no sons.” This passage emphasizes that people died because of their sins, either acting collectively against the divine will, or by sinning individually. 175 Note that Num 20:24 particularly mentions the Israelites’ protest because of the lack of water in Num 20:3–5. Peculiarly, Moses’s and Aaron’s deaths are hinted at already in Num 20:12 as consequences of their failure to trust God. Several studies address the problem of the sins of Moses and Aaron, e.g., Propp, “The Rod of Aaron and the Sin of Moses,” 19–26; Meshullam Margaliot, “The Transgression of Moses and Aaron —  Num 20:1–13,” JQR 74 (1983): 196–228; Jacob Milgrom, “Magic, Monotheism and the Sin of Moses,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God (ed. Herbert B. Huffmon, Frank A. Spina, Alberto R. W. Green; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 251–265, who provides  a survey of previous studies on this topic. 176 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 118–119; Rapp, Mirjam, 261.

92

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

without any judgment (i. e., her death does not carry any theological weight).177 It is not explained, and Num 20:1 in general does not reflect priestly interest. Rather, in comparison with the other passages conveying death, Num 20:1 functions as  a neutral funerary note.178 Furthermore, as most of the deaths of the characters in the Hebrew Bible are not recorded, the very fact that Num 20:1 preserves Miriam’s death is surprising. Various text forms that witness to Num 20:1 display neither additions nor emendations. Hence, there is no need for detailed text criticism at this point. Meanwhile, a vocabulary analysis of Num 20:1 will help to provide more information regarding the tradition history of this passage. I will also compare Miriam’s funerary note with the death accounts of the other important female figures, in order to better understand how women’s death is portrayed in ancient Jewish texts. Given that Miriam is the only female figure belonging to the wilderness era whose death is remembered, the women that appear in Gen whose deaths are also remembered offer the best comparison for Miriam.179 Through these burial accounts, I will highlight the particular features of Num 20:1.

2.4.2 Vocabulary Analysis ‫ויבאו בני ישראל כל העדה מדבר צן בחדש הראשון וישב העם בקדש ותמת שם מרים ותקבר שם‬ (Num 20:1 MT) The terminology of Num 20:1 can give some indications concerning the earlier traditions behind this text. Firstly, Num 20:1 refers to two geographical areas: the wilderness of Zin and Kadesh. Let us first consider the wilderness of Zin, a geographical area mentioned several times in the Pentateuch (Num 13:21; 20:1; 27:14; 33:36; 34:3–4; Deut 32:51; Josh 15:1, 3).180 Given the interest that Num displays in the era spent in the wilderness, it is not a surprise that Zin appears in 177 Burns, Has The Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 118–119. Cf. Rapp, Mirjam, 237–240, 326, who reads the passage in connection with the people’s complaint for water (Num 20:3–5), the death announcement of Moses and Aaron (Num 20:12), and finally with Aaron’s death (Num 20:22–29); Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen, 80; Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 363–364. 178 According to Rapp, Mirjam, 255, Num 20:1 corresponds to the typical death notice of the Hebrew Bible. 179 The similarities are also recognized by Rapp, Mirjam, 256. Rapp points out that Miriam differs from the women of Gen by not having a reproductive function. 180 The itineraries concerning the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness do not provide a clear depiction of their route. For instance, the wildernesses of Paran and Zin refer at times to the same place. Various studies address the difficulties of the Israelites’ itinerary when discussing Num 20:1. E.g., George W. Coats, “The Wilderness Itinerary,” CBQ 34 (1972): 135–52; Pierre Buis, “Qadesh, un lieu maudit?” VT 24 (1974): 268–285, explore the relationship between the

Miriam’s Death and Burial: Numbers 20:1

93

it frequently. Zin is situated next to the southern border of the Negev. The eastern border of this wilderness was adjacent to Edom, while in the west it extended, possibly, as far as Kadesh. The name Kadesh is far more frequent than Zin in the Pentateuch narratives.181 The references to Kadesh imply that it was an important site in the narratives concerning the wilderness era and that this site was later remembered. Apart from the references in Exod−Num traditions, other books of the Hebrew Bible also mention Kadesh.182 Such diffusion of this name “Kadesh” implies that it had a place in various distinct narratives concerning the history of Israel and the Israelites.183 Meanwhile, the wilderness of Zin is referred to exclusively in the Pentateuchal books and Josh. Having examined the geography of Num 20:1, we must now consider the references to time in this passage. Num 20:1 includes the date “in the first month” (‫)בחדש הראשון‬. The Hebrew Bible preserves different ways of indicating the months. Sometimes texts refer to months by their numbers (e.g. “the first month”), as in Num 20:1. The numbered months of the Pentateuch are typical of the Priestly source.184 The designation “the first month” (‫ )חדש ראשון‬carries a particular weight in the Pentateuchal narratives. Significant events are said to take place in the first month: Noah realizes that the land has dried in the first month (Gen 8:13). The departure from Egypt happens in the first month (Exod 12:2; 13:4; 23:15; 34:18). Furthermore the regulations related to the Passover celebration and the first references to Kadesh in Numbers; Jerome T. Walsh, “From Egypt to Moab: A Source Critical Analysis of the Wilderness Itinerary,” CBQ 39 (1977): 20–33, suggest that all itineraries did not stem from the P-source, but from at least two independent itineraries. 181 See e.g., Gen 14:7; 16:14; 20:1; Num 13:20; 20:1, 14, 16, 22; 27:14; 32:8; 33:36, 37; 34:4; Deut 1:2, 19, 46; 2:14; 9:23; 32:51; Josh 14:6, 7; 15:3; Judg 11:16, 17. W. Kornfeld and H. Ringgren, “‫קדש‬,” TDOT 12:521–45, 529–533, argue that the J-source uses Kadesh as a place name while P uses this term for cultic purposes. 182 For references, see n. 181. 183 Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, “Qades — Materialen zu den Wüstentraditionen Israels,” BN 9 (1979): 54–70; Dale W. Manor, “Kadesh-Barnea,” ABD 4:2–3. The name of the site, Kadesh (‫קדש‬ “holy”), suggests a divinity-linked origin for this place. See e.g., HALOT 2:1075; Kornfeld and Ringgren, “‫קדש‬,” 522–526. The Hebrew Bible does not explicitly depict Kadesh as a site for cultic practices, but the term implies either the practice of cult prostitution or a person who functions as a religious intermediary. For a discussion of this term and its links to cultic prostitution, see Phyllis A. Bird, “The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew Qades-Qedesim,” in Congress Volume Cambridge 1995 (ed. James A. Emerton; VTSup 66; Leiden, Brill, 1997), 37–80; Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 548–552; Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 26. 184 E.g., God tells the Israelites to leave the land of Egypt in the first month (Exod 13:4; 23:15; 34:18), and this is during the Passover, a religious celebration. Apparently ‫ חדש הראשון‬could also be translated as “the first new moon,” e.g., Milgrom, Numbers, 164. That could specify the day of the month, as in Exod 19:1 and Num 28:14.

94

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

month are stressed in Lev 23:5; Num 9:1; 28:16; Deut 16:1. Moses is told to set up the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, in the first month (Exod 40:2, 17). Moreover, under the leadership of Joshua, the Israelites cross the Jordan and arrive at Gilgal in the first month (Josh 4:19). Meanwhile, peculiarly, Num 20:1 does not mention the year when the Israelites arrived in Kadesh and the wilderness of Zin. Again, other Pentateuchal passages can give some hint to how the writer, perhaps, interpreted the arrival of the people there. Num 33:38 mentions that Aaron died in the fifth month of the 40th year. Since this happens soon after Miriam’s death, it is possible that at least some tradition assumed that the Israelites arrived in Kadesh during the 40th year.185 The geography mentioned in Num 20:1 suggests that the tradition concerning the figure of Miriam linked her in particular with the southern kingdom.186 Furthermore, the terminology reveals that the death of Miriam was remembered as an important event. Most importantly, details such as dying in the first month and being buried in Kadesh, which was probably an important place for the cult, highlight the impact of this figure.

2.4.3 Death and Burial of Female Figures When talking about burying, the Pentateuch regularly employs the verb ‫קבר‬. This verb occurs most often in Gen where the burial of patriarchs and their wives is a concern and is discussed frequently.187 Genesis 23:1–20 narrates Abraham arranging Sarah’s funeral. Abraham himself dies in Gen 25:9. Isaac is buried in Gen 35:29, and in Gen 47:29–30 Jacob discusses his own death with his son Joseph. Genesis 35:19–20 and 48:7 narrate Rachel’s burial. In Gen 49:29–32, Jacob asks to be buried in the same grave with Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah and Leah in the cave of Machpelah. His burial takes place in Gen 50:13. 185 Heinrich Holzinger, Numeri (KHC 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1903), 84; Gray, Numbers, 256–257, 259; and Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 116, think that the editor of this passage omitted the year deliberately in order to smooth the differences between the text sources. Meanwhile Milgrom, Numbers, 164, and Ashley, Numbers, 380, are in favor of the 40th year. This calculation, however, creates a contradiction with the itinerary of Num 33:11, which narrates the Israelites being in Zin at the beginning of their wandering. 186 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 119. 187 Karl-Johan Illman, Old Testament Formulas About Death (Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation 48; Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1979), 52; Nikita Artemov, “Belief in Family Reunion in the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean,” in La famille dans le  Proche-Orient ancien: réalités, symbolismes, et images. Proceedings of the 55th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Paris 6–9 July 2009 (ed. Lionel Marti; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 27–42. Hanna Tervanotko, “Going to their People: Afterlife of Mothers and Fathers in Second Temple Judaism,” an unpublished conference paper at the IOSOT conference in Helsinki 2010.

Miriam’s Death and Burial: Numbers 20:1

95

Genesis emphasizes the importance of the correct burial procedures. For instance, Gen 35:19–20 narrates Rachel’s death. She dies on the road and is not buried in the family tomb. Nonetheless, her burial site is not unknown. Jacob set a pillar on her tomb, and the place was known because of that.188 The rest of the passages that utilize this verb “to bury” (‫ )קבר‬in the Pentateuch reveal a different interest. Numbers 11:34 mentions how the rebelling Israelites were buried after the riot of Korah. Deuteronomy 21:34 instructs the Israelites regarding burial practices. These passages mention burying in a more general sense. Deuteronomy 34:6, which refers to Moses’s burial, relates that the location of his grave remains unknown. Hence, his burial cannot be discussed in detail. The detailed style of Gen in referring to burying differs drastically from the other Pentateuchal books. It was important that the death and burial of important figures were taken care of in an appropriate manner. Genesis, which discusses the burial rites of various individuals, reveals that burying was  a concern for both male and female figures. While the narratives often minimize female figures, several of these passages discuss their burial, which seems to be as much of  a concern as the burial of men.189 Against this background, Miriam’s death and burial are even more striking. She is the only female figure whose death is reported in the passages concerning the era spent in the wilderness, i. e., outside the narratives of Gen. This narration raises the figure of Miriam to the same level as the prominent women of Gen, in particular, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah. Like theirs, Miriam’s death seems to be  a concern. Numbers does not report the death of any other female figure. Despite these similarities, Miriam’s death also differs remarkably from the women of Gen. Whereas Gen attests to family burials and tombs for these women (i. e., the cave of Machpelah), Miriam is buried separately. Moreover, according to the Gen narratives, the burial seems to be a family affair. It is the duty of the closest family member to bury the dead relative.190 Numbers 20:1, however, does not mention Miriam’s next of kin. Rather, the passage seems to imply that it was the Israelites (‫ בני ישראל‬or “the people” ‫העם‬, both mentioned in Num 20:1) that took care of her burial. Furthermore, tradition knows only Miriam’s burial place (i. e., Kadesh) while the burial sites of Aaron and Moses are not recorded. This is 188 Cf. the narratives that refer to the cave of Machpelah. They also demonstrate a particular interest in correct burial. 189 Various scholars claim that it was in death that men and women were treated equally in antiquity. The most notable difference regarding their death is that while  a man’s funeral was a public event, that of a woman was a more private affair. See Leonie J. Archer, Her Price is beyond Rubies: The Jewish Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine (JSOTSup 60; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 266–278. A similar concept is not extended to women until the first century C.E. as argued by Tervanotko, “Going to their People, Afterlife of Mothers and Fathers in Second Temple Judaism.” 190 Archer, Her Price is beyond Rubies, 266–278.

96

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

unusual, since visiting the tombs of departed family members had great importance in early Judaism.191 Given that Gen and other passages of the Hebrew Bible generally suggest that kinsmen were buried together in a family tomb, Num 20:1 has some important consequences. The passage concerning Miriam’s death seems to consider this figure as an individual.192 In this tradition Miriam, Moses and Aaron do not share a family lineage. If they did, one would expect more attention to be given to their deaths and burials, that is to say, most notably one would expect them to be buried in the same tomb. This feature concerning Miriam’s death sets her apart from the women of Gen, whose status is mostly connected with a domestic setting and family context. Miriam’s kin do not recognize her at her death; instead, the people wander to Zin and Kadesh with her and bury her. Numbers remembers her death as more than just a private, family event; we will later see that Josephus takes this even further, casting her funeral as a public event.

2.4.4 Literary Criticism The analysis of terminology from Num 20:1 provides ground for some further considerations. Most importantly, the examined vocabulary reveals some inconsistencies in Num 20:1. In light of this, we must reevaluate the unity of this passage. Since the problems regarding the literary criticism of Num 20:1 have been noted earlier, I will list them here briefly without dwelling on the details. The terms used in Num 20:1 for the Israelites raise some questions. Numbers 20:1 uses two different terms for the Israelites who are wandering in the wilderness: “the people of Israel, the whole congregation” (‫בני ישראל‬, ‫)כל העדה‬, and simply “people” (‫)העם‬. In Num 20:1 both of these terms point to the same group of people. The appearance of two different terms that designate the same group can be a sign of an inconsistent passage. The parallel use of these two terms designating the community indicates that the two sentences of the verse derive from different sources and they were only later integrated.193 A similar situation occurs with the terms Zin and Kadesh. These terms that appear in parallel seem to indicate two different sources.194 191 The visits to the dead are described by Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (JSOTSup 123; Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 119–129. 192 Rapp, Mirjam, 256. 193 Holzinger, Numeri, 84; Gray, Numbers, 258–259; Noth, Numbers, 144–145; Levine, Numbers 1–20, 487; Ludwig Schmidt, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri 10,11–36,13 (ATD 7.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 91. Contra Budd, Numbers, 216–217 and Propp, “The Rod of Aaron and the Sin of Moses,” 21, n.15, stress the lack of unevenness in Num 20:1–13. 194 Coats, “The Wilderness Itinerary,” 143. Ashley, Numbers, 380, points out that Num 13:26 places Kadesh in the wilderness of Paran. This reinforces the earlier argument that Zin and Kadesh are not related. See the discussion in 2.4.2.

Miriam’s Death and Burial: Numbers 20:1

97

This observation is strengthened by the fact that Num 20:1 appears to consist of two separate sentences: first, “The Israelites, the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month” (Num 20:1a); and second, “And the people stayed in Kadesh. Miriam died there, and was buried there” (Num 20:1b). The English translation of Num 20:1 makes use of three sentences technically, but the repetition of the adverb “there” (‫ )שם‬in the latter part of Num 20:1b argues that the Hebrew sentence is one unit. As for the unity of Num 20:1a and Num 20:1b, the syntax indicates that these sentences could actually have been separate. They could well exist on their own. This is further supported by the content of the sentences. Numbers 20:1a seems to be a part of a travel itinerary. It preserves the simple data concerning the travel route of the Israelites. Itineraries appear frequently in Num, and it is likely that they were once part of a single literary tradition that focused on remembering the route of the Israelites.195 Miriam’s funerary note derives from a different source than Num 20:1a, and the two sentences were joined together at a later stage.196 The only shared theme that Num 20:1a and Num 20:1b have is the context of the wilderness that the two sentences seemingly reflect. It is possible that the time of Miriam’s death was not known in an earlier written tradition. The tradition regarding Miriam’s death in the first month is a part of the later interpretation that occurred only when the two originally independent sentences were integrated. The new tradition concerning Miriam’s death was in line with other important events belonging to the Jewish tradition that were also known to take place in the first month. The lack of theology in Num 20:1b concerning the death of Miriam is a significant difference from the deaths of Aaron and Moses. The deaths of the latter two are characterized by details that are typically assigned to the P-material. As the narration regarding the death of Miriam (i. e., Num 20:1b) completely lacks these types of features, we must look for its origin elsewhere. Many scholars agree that Miriam’s funerary note belonged to the earlier sources of the Pentateuch.197 195 The vast majority of scholars attribute the itineraries to the P-source or its editor. Noth, Numbers, 144–145; Coats, “The Wilderness Itinerary,” 142–147 and Levine, Numbers 1–20, 487. Further, Propp, “The Rod of Aaron and the Sin of Moses,” 25, who attributes the deaths of the three figures to P. Cf. Walsh, “From Egypt to Moab: A Source Critical Analysis of the Wilderness Itinerary,” 20–33, who suggests that the itineraries did not stem from the P-source, but from at least two independent itineraries. 196 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 119. 197 Here I consciously avoid using the traditional designations of the sources. Note that Holzinger, Numeri, 84, attributes Miriam’s death to E; in his view that is the source that shows interest in Miriam. Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 32; Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 120 and Budd, Numbers, 216–217, assign Num 20:1b to the J-source. Propp, “The Rod of Aaron and the Sin of Moses,” 25, attributes the deaths of the three figures to P. John Sturdy, Numbers: A Commentary (CBC; Cambridge: University Press, 1976), 139, argues that a later redactor added the reference to Miriam because the redactor wished to present Miriam

98

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

2.4.5 Miriam in Numbers 20:1 As in Exod 15:20–21, Deut 24:9 and Num 12:1–15, Num 20:1 also presents the figure of Miriam as a character who belonged to the early history of the Israelites, and more specifically the period that took place in the wilderness. The note concerning Miriam’s death is important. The narratives concerning the wilderness era do not generally report the deaths of individuals. Usually, only the deaths of those who rebel are marked. In contrast to them, however, the deaths of Miriam and Aaron are also highlighted. Whereas the families of the dead usually bury and mourn for the women of Gen, Num 20:1 emphasizes the death of Miriam as an important individual. Instead of occurring in her family history, Miriam’s death notice occurs in the context of the Israelites’ travel itinerary. This implies that she is treated primarily as  a member of that community. Num 20:1, which lacks kinship terminology, remembers Miriam as an important Israelite whose death was later remembered. This memory became  a part of  a literary tradition. The announcement of Miriam’s burial, contrasted with the death reports of the dissenters elsewhere in Num, conveys a sense of dignity suitable for a leader.198

2.4.6 Relationship with the Earlier Texts Like Exod 15:20–21 and Num 12:16, Num 20:1 places the figure of Miriam in southern Judah. Yet Num 20:1 is more specific than the other two passages in setting a context for Miriam. It does not just refer to the wilderness or seashore in general; it locates Miriam in Kadesh. Miriam’s funerary note in Num 20:1b is preserved in the same sentence as the mention of Kadesh. Hence the passage does not aver Miriam dying in the wilderness in general, but at the site of Kadesh.199 This remark has led some scholars to think that the Miriam tradition derived from the Kadesh area, and that this figure was somehow linked with this particular site, which might have had some cultic function in early times.200 and Aaron dying successively before coming to Moses. Rapp, Mirjam, 291–292, attributes 20:1 to P and to a later layer of redaction. Despite this attribution, Rapp admits that the vocabulary of Num 20:1, in particular the term ‫עם‬, is atypical for P. 198 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 120; Leveen, “Falling in the Wilderness: Death Reports in the Book of Numbers,” 255. 199 Heinisch, Das Buch Numeri, 77; Noth, Numbers, 145. 200 Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 169–170, writes, “a grave tradition usually gives the most reliable indication of the original provenance of a particular figure or tradition.” Hence, the death notices are important when studying the development of traditions. Furthermore, they can provide an important witness to locations where traditions remained prominent and

Miriam’s Death and Burial: Numbers 20:1

99

As it is unlikely that Num 20:1 would be the original note concerning Miriam’s death, it is more plausible that the funerary note of Num 20:1b phrased an already existing tradition according to which Miriam died in Kadesh. Numbers 20:1b, the part that refers to Miriam’s death, is preserved in a rather archaic style. It totally lacks any ideology or judgment regarding the death or features that are assigned to P.201 In addition, the complete dissociation of Miriam’s death from those of Aaron and Moses could suggest that at the time of this passage’s composition the three traditions were not yet unified. Otherwise, one would expect the three characters to be treated similarly upon their death. Furthermore, given the complete lack of reference to kinship with Moses and Aaron, Num 20:1b appears to go back to an earlier tradition than the Miriam traditions preserved in Num 12:1–15, which assume  a relationship among the three figures. All in all, these observations suggest that Num 20:1b reflects an early tradition, probably deriving at least from the exilic era and possibly earlier. Meanwhile, despite the possible early origins, given the estimated late date of the itineraries, Num 20:1 as such was certainly compiled later.202

2.4.7 Summary Given the disparities between Num 20:1a and Num 20:1b, my conclusions are similar to those scholars who think that Num 20:1a and Num 20:1b originated in different narrative traditions. The connecting themes for the two sentences are the wilderness and the period that the Israelites spent there. It seems plausible that the note regarding Miriam’s death in Num 20:1b is older than the travel itinerary of Num 20:1a. It preserves one of the earliest references to Miriam. Miriam’s funerary note is an important witness to the early interpretation of this figure. It is of significance that Miriam’s death is remembered, that it is pointed out that she had a funeral, and furthermore that it took place in the first month. The last detail highlights the importance of this figure. The mention of Kadesh, which is prominent in Pentateuchal narrations, equally emphasizes Miriam. Miriam appears as an independent figure in Num 20:1. She is buried alone, and the passage lacks any indication of her next of kin. As this passage seems to were preserved. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 124–128, elaborates the possibility that Miriam was a historical figure functioning in Kadesh. Also for Bachmann, “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus,” 362, Kadesh represents a possible historical reference. 201 See 2.4.1. 202 Cf. Rapp, Mirjam, 291–292, 321 and Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen, 82, who argue that the passage mirrors a post-exilic interpretation of Miriam in association with the death notices of Moses and Aaron. See n. 178.

100

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

connect her rather with the Israelite community than with her own family, i. e., Aaron and Moses, this provides an important witness to the interpretation of this figure as a relatively independent woman who was remembered as a character of her own rather than as a member of a significant family.

2.5 Miriam in the Lists I: Numbers 26:59 2.5.1 Introduction ‫במצרים‬ ‫ללוי‬ ‫אתה‬ ‫ילדה‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫לוי‬ ‫בת‬ ‫יוכבד‬ ‫עמרם‬ ‫אשת‬ ‫ושם‬ (Num 26:59 MT) ‫ותלד לעמרם את אהרן ואת משה ואת מרים אחתם‬  The Hebrew Bible preserves various name lists whose purposes vary.203 Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the “original” purpose behind the lists. While the specific task of the lists can be difficult to determine, their general purpose in the midst of the narrative passages might be similar. According to Robert R. Wilson’s definition, they denote “a written or oral expression of the descent of a person or persons from an ancestor or ancestors.”204 Despite this definition, the lists do not designate actual blood relations. It is obvious that lists, which were written over several decades, perhaps even centuries, could not possibly account for every family relation. Interestingly, whereas the historical accuracy of the lists has been doubted since the 19th century, the actual purpose of the lists has only seldom been considered.205 The vast majority of scholars accept Wilson’s basic theory, influenced by modern anthropological studies, regarding 203 Sometimes the lists contain genealogies (e.g., the lists preserved in 1 Chr 2–9 and Josh 12–19). Other times they imply censuses (Gen 46:8–25; Exod 6:14–27; Num 3:17–39; Num 26:5–65). The Hebrew Bible can also deal with genealogies with polemics. 2 Samuel 4 states that king David’s census resulted in a plague against the people. 1 Chronicles 21:1 takes this even further by arguing that it was Satan who made David take the census. In this section I make particular use of the study of Ingeborg Löwisch, “Gender and Ambiguity in the Genesis Genealogies: Tracing Absence and Subversion through the Lens of Derrida’s Archive Fever,” in Embroidered Garments: Priests and Gender in Biblical Israel (ed. Deborah W. Rooke; Hebrew Bible Monographs 25; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 60–73. This study emphasizes the ambiguity of the lists and further focuses on the presence of women in them. 204 Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, 9. Wilson’s study does not merely draw from Biblical Studies, but it also makes use of the evidence of contemporary anthropology. Significantly both Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 87–88 n.17 and Rapp, Mirjam, 362–363, acknowledge this study in their analyses of Num 26:59. 205 The developments in the fields of archaeology and anthropology in the 19th century led scholars to question the historicity of the genealogies. The first biblical scholar to write about the lists of the Hebrew Bible was Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies; Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1885), 308–333, who combined the anthropologists’ theories of the tribal functions with the lists.

Miriam in the Lists I: Numbers 26:59

101

the genealogies, that rather than actual kinship these lists are intended to reflect power relationships.206 Hence their purpose is not historical documentation, but rather emphasis on who had a share of power and who was close to those in power. Kinship was the most natural way to emphasize these lineages. This view does not necessarily exclude the possibility that, even though the lists were artificially constructed reflections of tribal interrelationships, they may contain some contact with history.207 The Pentateuch contains several lists (e.g., Gen 5:3–32; 10:1–32; 11:11–32; 36; 46:8–27; Exod 6:14–25) that denote the history of the ancestors of the Israelites. Current scholarship maintains that the different generations of the families referred to in these lists and their stories, i. e., the patriarchs of Gen and the Moses traditions of Exod, did not initially belong together. They were connected to each other only at a later stage when the continuity of a narrative in different cycles was deemed to be more important and powerful than individual stories.208 Whereas the central character of the Exodus tradition is the figure of Moses, the text refers to his family lineage only vaguely. Concerning his parents, the birth narrative of Exod 2 refers only to a Levite man and Levite girl. Moses’s sister also appears as an anonymous character.209 The ambiguous report changes in later texts, and Miriam together with Aaron are the most prominent examples of figures that have a kinship relation with Moses. These changing family relations suggest that the ancient lists were not fixed, but had a general fluidity.210

206 Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, 4–5, 199–202. It should be pointed out that, while Wilson’s studies have been the most influential, he was not the first to build bridges between biblical studies and the studies concerning the ANE genealogies. For some earlier studies, see e.g., George E. Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,” JBL 77 (1958): 52–66; Abraham Malamat, “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies,” JAOS 88 (1968): 163–173; Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies (SNTSMS 8; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). Thomas C. Hartman, “Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5 and 11B,” JBL 91 (1972): 25–32, moved beyond the previous assumption of denying the historicity of the lists. 207 Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,” 52–53; Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 72–81, has particularly argued for this view. Cf. 1.3.2.2 where Bakhtin’s view to the texts as reflections of history are discussed. 208 For some recent views regarding the link between Gen and Exod traditions, see e.g., various articles in A Farewell to the Yahwist: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. 209 See 2.1.3. As this theme concerns the figure of Miriam closely, I will elaborate this argument further in 3.1.6. 210 Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, 27–36. Meanwhile, Löwisch, “Gender and Ambiguity in the Genesis Genealogies,” 61–62, stresses that the lists are uniformly constructed texts that serve (from a gender perspective) similar purposes.

102

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

2.5.2 Women in Numbers 26 The lists of the Hebrew Bible follow patrilineal lineages in general. They establish connections between fathers, sons and brothers, confirming the position of the “head of the family.”211 Consequently, the list of Num 26 preserves only  a few names of women. Apart from the intention to emphasize the male lineage, it has also been argued that at least some of the lists derived from a text source that tended to omit women from the genealogies. Many think this is the P-source.212 All in all, the rare appearance of women is not a surprise in this context. Numbers 26:33, which deals with the family of Gilead, declares that Hepher (one of Gilead’s descendants) did not have any sons; he had only daughters: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah and Tirzah. A similar reference to  a daughter  ap­pears in Num 26:46. When the text presents the family of Asher, it singles out his daughter Serah (“And the name of the daughter of Asher was Serah,” Num 26:46). In these two cases, Num 26 lists women in relation to their father. They imply that the daughters were not merely mentioned as a result of a man lacking male descendants. Daughters and sons could be mentioned equally side by side. In comparison with these examples concerning women in general, in Num 26 it is of importance that the list of Levites mentions two women, Jochebed and Miriam. As the rest of the genealogy of Num 26 mentions women in only two passages and it mentions only daughters, it seems that more attention is given to the women of the Levite family than other women, who remain unknown characters.213 Jochebed is introduced in detail in Num 26:59. It reads, “who bore her (Jo­che­bed) to Levi.”  (‫ללוי‬ ‫אתה‬ ‫ילדה‬ ‫אשר‬ ‫לוי‬ ‫בת‬ ‫)יוכבד‬. The text does not mention the name of Levi’s wife. His wife’s name is also missing in any other genealogy of the Hebrew Bible.214 The writer of Num 26:59 either did not know the name or left it out of the list for some other reason. 211 Löwisch, “Gender and Ambiguity in the Genesis Genealogies,” 62–64; Claudia V. Camp, “The Problem with Sisters: Anthropological Perspectives on Priestly Kinship Ideology in Numbers,” in Embroidered Garments, 119–130, 119–121. Cf. Tamara C. Eskenazi, “Out from the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Post-Exilic Era,” in Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings [Second Series], 252–271, 264–267 (repr. from JSOT 54 [1992]: 25–43), which highlights women in the lists of Ezra 2 and Neh 7, claiming for them a more pronounced role. 212 Levine, Numbers 1–20, 69. Importantly, Gray, Numbers, 396, claims that this (Num 26:59) is the only passage attributed to P that mentions Miriam. Some scholars think that P was not particularly hostile to women. E.g., Elizabeth W. Goldstein, “Genealogy, Gynecology, and Gender: The Priestly Writer’s Portrait of a Woman,” in Embroidered Garments, 74–86, 84. 213 For Löwisch, “Gender and Ambiguity in the Genesis Genealogies,” 64, the mention of these unknown women forms “shaped gaps” in the texts: “They remind the reader that there is more to remember than the texts actually do.” 214 Gray, Numbers, 396, thinks that this sentence is either corrupt or out of place. References to Levi’s wife can be found in wider ancient Jewish literature, e.g., the Aramaic Levi Document

Miriam in the Lists I: Numbers 26:59

103

Numbers 26:59 hence introduces Moses’s mother, who is simply referred to as ‫ בת לוי‬ (a Levite woman or Levi’s daughter) in Exod 2:1.215 This term can stand for two separate distinctions. First it can point to a tribal affiliation. In that case, Jochebed was the daughter of any man who was a Levite. The term did not require blood relation, since tribal affiliation was determined by the head of the tribe, and not by familial relation.216 Nonetheless, the Hebrew term used for “a Levite woman” could also be translated more literally: “a daughter of Levi.”217 It is possible that this designation became important later when Jochebed’s origin was discussed. This interpretation appears in the list of Exod 6:20 where Jochebed is referred to as the sister of Amram’s father (i. e., his aunt). This interpretation carried the significance of Jochebed as the biological daughter of Levi. Hence, this title stresses Jochebed’s connection with the patriarchs more than the designation “his father’s sister” of Exod 6:20.218 It seems that the writer is interested in Jochebed’s roots, and particularly in the fact that she belonged to the same family. The marriage between Amram and Jochebed is surprising. Given that Jochebed was a daughter of Levi, she was also Amram’s aunt (this is stated explicitly in Exod 6:20). Meanwhile, Lev prohibits marriages between close family members, and the uncle-niece or aunt-nephew marriage was not considered eligible: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for that is to lay bare one’s own flesh; they shall be subject to punishment.” (Lev 20:19). Despite these rulings the Pentateuch attests to several “illegal” unions (Gen 20:12; (ALD) 11:1: “And when four weeks in the years of my life were completed for me, in the twenty-­ eighth year I took a wife for myself from the family of Abraham my father, Milka, daughter of Bethuel, son of Laban, my mother’s brother” (trans. Jonas C. Greenfield, Michael E. Stone, and Esther Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document [SVTP 19: Leiden: Brill, 2004]); “the name of Levi’s wife was Melcha, one of the daughters of Aram — one of the descendants of Terah’s sons” (Jub. 34:20 trans. James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees [CSCO 511, Scriptores Aethiopici 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989]). I will come to the differences between these genealogies in 3.1.4.5 where Jub. and its relationship with the earlier texts are treated more closely. 215 “Now  a man from the house of Levi went and married  a Levite woman” (Exod 2:1). This translation seems to depend on the version preserved in the LXX. The LXX preserves the term daughter in the plural (τῶν θυγατέρων Λευι). This grammatical form (partitive genitive)  allows  a reading: “from the daughters.” That could be read as an avoidance of too close consanguinity. The union would not stand against the prohibited marriages of Leviticus. See Gilles Dorival, “Moïse est-il le fruit d’un inceste,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies in the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne; BETL 192; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), 97–108, who discusses the difficulties of Num 26:59 and how this verse is rendered in other ancient witnesses in view the illicit relationship between an aunt and her nephew. On the other hand, the verse could also mean that Jochebed belonged to the tribe of Levi. E.g., Ashley, Numbers, 539, thinks that the verse simply means that she belonged to the tribe of Levi. I will return to the question of their kinship several times in the later discussions (esp. in 3.1.6). 216 HALOT 1:166. 217 Ibid. 218 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 89.

104

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

38:24–26). Later Judaism explained that the rules of Leviticus were not operative before the law was actually given at Sinai.219 The passage reveals its priestly interest by dedicating considerable attention to Aaron and his sons (Num 26:60–61; the priest Eleazar holds a prominent role in this census: Num 26:1–4, 63). This exhibits the relevance that Aaron’s mother’s lineage had for the writer. While Leviticus set some general rules for eligible marriages, the priestly unions were particularly restricted.220 According to the rules, a priest is not allowed to marry a widow, a divorced woman, a woman who is defiled (no longer a virgin) or a prostitute. Moreover, a priest should marry a woman who is of his own kin. Such a marriage would qualify the male offspring of that union for priesthood.221 This means that a priest should marry a woman who belongs to his family. Hence, the notion that Jochebed was a Levite follows this regulation and affirms the patriarchal roots to the next generation. In light of Wilson’s theory, extending the kinship to the patriarchal family could have been a way to emphasize the Levite family.222

2.5.3 Literary Criticism Numbers 26:1–63 preserves an extensive list of the Israelite tribes. According to Num 26:1–2 the purpose of this list was to count all the men qualified for military service, though, as we shall see, several inconsistencies in the text question this task. However, given this listing task, the passage is called the second census, in contrast to the first census that takes place in Num 1 and 3.223 This list 219 Milgrom, Numbers, 229. Yet, not even that put a full stop to the interpretation of marriage laws. At least some streams of Judaism interpreted the uncle-niece union as the ideal. The Tosefta declares that one should not marry if his sister’s daughter is available. Priestly marriages are dealt in detail in m.Ket. and m.Nash. Shaye J. D. Cohen, “From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage,” HAR 7 (1983): 23–39. For the marriages within the Levite family, see Hanna Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” RevQ 106 (2015): 155–176. 220 Michael L. Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 101–156. 221 “A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, a prostitute, these he shall not marry. He shall marry a virgin of his own kin, that he may not profane his offspring among his kin; for I am the Lord; I sanctify him.” (Lev 21:14–15). For discussion, see Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, 101–156. 222 Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram and Jubilees,” 155–176. Thus, the function of this genealogy is in line with the claim of Löwisch, “Gender and Ambiguity in the Genesis Genealogies,” 62–64, that the lists affirm male gendered power structures (i. e., the priesthood). 223 “After the plague the Lord said to Moses and Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, ‘Take a census of the whole Israelite community by families — all those twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army of Israel.’ So on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from J­ ericho,

Miriam in the Lists I: Numbers 26:59

105

makes occasional references to intervening events (e.g., 26:9–10, 19, 53–56, 61). Moreover, the end of the census makes a significant statement: that no one, save Caleb and Joshua, remained alive of the generation who left from Egypt. This reference to the past suggests that the list of Num 26 does not merely mirror its own historical situation but its horizon equally includes past events. It considers everyone who left from Egypt, including those that are no longer alive. For instance, Aaron and Miriam are incorporated in the list. In light of the varying style of the passage as well as its questionable purpose, it is difficult to consider the list of Num 26 a textual unity.224 A closer look at Num 26:57–60, which deals with the Levites, confirms this hypothesis. Apparently, this passage appears after the closing of the list of Num 26:51, which sums up the total number of the Israelites. As the list of the Levites appears after the closing of the list, it seems to be a later addition.225 The list itself contains further inconsistencies. Most notably, this passage seems to deal first with the Levite’s families (Num 26:57–58a)  and later on (Num 26:58b–60) with individuals. Moreover, this passage’s emphasis on women (Num 26:59), which differs from other women dealt with in Num 26, displays variation. These observations imply that Num 26:57–60 used different source material than the rest of the passage.226 Importantly for this study, the material that was integrated with the P material incorporated the figure of Miriam in it.227

2.5.4 Miriam in Numbers 26:59 In Num 26:59 the figure of Miriam is referred to as one of the children of Amram and Jochebed. This attribution is well in line with other women of Num 26 and with women in ancient Jewish texts more generally. Unmarried women were normally identified in relation to their nearest kinsman in the Second Temple period. The primary kinsman was the woman’s father, but if she had no father, her patronage would be handed to her brother.228 Hence, the style of referring to Miriam as Amram’s daughter is in line with the other references to daughters preserved in the list of Num 26 (see Num 26:33, 46). Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them and said, ‘Take a census of the men twenty years old or more, as the Lord commanded Moses’” (Num 26:1–4). Levine, Numbers  21–36, 307, argues that the purpose of the second census was to register the new generation, i. e., to update the former census. This task becomes particularly clear in Num 26:4b. 224 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 86–88; Rapp, Mirjam, 365–366. 225 Cf. the list of Levites in Num 3:14–34. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 85–87; Levine, Numbers 21–36, 308, claims that Num 26:57–62 is a separate literary unit. 226 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 86–88. 227 See 2.5.2. 228 Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 55.

106

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

Thus, the other reference to Miriam that appears in Num 26:59, “sister of Aaron and Moses” (‫ )אחתם‬is unexpected. Miriam is already presented in relation to her father, and there is no need to add other kinsmen in the list (cf. Num 26:33, 46). The arrangement of the list in Num 26:59 presents Miriam in two different relationships. Listing Miriam as “their sister,” in particular, when her father is already mentioned, raises some questions. While such an attribution (reference both to father and to brothers) does not appear elsewhere in the list of Num 26, it is not unique in the Hebrew Bible. Daughters are listed similarly as “sisters” in Gen 46:17 and 1 Chr 7:32. Yet the figure of Miriam differs from the women mentioned in those passages by being a character that has a larger known tradition around her.229 Referring to a female as both sister and daughter is much less frequent than the simple reference “daughter.” It is possible that the mentions of different kinsmen in Num 26:59, the figure of Amram on the one hand and Moses and Aaron on the other, attest to different traditions surrounding the figure of Miriam. She was known as the daughter of Amram but people also knew her as the sister. In light of the other analyzed references to Miriam, it seems that Miriam was more known in the role of the sister than as a daughter. Here I refer in particular to Exod 15:20–21 and Num 12:1–15, which somehow connect her with Moses and Aaron. At this point Wilson’s theory can shed some more light on the reception of Miriam in Num 26:59. All in all, this genealogy treats her as an important member of the patriarchal family, one that is worthy of being mentioned. Wilson argues that the horizontally equal people usually rank on the same level in the lists: “Horizontally, people on the same genealogical level are related to each other as equals, while vertically people are ranked hierarchically according to the level of the genealogy which they occupy.”230 This feature of horizontal equality holds true regardless of the literary purpose of the lists (i. e., census or genealogy).231 This view suggests that when the name of Miriam appears in the genealogies together with Moses and Aaron, she is interpreted as an equally important character.232 This is rare with women in genealogies. For instance Serah, the daughter of Asser of Num 26:46 does not appear on the same level with her 229 Cf. Löwisch’s (“Gender and Ambiguity in the Genesis Genealogies,” 64) theory concerning the “shaped gaps.” 230 Wilson, “Genealogy,” ABD 2:931; idem, “Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research,” JBL 94 (1975): 169–189, 177, draws this theory from Abraham Malamat, “Tribal Societies: Biblical Genealogies and African Lineage System,” Archives européennes de sociologie 14 (1973): 126–136. 231 The different rankings occur vertically. People who are ranked vertically occupy  a different hierarchy (e.g., older people, “the fathers,” are given higher status in this listing). 232 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 90; Rapp, Mirjam, 368; Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen, 84.

Miriam in the Lists I: Numbers 26:59

107

brothers.233 This implies that when the name of Miriam was added to the earlier genealogies, she was already significant. She was interpreted to belong to the same tradition as Aaron and Moses. This literary motif that was probably added into the Pentateuch increased the significance of the Levite family, as Wilson’s theory suggests.234

2.5.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts Numbers 26:59 is significantly different from the earlier-studied references to Miriam that we have taken into consideration in this study so far. This passage extends the discussion from Miriam, Aaron and Moses to their family roots and to the Levites as a priestly family. Notably, Num 26:57–60 does not pay any attention to the families of Miriam or Moses. Apparently, such traditions were not known, or they were simply not of interest for the writer of this list. The heirs of the Levites were the sons of Aaron. Because of this emphatic interest, scholars often attribute the list of Num 26 to the P-source of the Pentateuch and often date it to the Persian period. Several observations support the suggested date for Num 26:57–60 that discusses the Levites. It has been suggested that the lists generally became significant in the post-exilic period, when it became important for people to know from which family they derived.235 Second, this list strongly advocates for intermarriage. Moses’s father Amram marries his own aunt Jochebed, who is no longer referred to vaguely as a girl from Levi’s tribe (cf. Exod 2:1). Rather, Num 26:59 specifically refers to her as the daughter of Levi. While the results of my earlier analysis suggest that exogamy was not a problem in pre-exilic contexts, marrying within one’s own group becomes an important tool for maintaining the culture in post-exilic Judaism.236 This rule applied in particular to the priests who had to marry within their own tribe. Third, the family relations reflected in Num  26:57–60 suggest that this passage is later than the previously studied references to the figure of Miriam. 233 “The descendants of Asher by their families: of Imnah, the clan of the Imnites; of Ishvi, the clan of the Ishvites; of Beriah, the clan of the Beriites. Of the descendants of Beriah: of Heber, the clan of the Heberites; of Malchiel, the clan of the Malchielites. And the name of the daughter of Asher was Serah” (Num 26:44–46). 234 Camp, “The Problem with Sisters: Anthropological Perspectives on Priestly Kinship Ideology in Numbers,” 121–129, argues, in light of anthropological parallel material, that the term sister preserved women’s independent role, whereas motherhood marginalized it merely to the purpose of reproduction. 235 Frank Moore Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975): 4–18; Wilson, Genealogy, 32–50. 236 This theme was briefly discussed in 2.3.3. Moreover, see Eskenazi, “Out from the Shadows,” 262–271.

108

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

Whereas some of the passages of the Hebrew Bible, that have already been taken into account in this study, present Miriam, Moses and Aaron together, and claim kinship between Miriam and Aaron (Exod 15:20), Num 26:59 seemingly reflects a new situation.237 This list explicitly claims a kinship relation between the three characters. They no longer appear merely as three siblings, but their relations extend to the Levite family and to the patriarchs of Gen. This point, which presents  a new tradition for the figure of Miriam, suggests that the list does not belong to the earliest stratum of the genealogies, but that Num 26:57–60 should be viewed as later than the priestly source in general. It is also possible that the name of Miriam in Num 26:59 is a later addition to an already existing list. The inconsistencies in Num 26:57–60, and the “double reference” to Miriam in v. 59, indicate that this passage has been edited several times. The idea that Miriam is a member of the Levite family has its roots in the late Persian or the early Hellenistic era.238 The addition may derive from that period too.

2.5.6 Summary Kinship relations are recorded in various lists of the Hebrew Bible. Usually they focus on the patrilineal line, and only a few women appear in them. While the genealogies and thus histories of families are documented in various lists, they become instruments for claims of power and importance. Closely analyzing these stories demonstrates how such unions are gradually developed, and reveal their purposes. The family connections among Moses, Aaron and Miriam, and further with the Levite family, were not constructed in  a vacuum. In general, as with other lists, this one served politico-religious objectives. One purpose of the list is to demonstrate that Moses, Aaron and Miriam were members of the Levite family. Yet they not only belonged to this prominent family on their father’s side; they also had Levite roots from their mothers’ side. In this description their genealogical pedigree meets the priestly ideal. Their descendants are ideal priests.239 The list in Num 26 mentions only a few female figures. Therefore, the appearance of Miriam in Num 26:59 is extraordinary. While most of the Pentateuchal references to Miriam portray her in connection with Moses and Aaron, Num 26:59 marks her adoption as a member of the Levite house. This presentation in the list is quite in line with those of the other female figures, who are also depicted in relation 237 Noth, Pentateuchal Traditions, 183 n. 511, 187, claims that the Pentateuchal lists that that mention “the complete brother and sister trio” appear genealogically only in secondary passages. 238 This topic will be dealt with at length in ch. 3, where I explore Miriam’s connection with the Levites further. 239 I deal with this theme more in detail in Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176.

Miriam’s Leadership: Micah 6:4

109

to their male kin. Apart from this representation, the emphasized connection to Aaron and Moses present in Num 26:59 suggests that Miriam was more known for her relation to Aaron and Moses than to her parents or the rest of the family.

2.6 Miriam’s Leadership: Micah 6:4 2.6.1 Introduction The book of Micah contains prophecies that are attributed to the prophet Micah, who was active in the 8th century B.C.E.240 Micah’s prophecies consist of brief literary units that scholars characterize as poems or oracle poems. It is generally accepted that chs. 1–3 belong to the earliest stratum of the book, and that they may have derived from the 8th century B.C.E. Hence, it is possible that as a whole these chapters form a part of Micah’s prophecies.241 These chapters contain a message of judgment. The prophecies in chs. 1–3 concern Jerusalem and Samaria.242 Micah’s message is directed in particular to the ruling class, which treats the poor with injustice. Their acts are severely doomed. The style of the prophecy changes drastically in chs. 4–7 because the oracles preserved in these chapters are seemingly directed to a larger community. They deal with the whole nation. Further, these chapters are characterized by a message of hope and reconstruction. Thus, the focus of these later chapters is different from that of 240 This date is based on the superscription of the book of Micah that says: “The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of Kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem” (Mic 1:1). Victor H. Matthews, A Brief History of Ancient Israel (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 75, dates the reign of Ahaz 742–726 and Hezekiah 726–697/696 B.C.E. 241 This has been the general scholarly consensus since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. E.g., Heinrich Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes (2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup­ recht, 1868), 498–537; Bernhard Stade, “Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha,” ZAW 1 (1881): 161–172; Wilhelm Nowack, Die Kleine Propheten (2nd ed; HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), 195–238; Karl Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (KHC 13; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904), 258–302. For more recent studies, see, e.g., James Luther Mays, Micah: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1976), 12–15; William McKane, Micah: Introduction and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 7–8; Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL 21 B; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 9–11. Note that Mic 2:12–13, a prophecy regarding the restoration, reflects a different style of narration from the rest of the chapters that focus on judgment. 242 Despite his suggested southwestern origin (“the Morashthite” Mic 1:1), Micah is notably connected with Jerusalem. Moreover, some scholars maintain that the book of Jeremiah, which is attributed to the priestly circles of Jerusalem, preserves  a reference to the prophet Micah (Jer 26:17–19). The reference in Jeremiah suggests that this prophet was particularly remembered for his origin and his message concerning the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem. “Micah of Moresheth, who prophesied during the days of King Hezekiah of Judah, said to all the people of Judah: ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, Zion shall be ploughed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height’” (Jer 26:18).

110

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

chs. 1–3. Moreover, the description of Micah preserved in Jer 26:18 describes Micah (i. e., the early Micah of chs. 1–3) as a prophet of doom. These remarks suggest that chs. 1–3 and 4–7 belong to different hands.243 The hopeful tone reflected in chs. 4–7 suggests that  a significant portion of these chapters dates from the exilic or post-exilic period.244 This hypothesis does not exclude the possibility that some parts of chs. 4–7 could contain earlier material as well. Micah 6:4 mentions the figure of Miriam. Before turning to that reference, a few words concerning the overall passage where the reference to Miriam appears are needed. Some scholars have argued that Mic 6:1–8 has features that are different from other literary units of Micah. This concerns the style of the passage where God turns to people, asking them to respond. The style of this query imitates a lawsuit, and the passage has a structure similar to a case that could take place in a court or elsewhere.245 In particular the term “lawsuit” or “legal case” (‫ )ריב‬appears in Mic 6:2.246 For these reasons, the beginning of ch. 6 has been described as “the covenant lawsuit” or “the covenant dispute.”247 While Mic 6:1–8 243 There are also scholars who defend the unity of the book. E.g., Delbert R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984); Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24E; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Cf. Mayer I. Gruber, “Women’s Voices in the Book of Micah,” lectio difficilior 1 (2007):1–12, who detects female voices in Mic 6–7. Gruber assumes that those chapters go back to the 8th century B.C.E. 244 Ben Zvi, Micah, 8. During the Babylonian exile, the style of doom took a turn. Instead of accusing various individuals, the whole nation was doomed and accused of being responsible for the deportation into exile. Further, Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 318, 329. 245 A similar style can be found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, e.g., Deut 32; Isa 1:2–20; Hos 4:1–3. First, there is a summons to the custodians of the covenant to supervise the dispute. Then accusation or interrogation of the accused takes place. Third, the passage contains  a rejection of the Divine’s deeds, vindicating his side of the matter. Fourth, there is a rejection of sacrifice as means to reconciliation. Finally, either a verdict or an exhortation to make the right kind of reparations takes place. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 509. On the other hand, McKane, Micah: Introduction and Commentary, 15, points out that the lawsuit is incomplete because the side of Israel is not heard in this case. 246 See HALOT 2:1224–1226 for the etymology of the term. Note that this term does not require a legal setting or a formal lawsuit that was taken before a judge. Therefore it seems to be appropriate to refer to the term rib instead of a lawsuit. On the rib pattern, see Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78 (1959): 285–295; James Limburg, “The Root ‫ ריב‬and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” JBL 88 (1969): 291–304. 247 Views on the length of the rib vary. Andersen and Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary 13, 501, 507–513, claim that “Yahweh’s Covenant Dispute” consists of Mic 6:1–8. Hans Walter Wolff, Micah: A Commentary (trans. Gary Stansell; Min­ neapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 168 and Mays, Micah, 128–130, attribute 6:1–5 to this section. Similarly, McKane, Micah, 15. Cf. Rainer Kessler, Micha (Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Freiburg: Herder, 1999), 258–259 and Rapp, Mirjam, 343, who do not recognize the pattern of rib in this passage. The length of this passage is not important for my study, which focuses on Miriam in Mic 6:4. Rather it is important to acknowledge that the reference to Miriam may have appeared within such a literary form.

Miriam’s Leadership: Micah 6:4

111

cannot be taken as a copy of the genre of a lawsuit and it is disputed whether all parts of it reflect this genre, it is possible that in the background of the prophetic judgment speeches there are reminiscences of ancient Judah’s juridical practices.248 This background provides a starting point for the further analysis: the reference to Miriam appears in the middle of a literary unit.

2.6.2 Vocabulary Analysis 249(Mic 6:4 MT) ‫כי העלתיך מארץ מצרים ומבית עבדים פדיתיך ואשלח לפניך את משה אהרן ומרים‬ Chapter 6 of Micah, where the reference to Miriam appears, contains some distinctive terminology. Scholars have attributed some of it to the Dtr editors of the Hebrew Bible, and we have analyzed this vocabulary in part in the earlier chapters of this study.250 In particular the sentence “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of slavery” (Mic 6:4) (‫ )כי העלתיך מארץ מצרים ומבית עבדים פדיתיך‬is of interest. Scholars have assigned this sentence to the Dtr redaction that extended Mic.251 Recalling the past and in particular the Exodus events is  a distinct feature of the Dtr editing (cf. Deut 24:8–9). Similar expressions that refer to Egypt and slavery as parallels appear in other parts of the Hebrew Bible: Exod 13:14; 20:2; Deut 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:10; Josh 24:17; Judg 6:8; Jer 34:13. In these passages the Exodus experience is portrayed against the time spent in Egypt as the most important saving event.252

248 Philip Peter Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary (LHB/OTS 496; New York and London: T&T Clark, 2008), 167. 249 The ancient witnesses to Mic 6:4 do not demonstrate text critical difficulties. This is also my understanding. Some modern scholars suggest minor modifications. Cf. Mays, Micah, 128, who thinks that the text reads “and Miriam with them” (cf. Mic 6:5). Mays (Micah, 128) argues that the three figures appear together only in the lists of the Hebrew Bible and that the copyist missed the preposition ‫ עמו‬because of its similarity to the term ‫ עמי‬ that appears in Mic 6:5. Similarly, Hillers, Micah, 75. I do not agree with these views. Other references to Miriam in the Hebrew Bible support the interpretation of Miriam as one of the leaders. 250 See 2.2.3, which deals with Deut 24:8–9. There I argued that it belongs to a late editorial layer of Deut. 251 Mays, Micah, 130; Wolff, Micah, 170; Kessler, Micha, 259; Jörg Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD 24.3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 201. For Dtr editing in Mic, see Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 321–323. 252 See 2.2.3 for the significance of Egypt for the Dtr writer. Wolff, Micah, 170, calls Mic 6:4 a didactic piece that “clearly presupposes characteristics of Deuteronomistic paraenesis and of the extended discourses found in the Deuteronomistic history.” Hillers, Micah, 79, also identifies Dtr language in this passage.

112

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

Another term that draws attention in Mic 6:4 is the verb “to send” (‫)שלח‬. This term appears in the first person singular imperfect, and it points to God, who speaks throughout the passage, as the subject. Hence, God has sent Moses, Aaron and Miriam. They are not the only people the Divine sends in the Hebrew Bible, but this expression also appears, e.g., in Josh 24:5; 1 Sam 12:11; 1 Sam 25:32; Jer 35:15 and Mal 3:23. In these verses being sent by God belongs only to prominent figures who have a role in fulfilling divine plans. Moreover, the fact that God also sends angels (Judg 13:8) strengthens the point. The task of the people who are “sent” is to declare and transmit God’s messages. The preposition “before” (‫ )לפני‬specifies the motive behind why Aaron, Moses and Miriam are sent. The term “before” indicates power in front of the other Israelites. They go “before” because they exercise some kind of leadership in front of them.253 Whereas the type of leadership is not specified in Mic 6:4, the notion that God sent Miriam, Moses, and Aaron suggests a further role for these characters. They may have been known as God’s messengers that were sent. This observation strengthens the connection between Mic 6:4 and the Exodus period. Mic 6:4 makes the audience recall the events of the Exodus and the role of Moses, Aaron and Miriam in them.

2.6.3 Miriam in Micah 6:4 The characters portrayed in the Pentateuch are mentioned only rarely in the prophetic texts. Mic 6:4 contains the only reference to Miriam in the prophetic literature.254 This passage claims that Miriam, like Moses and Aaron, was sent by God to be one of the early Israelite leaders and God’s messenger. Regarding Moses and Aaron, their attribution of leadership is not surprising. Various passages of the Hebrew Bible (outside the Torah) claim that God sent Moses and Aaron to take the people to the promised land. Joshua 24:5; 1 Sam 12:8 and Ps 105:26 refer to Moses and Aaron as the early leaders. In these passages the name of Moses is listed first as  a sign of his primary position in front of God.255 In contrast to these references to the two leaders, Mic 6:4 adds the name of Miriam next to Moses and Aaron. This implies that the writer interpreted Miriam’s function similarly to that of Moses and Aaron. She was one of the early leaders of the Israelites who functioned with Moses and Aaron in a shared leadership.256 253 For the various significances of the preposition, see HALOT 2:941. 254 Notably, it is also the only time that the prophetic literature refers to Aaron. 255 Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary, 169. 256 Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 519; Gruber, “Women’s Voices in the Book of Micah”, 1–12. The Hebrew Bible does not preserve any information regarding how the leadership tasks

Miriam’s Leadership: Micah 6:4

113

Micah 6:4 does not simply refer to Miriam as  a leader; it also builds an interpretation of her character. This passage argues that her appearance in the history of the Israelites had a divine origin. Micah 6:1–8, the passage containing the rib, lists some of the saving acts of God, and Miriam is mentioned among them. Presenting her as one that God has sent and someone who is sent before the others implies that the author of this text saw her as an important character for the whole community and thought that she had some type of authority over other people. The term “to send” adds to the earlier portrayal of Miriam. Miriam’s importance is pointed out in particular in Exod 15:20 and Num 12:1–15, which suggest for her a prophetic role in the Israelites’ history. Micah 6:4 supports this ideology by describing Miriam as sent by God. Given that the verb “to send” often applies to prophets and other messengers of God, describing Miriam as sent could amount to a claim that she is a prophet.257 Micah 6:4 adds to the idea that she is sent by locating her “before the people.” In this way, it considers her to be a leader of the departure from Egypt on the same level with Moses and Aaron. Despite presenting the three figures together, the passage of Mic 6:4 does not imply a kinship between them. This raises questions. By the time the text was written, a tradition that attested to Miriam, Aaron and Moses as kin was most likely known at least in some circles.258 Therefore, it may be that the writer(s) of Mic 6:4 was unfamiliar with it, or the writer(s) may have consciously decided to stress their separate leadership positions rather than pointing to their relationship as siblings.

were divided among the three figures. This might be a theme in the Visions of Amram, a text that will be analyzed in the framework of the Hellenistic era (3.1.2). 257 Miriam’s prophetic role in Mic 6:4 has been suggested in earlier studies. Mays, Micah, 134, has proposed that Mic 6:4 aims at providing an interpretation for Exod 15:20, which does not explain why the term “prophetess” is connected with Miriam. Kessler, “Mirjam und die Prophetie der Perserzeit,” 70–71, also argues that Mic 6:4 points precisely to Miriam’s prophetic function; Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 79. Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha, 201, wonders whether the name of Miriam appears in this list because of Exod 15:20, which refers to her as a prophetess, or because Mic 6:4 aims at providing a positive image of Miriam in contrast to Num 12. In later tradition the Tg. of Micah 6:4 formulates: “Moses who teaches tradition and the law; Aaron who brings reconciliation to the people; Miriam who instructs the women.” Thus in later tradition Miriam’s leadership role was reduced from the general one granted in Mic 6:4 to teaching only women. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 519, point out that in Mic 6:4 it is God who is the leader of the Israelites (cf. “I brought you”). Thus, the verb “to send” should be interpreted as in Mal 4:5 where it indicates sending  a messenger. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 519, think that this implies that the three characters were viewed as prophets sent by God. 258 For instance, Exod 15:20, which is earlier than Mic 6:4, refers to Miriam as a sister of Aaron.

114

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

2.6.4 Relationship with the Earlier Texts The studies on Mic 6:4 indicate that this verse does not belong to the earliest literary material preserved in Mic, but to a later stratum.259 The characteristics of this passage include Exodus terminology. This is notable in particular in Mic  6:4a, which recalls Egypt. The emphasis on Egypt and the overlaps in particular Exodus terminology point to a connection with ideas characteristic of the Dtr editors (see 2.6.2). As the Dtr editing extended to Mic, it is logical to assume that Mic 6:4 belongs to that material. The Dtr editors had some Miriam material at hand.260 Earlier we have concluded that Deut 24:9 also derived from the Dtr editors. These passages, Deut 24:9 and Mic 6:4, bear some remarkable similarities. First of all, they seem to recall Miriam as a figure related to the liberation from Egypt. This interpretation may differ slightly from the portrayal of Miriam in Exod 15:20–21, which connects our figure mostly with the miracle at the sea. Nonetheless, Deut 24:9 and Mic 6:4 invite their audiences to recall the liberating Exodus events and specifically the departure from Egypt. Deuteronomy 24:9 reminds the reader: “remember what the Lord your God did to to Miriam on your journey out of Egypt” (‫זכר את אשר‬ ‫)עשה יהוה אלהיך למרים בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים‬, whereas Mic 6:4 has: “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt” (‫)כי העלתיך מארץ מצרים‬. It seems that Deut 24:9 refers to Miriam because of her known role and thus stresses the warning of 24:8, whereas Mic 6:4 mentions that Miriam was sent before other people (together with Moses and Aaron). Hence, both passages suggest a prominent role for Miriam that implies leadership. Finally, the lack of kinship terminology specifies these texts’ understanding of Miriam. Despite the existing kinship tradition around the figures, these texts seem to interpret Miriam rather as an independent figure. She appears next to Moses and Aaron, but not primarily due to her role as their sister, or at least this is not mentioned in the text. These points suggest that the interpretation of Miriam among the Dtr editors did not merely reflect the overall portrayal of Miriam preserved in the Pentateuch. They may have used the Pentateuchal material selectively. In addition, they may have known other traditions not preserved in the Pentateuch as well. The span during which the editors operated was long. Nonetheless, the evident similarities with Deut 24:9 that I have previously pointed out make me think that the two passages could, if not derive from the same group, at least mirror 259 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 12–114; Wolff, Micah, 171; McKane, Micah, 178; Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 318, 329. Cf. Andersen and Freedman, Micah, 510–511, who argue for textual unity. Nonetheless, in Micah, 518–519, they admit that due to the grammar of v. 4 it appears that there is “perhaps evidence that this part of the text is late.” 260 Similarly Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 113–114.

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

115

similar ideas regarding Miriam. This group emphasized Miriam’s role in the departure from Egypt.

2.6.5 Summary The book of Micah remembers the figure of Miriam, whom God sent to lead the Israelites together with Moses and Aaron. This reference strengthens our earlier conclusions that Miriam held some leadership position according to the early texts. Moreover, Mic 6:4 adds to Miriam’s prophetic role, also reflected in Exod 15:20 and Num 12:1–15.  God commissioned and sent Miriam to be  a leader. This notion of commissioned and sent leadership finds its best parallels in descriptions of God’s messengers. The fact that the kinship between Moses, Aaron and Miriam is not mentioned in Mic 6:4 could indicate that the writer was familiar with some material that presented Miriam rather as one of the leaders whose importance lies in particular in the Exodus era. This overlaps with the reference to Miriam of Deut 24:9 to suggest that the portrayal preserved in both texts was prevalent in the Persian era.

2.7 Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era The earliest references to Miriam portray the figure as one of the early leaders of the Israelites. She was associated with the Jews’ liberation from Egypt (Exod 15:20–21; Mic 6:4) and with the period the people spent wandering in the wilderness (Num 12:1–15; Num 20:1). The references to Miriam through the Persian era together promote an image of Miriam as a character of importance and high status. Such an image is specified in individual references to the figure: Mic 6:4 portrays Miriam next to the figures of Moses and Aaron as a leader of the people. Miriam’s challenge to Moses in Num 12 implies that the writer(s) believed her to have courage and authority to question Moses. The mild punishment that she receives vis-à-vis punishments in general in the texts dealing with the wilderness era is another sign of her significance. Miriam’s death and funeral in Num 20:1 confirm her importance for the larger community. She was remembered after her death. Miriam’s connection with prophecy has been much debated. In light of the analysis of this chapter I would like to offer one solution for the use of the title female prophet. Previously I concluded (2.1.6) that whereas only a few women enter into the prophetic office in the Hebrew Bible, the remaining references to prophesying women indicate this office was open to them.261 Furthermore, the 261 See further, Meyers, Discovering Eve, 164.

116

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

references to women’s prophecy indicate that being God’s chosen “spokeswoman” did not automatically require a specific social status, i. e., obvious political power. Meanwhile, those titles that would indicate women’s political leadership are even rarer in the Hebrew Bible. However, despite the rare mentions of women leaders, my analysis clearly suggests that Miriam was understood as an early leader. The references to her are short, but they unquestionably demonstrate that people understood her as one of the protagonists who led the people during their departure from Egypt and wandering in the wilderness (Num 20:1; Num 26:59; Deut 24:8–9). Peculiarly, the preserved texts suggest that the figure of Deborah was interpreted in similar ways: these texts claim that Deborah has a function in the community (a judge) and that she exercises political power. It is possible that these two roles were intertwined. Perhaps Miriam was first known as  a leader and the title prophet was assigned her only later. This would not be unusual as for instance Moses was given an explicitly prophetic role in the texts, and he simultaneously wields political power. Whereas this explanation sheds light on the anachronistic use of the title prophet (Exod 15:20), which may at times imply leadership, it does not exclude the possibility that Miriam was in fact connected with prophetic acts. On the contrary, references to Miriam in the Persian era recognize such a role. Miriam’s prophecy is specified in Num 12, which does not go into many details, yet clearly states that her prophetic role was different from that assigned to Moses, who communicated with God directly. Numbers 12:6–8 may hint that Miriam was understood as a visionary. The passages dealt with in this chapter demonstrate that the figures of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam were read side by side and that the traditions regarding these figures are profoundly intertwined. At times, their positions are described in an even-handed way, and Mic 6:4 presents the three figures as equals. Given that Moses, Aaron and Miriam were so closely connected and presented as peers, at least in some texts that operated simultaneously, they may have been thought to share similar skills. The three figures that were sent by God could communicate with God. These remarks bring me to my other main point concerning this chapter, and that regards kinship. From the earliest references to Miriam, Exod 15:20 refers to Miriam only as a sister of Aaron. Meanwhile, Num 12:1–15 associates Miriam with both Moses and Aaron, but their relationship is not clearly articulated. Hence, I suggested that the earliest references to Miriam, those that were composed before the Persian era, perhaps even earlier than the time of the exile, deal with her as an independent figure. These references come from sources that are earlier than the Priestly source. Moreover, this analysis suggests that Miriam’s kinship with the Levites developed starting first with Aaron (Exod 15:20), then with Moses and finally with the Levite family as  a whole (Num 26:59). It seems that the kinship tradition

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

117

around these figures evolved gradually in the Pentateuchal traditions.262 Miriam’s association with Moses and Aaron in the Persian era lead to her integration into the Levites in the late Persian or early Hellenistic era at the latest. Additional witnesses to the relationship among the three figures are provided by Deut 24:8–9 and by Mic 6:4, which possibly derive from  a source other than those Penta­ teuchal traditions that emphasize the kinship. They appear to derive from the Dtr editors. Micah 6:4 especially assumes a broad association among the figures, but it does not discuss kinship. Likewise, Deut 24:8–9 does not refer to kinship at all. These references demonstrate that whereas the family connection was present in some texts, other texts could treat Miriam independently. While it is difficult to reconstruct a clear history for Miriam as a literary figure, the lack of evident signs of institutionalized political power suggests that she was not connected to this. Rather, the debates concerning leadership that take place in the texts reflecting the wilderness era place Miriam in an unstructured setting and in a society that was in transition.263 This observation supports the earlier studies that claim that women had more opportunities to enter into leadership positions in a non-organized setting than in a context that already had hierarchical political structures.264 In such settings women could have a function outside the family context. Our analysis on Miriam shows that at times the ancient writers depict this figure independently, and without a male custodian. It is important to note the role of  a sister versus those of mother, wife or daughter. While most of the women in the Pentateuchal narratives are referred to as wives or mothers, Miriam is a unique character in the Pentateuchal texts also in this respect. They do not know other sisters who would be referred to as often. This choice of title that designates Miriam’s family relations most significantly is not a coincidence. In comparison with other female roles, sisterhood guaranteed the figure more freedom than the other roles available for women.265 Hence, it is 262 Similarly, Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 97, writes “Miriam was viewed as a figure in Israel’s ancient religious heritage parallel with Moses and Aaron, even though Levitical priesthood was ultimately passed on only through Aaron.” Rapp, Mirjam, 379–382, is of the opinion that the kinship mainly indicates an equal position among the figures. 263 E.g., Meyers, Discovering Eve, 189–196 and Ackerman, “Why Is Miriam Also among the Prophets?” 47–80, have earlier argued that women’s significance is enhanced in texts that reflect a tribal, unorganized society. Cf. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 121–130, who deals with Miriam as a cult official who may have been inspired by a historical character functioning in Kadesh. Furthermore, Kessler, “Miriam and the Prophecy of the Persian Period,” 64–72; Rapp, Mirjam, 392–297; Fischer, “The Authority of Miriam,” 159–173, all suggest Miriam lost her importance around the Persian era when the importance of Moses became more prominent. 264 See n. 263. 265 Camp, “The Problem with Sisters: Anthropological Perspectives on Priestly Kinship Ideology in Numbers,” 121–129.

118

Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era

noteworthy that this title was associated with Miriam. It implies that the ancient references do not generally try to push her into the common category of women or into categories that would restrict her. Rather some ancient writers, and probably also broader communities where these authors functioned, interpreted Miriam as one of the independent female figures. Following the Bakhtinian theory on intertextuality presented in the introduction of this study, that texts as products of specific contexts reflect these contexts, I argue that these first remarks concerning Miriam also provide  a witness to the status of women in the ancient world. With regards to women’s role in the communities, the analyzed passages most significantly suggest that a leadership role could be attributed to a woman. For instance, Num 20:1 and Miriam’s death notice claim that it was possible to preserve traditions concerning women’s death. Such traditions were written down and were memorized. Moreover,  a woman who was later remembered did not need to represent women in a traditional role, i. e., in that of a mother or a spouse. She did not need to be buried in a family tomb. It was possible that an important woman was later remembered as an independent agent. The lists are also interesting from a gender perspective. Generally speaking, as the list of Levites displays  a special interest in the priests, it is curious that Miriam appears in it at all. Often the limited presence of women in the lists of the Hebrew Bible has been interpreted as a sign of their marginalized position. However, on my view Miriam’s appearance in the priestly list of Num 26:59 suggests, at least concerning some particular women, a partly different scenario. Miriam’s presence in this text that focuses on priests is a sign that women could carry weight in certain contexts. Her presence in the Levite list was perceived as adding to the significance of this family. Hence, women’s presence could give added value to families in places that were generally male dominated. I will return to this topic in section 3 that deals with Miriam as a member of the Levite family more in detail. The last passage that this study analyzed in this section was Mic 6:4. This text also portrays Miriam as  a leader who communicated with God. This passage adds to the understanding that, while women’s access to political leadership was limited, they could more easily occupy religious leadership positions. Divine commission could legitimize women’s portrayal in prominent roles in settings where such depiction would otherwise be restricted.

3. Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

This section of my study explores the figure of Miriam in the context of those texts that were composed in the Hellenistic era. The death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.E. marks the beginning of this era. It continued until ca. 63 B.C.E., when the Roman army took over Judea.1 Whereas the previous chapter dealt with texts that originated in ancient Judea and Israel, the Hellenistic era brings forth Jewish texts originating in ancient Egypt as well. A great Jewish population lived in Egyptian territory during the Hellenistic era. The majority of them were concentrated in Alexandria, but some Jewish population was likewise found in other centers, such as in the Elephantine community in Upper Egypt.2 While the Jews of Egypt certainly used earlier texts that were produced in Judea and Israel, and perhaps the most comprehensive example of their literary activity is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint), they are known to have composed their own literature too.3 This chapter attests to the previously unknown texts from the Judean side as well. Most significantly, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid-20th century has challenged earlier views concerning ancient Jewish literature.4 The previously unknown texts found in Qumran that refer to Miriam belong to the Hellenistic era. This chapter examines the texts from the Hellenistic era referring to Miriam by separating those produced in Judea from the Egyptian texts. The decision to separate the two sets of texts is a methodological one. The aim of this division is to provide  a deeper analysis of the texts. After analyzing the two groups of texts separately, I will later, in the conclusions of this chapter, analyze the two groups comparatively. I will ask whether and how the texts composed in different settings differ from one another and what the particular emphasis characteristic of each setting is. 1 See 1.4. n. 82. 2 John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000), 3–5; John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Medi­ terranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan 323 BCE–117 CE (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 19–34; Erich S. Gruen, “Judaism in Diaspora,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 77–96. 3 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 29–112; Katell Berthelot, “Early Jewish Literature Written in Greek,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 181–199. 4 The first person to call this discovery the most important of the 20th century was probably William F. Albright (see, Yigael Yadin, The Message of the Scrolls [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957], 51). The story of the discovery of the collection is famous and goes beyond the purpose of this study.

120

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

3.1 Texts from Judea 3.1.1 Miriam in Lists II: 1 Chronicles 5:29 3.1.1.1 Introduction The reference to Miriam preserved in 1 Chronicles 5:29 appears in the context of a name list.5 1 Chr 1–9 contains extensive genealogies from the creation to the time of Saul. Usually 1 Chr is dated in the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C.E.6 Interestingly the lists preserved in 1 Chr 1–9 have  a close connection with the lists of the Pentateuch. They seemingly mirror the lists of the Pentateuch such as Gen 46:11; Exod 6:16–25 and Num 3:2, 17–20. Nonetheless, the lists of 1 Chronicles do not simply replicate the ones preserved in the Pentateuch. They differ from the Pentateuchal ones, for instance, by introducing new characters and at other times omitting others. Furthermore, whereas the list of Num 26 explains that it is  a census of the families that departed from Egypt, the task of the lists of 1 Chr 1–9 is not specified. These lists aim at providing genealogies for more general purposes. These variations call the relationship between the different lists into question. It is probable that the compiler of 1 Chr 1–9 knew different lists, including the Pentateuchal ones, but perhaps also others.7 5 For understanding the purpose of the lists, see 2.5, where I deal with Miriam in Num 26:59. 6 Several indicators in Chronicles support  a date between the 4th and 3rd centuries. The concluding reference to Cyrus of Persia requires a post-exilic date (2 Chr 36:22–23). The translation of 1 Esd, containing 2 Chr 35–36, is dated to the second century B.C.E. Hence the text must have been written before that. Moreover, Sir 47:8–10 presupposes Chronicles’ description of David. For this date see, e.g., H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NBC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982), 15–17; Isaac Kalimi, “Die Abfassungszeit der Chronik — Forschungsstand und Perspektiven,” ZAW 105 (1993): 223–233; Gary N. Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 116; Peter B. Dirksen, 1 Chronicles (trans. Anthony P. Runia; Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 5–6; Steven J. Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles (LHB/OTS 442; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 5; James T. Sparks, The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9 (Academia Biblica 28; Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 366; Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 196. Contra, scholars who have suggested a later date, e.g., ­Martin Noth, The Chronicler’s History (trans. H. G. M. Williamson; JSOTSup 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 73, assumes the latest date for the text, between 300 and 200 B.C.E.; Peter Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (Neukirchen-­ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 199–200. For a complex discussion concerning the date, see Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 13–16. In this study I do not separate the lists of 1 Chr 1–9 from the rest of the texts. Hence, when discussing the date of the book, I assume it is the date of the lists too. 7 Knoppers; 1 Chronicles 1–9, 403; Dirksen, 1 Chronicles, 6–7. It should be pointed out that when I refer to the author(s) of 1 Chronicles in this study, I do not assume any relation to the other books of the Hebrew Bible. The Chronicler’s relationship with the books of Ezra and Neh has been discussed extensively. E.g., Sara Japhet, “The Relationship between Chronicles

Texts from Judea

121

Before turning to the figure of Miriam, one detail concerning 1 Chr 1–9 should be pointed out. Like the list of Num 26 considered earlier in this study, the Chronicler’s genealogies also pay particular attention to the Levite family. The lineage of Levi is dedicated 81 verses (1 Chr 5:27–6:66).8 This extensive treatment of the Levites cannot be seen as a coincidence. Scholars have argued that it reflects the writer’s view of Levi’s status among the tribes.9 On the other hand, the reason for this extensive treatment may rest on this book’s general emphasis on cult. The Levites held different cultic functions.10 Further, it has been suggested that the Levite list exhibits that Aaron is directly connected to the sons of Levi.11 These interests can also indicate the origin of the text. The majority of scholars place the text in the Temple circles of Jerusalem. That would explain the focus on the Temple and the interest in the priests and Levites.12

3.1.1.2 Women in 1 Chronicles 1–9 Several women appear in the lists preserved in 1 Chr 1–9.13 Women are referred to with various titles indicating kinship. The texts present them in role of “wife” (‫)אשה‬,14 “daughter” (‫)בת‬,15 “concubine” (‫)פלגש‬,16 “sister” (‫)אחות‬,17 and “mother” (‫)אם‬.18 The use of these titles affirms what has been set forth in connection with the list and Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 298–314; Peter R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler in His Age (JSOTSup 101; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 344–359. 8 Note that my chapter division follows the MT and differs from the LXX, where the Levites are listed in 1 Chr 6:1–81. 9 Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 145. 10 Sparks, The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9, 363–364; Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles, 11–13; Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 197. Furthermore, Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, 79, argues that this type of list (which legitimizes a status) makes sense only when the family line is connected to a cultic position. 11 Klein, The Books of Chronicles, 112, 212, thinks that the aim of this is to demonstrate the unbroken priestly lineage from the times of Aaron and his sons to the present. Cf. Deirdre N. Fulton, “Genealogies,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 662, who claims that 1 Chr 5:27–41 deals with legitimizing the Levites’ position. 12 Dirksen, 1 Chronicles, 11–14; Klein, 1 Chronicles: A Commentary, 16–17; Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles, 11–13. I will deal with the Levites more extensively in 3.1.6. 13 For a more detailed study concerning the titles attributed to women in these lists, see Antje Labahn and Ehud Ben Zvi, “Observations on Women in the Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9,” Bib 84 (2003): 457–478. 14 1 Chr 1:50; 2:18, 26, 35; 3:3; 4:5, 18–19; 7:4, 15–16, 23; 8:8–9, 29; 9:35. 15 1 Chr 1:50; 2:21, 23, 49; 3:2, 5; 4:18, 5:16; 7:24, 28–29. 16 1 Chr 1:32; 2:46, 48; 3:9; 7:14. 17 1 Chr 1:39; 2:16; 3:9, 19; 4:3, 19; 7:15, 18, 30, 32. 18 1 Chr 2:26; 4:9.

122

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

of Num 26 (2.5). Women appear in the texts of the Hebrew Bible predominantly as wives or daughters. Nonetheless, apart from these designations, the lists of 1 Chr 1–9 refer once to a woman as “daughter-in-law” (‫ כלה‬1 Chr 2:4), and most surprisingly, once as “a son” (‫ בן‬1 Chr 5:29)! The particular interest of this study lies in the last reference of these designations. The passage of 1 Chr 5:27–40 lists the Kohathite line of Levi’s sons, and 1 Chr 5:29 introduces Amram’s children. It is there that Miriam appears as one of Amram’s sons: “and the sons of Amram were Moses and Aaron and Miriam.”19

3.1.1.3 Text Criticism (1 Chr 5:29 MT) ‫ ומרים‬ ‫ומשה‬ ‫אהרן‬ ‫עמרם‬ ‫ובני‬ The genealogies of 1 Chr 1–9 are generally written from the perspective of the head of the family, who is mentioned first in the list. Then the list turns to his offspring, “his children.” 1 Chronicles 5:29, which lists the offspring of Amram, follows this style.20 The BHS apparatus suggests Miriam to be a later addition to 1 Chr 5:29.21 I agree with this view.22 My previous analysis concerning the references to women in the list of Num 26 (2.5.2) supports this view. While discussing Numbers 26 above, I pointed out that sons and daughters are usually discussed separately. This style is dominant in 1 Chr 1–9 as well: “Sheshan had no sons, only daughters” (1 Chr 2:34), “Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters” (1 Chr 4:27), etc. These examples demonstrate that this appears to be the standard style of reference to the female offspring.23 The statement that Miriam was one of Amram’s children differs drastically from this style. Given that male and female children are never addressed collectively as “his children” (cf. Gen 3:16; Exod 22:23) in the lists of 1 Chr 1–9, the reference to “Amram’s children” (‫ )בני עמרם‬of 1 Chr 5:29 stands out and calls for clarification. Even more so, it should be emphasized that

19 Translation by the present author. I deliberately refer to Miriam as a son when discussing 1 Chr 5:29 in order to emphasize the case I argue for later in this chapter. Similarly Dirksen, 1 Chronicles, 97; Joachim Becker, 1 Chronik (NEchtB; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986), 32. Most of the modern Bible translations (NRSV, NIV, KJV, etc.) translate more freely that Miriam was one of Amram’s children. I will discuss the reasons that motivate my translation in more detail in the section on text criticism, 3.1.1.3. 20 “Now Kohath was the father of Amram. The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and she bore to Amram: Aaron, Moses, and their sister Miriam” (Num 26:58–59). For this style, see my earlier discussion of women in genealogies in 2.5. 21 Similarly e.g., Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 92–94. 22 Contra Dirksen, 1 Chronicles, 97 and Rapp, Mirjam, 373, 376, who do not take it as a later addition, but deal with the verse as a unity. 23 See n. 15 and n. 17 of this ch. for the references to daughters and sisters in 1 Chr 1–9.

Texts from Judea

123

the reference to Miriam preserved in the list of Num 26:59 follows the usual style. There Miriam is mentioned as “their sister Miriam” (‫)ואת מרים אחתם‬. While the lists of 1 Chr 1–9 mention several women, none of them appear in the list of the Levites in 1 Chr 5:27–41. This passage follows the male lineage exclusively. This is a strong argument for the name of Miriam being a later addition to the Levite list.24 Moreover, the point that male and female offspring are referred to separately in the lists, which lack a gender-neutral term (i. e., “children”), favors this notion. Many scholars have suggested that the term “sons” (‫)בני‬ that denotes Amram’s descendents in 1 Chr 5:29 should be translated inclusively, i. e. “Amram’s children.”25 This obscures the fact that elsewhere in 1 Chr 1–9 the term exclusively denotes male offspring, i. e., “Amram’s sons.”26 This linguistic point makes it more likely that Miriam’s name is a later insertion. This interpretation that the term ‫בני‬ points to male lineage in the Levite genealogy finds support in the other early witnesses to this passage that equally seem to understand that the term referred only to males. The LXX translates this as “sons” (υἱοὶ). Meanwhile, it should be pointed out that when translating some other Pentateuchal passages, the LXX renders the term ‫ בני‬inclusively, “children” (τέκνα).27 This demonstrates that an inclusive translation of the term ‫בני‬ was indeed possible. A similar treatment of this term can also be recognized in the Latin translation. In Vg. the same term (‫ )בני‬is translated filii. This term (masculine plural) comes from filius, which likewise means a son and male offspring. In sum, the ancient witnesses to this verse differ from the usual style of the lists where male and female offspring is presented separately. Hence, they testify to an interpretation that the name of Miriam appeared in a list of sons.28 The terms used in the early translations are curious. The ancient writers must have realized that Miriam was a female. Therefore her consistent listing as a son needs clarification. The textual witnesses to this tradition that agree on the name of Miriam unanimously indicate that if the name was an addition to an already existing list, as has been suggested, it was made at an early stage. It was then 24 It has been argued that the literary history of the overall passage of 1 Chr that deals with the Levites (1 Chr 5:27–6:66) is complicated. Several scholars have separately suggested that it is not a literary unit, but a production of different hands. E.g., Roddy L. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, Tex: Word Books, 1986), 81; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 146–149; Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9, 407; Dirksen, 1 Chronicles, 94. Cf. Klein, 1 Chronicles: A Commentary, 193, who argues that this passage is a literary unit. 25 HALOT 1: 137–138. 26 Cf. Braun, 1 Chronicles, 82, who thinks that the inclusion of Miriam may be authentic and it is precisely permitted by the wider meaning of the term ‫ ;בן‬Dirksen, 1 Chronicles, 97. 27 See HRCS 2: 1340–1342 for various examples of how the translators of the LXX often translate the term ‫בן‬ gender-neutrally. E.g., Gen 3:16; 17:16. Meanwhile, the term υἱός is generally reserved to denote male gender. I will return to this matter in 3.2.1 where I discuss the LXX. 28 The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) shares this understanding. Peter W. Flint translates this passage “sons of Amram.”

124

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

copied into all text traditions. We will return to this question when considering the evolution of the tradition of 1 Chr 5:29.

3.1.1.4 Miriam in 1 Chronicles 5:29 The portrayal of women depicted in 1 Chr 1–9 differs from the Pentateuchal lists. Importantly, the Levite genealogy of 1 Chr 5 does not mention Jochebed, or any other woman of the Levite family. An exception to the rule is the figure of Miriam, which appears next to Moses and Aaron as “sons of Amram.” This makes her the most important woman in the Levite genealogy of 1 Chr. Interestingly, the treatment of the Levite family in 1 Chr 5:29 does not particularly stress the figure of Moses, unlike some other passages of the Hebrew Bible, where Miriam is presented next to her brothers. This treatment also has some consequences regarding the figure of Miriam. In this context she is not depicted primarily as the sister of Moses and Aaron. Rather the interest of the writer seems to be in the Levite family. Hence, the portrayal of Miriam also focuses on her as a descendent of the prominent lineage. She is depicted as a child of Amram, together with Aaron and Moses. Sara Japhet calls the inclusion of Miriam in this list “the final stage of her (Miriam) absorption into the Amramites.”29 The evidence unfolded earlier indicates that the name of Miriam may have been an addition to an already existing list that follows the male lineage. In my view, circles that held the importance of the Levite family in high regard and interpreted Miriam as an essential part of this genealogy probably inserted her name. For them the addition of Miriam in the genealogy of the Levites increased the importance of this family. We should again take Wilson’s theory into consideration at this point. The importance of these lists goes beyond their disputed historicity. They demonstrate power structures. According to this interpretation Miriam was given  a place in the Levitical family, i. e., later interpretation received Miriam as  a member of the same powerful family and affirmed this connection by an emphasis on the blood lineage.30 Furthermore, Wilson has suggested that people who are horizontally on the same level should be regarded as equals.31 Miriam’s position in the list of 1 Chr 5:29 next to Moses and Aaron implies that some people interpreted the three, despite their obviously different functions, as equals within the Levite family. 29 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 150. 30 Cf. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 98–101, who claims that because of the association with the priestly family, the figure of Miriam might have had some contact with priestly circles. Moreover, Burns suggests that Miriam may have been an early priestess. 31 Wilson, “Genealogy,” ABD 2: 929–932. Rapp, Mirjam, 373–376, argues that referring to Miriam as one of Amram’s children (Rapp translates the term ‫בני‬ inclusively as including Amram’s daughter Miriam as well), the author highlights that Miriam, Moses and Aaron were on the same level.

Texts from Judea

125

3.1.1.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts 1 Chronicles 5:29 resembles the list preserved in Num 26:59 in certain key respects. First, both of them display a particular interest in the Levites. Moreover, they single out Miriam among the Levite descendents. Out of the female figures they mutually highlight the daughters of Zelophehad (Num 26:33; 1 Chr 7:15) and Asher’s daughter Serah (Num 26:46; 1 Chr 7:30). It has been suggested that the writer of 1 Chr 1–9 used a preliminary version of the Pentateuchal list, i. e.,  a list that preserved  a more extensive genealogy.32 That could explain the similarities between the texts. Moreover, Num 26:59 is the only passage that lists Miriam, Moses and Aaron in clear kinship (as Levites). This notion strengthens the plausible relationship (dependency) between Num 26:59 and 1 Chr 5:29. Despite these observations, it should be pointed out that while the author of the list may have been aware of the list of Num 26:59 or other previous lists that mention Miriam as a member of the Levite family, the author did not necessarily copy the kinship between Miriam, Moses and Aaron from Num 26:59. The style of 1 Chr 5:29 differs remarkably from the Numbers list. While the latter separates Amram’s children according to their sex, 1 Chr 5:29 refers to them together. Hence, although the author of 1 Chr 5:29 may have been aware of the Pentateuchal traditions, the writer did not need the list of Num 26:59 to create a family link between Miriam, Moses and Aaron. This connection was already well known.33 Thus, an intertextual relationship between Num 26:59 and 1 Chr 5:29 should not necessarily be assumed. Given the disparity in the structure of 1 Chr 5:29, where the name of Miriam appears alongside the reference “sons” (‫)בני‬, the name should be viewed as a later addition to an already existing list. Nonetheless, the insertion should not be dated too late. Miriam was interpreted as a prominent member of the Levite family from at least the third century B. C.E onward. That explains her name in this list. The insertion in 1 Chr 5:29 should not be dated much after this.34 I will return to the history of the Levites in more detail at the end of this chapter.

3.1.1.6 Summary The aim of the list in 1 Chr that refers to the figure of Miriam reflects that of Num 26. This genealogy also draws boundaries between different groups and thus affirms power structures. By emphasizing the Levite lineage within the context of genealogies, the author or redactor of the passage highligts the significance of 32 See Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, 51, 55–57; Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles, 8.  33 Similarly Burns, Has the Lord indeed Spoken only through Moses, 93–94. 34 Contra e.g., Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 91–97, who thinks that the name was not a later addition to the list of 1 Chr 5:29.

126

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

this particular family. It is possible that the list was composed in a situation where the Levites especially aimed at demonstrating their importance. The writer of the genealogies may have had the earlier Pentateuchal lists at hand while creating the new one, yet this genealogy also adds to the previous ones. Thus, it demonstrates that groups continued interpreting already existing lists in new situations. The figure of Miriam is listed as one of Amram’s children (lit. “the sons of Amram”). This emphasizes her importance as  a member of the Levite family. The insertion of the name demonstrates that the scribes had some freedom when copying genealogies. They could perform their tasks with some independence to make changes to the text to make it more fitting and dynamic. Adding the name of Miriam in this list bears witness to the significance of this figure. The fact that her name was added to this list indicates that for the scribe it was important to highlight her association with the Levite family. While Miriam’s name in the list points to the significance of this figure, it also may suggest that she was thought to bring more prestige to the Levitical lineage. Clearly she was one of the best-known members of the family, and the family list where her name appears is a reminder of that connection. It is not a coincidence that she is the female figure that appears in the lists that otherwise follow male lineage. Thus, on my view, linking Miriam with the Levites was reciprocally status-building. In this respect it is interesting that various genealogies claimed a Levite origin for all priests. Adding the name of Miriam among the Levites may have served the purpose of claiming for this group a more prominent position in society. The presence of Miriam demonstrated that this significant ancestor was also of the Levites. This notion will be explored further in section 3.1.6.

3.1.2 Miriam as the Daughter of Amram: The Visions of Amram a,c,d,e,g 3.1.2.1 Introduction The Visions of Amram (VA) is preserved in seven Aramaic manuscripts, 4QVisions of Amrama-g (4Q543–549).35 The manuscripts were officially published by Émile 35 These manuscripts were originally assigned to Jean Starcky, who communicates, “Le travail d’édition des fragments manuscrits de Qumrân (communication de J. Starcky),” RB 63 (1956), 47–67, 66, that “Un apocryphe analogue au Testament de Lévi est représenté par trois manuscrits au moins.” Later these texts were discussed by Józef T. Milik in “4QVisions de ’Amram et une citation d’Origène,” RB 79 (1972): 77–97. Milik (“4QVisions de ’Amram et une citation d’Origène,” 77) mentions that Starcky had increased the number of the manuscripts attesting to 4QAmram to five. See idem, “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: d’Hénoch à Amram,” in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (ed. M. Delcor; BETL 46; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978), 91–106. Visions of Amram was finally officially published by Émile Puech, in idem, Qumrân Grotte 4. XXII:

Texts from Judea

127

Puech in the DJD series.36 According to their paleographic date, the texts of 4Q543; 4Q544 and 4Q547 are the earliest. They were probably written in the early and mid-Hasmonean period, the second half of the second century B.C.E.37 The other copies of VA also date to the Hasmonean or the early Herodian period. The number of copies may indicate various things. Seven copies preserved in the Qumran collection demonstrate that this text did not find itself there by accident (cf. many texts are preserved in one copy), but that it was a known text, and it probably had significance for those who possessed the texts. The large number of copies also suggests the copies preserved in the Qumran collection were written in different periods by different writers. The date of the preserved manuscripts indicates that VA originated in the pre-Qumran era.38 Henryk Drawnel has also pointed out the term ‫פרשגן‬ (copy), which appears at the beginning of VA (4Q543 1 1). It signifies that the author wants to present the work as a copy of an already existing, and perhaps earlier text.39 Therefore the action of transcribing is clearly mentioned. This remark implies that the preserved manuscripts did not contain the original autograph of the VA, and therefore the text may have been earlier, or at least the author implied it was earlier than the copies preserved among the DSS. Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549 (DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 283–405. The status of the manuscripts 4Q548 and 4Q549 continues to be discussed. Apart from Puech, other scholars, e.g., White Crawford, “Traditions about Miriam in the Qumran Scrolls,” 42, also thinks that they could be copies of Visions of Amram. Others think that our present evidence is not adequate for such an assumption. This opinion was already raised by Milik as noted by Puech, “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personage eschato­lo­gique. 4QTestLévic-d (?) et 4QAJa,” in The Madrid Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991 (ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 2:449–501, see 491 n. 49. More recently, Robert R. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram 4Q543–547 (Studies in Biblical Literature 135; New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 35–37 and Liora Goldman, “Dualism in the Visions of Amram,” RevQ 95 (2010): 421–432, 425, have questioned the status of 4Q548 and 4Q549. I think that 4Q549 is another copy of Visions of Amram. My arguments will unfold in 3.1.2.6. Meanwhile I do question the status of 4Q548, which seems different from the texts preserved in the other manuscripts. As 4Q548 does not contain references to Miriam, it will not be discussed here in detail, but it is a subject of a separate study. 36 Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4. XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549, 283–405. 37 Puech, “Visions d’Amram,” in Qumrân Grotte 4. XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549, 285–289; Devorah Dimant, “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community,” in Flores Florentino, 197–205. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 89–101, dates the Visions of Amram between 225–200 and ca. 150 B.C.E. 38 For dating the community, see Jodi Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 63–68. For the date of the Visions of Amram, see Puech, “Visions d’Amram,” 285–289. Based on my examination of the manuscripts in the office of the Israel Department of Antiquities in October and November 2010, I agree with Puech. 39 For discussion, see Henryk Drawnel, “The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram and its Literary Characteristics,” RevQ 96 (2010): 517–554, 527. The term ‫פרשגן‬ is an Aramaic word that also appears in Ezra 4:11, 23; 5:6. The term was also known in other languages of the ANE. See HALOT 2:1960.

128

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

Other arguments are also in favor of the second century B.C.E. date. The VA deals with the patriarchal history. The manuscripts 4Q543–549 preserve a text where the head of the patriarchal house instructs his children from his deathbed. The vast majority of scholars accept that this feature makes the VA an example of so-called testament literature.40 The literary work is based on the Pentateuchal tradition of Exod 6:20, which narrates the family tree of Moses and Aaron. Significantly, when Exod 2 narrates Moses’s birth, it does not mention the name of Moses’s father.41 It has been argued that the VA has a strong interest in purity and priesthood.42 The writer wanted to stress the purity concerns in these texts that deal with the priestly family. The editor of VA, Puech, argues that Jub., which is also dated to the mid-second century B.C.E., knew the VA.43 Both texts refer to the motif of burying the ancestors’ bones in the cave of Machpelah. While VA mentions this event briefly, Jub. spends more time in elaborating it (Jub. 46:9–47:1). Other themes that could connect the two texts are the emphasis on the father of Moses, Amram, who remains in the shadows in the Hebrew Bible, and stressing endogamic mar­ri­ 40 Already Starcky assumed he was dealing with a testament-type genre as he compared the text to the Testament of Levi, “Le travail d’édition des fragments manuscrits de Qumrân,” 66. Nonetheless, the first to call Visions of Amram a testament was Milik “4QVisions de ’Amram et une citation d’Origène,” 93–97. His theory regarding the testament literature was later accepted by Puech, “Visions d’Amram,” 283; Eckhard von Nordheim, Die Lehre der Alten: I Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit (AGJU 13; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 117; Marius de Jonge, “The Testament of Levi and ‘Aramaic Levi,’” RevQ 13 (1988): 367–385, 372; Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 119; Jörg Frey, “On the Origins of the Genre of the ‘Literary Testament’: Farewell Discourses in the Qumran Library and their Relevance for the History of the Genre,” in Aramaica Qumranica: The Aix-en-Provence Colloquium on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Daniel Stökl-Ben Ezra and Katell Berthelot; STDJ 94; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 345–369, 359–361. Cf. Drawnel, who has questioned the use of the term “testament” in the case of VA. See Drawnel, “The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram and its Literary Characteristics,” 518–523; idem, “The Literary Form and Didactic Content of the Admonitions (Testament) of Qahat,” in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumrâniens en hommage à Émile Puech (ed. Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel and Eibert Tigchelaar; STDJ 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 55–74, 70–73 and most recently, “The Literary Characteristics of the Visions of Levi (so-called Aramaic Levi Document),” JAJ 1 (2010): 303–319, 303–307. Drawnel points out the methodological problem that the later Greek testaments have been used as a genre model for an earlier Aramaic text. Moreover Drawnel claims that the Aramaic compositions, the VA and ALD, take their narration further than the Greek testaments. Thus, their function seems to be rather didactic than merely to deliver the last address. 41 “Now a man from the house of Levi went and married a Levite woman” (Exod 2:1). See 2.5.2. 42 Robert A. Kugler, “Testaments,” in The Encyclopedia of The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2: 933–936. Drawnel, “The Literary form and Didactic Content of the Admonitions (Testament) of Qahat,” 70–73, who generally criticizes scholars’ use of the designation “testament,” sees a likely continuity between the ALD, the Testament of Qahat and the VA. He writes (ibid., 72) that the three texts stem from “the didactic priestly milieu.” 43 Puech, “Visions d’Amram,” 286–287.

Texts from Judea

129

ages.44 Puech’s theory that Jub. depends on the VA gives the latter a date prior to 150 B.C.E.45 I preliminarily accept Puech’s suggestion that the VA is the earlier of the two. The earliest preserved copy of the VA was written in the second half of the second century B.C.E. I will return to the question of the possible intertextual relationship between these two texts in section 3.2.3, where I will discuss Jub. in more detail. As the VA was found in the Qumran caves, we must consider its connections with this site and with the texts associated with the Qumran community before entering into a deeper analysis of this composition.46 Whereas VA displays some dualistic features, it lacks the particular features that are connected with the ideology attributed to the Qumran community, and that the documents that are assigned to them clearly mirror (e.g., explicit references to the community).47 44 Cf. James C. VanderKam, “Jubilees 46:6–47:1 and 4QVisions of Amram,” DSD 17 (2010): 141–158. VanderKam accepts that the two texts are interested in the same themes, yet he refuses the idea that this creates a direct dependency between them. He writes, (ibid. 158): “I see no compelling evidence for concluding that the writer of the latter (Jub.) took the war tradition with its chronology from the VA.” Meanwhile, Betsy Halpern-Amaru, “Burying the Fathers: Exegetical Strategies and Source Traditions in Jubilees 46,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (ed. E. G. Chazon et al.; STDJ 58; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 135–152, 150–151 and Jacques van Ruiten, “Between Jacob’s Death and Moses’ Birth: The Intertextual Relationship between Genesis 50:15–Exodus 1:14 and Jubilees 46:1–16,” in Flores Florentino, 467–489, accept that there is  a connection between the VA and Jub. Van Ruiten (“Between Jacob’s Death and Moses’ Birth,” 484) writes that the author of Jub. probably knew of a tradition similar to that of VA. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 99–101, discusses the relationship between the two texts. Duke claims that the VA is the earlier of the two, but he leaves the question of intertextual dependency open in his study. 45 Puech’s further arguments for the date of the text are in “Visions d’Amram,” 287, where he claims that the language of the text reflects an earlier date than the second century B.C.E., third and even fourth century B.C.E. 46 The traditional understanding of the Qumran community claims that the members residing in Qumran were Essenes. This theory states that the members of Qumran are to be identified with the Essenes described by Josephus, Philo, Pliny and other ancient sources. As this term remains disputed in the field of the DSS, I refer to “Qumran community” when making a contrast between the texts composed at Qumran and those originating elsewhere. 47 For the characteristics of the texts that are assumed to be composed in Qumran, see, for instance, by Carol Newsom, “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. William Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Noel Freedman; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 167–87; Armin Lange, “Kriterien essenischer Texte,” in Qumran kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. Jörg Frey and Hartmut Stegemann; Einblicke 6; Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003), 59–69; Devorah Dimant, “The Composite Character of the Qumran Sectarian Literature as an Indication of its Date and Provenance,” RevQ 22 (2006): 615–630; eadem, “The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts,” in Qumran und die Archäologie: Texte und Kontexte (ed. Jörg Frey, Carsten Claußen u. Nadine Kessler; WUNT I/278; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 347–395; Heinz-Josef Fabry, “The ThWQ — Perspectives of the First International Symposium of the Advisory Board 2008,” RevQ 93 (2009): 165–172. The texts that are usually attributed to the Qumran community include, for instance, the Rule of the Community, the Pesharim, and the War Scroll.

130

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

Indeed, my further analysis of this text will show that in fact the ideology of VA is sometimes in conflict with that of the Qumran community. Third, it has been argued that the texts that are directly connected with the community were composed in Hebrew, and not in Aramaic.48 There is no evidence that VA was written in Hebrew and only later translated into Aramaic. Thus, “a Qumran origin” should not be assumed for the VA. Its origin must be in another Jewish community of the Hellenistic era.49

3.1.2.2 Women in the Visions of Amram One important feature of the VA must preface the closer study of this text. Female figures receive a particular treatment in this text.50 First of all, endogamy plays an important role in the VA. The figures of the Levitical family are married to members of the same family.51 The protagonist of this text, Amram, maintains (4Q544 1 8) that while he was away from home for 41 years, he did not take another wife but that during those years away from home he stayed faithful to his wife Jochebed. Amram’s decision not to take another wife from the local Ca­na­anite women is not merely a rejection of intermarriage. It is also due to his feelings for his wife Jochebed, as his longing to look upon “the face of my wife” reveals.52 Jochebed appears multiple times elsewhere in the VA. Amram mentions his wife several times, at least twice by name (4Q544 1 5, 7). This is remarkable, given that the name of Jochebed does not appear in those narrations of the Hebrew Bible where one could expect to find her (Exod 2:1; Num 26:59; 48 Stanislav Segert, “Die Sprachenfragen in der Qumrangemeinschaft,” in Qumran-­Pro­ bleme: Vorträge des Leipziger Symposions über Qumran Probleme vom 9. Bis 14. Oktober 1961 (ed. H.  Bardtke; Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1963), 315–339; idem, “Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu einigen aramäische texten von Qumran,” ArOr 33 (1965): 190–206; Devorah Dimant, “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran community,” in Flores Florentino, 199. 49 These remarks do not rule out Puech’s proposal that the text was composed by members of  a pre-Essene/Qumran group. See Puech, “4QTestament de Qahatar,” in Qumrân Grotte 4. XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549, 257–282; Liora Goldman, “The Burial of the Fathers in the Visions of Amram of Qumran,” in Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical Patriarchs in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz; BZAW 439; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 231–250, 241. 50 I deal with this theme more in detail in Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176. 51 Miriam’s marriage will be dealt with in 3.1.2.3. Aaron’s marriage is not narrated anywhere until rather late rabbinic texts. It may be mentioned in the text of 4Q549 2 10, but due to the deterioration of the manuscript, the reading cannot be confirmed. 52 Similarly Halpern-Amaru, “Burying the Fathers,” 149; William Loader, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality (Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman Era; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 324–325; Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 166–167.

Texts from Judea

131

1 Chr 5:29).53 Even though the text of the VA is preserved only in fragments, these few examples suggest that it gives the figure of Jochebed considerably more attention than the texts of the Hebrew Bible give her.54 Moreover, the text deals with visions, and according to it both Amram and Miriam had some revelations where divine messages were communicated to them. The figure of Miriam is mentioned at least four times in this text: 4Q543 1 6 = 4Q545 1 I, 5; 4Q546 12 4; 4Q547 9 10; 4Q549 2 8. 

3.1.2.3 Miriam’s Marriage (4Q543 1 6 = 4Q545 1 I, 5–6) Currently the study of the VA lacks an edition that makes use of all seven manuscripts. In what follows, my focus is on the content of the text, and I will make use of already existing (different) editions in my analysis.55 The figure of Miriam appears in the opening of the VA. Two different manuscripts preserve the name of Miriam in the beginning of the text: 4Q543 and 4Q545. Because of their textual overlapping, it has been possible to reconstruct the text. The reading of “Miriam” in 4Q543 1 6 (= 4Q545 1 I, 5) is certain. There the VA preserves a narration that concerns Miriam’s marriage. A passage in 4Q543 1 5–7 (= 4Q545 1 I, 5–7) narrates how the figure of Amram arranges his daughter’s marriage: “he sent and called to Uzziel his younger brother [and he gave] him Miriam his daughter in marriage when she was thirty years old. Then he gave a feast lasting seven [day]s and he ate and drank at the feast and rejoiced…”56 As demonstrated in section 2 of this study, many text sources tend to highlight Miriam’s sisterhood to Moses and Aaron as her most important family relation. The early references to Miriam, however, do not express any interest towards her own family. Therefore this passage of the VA (4Q543 1 5–7 = 4Q545 1 I, 5–7) is the first text where Miriam’s husband appears. It is of interest that the text does not portray Miriam marrying young. This is markedly different from the rabbinic ideal to marry young. The ideal age for  a girl to be married was 12 (m. Nidd. 53 This may be due to the consanguineous marriage between Amram and Jochebed, which was unacceptable for many. I will deal with this question in relation to the connection between Jub. and the VA in 3.1.4.5. 54 See Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 166–167. 55 Puech, “Visions d’Amram,” 283–405; E. Cook, trans., “Visions of Amrama-g (4Q543–549)” in the Dead Sea Scrolls Reader: Volume 3 Parabiblical Texts (ed. Donald W. Parry & Emanuel Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 412–443; Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten. Aramaistische Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Deutung, Grammatik/Wörterbuch, Deutsch-arämaische Wortliste, Register (3 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 2:117–126; Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 9–42. 56 My translation is based on the reading preserved in both 4Q543 1 5–7 and 4Q545 1 I, 5–7. Miriam’s marriage might likewise be preserved in 4Q546 1 4. 

132

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

5.6–8). Describing Miriam as being thirty creates a parallel with the ALD, where the marriage of Amram and Jochebed is recorded. They are told to marry at the age of thirty.57 The Visions of Amram introduces Amram’s brother Uzziel as Miriam’s husband. Uzziel is also known in the Hebrew Bible. The character is mentioned in the family genealogies of Exod 6:18 and Num 3:19.58 These passages affirm the tradition that he was one of the sons of Qahat and therefore Amram’s brother. This family relation makes the marriage between Miriam and Uzziel a peculiar one. Various texts from ancient Judaism forbade marriages between close family members. The prohibition of aunt-nephew marriages is articulated in the laws of the Pentateuch (Lev 18:12–14; 20:19).59 Later in Hellenistic times the prohibition was repeated in rephrased rules, i. e., Halakhah A (4Q251) 17 3–5;60 Tb (4Q524) 15–22 3–4;61 Ta (11Q19) LXVI, 15–17,62 and CD V, 7–11.63 Importantly these recapitulations of the Pentateuchal marriage laws do not only prohibit aunt-nephew marriages, but they even extend the ruling to cover uncle-niece marriages that are not explicitly prohibited in the laws of the Pentateuch. Thus, some circles clearly avoided or at least expressed disapproval of unions between close family members. Other texts at Qumran and elsewhere, however, took a different approach to this question of marriage between close family members. Not all Jews of the late 57 See ch. 11.  The references concerning the ALD follow the numbering by Greenfield, Stone and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document. See, Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 172–174. For the age of marriage, see Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 65–69. 58 “The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel” (Exod 6:18); “The sons of Kohath by their clans: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel” (Num 3:19). 59 “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s flesh. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s flesh. You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt” (Lev 18:14). “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister or of your father’s sister, for that is to lay bare one’s own flesh; they shall be subject to punishment” (Lev 20:19). 60 “A man [may not expose] the nakedness of the sister of [his] mo[ther or his father; it is depravity. And a woman may not marry the brother of] her father or the brother of her mother” (trans. E. Larson, M. R. Lehmann, and L. Schiffman in DSSR 1: 317). 61 “No man may marry his aunt, whether paternal or maternal; that is immoral. No man is to marry his brother’s daughter or his sister’s daughter; that is abhorrent” (trans. E. Tov and S. White Crawford in DSSR 3:131). 62 “A man shall not take his father’s sister or his mother’s sister, for this is wickedness. A man shall not take his brother’s daughter or his sister’s daughter, for this is an abomination” (trans. Y. Yadin in DSSR 3: 215). 63 “Furthermore they marry each man the daughter of his brothers and the daughter of his sister, vac although Moses said, ‘Unto the sister of your mother you shall not draw near; she is the flesh of your mother’ (cf. Lev 18:13). But the law of consanguinity is written for males and females alike, so if the brother’s daughter uncovers the nakedness of the brother of her father, she is the flesh (of her father).” Trans. E. Cook in The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library.

Texts from Judea

133

Second Temple era banned such marriages. For many, a union between family members in general and marriage between uncle and niece in particular was the ideal.64 For instance, according to Josephus (e.g., A.J. 17.1–22), Herod the Great facilitated uncle-niece marriages in his family. Also the DSS attest to marriages with close family membes. For instance ALD 12:2–4 witnesses Amram marrying his aunt Jochebed (Levi’s daughter). Marriage within the family was seen to carry both socio-economic and political advantages. When new people did not enter a particular family through marriage, all power (political, economic, etc.) remained within an exclusive group. Hence it is likely that especially uncle-niece marriages were practiced in spite of the ban.65 In addition to unions with family members, marriage with foreigners appears frequently in various texts of the Hellenistic era. Polemics against intermarriage that were set particularly in the Persian era continued during Hellenistic times.66 For instance, Jub. argues against mixed marriages. Rebecca summoned her son Jacob and spoke to him: My son, do not marry any of the Canaanite women like your brother Esau who has married two wives from the descendants of Canaan. They have embittered my life with all the impure things that they do because everything that they do (consists of) sexual impurity and lewdness. They have no decency because (what they do) is evil. I, my son, love you very much; my heart and my affection bless you at all times of the day and watches of the nights. Now, my son, listen to me. Do as your mother wishes. Do not marry any of the women of this land but (someone) from my father’s house and from my father’s clan. Marry someone from my father’s house. The most high God will bless you; your family will become a righteous family and your descendants (will be) holy.67 64 Archer, Her Price is Beyond Rubies: The Jewish Woman in Graeco-Roman Palestine, 133, argues that the Jews of Hellenistic Palestine did contract niece-uncle marriages and regarded them as permissible; Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 75–79. Regarding ancient marriages see John J. Collins, “Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism,” in Families in Ancient Israel (ed. Leo G. Perdue et al.; Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 104–162. 65 Oded Borowski, Daily Life in Biblical Times (SBLABS 5; Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 82, argues that marriage was a way to protect a family’s inheritance. See also Thomas Hieke, “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis and Ezra-Nehemiah,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology (ed. Géza G. Xeravits and Józef Zsengellér; JSJSup 98; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 103–120. Later rabbinic literature regards uncle-niece marriage as the ideal union. Therefore it is likely that this practice always existed in some Jewish circles. See Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, 156–158. 66 See my earlier discussion on Num 12 in 2.3.3 where I discuss Moses’s marriage to the Cushite woman. While the earliest layer of the Hebrew Bible does not imply hostility towards intermarriage, it becomes an issue in the post-exilic era. For prohibited marriages in the DSS, see Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Prohibited Marriages in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature,” in Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 7–9 January, 2003 (ed. Steven D. Fraade, Aharon Shemesh and Ruth A. Clements; STDJ 62; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 113–125. 67 Jub. 25:1–3. See also Jub. 7–11; 30:7–17; 33:18–20. The translations of Jub. are by VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text.

134

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

Moreover, Genesis Apocryphon outlines the endogamous marriages of Noah’s sons (1Q20 VI, 6–9).68 Miqsat Ma’aśê ha-Torah describes how one should separate oneself from everything done by the gentiles (4Q394 3–7). Even more so, the Ta considers intermarriage between Jewish men and foreign women as a serious threat to the community and strictly forbids it (11QTa II, 11–15). An exception to this rule appears in a recapitulation of Deut 21:10–14 (11QTa LXIII 10–15), which allows a Jewish man to marry a foreign woman who is a war captive.69 In the framework of marriage, the nuptials of the Levite family often receive particular interest in the Hellenistic texts that deal with this family. In the Testament of Qahat (4Q542 1 I, 4–7), the head of the family, Qahat, gives instructions to his offspring, warning them about exogamy. Notably, several of these texts emphasize women in their narration. This indicates that the female lineage plays an important role in the “purity” of the priestly house.70 Isaac exhorts Levi to observe priestly endogamy (ALD 6:1–5) and Levi follows the command, marrying his relative Melcha (ALD 11:1). The writer presents Melka as the daughter of Levi’s maternal uncle, i. e., his cousin.71 By doing so, Levi also sets the model for future generations to follow.72 Furthermore, as pointed out above, the ALD reports that Amram follows this example by marrying Jochebed who is Levi’s daughter (ALD 12:3).73 While endogamy was practiced by different groups of Jews in antiquity, the texts display a particular interest on the priestly marriages. They were required to be even purer than other unions; therefore, priests had to marry within their own families.74 It is evident that the topic of intermarriage is important for the VA. 68 I thank Matthias Weigold for pointing this out to me. 69 For discussion, see Schiffman, “Laws Pertaining to Women in the Temple Scroll,” 210–228. 70 See Betsy Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 60; Leiden: Brill, 1999). Further, Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 165–176. 71 Greenfield, Stone and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 181. Note that in Jubilees this union is discussed in 34:20, where Melka is mentioned. “The name of Levi’s wife was Melcha, one of the daughters of Aram — one of the descendants of Terah’s sons.” To compare the different traditions, see the tables in Greenfield, Stone and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 182–183. 72 Drawnel, “Form and Content of the Admonitions (Testament) of Qahat,” 69–70. 73 The union of Amram and Jochebed is described as the ideal in ALD 12:3–5. See 3.1.2.2 where I discuss the portrayal of Jochebed in the VA. Also, Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 166–167. 74 Ian C. Werrett, Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 72; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 255–257. Werrett (Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 285–286) suggests that the authors that accepted Miriam’s marriage to her uncle may have been unaware of the laws of incest between an uncle and a niece. Those were implemented only later on. Further, Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 64. I have elsewhere argued that, rather than ignoring the Sinai laws or viewing the generations prior to the Exodus as not subject to these laws, the author of VA highlights that the characters acted as priests before Sinai and they married according to the priestly marriage legistlation, i. e., within the priestly class. Cf. Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 172–176.

Texts from Judea

135

In his initial speech, the dying figure highlights that he himself arranged his daughter’s wedding. This narrative element also stresses the importance of endogamy for the Levitical family.75 The polemics against intermarriage, on the one hand, and a stress on endogamy, which was implemented by marrying family members, on the other, provide a background for understanding Miriam’s marriage with her uncle in the VA. By emphasizing the family ties within this union, the VA attempts to demonstrate that Miriam’s marriage, like the other marriages of the patriarchal house, was endogamous and respected the priestly marriage legislation. The reference to Miriam in this context is not very long, but the length of the feast (7 days) may suggest that according to the VA this was Miriam’s first marriage. She was not a widow or divorced.76 After describing the wedding celebrations, the text moves on to deal with the narration of Amram’s testament.

3.1.2.4 Miriam’s Mystery (4Q546 12 4) The term raz (‫ )רז‬is prominent in ancient Jewish literature and it appears in the preserved VA altogether four times. The word is a loan from Persian that was first borrowed into Aramaic and later into Hebrew.77 This term is also widespread in the texts found at Qumran.78 In the Aramaic Jewish texts this term raz applies to secrets and mysteries, and only selected people have access to them.79 The term already appeared in Aramaic literature in the 3rd century B.C.E. (e.g., in the Genesis Apocryphon), while it was not used before the 2nd century B.C.E. in the 75 Drawnel, “The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram and its Literary Characteristics,” 526. 76 Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, 178–179, points out that the Hebrew Bible models the feast of 7 days (Gen 29:27; Judg 14:12, 17). He further explains that a feast was a private matter and thus it is only rarely commented on in the rabbinic texts. 77 R. G. Kent, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1953); Maximilian Ellenbogen, Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology (London: Luzac & Company, 1962), 153; Samuel Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (SBLEJL 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2009), 245–251. 78 For discussion, see, e.g., André Dupont-Sommer, “Le problème des influences étrangères sur la secte juive de Qoumrân,” RHPR 35 (1955): 75–94; David Winston, “The Iranian Com­ ponent in the Bible, Apocrypha and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence,” HR 5 (1966): 183–216; Jörg Frey, “Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library: Reflections on Their Background and History,” in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (ed. Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez and John Kampen; STDJ 23; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 275–335; Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 47; Daniel J. Harrington, “The Rāz Nihyeh in a Qumran Wisdom Text (1Q26, 4Q415–518, 423),” RevQ 17 (1996): 549–554, 550; Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 241–244. 79 Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 241–244.

136

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

Hebrew texts. In the Hebrew texts the term raz appears around the early second century B.C.E.80 The term raz is linked to several prominent figures in Second Temple literature. Enoch, Methuselah and Noah are all connected to raz in the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20 V, 20, 25; VI, 12). The figure of Aaron is linked to raz in the VA (4Q545 4 16).81 Notably Miriam is the only female figure that the DSS attest to accessing raz (in 4Q546 12 4). This does not mean that other women could not be connected with raz, but that Miriam is the only one whom the preserved scrolls witness doing so. The passage reads: “and the secret of Miriam he made to th[em]” (‫)ורז מרים עבד לה[ון‬. In those instances where raz is linked to prominent figures, it indicates possession of wisdom and access to esoteric knowledge of mysteries, i. e., the order of creation. Some figures dealing with raz feel compelled to share their vision. This happens with Enoch (1Q20 V, 20–21), who first makes raz known to Methuselah, who in turn interprets it to Lamech. One reason for this could be that his raz needs interpretation.82 Sometimes raz is connected to visions, as in the case of Noah, who is led to raz by a vision (1Q20 VI, 11–12). In his vision Noah is informed of the deeds of the sons of heaven, and he does not tell the mystery to anyone. The text might also have included the interpretation/significance of the dream, but because of the deterioration of the manuscript there is no certainty. A similar use of raz can also be found in the Hebrew Bible, where Daniel explains the mystery (raz) of the king’s dream. The content of raz is revealed to Daniel in a vision during the night (Dan 2:19).83 Raz can thus appear in a dream as well as in a vision, and it often needs interpretation. For this study it is important to recognize that apart from individuals, certain families are connected with raz. In this case, several members of a single family have access to raz. The Genesis Apocryphon attests to Enoch, Methusaleh, Lamech 80 E.g., Ben Sira. For the date of Sir, see John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 24. 81 See 4Q545 4 15–19. Puech, “4QVisions d’Amramc,” 343, translates as follows: “Qu’il a ]écrit dans le pays pour lui, Moïse. Et aussi au sujet de A[aron, son frére et de la (grande) prêtrise,]Je] te montrerai le mystère de son exercise, un prêtre saint il est [pour le Dieu Très-Haut, aussi (?)]sainte sera pour lui toute sa race dans toutes les générations à ja[mais. Et un bien-aimé [envoyé (?) de Dieu] (Le)  septième parmi les homes qui [lui] sont agréables, il sera] appelé, et il sera dit [l’élu de Dieu car]Il sera choisi pour (être) prêtre à jamais.” Note that the reading of the term raz in line 16 is certain. For parallels to the term “sacred priest,” see e.g., the Testament of Leviar, Bodleian b. 5–6, 19–21; 1Q20 XXII, 15.  82 Samuel Thomas, “‘Riddled’ with Guilt: The Mysteries of Transgression, the Sealed Vision, and the Art of Interpretation in 4Q300 and Related Texts,” DSD 15 (2008): 155–171. 83 Daniel is not called prophet in the book, but chief of the wise (1:48). Yet his visionary acts also indicate a prophetic role. The Book of Daniel is included in the Hebrew Bible in the writings, ketuvim (though in the prophets in the LXX). Daniel is considered a prophet in several early Jewish texts: e.g., 4Q174; A.J. 10.267–268.

Texts from Judea

137

and Noah all accessing raz. Parents might have had  a role in instructing their offspring in raz. For instance, Levi reports how he instructed his sons and their sons (4Q213 1 5). Levi, who teaches his children wisdom, assures the audience of ALD (perhaps his offspring) that his descendants will access some special knowledge. Some Jewish texts of the Second Temple era do indeed connect Levi’s offspring to visions. They follow its members in each generation. Levi’s dreams are preserved in the ALD chs 4 and 11.84 He foresees the significance of his son Qahat (ALD 11:5–6) and his grandson Amram (ALD 11:6; 12:4). Qahat’s address to his son Amram is preserved in the Testament of Qahat.85 Finally, the VA narrates Amram’s visions and moreover his testament. The text refers to his vision at least four times (4Q544 1 10–11, 4Q546 9 2, 14 5; 4Q547 9 8). Thus, according to the authors the teaching goes from Levi to Qahat and from Qahat to Amram, forming a chain of three generations.86 Visions of Amramc (4Q545) 4 15–16, where Aaron is linked to raz, Amram explains that the secret (raz) of Aaron’s work is that he is a holy priest and his descendants will be sacred.87 Similarly, the importance of Moses is revealed to Amram in  a vision. 4Q545 3 2–4 reads: “I will show you the mystery (raz) of his service: He is a holy judge.”88 The structure of these messages regarding the importance and future of Aaron and Moses resemble one another. The heavenly messenger announces to the recipient of the message, i. e., Amram, that the mystery (raz) of their ministry will be revealed. Then the messenger tells the recipient what their future ministry will be. Aaron will be the priest and Moses the judge. This revelation takes place prior to their birth.89 Samuel Thomas thinks that Amram and Aaron might be associated with “mysteries” because they are descendants of Levi, who is understood to be the first priest and the father of all priests.90 According to his proposal, this text aims at saying something about priests, namely the kind of knowledge they possess 84 Cf. the visions preserved in the Testament of Levi 2:6–12. There an angel speaks to Levi and tells him he will be a high priest and will tell forth God’s mysteries; in the Testament of Levi 8 the vision includes men dressed in white who bring the message. Here the significance of his offspring is prophesized and Levi does not tell this vision to anyone. Levi is told to instruct his children in the knowledge, and he does so. 85 Qahat addresses his sons in 4Q542 1 I, 4. 86 Hanna Tervanotko, “Trilogy of Testaments: Testament of Qahat vs. the Aramaic Levi Document and the Visions of Amram,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures (ed. Eibert Tigchelaar; BETL 270; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 41–59. For  a study of the figure of Amram, consult Pieter van der Horst, “Moses’ Father Speaks Out,” in Flores Florentino, 491–498. 87 See n. 81. 88 The translation is mine. 89 Drawnel, “The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram,” 531–532. 90 Thomas, The “Mysteries” of Qumran, 120.

138

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

and the authority on which such knowledge is based. The priestly motif is in line with the general theme of the VA. The priestly role follows the male lineage of the Levite family, and the text demonstrates a strong interest in it. I agree with Thomas, but it is important to note that there is a second feature of this text which we would miss if we only focused on the priesthood. The VA is also interested in Amram’s other children, namely Moses and Miriam. Unexpectedly, Amram’s vision links raz with Miriam. In this case, raz also appears prior to her birth and in the midst of her father’s vision. Unfortunately, this passage is even more fragmentary than the ones concerning Moses and Aaron; the immediate context of Miriam’s raz (4Q546 12 4), however, does link it to Miriam and not to Amram.91 Apparently, there was something about Miriam that was revealed to Amram in like manner as that concerning Moses and Aaron. As this text clearly deals with Amram’s three children, my suggestion is that this line of the text follows the same pattern of meanings as the lines on Aaron and Moses. Amram addresses his children directly in 4Q546 14 1–5. There (line 5) he also mentions his visions again: “what I saw” (‫)חזית‬. Puech’s reconstruction of the text suggests that the term “visions” appears in it.92 It seems that in that context the figure of Amram returns to his present narration and to the testament he delivers to his children. Therefore, what happens before should still be a part of his visions. If Puech’s placement of the fragments is correct, it strengthens my previous argument that the passage of 4Q546 12 4 refers to Miriam’s secret, i. e., her ministry.93 The reading of Miriam’s raz matches the style and content of the VA, where Miriam is an important character. Above it was demonstrated that the text pays particular interest to her marriage. I will return to this below. The author(s) of the text was certainly aware of the roles attributed to Miriam in the earlier texts, especially those of a female prophet and a visionary. This line of argumentation will be expanded in the next sections when Miriam’s role in the VA is explored further. They will strengthen my argument that Miriam’s raz was revealed to Amram in a vision.

91 Puech, “Visions d’Amramd,” 365. 92 Puech, “Visions d’Amramd,” 367; Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 27. 93 I am aware that the order of the fragments of 4Q546 is not certain. Puech, “4QVisions d’Amramd,” 365–368, places frg. 12 at the top of column VIII and frg. 14 in column IX. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 33, thinks 4Q546 12 contains text “with unidentifiable episode placement.” Similarly Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer, Band 2, 123–124, who does not place this text anywhere in his reconstruction of the text of VA.

Texts from Judea

139

3.1.2.5 Miriam’s Birth (4Q547 9 10) Puech thinks that 4Q547 is one of the earliest copies of the VA, and that this copy was written sometime in the second century B.C.E.94 While 4Q547 overlaps with other copies of the VA, frg. 9, which mentions Miriam, contains text that is not preserved in the other copies of the VA. The fragment preserves 12 or 13 lines with some text. Miriam appears in line 10. That line is very fragmentary and the reading is not sure. Therefore this reference to Miriam is not at all clear. Before considering the role of Miriam in this passage, we should thus look at the overall passage and its content. Moses plays an important role in 4Q547 9 1–7. These lines refer to building an altar (4Q547 9 3), Mount Sinai (4Q547 9 4), sacrificing cattle (4Q547 9 5) and priests (4Q547 9 6). Puech thinks that the name Moses might appear in 4Q547 9 2.95 Even if the name remains uncertain in this context, the terminology of the passage provides sufficient evidence to argue that lines 1–7 discuss Moses. They might also refer to Aaron when mentioning the priesthood (“his son shall be exalted as priest over all the children of the world” 4Q547 9 6).96 In lines 8–10 Amram says: “then I awoke from the sleep of my eyes and wrote down the visions […]97from the land of Canaan and it happened to me as [the angel] said […] Miriam and afterwards I took ten[…]” This passage, which is preserved particularly well in this fragment, sets the context for the text. As Amram wakes up from his dream, line 8 resumes the beginning of the VA, where it is said that Amram had written down his visions. Moreover, by mentioning Amram’s awaking, the text indicates that the proceeding lines 1–7 of 4Q547 9 are probably still a part of Amram’s dream. Also, the further contents of 4Q547 9 1–7, which reflect events (e.g., Sinai) that have not yet taken place, support the view that the events of lines 1–7 take place in Amram’s dream. In line 9, Amram turns to narrate what happened afterwards: “from the land of Canaan and it happened to me as he said.”98 Puech reconstructs the end of the line: “as the angel said to me.” This reconstruction would affirm that his previously narrated vision was actually realized. Then Amram mentions Miriam: ]‫ [מרים ומן באת[רה] לקחת עשר‬.99 94 Puech, “Visions d’Amrame,” 378. 95 Puech’s reconstruction (“Visions d’Amrame,” 389) is highly questionable because the Aramaic text preserves only the letter he of the name of Moses. The rest is reconstruction. 96 Puech, “Visions d’Amrame,” 389–390. 97 Puech, “Visions d’Amramc,” 389, restores “Et moi, je me réveillai du sommeil de mes yeux et la vision, [je] mis par écrit[.” Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 25, “And the vision I wr[ote ].” 98 This reconstruction is based on the remaining letters of line 10; the rest of the line is questionable due to the deterioration of the manuscript. 99 Note that the reading of Miriam in this line is not totally certain because of the deterioration of the manuscript. The first letter mem is debatable. Yet according to Puech, and also

140

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

The part of the VA that is best preserved is the beginning, where Amram narrates his story to his children from his deathbed. This provides the overall context and frame for the narration. The dying Amram addresses his children. He recites his journey to Hebron to bury his ancestors’ bones. Fragments 1–2 of 4Q547 preserve this part. As the narration of 4Q547 takes place in the past, it is plausible that it is still part of his memoir to his children. Miriam’s name appears immediately after Amram has pointed out that things happened to him as was foretold.100 Therefore it may apply to something that happened when he was returning or had just returned to Egypt. It is unlikely that the passage refers to Amram meeting Miriam upon his return  to Egypt. The chronology of VA makes it impossible. It reports that Miriam was married to Uzziel when she was 30 years old (4Q543 1 6). Elsewhere in the VA it is stated that Amram spent 41 years in Canaan without seeing his wife (4Q544 1 6). Had Miriam already been born before Amram left for Canaan, she would certainly have been older by the time of her documented marriage. After these remarks it is now time to return to 4Q547 9 9 and the line, “it happened to me as he said.” I think that the mention of Miriam has something to do with this. In a vision that I have previously discussed (4Q546 12 4), something was probably announced to Amram regarding his daughter. While the preserved passage concerns merely Miriam’s mystery (raz), it is possible that the overall passage contained more information regarding her. Thus, it would be justified to say that upon Amram’s return to Egypt the events that were anticipated in a dream were fulfilled. Puech has offered an explanation for this, proposing that line 9 concerns the birth of Miriam.101 This interpretation would also explain the end of line 10 “and afterwards I took ten…” that Puech thinks concerns Aaron’s birth, which was ten years after Miriam’s. Moreover, Moses was born three years after Aaron.102 This interpretation would offer some explanation for the number (probably “ten” or “twenty”) that appears at the end of line 9.  The Visions of Amram may give the age of Aaron elsewhere. Namely, at the beginning of the text (4Q543 and 4Q545) where Amram calls for Aaron, the text reads “age.” Yet it has deteriorated in such way that the year is missing.103 Nonetheless, as Miriam was known as the eldest of the siblings, it has been suggested that this 4Q547 9 10 could point to the difference of age between Amram’s children.104 in my view, it is difficult to place another letter in the gap because the left line of the letter is readable. 100 Puech, “Visions d’Amrame,” 389, reconstructs: “as the angel had said.” The term angel does not appear in the text and hence is Puech’s reconstruction. 101 Puech, “Visions d’Amrame,” 390. 102 Puech, “Visions d’Amrame,” 390. Cf. Exod 7:7. 103 García Martínez and Tigchelaar, “[H]e was […] years old” (DSSSE 2:1089). 104 Puech, “Visions d’Amrame,” 390. For the ancient Jewish traditions concerning Miriam and Aaron before Moses’s birth, see Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 2:261. Furthermore

Texts from Judea

141

The rest of line 10 should also be considered. In particular the term ‫ לקחת‬needs clarification. Some editions read this as the verb ‫לקח‬ (“to take, to get”). This view is most prominently argued by Puech, who reads the term in light of his theory regarding Amram’s children in line 10.105 While the verb ‫לקח‬ can be translated in many ways,106 Puech seems to relate the verb to having children. The verb ‫לקח‬ is used in various places to denote a family relation, and adoption is one of the meanings of the verb. It may also bear a significance “to conceive, to impregnate.”107 The verb could appear in the first person perfect (“I got”). That would make sense in a context where Amram seemingly addresses his speech to a person in his company (4Q547 9 9). Moreover, the term Puech restores in the line, the term ‫באתרה‬, is a combination of the preposition ‫ ב‬with ‫“ אתר‬place.” This means literally “in the place” and is usually translated as “after, afterwards.”108 Therefore the end of the line could read that after the birth of Miriam he (Amram) got other children (Aaron). The other possibility that has been proposed is to read the term ‫ לקחת‬as a proper noun “Qahat” with a prefixed preposition.109 This explanation finds support elsewhere in the text. Qahat is a figure that is mentioned frequently in the VA. The writer assumes that he was alive and that he had an influence on the figure of Amram.110 The problem with this reconstruction is the end of line 10. After Miriam is mentioned, what could have happened to Qahat? One could expect to read the family line of Qahat in this context. Despite this, the text does not seem to deal with Qahat’s sons. Qahat was known to have four sons: Amram, Yizhar, Hebron and Uzziel (Exod 6:18; Num 3:19, 27; 1 Chr 5:28). None of them matches this context. Moreover, as the testaments generally deal with the future of the specific character delivering them, it would be unusual to find the narration returning to Qahat and the previous generation at this point. Fundamentally the vision is about the future of the Levitical house and its offspring, and according to my view, it does not therefore concern Qahat directly. Therefore I agree with Puech’s reconstruction of the line and prefer to read that after Miriam, Amram got other children.

Exod 7:7 explains that that the age difference between Aaron and Moses was three years. The portrayal of Miriam in various ancient Jewish texts where she appears as the anonymous sister of Exod 2:4 assumes that she was older than three years. Hence, the ancient authors generally assume that she is older than Aaron. 105 Puech, “Visions d’Amrame,” 389. 106 HALOT 1: 534–545. 107 BDB, 542. 108 Puech, “Visions d’Amrame,” 389. For the translations see HALOT 2: 1831. 109 See DSSR 3:441. 110 For instance, Qahat’s presence is emphasized in 4Q544 1, 3: “Qahat and my wife let me stay.”

142

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

3.1.2.6 Miriam in the Family Genealogy (4Q549 2 8) This copy of the VA was earlier identified as “4QWork Mentioning Hur and Miriam” because of the two names that appear in this text.111 Scholars assumed that Hur and Miriam were the protagonists of the text. Puech suggested in DJD 31 that 4Q549 should be another copy of the VA.112 Puech built his theory on the nature of 4Q549, which appears to highlight the genealogy of the Levitical house. This style is in line with 4Q543–547, the other copies of the VA, which generally display a strong interest in the Levitical family. Because of this it is possible that the manuscripts 4Q543–547 also once contained genealogies that are now lost. Secondly, according to Puech, the language and terminology in particular of 4Q549 resemble that of 4Q543–548. For instance, 4Q549 1 2 mentions “Egypt” (‫)למצרין‬. The same term appears in 4Q543 1 4 (= 4Q545 1 I, 4) and 4Q545 1 II, 16, 19. This text also mentions several characters that are present in other copies of the VA. Earlier in this chapter we studied the passages where the name Miriam appears. It also occurs in the family genealogy of 4Q549 2 8. Lastly, 4Q549 2 10 mentions the figure of Aaron, who is likewise referred to in 4Q545 1 I, 8; 11 1; 4Q546 8 2, 11 3, 12 3.  Regarding the text of 4Q549, Puech observes that the names Hur and Miriam belong to two different lines.113 The name Miriam appears in line 8 whereas Hur is preserved in line 9.114 Therefore, while earlier scholars suggested that this text linked the two figures together (“Work Mentioning Hur and Miriam”), the difficulty of reading “Miriam married Hur” in 4Q549 2 8 is evident. Rather, line 8, that mentions Miriam, might continue with the names of Miriam’s children. The Visions of Amram argues that Miriam is married to the brother of Amram, Uzziel (4Q543 1 1; 4Q545 1 I, 1), and 4Q549 seems to share the same idea, because the beginning of line 9 preserves the name “Sithri.” According to Exod 6:22, Sithri was one of Uzziel’s children. Before line 9 moves on to deal with Hur there is a vacat. Then the text continues ‫ונסב חור‬.115 Therefore it is evident that the rest of line 9 that deals with Hur might refer to Hur’s marriage and children. This is confirmed by the name Uri that appears 111 Puech, “4QVisions de Amramg (?)ar,” 399, explains that the title “Composition mentionnant Hur et Miriam” was originally proposed by Starcky. It was later adopted by García Martínez and Tigchelaar, DSSSE 2:1096, “Work Mentioning Hur and Miriam.” 112 Puech, “Visions of Amramg(?),” 399–405. 113 Puech, “Visions of Amramg(?),” 402–405; White Crawford, “Traditions about Miriam in the Qumran Scrolls,” 41–42. 114 Puech, “Visions of Amramg(?),” 402–403, also reads the name Hur at the beginning of the first line. I find this highly unlikely, given that only the last letter resh is left. 115 Khet is not certain. The space for the letter is narrow and that allows only a limited range of letters to fit the space. Khet appears to be the best option for reconstruction because it fits the space and because Hur can be associated with the family of Miriam in Jewish texts.

Texts from Judea

143

in line 10.  Uri was one of Hur’s children (1 Chr 2:20). Hur’s appearance in this context is not peculiar. According to rabbinic tradition Hur was one of ­Miriam’s sons, and therefore he was  a prominent representative of the priestly family from both Miriam’s and Uzziel’s sides.116 It is possible that this tradition regarding Miriam’s own family appears in the VA. The continuity of the narration is possible to detect as the right margin of this fragment is preserved. This conclusion that the names of Miriam and Hur belong to different lines and that Hur can be read as Miriam’s son, which was previously set forth by Sidnie White Crawford, strengthens Puech’s theory of 4Q549 as the seventh manuscript of the VA because the text deals with Miriam’s marriage.117 Similarly to the VA preserved in other manuscripts, the text of 4Q549 shows interest in the lineage of the Levite family. The third argument regarding the status of this text concerns the genre of the VA. Many scholars interpret this text as  a testament;118 others, however, have argued that an extended genealogy fits this genre poorly.119 Like Drawnel, I think that in the case of the VA the term “testament” should be used anachronistically, if at all.120 Because the VA is preserved only fragmentarily, one cannot be sure of all of its characteristics. Therefore one should not be limited to one genre, i. e., the testament literature, when discussing the possibilities of this text. It is possible that it also preserved a genealogical list. A similar style that elaborates the future genealogy and particular dates of the patriarch’s life can also be noted, such as in the ALD, chs. 11–12. Line 6 ends by narrating Amram’s departure to his “eternal home.” Line 7 preserves  a long vacat that may indicate  a change of topic. Then the text lists Amram’s offspring. The genealogy is not any random genealogy, but that of Amram, who has been the protagonist of the previous narrations. This point also builds a bridge between 4Q543–547 and 4Q549. Therefore the purpose of this part would be to affirm that what Amram anticipated earlier did take place later on. The beginning of VA is narrated in the third person singular; then it switches to Amram’s memories and to the first person. It is rather logical that at the end the text would once again return to the third person in order to return to the narrative framework of the composition. Puech tentatively suggests that the text of VA finishes here.121 It seems likely from the point of view of the narrative, yet 116 This tradition will be dealt with in more detail in 4.3.4 and 4.3.5, where I discuss Josephus’s portrayal of Miriam’s marriage. Hur reappears in that context. For the rabbinic texts, see e.g., b. Sotah 11b–12a. 117 White Crawford, “Traditions about Miriam in the Qumran Scrolls,” 42. Loader, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality, 326, also thinks it is possible that this is another copy of the VA. 118 See n. 40. 119 Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 38–42. 120 Drawnel, “The Literary Characteristics of the Visions of Levi,” 318. 121 Puech, “Visions of Amramg(?),” 399.

144

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

the manuscript evidence does not provide evident support for this claim. 4Q549 2 might preserve just one part of the text.

3.1.2.7 Miriam in the Visions of Amram The figure of Miriam appears several times in the VA. The first of the references to Miriam concerns her marriage to her uncle Uzziel. It appears to be of interest to the writer of this text to demonstrate that Miriam did not marry just anyone, but, like the male members of this family, she married endogamously. Emphasizing Miriam’s marriage is one way of showing that her figure had great value and her family connections were in need of clarification. This characteristic alone could make the figure of Miriam a tool of priestly endogamy (cf. the daughters of Noah in the Genesis Apocryphon), but other points confirm that she is more than that for the writer of the VA. The second feature that makes Miriam exceptional in the VA is the term raz that is linked to Miriam. In the DSS the term raz is connected with prominent male figures, whereas Miriam, as mentioned above, is the only female figure who is attested as accessing raz in the DSS. Hence, the VA not only raises the figure of Miriam to the same level as the male representatives of the family by narrating her endogamous marriage, it also singles out the figure of Miriam together with Moses and Aaron as figures whose ministries were characterized with raz. This was significant in the case of any figure, and even more so in the case of a female. As the passage does not explain Miriam’s raz any further, the suggestions concerning it must remain speculative. However, above I tentatively proposed that Miriam’s raz could refer to her role as  a female prophet (Exod 15:20–21), or as  a visionary (Num 12:6–8). While the VA deals with the time before the Exodus and the wilderness period, and hence it does not directly depend on Exod 15:20–21 and Num 12, the author of the VA may have had these earlier traditions in mind when composing Miriam’s raz. Miriam appears again when the narration turns to Amram’s time in Egypt. At this point the text seems to communicate that Amram’s earlier vision concerning Miriam’s birth had been fulfilled. This also emphasizes the importance of this figure and her presence in the divine visions. Finally, the name of Miriam that appears in the genealogy is a tool to demonstrate the endogamous origin of her family. These references to Miriam demonstrate that the VA has  a clear interest in this figure. The text returns to Miriam frequently, and the passages concerning her build a twofold image. On the one hand, the VA presents Miriam as Amram’s daughter, the sister of Moses and Aaron and descendant of the Levites. On the other hand, it also portrays Miriam as an individual with her own family.

Texts from Judea

145

3.1.2.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts The Visions of Amram attests to traditions that do not clearly stem from the Hebrew Bible. This study suggests that in particular traditions concerning M ­ iriam’s own family do not have forerunners in the earlier written Miriam traditions.122 Meanwhile the larger framework of the VA has affinities with the Pentateuch. References to Egypt and the theme of burying the ancestors’ bones suggest that the author of the text built on Exod 1 and 2.  Furthermore, the text builds  a narrative of Amram. Little is known of this figure in the Hebrew Bible. Amram is a character that appears mostly in genealogies. The VA provides his story.123 The dependency on the Pentateuchal text raises questions whether the author could have built on pre-existing tradition in the passages concerning Miriam. Evidently some written material must have been at the writer’s disposal. The exact genealogical data that goes beyond Moses’s birth narrative, displaying similarities with the Levitical lists, suggests this. The author is aware of the Levitical continuity through Levi, Qahat and Amram as well as Amram’s larger family, which includes his brother Uzziel. The awareness is furthermore demonstrated in the list of Amram’s offspring in 4Q549. The reference concerning Miriam’s raz does not share an evident model in the narrative of the Hebrew Bible. Despite this, it may depend on previous Miriam traditions. In ch. 2 of this study I argued that Miriam’s prophetic role was established before the figure was known as the sister of Aaron and Moses. She was known to communicate with God. While further descriptions of this communication are missing from the traditions preserved in the Hebrew Bible, except that it was different from that of Moses, it is likely that such a tradition was alive. Hence the author of the VA may have had Miriam’s prophetic role and communication with God in mind while authoring the tradition concerning her raz. This would not be  a surprising continuity between the texts. The author’s dependence on the Exod 2 framework and the Levitical lists demonstrates that the author was familiar with the earlier traditions. It is possible that the descriptions of Miriam preserved in the earlier texts influenced the reference to the raz in the VA.

3.1.2.9 Summary Visions of Amram continues to build the history of the family of Levi, Qahat, and Amram. It is essential to read this text in light of other literature of its time that deals with the characters of the Levitical family, i. e., the ALD and the Testament 122 Cf. the Rabbinic literature that does not attest to Miriam’s marriage to her uncle Uzziel. I will return to the question of Miriam’s marriage in section 4 of this study. 123 van der Horst, “Moses’ Father Speaks Out,” 491–498.

146

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

of Qahat. Several references to these texts in my analysis point out that the three narrations share several similarities thematically and stylistically.124 The palaeography of the texts of the VA suggests a date in the second century B.C.E. This date should be regarded as a terminus ante quem for the composition. In light of its interests — the priestly tradition and the female figures, among others — I support the view of those scholars who date this text before the mid-second century B.C.E.125 The provenance of this text is the same circles that produced the ALD. The thematic elements assigned to the ALD, such as priesthood, Levitical lineage, and priestly lore are also distinguished in VA.126 The common interpretation of the acceptable marriages (i. e., aunt-nephew marriage) also connects these two texts.127 Given that the ALD is usually dated to the third century B.C.E. and given the elements that the two texts share, it is possible that VA was also written around the same time or soon after. The emphasized interest in Levites suggests that VA has a Levite origin. This provenance would also explain the portrayal of Miriam as  a Levite and the interest in her own family and descendents. The VA continues elaborating the family history found in the genealogies of the Hebrew Bible that adopt Miriam into the Levite family. Against this background, it is of interest that the text does not simply treat Miriam the way that genealogies generally treat women, i. e., as spouses without their own history. On the whole, these genealogies tend to mention the name of the woman and the children she bore to continue the male lineage. VA does describe Miriam as an ancestor mother who had Levite descendants, but it also portrays her marriage from her own perspective and highlights her access to raz, emphasizing that she is a significant member of the family. I will return to this topic in 3.1.6. 124 For  a more comprehensive discussion, see Tervanotko, “Trilogy of Testaments: Testament of Qahat vs. the Aramaic Levi Document and the Visions of Amram,” 41–59. 125 See n. 37. 126 Greenfield, Stone and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 21–22; Drawnel, An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran, 76–77. Cf. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 110, 122, who suggests that the VA derives from  a regional priestly sect located in Hebron, and that the differences between the VA and the ALD make a common provenance of these texts impossible. I do not accept Duke’s theory and think that the provenance of the VA is not settled. For instance, the term Hebron is not actually preserved in the VA; it is based on Puech’s reconstruction of the text. It is difficult, therefore, to draw conclusions that rely too heavily on the assumption that the reconstruction of this term is correct. Moreover, endogamous marriage is a theme that is found not just in the VA alone, but also in various texts of the late Second Temple period. Hence, it does not distinguish the VA from the other texts. Rather the text appears to be perfectly in line with other texts such as the ALD and Jub. while emphasizing unions between family members. See, Tervanotko, “Trilogy of Testaments: Testament of Qahat vs. the Aramaic Levi Document and the Visions of Amram,” 41–59. 127 Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176.

Texts from Judea

147

3.1.3 The Extended Song of Miriam: The Reworked Pentateuchc (4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7) 3.1.3.1 Introduction The nature of the text of the manuscript 4Q365 has been debated. Emanuel Tov and Sidnie White Crawford, the editors of 4Q365, attributed it to the Reworked Pentateuch (RP), a collection that contains manuscripts 4Q158 and 4Q364–367.128 They proposed that each of these manuscripts once contained a copy of the whole Pentateuch. The text preserved varied from the MT. It seemed to contain an edition of the Hebrew Bible that was close to the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP).129 It equally preserved some omissions and additions in comparison with the Hebrew Bible. Hence the editors did not call the text “Pentateuch” but “Reworked Pentateuch.” Several scholars have pointed out the problems of the collection of the “Reworked Pentateuch.” Most notably, Michael Segal has argued that rather than constituting a collection, these compositions should be viewed as independent but related texts. He thinks that 4Q365, which bears similarities to the SP regarding harmonistic additions and juxtapositions, should be entitled 4QPentateuch.130 Subsequently, other scholars have also questioned the classifications by Tov and 128 Emanuel Tov and Sidnie A. White (Crawford), “Reworked Pentateuchc (4Q365),” in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 255–318. See also Tov, “The Textual Status of 4Q364–367,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress, 43–82. In the same volume, White, “4Q364 & 365: A Preliminary Report,” 217–222; eadem (as White Crawford), “Three Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 and their Relationship to the Temple Scroll,” JQR 85 (1994): 259–273. Eugene C. Ulrich suggested that 4QReworked Pentateuch be called 4QPentateuch in “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptural Texts,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Princeton Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol 1: The Hebrew Bible and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; N. Richland Hills, Tex: BIBAL Press, 2000), 105–133; George J. Brooke, “4Q158: Reworked Pentateucha or Reworked Pentateuch A?” DSD 7 (2001): 219–241. Daniel K. Falk refers to 4QRP as a collection in The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Library of Second Temple Studies 63; London: T&T Clark, 2007), 107–119. Roger Nam, “How to Rewrite Torah: The Case of Proto-Sectarian Ideology in the Reworked Pentateuch,” RevQ 90 (2007): 153–165, accepts the theory of 4QRP, but argues that the manuscripts reflect the sectarian setting. See also, Lange, Handbuch zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten, 37–43. 129 For textual traditions of the SP see Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 80–100; Reinhard Plummer, “The Samaritans and their Pentateuch,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 237–269. 130 Michael Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (ed. L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 391–399.

148

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

White Crawford.131 Therefore, more recently the editors themselves have revised their opinions. Tov is now ready to call the texts “Pentateuch.”132 White Crawford thinks that these texts had a scriptural status. Yet she does not call them copies of “the Pentateuch.”133 The paleographic date given for manuscript 4Q365 is ca. 75 B.C.E.134 Nonetheless several scholars are willing to give this composition an earlier date because various ancient Jewish texts parallel the 4Q365 narration. Most importantly T (cols. 23–24) displays dependency on the description of the Wood Festival depicted in 4Q365 frag. 23.135 The Temple Scroll is usually seen as a pre-Qumranic composition. As one copy of it, 4QRouleau du Temple (4Q524), dates to ca. 150–125 B.C.E., the composition was probably written before this time.136 The parallel between the two texts pushes the date of 4Q365 at least to the second century B.C.E. and perhaps earlier. The similarities between the texts suggest that they stem from the same literary tradition.137 Moreover, if T indeed depends on 4Q365, this point contributes to the question of the authority of 4Q365. It may imply that this text was somehow considered authoritative. In what follows, I will deal with one fragment of 4Q365. Fragment 6 (4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7) contains a version of the Song of Miriam. In this analysis, I will 131 Eugene C. Ulrich, “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997, 51–59; Brooke, “4Q158: Reworked Pentateucha or Reworked Pentateuch A,” 219–241; Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?” 169–196; Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture (STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 129–134. 132 Tov now sees 4QRP as comparable to any other authoritative text. See, e.g., idem, “The Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture: Reflections in Light of the LXX and 4QReworked Pentateuch,” in From Qumran to Aleppo, 11–28. 133 White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, 57. 134 White “4Q364 & 365: A Preliminary Report,” 217; Tov and White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuchc,” 260. 135 Hartmut Stegemann, “The Origins of the Temple Scroll,” in Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 40; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 235–256, 253–255. White Crawford, “Three Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 and their Relationship to the Temple Scroll,” 261–265; Armin Lange, “From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library,” in One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives (ed. C. Helmer and C. Landmesser; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 51–107, 79–80. Recently, White Crawford has repeated her suggestion, in eadem and Christopher. A. Hoffman, “A Note on 4Q365, frg. 23 and Nehemiah 10:33–36,” RevQ 23 (2009): 429–30, that the T used RP as its source material regarding the Wood Festival; Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 100, n. 56. 136 Émile Puech, “4QRouleau du Temple,” in Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII: Textes hébreux: 4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579. (ed. Puech; DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 87; White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 88. Cf. Lawrence H. Schiffman, Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 159–163, who argues a Qumran sectarian origin for the T. 137 White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, 51.

Texts from Judea

149

treat 4Q365 as a copy of the Pentateuch. The text of 4Q365 does not contain any literary or formal indication that it was something other than the Pentateuch. Moreover its relation to T discussed above suggests that it may have held an authoritative status.138

3.1.3.2 The Extended Song of Miriam Manuscript 4Q365 6a I preserves Exod 14:12–21. Then the manuscript breaks. The following fragment 4Q365 6b continues the text of Exod 15:16–20[21]. The editors of the text assume that the gap between the two fragments could have preserved 28 lines of text.139 Moreover, frg. 6b might be the bottom of the column. The text finishes there with Exod 15:20, but it is possible that also v. 21 belonged to the text. In the next column, 6a II, the text picks up from Exod 15:22 in line 8.  Before getting there, 6a col. II + 6c has an expansion of 7 lines of previously unknown material in the text. 1. you despised140 [ 2. for the majesty of [ 3. You are great, a deliverer [ 4. the hope of the enemy has perished and is praised (?) [ 5. they perished in the mighty waters, the enemy (or enemies) [ 6. Extol the one who raises up, [a r]ansom … you gave (?) [ 7. the one who does gloriously [141

It has been argued that the SP and the Pentateuchal text of 4Q365 derive from a common source called the pre-SP.142 The Song of Miriam preserved in the SP parallels Exod 15:20–21 apart from  a few orthographical differences between the texts.143 Thus, the expansion preserved in 4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7 follows a different tradition. The manuscript is very fragmentary, and therefore the genre of 4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7, the passage that preserves an expansion to Exod 15:20–21, has not yet been determined. Some scholars have suggested that it follows Exod 15:21 and should also be called a victory song.144 A closer look at the text and particularly at its 138 Tov, “The Many Forms of Hebrew Scripture,” 28, refers to the text as the Hebrew Scripture. 139 Tov and White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuchc,” 269–271. 140 Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 101, points out that although the translation “you despised” fits the context better, the orthography may support a translation “with an olive branch.” 141 With minor modifications, the translation follows Tov and White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuchc,” 270. I will discuss the end of line 4 in 3.1.3.6. 142 Tov and White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuchc,” 187–196. For a detailed comparison between the SP and 4QRP see Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture, 135–177, esp. 172–177. 143 The SP attests to a different ortography in Exod 15:20–21: ‫תצאנה‬, ‫במחלות‬, ‫גוי‬. 144 Tov and White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuchc,” 271.

150

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

vocabulary will help us to determine whether the vocabulary of the fragment actually supports this theory and how this text should be interpreted.

3.1.3.3 Vocabulary Analysis Fragment 6a, where the 4Q365 Song of Miriam is preserved, is damaged, and thus the material used for the vocabulary analysis consists of only 19 words. These 7 lines contain the largest preserved expansion of the Pentateuch in manuscript 4Q365. The Song of Miriam repeats some features from Exod 15:1–19, the Song of the Sea, which is attributed to Moses. The term “eminence” (‫ )גאות‬in lines 2 and 7 appears in Exod 15:1 and 7. In addition, “mighty waters” (‫ )במים אדירים‬of line 5 is found in Exod 15:10. Because of these similarities in the vocabulary, it has been argued that the Song of Miriam in 4Q365 was created in imitation of Exod 15:1–19.145 The fully preserved 4Q365 Song of Miriam may have had even more references to the Song of the Sea than what remains in the preserved text. Likewise, however, it is possible that it alludes to other literature, and we will explore those connections below. What remains from the 4Q365 Song of Miriam is very limited and inadequate to identify such particular characteristics as, for example, consistent harmonizing.146 On the basis of the terms “eminence” and “mighty waters” it is hard to reach a conclusion as to whether the words indicate a consistent harmonizing process or random editing. Therefore the 4Q365 Song of Miriam should not be called a “harmonized” text. It should be pointed out that the Song of Miriam of 4Q365 does not share vocabulary only with the Song of the Sea of Exodus, but also with some other texts. Comparing the vocabulary with other texts of the Qumran library, we find some important similarities. The term “mighty waters” (‫ )במים אדירים‬does not appear only in the Song of the Sea but also in Hodayot (1QHa XVI, 19) and in Exhortation Based on the Flood (4Q370 1 I, 4). When we compare the complete vocabulary of 4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7 with the terminology of the other Qumran manuscripts, we find most of the parallels in H: “to despise” (‫)בזה‬,147 “majesty” (‫)גאה‬,148 “great” (‫)גדול‬,149 “to perish” (‫)אבד‬,150 “to hope” (‫)קוה‬,151  “mighty” (‫)אדיר‬,152 “to deliver” (‫)ישע‬,153 and 145 Tov and White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuchc,” 270–271. 146 For harmonizing, see e.g., J. H. Tigay, “An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypo­ thesis,” JBL 94 (1975): 329–342; Esther Eshel, “4QDeutn — A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing,” HUCA 63 (1992): 117–154, 120–121. 147 1QHa XII, 22; XIII, 20. 148 4Q427 7 I, 18; II, 12.  149 1QHa V, 10; VI, 23; VII, 19, 21; VIII, 21; IX, 5; XI, 34; XV, 33; XVIII, 11, 16; XIX, 29; XX, 5; XXII, 2; 4Q427 7 II, 7; 8 I, 13.  150 1QHa XII, 9; 4Q428 53 2. 151 1QHa XVIII, 22; XIX, 31; 4Q427 7 I, 20. 152 1QHa X, 35; XIII, 7; XVI, 19.  153 1QHa X, 23; 2 II, 7.

Texts from Judea

151

“to be exalted” (‫)רום‬.154 The Song of Miriam in 4Q365 also shares vocabulary with various psalms,155 the War Scroll156 and the Damascus Document.157 Many of the manuscripts with less text where the vocabulary coincides with 4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7 belong to the “Pentateuchal” literature: the Narrative and Poetic Composition (also known as the Apocryphon of Joseph),158 the Pseudo-Moses159 and the Exhortation Based on the Flood.160 These examples show that the parallel literary material for this text is usually found in poetic texts or in texts that elaborate the Pentateuchal themes.161

3.1.3.4 Victory Songs Attributed to Women Ancient Jewish literature has preserved several hymns whose genre suggests that their Sitz im Leben was found in occasions of celebration. Some of these are attributed to women, and they take place in a military context.162 For instance, Deborah is said to praise God after the Israelites won a battle against the Canaanites in Judg 5:2–31.163 This song takes place in the setting of a war. A similar song performed after  a military victory is recited by Judith in Jdt 16:1–17. Judith, like Deborah, is depicted as  a warrior, and she is praised for rescuing Israel. Scholars such as Brooke and Egger-Wenzel have pointed out that the song of Judith shares evident parallels with the Song of Miriam of 4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7, including the following vocabulary: “Exalt him” (16:1), “He delivered me from the hands of my pursuers” (16:2), “they perished” (16:12), “you are great and glorious” (16:13).164 Furthermore, the song shares at least one parallel with 154 1QHa VII, 16; X, 28; XIV, 8, 34; XV, 16, 22, 23; XVI, 9, 35; XVIII, 25; XIX, 12, 15; XXVI, 1; XXVII, 2; XXVIII, 4; 5 7; 7 12; 8 3; 46 II, 2; 4Q427 7 I, 19. In addition to these examples, the term “water” (‫ )מים‬of 4Q365 6a II + 6c 5, also appears in H a number of times. 155 4Q380 1 II, 4, 6; 4Q381 15 4; 4Q404 1 3; 11Q11 IV, 4; 3 2. 156 1QM 1 8; X, 4; XI, 7; XIV, 4, 5; XVII, 6. 157 CD I, 15; III, 9; V, 19; VI, 20; VII, 18; IX, 4. 158 4Q371 6 2; 4Q372 1 16, 17, 29. 159 4Q387 II, 9; 2 II, 7, 11; 3 9. 160 4Q370 1 I, 4, 5, 8. 161 Unfortunately neither Exod 15:1–19 nor 15:20–21 is found within the Qumran library. 4Q14 preserves Exod 15:1, 4Q22 Exod 15:23–16:1. 162 See 2.1 where I discuss the victory songs attributed to women and their function in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible. 163 I discuss the figure of Deborah and her prophetic acts in more detail in 2.1.6.1. 164 The vocabulary similarities have previously been pointed out by Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 275–281 and separately by Renate Egger-Wenzel, “Mirjam, Debora und Judit — eine Prophetinnentradition?” in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed. Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittman-Richert; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2008; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 95–122. Note that the earliest witness to the book of Judith is the LXX, whereas the preserved Hebrew versions of this composition are much later. The scope of this study does not allow me to discuss more elaborately the correlation of the Greek and Hebrew vocabulary.

152

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

the Song of Deborah: shaking mountains (Jdt 16:15) also appears in the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:5). As it is  a typical expression in various psalms, we may assume that it is part of the military language.165 Yet, the victory songs assigned to women in the Hebrew Bible do not always appear in the context of a military battle. For instance, Hannah recites a hymn after her son Samuel is born in 1 Sam 2:1–10.166 In this case the theme “battle” should be understood symbolically. Hannah thanks God for saving her from barrenness that has caused her suffering earlier. Moreover, these songs rejoice over the birth of a son who is expected to bring relief. As this song likewise shares some linguistic similarities with 4Q365, it appears that the overlapping between them is more than coincidental.167 Hence, while the Song of Miriam in 4Q365 uses vocabulary of the Song of the Sea of Exod 15:1–19, the latter may not have been its only model. The song parallels other victory songs too.168 The Song of Miriam mentions dancing, which is often at home in military celebrations. Exodus 15:20, which mentions women’s dancing, is preserved in 4Q365. Hence it shares a similar understanding regarding what happened after crossing the sea. Apart from the singing, some passages mention dancing as  a part of the victory celebration. In Judg 11:34 Jephtah’s daughter goes to meet her victorious father dancing. Jeremiah 31:4 talks about re-establishing Israel. When this takes place, Israel will take a drum and dance. Psalm 68:26 talks about dancing in a victory parade in the context of enemies. Dancing is also referred to in the love poem of Cant 7:1. In Jdt 15:12–13 women dance in order to welcome Judith after a victory. At least Judg 11:34; Ps 68:26 and Jdt 15:12–13 assume the setting of  a military victory. Given the context of Exod 15:20–21 the Song of Miriam should be interpreted as  a response to  a military victory. Even if the Israelites do not engage in a battle against the Egyptians, their escape is an indication of the conflict between the peoples. Meanwhile the Song of Hannah (which takes place in the sanctuary!) is more of a prayer-like response for the saving act, namely the removal of her barrenness. It is difficult to imagine Hannah dancing during her chanting. Not all victory songs require dancing, but the Song of Miriam resonates with many other military victory songs in the Hebrew Bible. 165 Ps 18:7; 46:3. 166 The songs of Mary (the Magnificat) of Luke 1:46–55 and of Zechariah (the Benedictus) of Luke 1:67–79 also seem to repeat similar traditions, i. e., gratitude for a child. They bear witness to the same cultural context. The Magnificat and the Benedictus have been studied in detail by Ulrike Mittmann-Richert, Magnifikat und Benediktus (WUNT II/90; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996). 167 George Brooke discusses the similarities between the song of 4Q365, Song of Hannah, the Magnificat and the Benedictus in detail in idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 281. 168 An analysis of the relationship of these songs to one another is too complex a matter to be undertaken in this study. See Steven Weitzman, Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1997), esp. 65–70 for imitations of biblical songs.

Texts from Judea

153

Evidently these songs were attributed to their current performers, the women, for a long time. Nevertheless there is often a shift in the point of view that raises questions about their original context. For instance, Judg 5:2–31 is attributed to Deborah, but she does not seem to be  a likely performer of the song. Notably the song addresses Deborah: “because you arose, Deborah, arose as a mother in Israel” (Judg 5:7). A similar situation can be observed in the song of Judith, where Judith, the supposed performer, is actually addressed in the third person singular. “For the mighty one did not fall by the young men, neither did the sons of the Titans smite him, nor high giants set upon him: but Judith the daughter of Merari weakened him with the beauty of her countenance” (Jdt 16:7 KJV). Moreover, while the passage Jdt 16:5–10 can be connected with the heroine, the rest of the song does not address the events described in the book of Judith. Turning to the Song of Hannah the same occurrence repeats itself. The song starts in the first person singular: “My heart rejoices in God.” Hence it has a personal function in some way. Yet the rest of the song has little to do with Hannah or her family. Rather, it refers to enemies (1 Sam 2:1) and warriors (1 Sam 2:4). The fact that the song mentions childlessness (1 Sam 2:5) may be the link to this context and to Hannah. But even this reference is short and does not require the present context of 1 Sam 2.  These observations raise questions about internal coherence of the songs and their sources. Yet, they also call to ask whether the victory songs in their entirety were composed for these particular situations and people or not. Even if they became a part of the tradition of the Hebrew Bible and of particular figures, they may have circulated independently or in other literary contexts for some time. In that case, only later would they have been inserted into their present contexts. The Hebrew Bible preserves some early victory songs. They became models for later songs that were composed during the Second Temple era. Some of the later recapitulations of these songs have long been known. More recently, the DSS have made other victory songs known to us, e.g., a song attributed to Joseph occurs in 4Q372 1 1–16.169 In the Second Temple era, even more Pentateuchal characters were connected with songs. Importantly, some of the songs, such as the Song of Judith and the Song of Miriam, were attributed to women.170 169 Eileen M. Schuller and Moshe J. Bernstein, “4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona-c: Introduction,” in Qumran Cave 4, XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2 (ed. Moshe Bernstein et al.; DJD 28; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 151–154. 170 Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 281, claims that the songs contained political messages. Therefore their survival in their current places (i. e., not in the canon) indicates that: “… those keen on supporting the social status quo could marginalize the threat of such poems. This seems to be true if these texts are viewed with an eye on the political context of second temple period Palestine and the emerging stability of the text of the Torah which supported the status quo — hence the Song of Miriam did not survive in the text which eventually became authoritative.”

154

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

3.1.3.5 Other Versions of the Song of Miriam Literature that is dated to the Second Temple era does not preserve any other forms of the Song of Miriam in Exod 15:20–21. Nevertheless, it is possible, maybe even probable given the fluidity of the song traditions, that other forms of the songs were known at that time. Therefore later evidence will have to be taken into account. The Song of Miriam is also preserved in the Pentateuch Targumim. There is no agreement regarding when the Pentateuch Targumim were written, but it is generally accepted that they do preserve some earlier material that can go back to the Second Temple period.171 I will use Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof. 1 and the Fragmentary Targum as examples to examine the Song of Miriam tradition in the Targumim. The structure in these Targumim is similar. First they repeat the narrative part of Exod 15:20. The song itself follows in Exod 15:21, where all three Targumim expand the MT considerably. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Exod 15:20–21 Then Miriam, the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her; they were dancing to the sound of timbrels and playing the hingas. And Miriam sang to them: Let us give thanks and praise before the Lord because might and eminence are his; he is exalted above the exalted, and he is elevated above the high. Because the wicked Pharaoh plotted and pursued the people of the children of Israel, his horses and his chariots, he threw (them) in the Sea of Reeds.172 Targum Neofiti 1 Exod 15:20–21 And Miriam, the prophetess, Aaron’s sister, took timbrels in her hand, and all the women went out after her; they danced to the timbrels. And Miriam answered to them: Let us praise and glorify before the Lord, the exalted, who is majestic above the 171 Martin McNamara, in Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible (2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010), 93–100, 129–140, argues that the bulk of material in the Palestinian Targumim to the Pentateuch comes from the pre-Christian era. Stephen A. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century CE Texts,” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (ed. D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara; JSOTSup 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 118–141, 130, claims there was a “proto-Targum” that already existed in the first century C.E., and all the Pentateuch Targumim depend on that. See also Philip S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of the Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. M. J. Mulder; CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 243–249 and R. Le Déaut, “The Targumim,” in CHJ 2:563–590, who also suggest an early date for some part of the Pentateuch Targum material. For a lengthy study on the origins of the Targumim, see Alberdina Houtman and Harry Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions: The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of the Scripture 9; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 10–12, 14–20, 32–39. 172 Michael Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus (ArBib 2; Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1994), 205.

Texts from Judea

155

exalted and lofty above the lofty. Horses and their riders, because they were exalted and pursued after the people, the children of Israel, he cast them down and buried in the Sea of Reeds.173 Paris BN Fragmentary Targum Manuscript Exod 15:20–21 All the women went out after her with timbrels and in dance chorus; and they were dancing. And Miriam sang to them: Let us praise and glorify before the Lord, since he is exalted above the exalted and made himself majestic above the majestic and who in his Memra revenges himself of everyone who extols before him. Their horses and their riders, since they come against his people, the house of Israel, he cast them down and buried in the Reed Sea.174

The Songs of Miriam preserved in the Targumim are significantly different from the MT. The songs are expanded by several sentences further describing God, who is praised, and referring to the destruction of the Pharaoh’s army. In many places the Targumim, like 4Q365 Song of Miriam, repeat the vocabulary from Exod 15:1–19.175 As the Pentateuch Targumim fully preserve the Song of Miriam, here it is possible to identify harmonizing features. The Songs of Miriam preserved in the Targumim try to create continuity with Exod 15:1–19, as the seven words picked from the Song of Sea demonstrate. Emphasizing that the Song of Miriam belonged to the same tradition as the Song of Sea may well have had the effect of extending its authority to a new community, namely the recipients of the Targumim. The purpose of the Targumim was “to exegete and to interpret Scripture.”176 Moreover, the motive could have been the interpretation of the Song of Miriam in the new context and a conscious attempt to preserve the “right” theological interpretation.177 The Song linked to Moses and the same tradition of crossing the Red Sea helped in the reinterpretation.

173 Martin McNamara and Robert Hayward, Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus (ArBib 2; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1994), 68. 174 Michael Klein, The Fragmentary Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, Vols 1–2 (AnBib 76; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 48. 175 The following terms: ‫בני ישראל‬, ‫קפאו‬, ‫גאה‬, ‫ארדף‬, ‫בים סוף‬, ‫פרעה‬. For further details see Hanna Tervanotko, “The Hope of the Enemy has Perished,” in From Qumran to Aleppo, 156–175, 169. 176 Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations,” 239; Houtman and Sysling, Alternative Targum Traditions, 32–39. 177 Tov and White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuchc,” 270–271.

156

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

3.1.3.6 The Relationship between the Songs of Miriam in the Reworked Pentateuchc and the Pentateuch Targumim The Songs of Miriam preserved in the Targumim and in 4Q365 together repeat two terms of the Song of the Sea of Exod 15:1–19: ‫גאה‬ and ‫ים‬. These terms are very general and thus cannot demonstrate a further direct connection between the texts, i. e., that the versions of the song preserved in the Targumim and 4Q365 depend on the Song of the Sea. The Songs of Miriam preserved in the Targumim also have additional rhetoric that they do not share with the Song of the Sea: ‫שבח‬, ‫תהו‬, ‫טמע‬, ‫קדם‬, ‫נטל‬. The fact that the Targumim share vocabulary that does not appear in Exod 15:1–19 may lead us in different directions. As the common vocabulary that is not drawn from Exod 15:1–19 is almost as extensive as the references to the Song of the Sea, it is possible that the Targumim go back to a second source that they all used for the expansions. In this case the Pentateuch Targumim would attempt to create continuity with this text. Otherwise they are dependent on each other.178 The Targumim versions of the Song of Miriam also have a possible link to the 4Q365 version of the Song of Miriam in line 4. White Crawford and Tov reconstruct the end of line 4 as “is forgotten/has ceased.”179 The word could also be reconstructed as “is praised” (‫)ונשבח‬. This term is used both in the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Hebrew Bible. In Hebrew the term has two different meanings. The first, ‫שבח‬ (“to praise”) occurs mainly in the Psalms (Ps 63:4; 117:1; 145:4; 147:12; cf. Qoh 4:2; 8:15; 1 Chr 16:35) and refers to praising the divinity. The second meaning of the word is “to calm,” “rest.” The verb occurs with this meaning in Ps 89:10; 65:8 and in Prov 29:11. In Aramaic the verb has only one meaning, “to praise,” which in the Hebrew Bible is only used in Dan. It refers to the praise of the divinity in two passages: Dan 2:23; 4:31, 34. The verb “to praise” is repeated in the three Targumim included in this study. In the Aramaic Targumim this verb is used in the following passages of Exod: 15:1, 2, 21. In these same passages the MT uses the verb “sing the praise” ‫שיר‬.180 The Targumim apparently used the term ‫ שבח‬to translate “to sing the praise.” But as it occurs about 40 times in the Pentateuch Targumim Neof.1 and Ps.-J., it was used to translate other words too. As the verb in line 4 starts with the letter nun, it indicates that the verb may be either the niphal or the imperfect (first person plural) form. Interestingly, in the Pentateuch 178 For the Targumim depending on each other, see e.g., P. V. M. Flesher, “Exploring the Sources of the Synoptic Targums to the Pentateuch,” in Targum Studies: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums (ed. P. V. M. Flesher; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 101–134; Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 95–102. 179 Tov and White Crawford, “Reworked Pentateuchc,” 268, ‫ ונש]כח‬or ‫ונש[בת‬. 180 Apart from the Exodus passages, the verb to sing the praise is used only once in the Pentateuch, in Num 21:17.

Texts from Judea

157

Targumim the verb ‫ שבח‬appears in only a few places with nun in front of it, but in Ps.-J. and Neof. 1 the first person plural imperfect occurs in Exod 15:1 and 21, thus in the opening lines of both the Song of the Sea and the Song of Miriam! In the DSS the verb ‫ שבח‬appears altogether 4 times 1Q20 X, 20; 4Q196 17 II, 7; 4Q266 17 1; 11Q10 XIV, 5. Of these, only 4Q266 is written in Hebrew. Meanwhile, in the Aramaic texts of the DSS the term appears in poetic contexts, and at least one of the texts clearly represents a victory song (4Q196, which is the rejoicing prayer in Tob 13). The other two instances of the Aramaic term also represent poetic literature. Let us consider further the proposals by Tov and White Crawford. They suggested that the verb in line 4 of the Song of Miriam in 4Q365 should be reconstructed as “to be forgotten,” (‫ נשכח‬škh) or “to be ceased” (‫ נשבת‬šbt). The first, “to forget” has many occurrences in the Hebrew Bible. Most of these are in the psalms. It occurs rarely in the niphal form: Gen 41:30; Deut 31:21; Isa 23:15, 16; 65:16; Jer 20:11; 23:40; 50:5; Ps 9:19; 31:13. The style of the psalms is clearly poetic and, moreover, Ps 9 resembles a victory song. In the DSS the verb “to forget” appears about 20 times altogether. Many of the occurrences are poetic181 and at least 11Q5 XXII, 9 refers to a setting of thanksgiving or victory. However, it does not seem to be a victory song. In Aramaic the meaning of the verb ‫ שכח‬is “to find.” This connotation of the word occurs in Dan 2:35; 5:11, 14, 27; 6:5, 23, 24; Ezra 6:2 but never in the niphal form. The other possibility, “to cease” or “to rest,” usually refers to Sabbath and Jubilee practices in the Pentateuch.182 Apart from these, it also has some attestations in Ps.183 The niphal “to be stopped” is used exclusively in the books of Isa and Ezek, where it announces destruction.184 In the DSS similar observations can be made regarding the use of the verb. It occurs in Pentateuchal settings185 and in the poetic texts.186 The poetic passages in the DSS do not clearly resemble victory songs. Rather, the style seems more meditative than that of 4Q365. Based on these observations, it would be possible to reconstruct the end of line 4 with the verbs “to praise” (‫)נשבח‬ or “to forget” (‫)נשכח‬, whereas the use of the verb “to be ceased” (‫ )נשבת‬seems to indicate a different context. Let us take a closer look at lines 4 and 5 of 4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7. They emphasize the perishing (‫ )אדר‬of the enemy. The idea is already repeated twice in lines 4 and 5. Reconstructing the end of the line with the verb “to forget” would emphasize the disappearing of the enemy even more. The schema that the wicked (and for 181 E.g., 4Q434 1 I, 2; 4Q525 2 II, 5. 182 Gen 2:2–3; 8:22; Exod 16:30; 23:12; 31:17; 34:21; Lev 23:32; 25:2; 26:34, 35. 183 Ps 8:3; 46:10; 89:45; 119:119. 184 Isa 17:3; Ezek 6:6; 30:18; 33:28. 185 4Q216 V, 2; VII, 6, 8; 4Q372 3 4; 11Q19 XX, 13; 11Q20 IV, 24. 186 E.g., 1QHa XIV, 12; XV, 15; XVI, 32; XXI, 13; XXIII, 2; 4Q88 IX, 6; 4Q427 7 I, 18; 7 II, 5, 6, 11.

158

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

Qohelet perhaps also the good) simply perish and are never remembered finds its best expression in the Hellenistic wisdom literature. “For there is no enduring remembrance of the wise or of fools, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten” (Qoh 2:16); “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost” (Qoh 9:5).187 Also, the Wisdom of Solomon refers to the total disappearance of the wicked. “For we were born by mere chance and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been” (Wis 2:2); “Our name will be forgotten in time and no one will remember our works” (Wis 2:4); “They will be left utterly dry and barren, and they will suffer anguish, and the memory of them will perish” (Wis 4:19).188 Should the end of line 4 preserve the verb “to forget,” the content of the Song of Miriam in 4Q365 would clearly resemble this sapiential idea of immortality through being remembered. This reconstruction of ‫שכח‬ “to forget” does not fit with the other additions of 4Q365 without difficulty. The text of 4Q365 contains two notable additions. Here we are dealing with the first one, which comes before Exod 15:22. Earlier it was stated that from the point of view of genre and terminology, 4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7 maintains the Pentateuchal style and is a victory song. The song does not contain the sapiential notion discussed above that the wicked simply perish and are forgotten. The second addition is found just after Lev 24:2 (4Q365 23 4–12). This previously unknown passage deals with laws concerning the offerings, and the best parallels of this legal material are found in 11QTa col. XXII.189 This passage does not contain any elements that could link it to sapiential ideas either.190 In this light the possible reconstruction ‫ נשכח‬seems rather unlikely. Therefore, I suggest the end of line 4 should be reconstructed with the verb ‫שבח‬ (“to praise”), which fits this context better than the other possibilities. In particular this verb which has to do with celebration matches the style of the victory song. Moreover, the verb “to praise” appears in the Pentateuch Targumim versions of the Song of Miriam (see above 3.1.3.5). Because the verb “to praise” appears in the Targumim, should it influence our understanding of the relation between the Targumic renderings of the Song of Miriam and 4Q365? Is it possible to think that alongside the Song of the Sea of Exod 15:1–19 the 4Q365 Song of Miriam was the common source of expansions 187 For Qohelot’s characteristic ideas, see R. N. Whybray, Ecclesiastes (JSOT Old Testament Guides; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 63–82; M. V. Fox, Qohelet and his Contradictions (JSOTSup 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 137–145. 188 See, e.g., E. G. Clarke, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” (CBC; Cambridge: University Press; 1973). 189 White Crawford, “Three Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 and their Relationship to the Temple Scroll,” 263. 190 White, “4Q364 & 365: A Preliminary Report,” 218, claims that the additions of 4Q365 add either narrative or legal elements to the text.

Texts from Judea

159

for the Targumim? It seems that the two texts are very different. The final version of the Targumim is much later than 4Q365. Moreover, the nature of the 4Q365 Song of Miriam is still under discussion, whereas the Targumim try to create continuity with the Pentateuch. Apart from these significant dissimilarities, the two texts have some things in common. It is generally accepted that the Targumim, despite their later final completion, preserve early material that can go back to the Second Temple period.191 The writers of the Targumim could have been familiar with 4Q365 and could have alluded to it. This theory would explain the similarities between the Targumim and possibly also with 4Q365. White Crawford has demonstrated that T and 4Q365 share  a significant parallel and that 11QTa might be quoting 4Q365.192 Hence, it could likewise be possible that 4Q365 was quoted or that other texts alluded to it. The Targumim and 4Q365 share some similarities: both texts rework the text of Exod 15:20–21. Especially, both expand Exod 15:20–21 considerably, and the expansion happens in the Song of Miriam rather than in the narrative part of the passage. Manuscript 4Q365 has deteriorated, and therefore it is not possible to know the original content of lines 1–7. Nevertheless, in what is left, it praises God more than Exod 15:20–21 does. The Targumim also focus on praising God more than Exod 15:20–21 does. Hence both texts, the Targumim and 4Q365, emphasize the figure of Miriam by adding more material to her speech. The connection with the verb argues that there should be some sort of link between the texts, but the nature of this link remains unclear. As a result, it is possible that the 4Q365 version of the Song of Miriam was a common source of the Targumim, but due to the deterioration of the manuscript this must remain somewhat speculative.

3.1.3.7 Miriam in the Reworked Pentateuchc 4Q365 does not preserve additional prose narrative material that would directly reflect a new understanding and interpretation of Miriam. However, one finds the expanded Song of Miriam, which also speaks to the importance of the ­character. The extent of the expansion strengthens the picture of Miriam. Regarding the message of the song preserved in 4Q365, it is evident that it contains more theology than the song of Exod. Furthermore, the content overlaps with some 191 See n. 171. 192 White Crawford, “Three Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 and their Relationship to the Temple Scroll,” 259–271. The question of concern is whether one text is citing or alluding to the other. See also Hanna Tervanotko, “You Shall See: Rebekah’s Farewell Address in 4Q364 II, 1–6,” in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Nóra Dávid, Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer, and Shani Tzoref; FRLANT 239; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 413–426, that likewise demonstrates that the Pentateuchal renarrations of the DSS have early roots and that they may have been quoted in later texts.

160

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

other prominent songs. The tradition regarding victory songs was lively. The tendency to attribute victory songs to prominent figures continued and probably even expanded in the Second Temple era, as, for instance, the song attributed to Judith demonstrates. The extended song resolves some of the literary problems that occur in Exod 15:1–21. Miriam is referred to as the sister of Aaron in 4Q365, but evidently by the Hellenistic era, the figure of Miriam was already also identified as the sister of Moses. Hence, her performance next to Moses could have been understood as the siblings taking the leadership. Moreover, the earlier analysis indicated that the setting of the song of 4Q365 is a military victory. This suggests that Miriam might have had some role in the Exodus events in a manner similar to Deborah and Judith, who are closely involved with military acts. It would be unusual that she would randomly intervene in the narration only to voice a hymn. In general the song with the more pronounced theology fits this context. George Brooke has claimed that those victory songs that did not become authoritative contain a political message and claim “the power to the powerless.” According to Brooke, this applies to the songs attributed to the women, including Miriam. He writes: “God’s victory is often shame for the proud, the arrogant and the mighty, victory that is brought about surprisingly through the weak and downtrodden.”193 Brooke’s arguments are indisputable. The vocabulary similarities among the three songs are evident, and the setting of the Song of Miriam, after the Israelites escape from their captivity in Egypt, is in line with Brooke’s argument. While this interpretation may have served some political purposes (as Brooke suggests194), it also adds to our knowledge of the ongoing reception of Miriam. The portrayal of Miriam in 4Q365 demonstrates that the interpretation of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds continued in the Second Temple era. People remembered Miriam as a figure who had an important role in the Exodus. Moreover, 4Q365 portrays Miriam as a more autonomous figure who does not simply repeat the Song of the Sea attributed to Moses. This figure had a message of her own that followed the style of well-known victory songs. This expansion, together with other new literary traditions attributed to Miriam, suggests that the importance of Miriam was increasing in this period. It was appropriate for the author(s) of 4Q365 to extend her song to fit that image. Probably the group behind 4Q365, or some other text where the tradition of the extended song was earlier preserved, thought that the Song of Miriam needed to be longer. The figure of Miriam was considered an appropriate character to deliver a larger theological message, one that was partly in line with other known victory songs. 193 Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, 281. 194 Ibid.

Texts from Judea

161

3.1.3.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts The extended Song of Miriam in 4Q365 appears in the context of Exod 15:20–21. Hence, its connection with this Pentateuchal passage is evident. The new material is added into an already existing tradition. The seven lines of “additional” material indicate that the tradition of Miriam delivering a song of Exod 15:20–21 remained alive and that its message was later updated. I have argued that the Song of Miriam preserved in 4Q365 used different texts. The song is not simply a remake of the Song of the Sea attributed to Moses in Exod 15:1–19. The Song of Miriam was influenced by the Song of the Sea at least in the later tradition preserved in the Targumim. But at the same time the Song of Miriam was also expanded using other, still unknown, material that is not linked to the figure of Moses. The Song of Miriam preserved in 4Q365 and the Songs of Miriam preserved in the Targumim demonstrate that different versions of the song were known in antiquity. The vocabulary that the different versions share indicates that they may have influenced each other. Furthermore, in light of this evidence, it is possible that even more different versions of this song circulated in the Second Temple era.

3.1.3.9 Summary Because similar vocabulary was repeated when creating new victory songs, it is difficult to estimate the date of Miriam’s song in 4Q365. I tentatively accept the earlier theory that the composition of 4Q365 was written at least in the second century B.C.E. This text emphasizes  a positive interpretation of Miriam and strengthens her. Such an interpretation is in line with other texts of this era, such as VA, discussed above. My further study will provide more evidence for this argument below by exploring a later shift in the interpretation of Miriam. My analysis of this passage argues that the purpose of the expansion was not simply to harmonize the song with the Song of the Sea attributed to Moses. The literary problems connected with Exod 15:20–21 prevent us from reconstructing the tradition related to the Exodus events completely. Comparison between the song of 4Q365 and other victory songs attributed to women indicates that women who performed the songs usually took part in the battles too. This suggests that Miriam was also thought to have participated in the Exodus events somehow. At least some ancient Jewish circles interpreted Miriam’s role in the Exodus events as more active than the texts of the Hebrew Bible did. As 4Q365 does not contain any elements that would connect it with Levitical texts such as 1 Chr and the VA, it seems that another group composed this text. Significantly, Miriam was not important only for the authors of the Levite traditions, but for various groups. It is possible that different groups appreciated the figure, perhaps for different reasons.

162

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

3.1.4 Miriam and the Infant Moses I: Jubilees 47:4 3.1.4.1 Introduction The extent of the text of Book of Jub. became known in the 19th century when European missionaries working in Ethiopia discovered that Jub. held an authoritative status in the local Orthodox Christian church.195 While before that the text was known only in Greek, Syriac and Latin fragments, Jub. had survived in its entirety in the Ethiopian Ge’ez language throughout the centuries.196 The Latin and the Ge’ez texts were translated from the Greek version.197 Scholars had suggested that Jub. was originally written in Hebrew, but due to the lack of evidence this could not be confirmed at that time.198 The discovery of the DSS influenced scholarly views on Jub. tremendously. Fourteen (possibly fifteen) manuscripts found in the Qumran caves attest to Jub.199 They established that the original language of this text was indeed Hebrew. The copies of Jub. found at Qumran have also influenced the dating of this text.200 The earliest preserved manuscript that has a copy of Jub. is dated ca. 100 B.C.E. The text is believed to be older than that. James C. VanderKam has argued that Jub. 195 The Ge’ez text was published for the first time by August Dillman, Liber Jubilaeorum Aethio­pice, ad duorum librorum manuscriptorum (Kiel and London: Van Maack, Williams & Norgate 1859). Other early studies of Jubilees include, e.g., Hermann Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis (Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag, 1874); R. H. Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Bible of Jubilees (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895); idem, The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902), xx-xxvi provides a full bibliography up to the beginning of the 20th century. For the description of the early scholarship on Jub., see James C. VanderKam, “The Origins and Purpose of the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey, Armin Lange; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr, 1997), 3–24. 196 James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield, 2001), 14–16. 197 A.-M. Denis, “Liber Jubilaeorum,” in Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 70–102; Józef Milik, “Recherches sur la version grecque du Livre des Jubilés,” RB 78 (1971): 545–557, 557. 198 Charles, The Book of Jubilees, xxxi-xxxiii. 199 VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 16. 200 Dominique Barthélemy, “Notes en marge de publication récentes sur les manuscrits de la secte de Qumrân,” RB 59 (1952): 187–218, 199–203; Michel Testuz, Les idées religieuses du Livre des Jubilés (Paris: Librarie Minard, 1960), 179–195; Gene L. Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees (StPB 20; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 16; James C. VanderKam, Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees (HSM 14; Missoula, Mon.: Scholars Press, 1977), 255–277. For the official edition of the copies of Jubilees found in cave 4, see James C. VanderKam and Józef T. Milik, “Jubilees,” in Qumran Cave 4 – VIII. Parabiblical Texts. Part I. (ed. H. Attridge et al.; DJD 13; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 1–185. Those from cave 11 are published in Qumran Cave 11: 11Q2–18, 11Q20–31 (ed. F. García Martínez, E. J. C. Tigchelaar and A. S.  van der Woude; DJD 23; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 207–228.

Texts from Judea

163

was composed sometime between 161 and 140 B.C.E., probably between 161 and 152 B.C.E.201 He bases his theory on the references of Jub. to historical events, the paleographic date of the Qumran manuscripts, the dependence of Jub. on some other ancient texts and finally the attitude towards the rest of the nation expressed in the text. While many scholars accept this theory,202 other theories have also been put forward. They are based on dating the apocalyptic passage of Jub. 23:9–32. Some have suggested that this passage presents polemics against Hellenizers. Nonetheless, as Jub. does not appear to refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, they date the text before 175 B.C.E.203 Finally, recent studies on Jub. have challenged the assumption of one fixed date, arguing that the text is not  a work of  a single author. Rather, Jub. may contain different levels of redactions.204 Importantly, the Qumran fragments that preserve Jub. contain only parts of the text. Thus, based on them it is difficult to assume that the whole text existed in the late Second Temple era. Yet which parts did or did not, we cannot know.205 Thus, most of the scholars continue analyzing the text as it is preserved to us. 201 VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 17–21; idem, “The Origins and Purpose of the Book of Jubilees,” 19–20. 202 E.g., John C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS 18; Washing­ ton, D. C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987), 237–238; Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 2; O. S.  Wintermute, “Jubilees,” in OTP 2:43–44; White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, 62. For some critical views concerning VanderKam’s date, see Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology (JSJSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 36–37, 317–322. 203 Louis Finkelstein, “The Date of the Book of Jubilees,” HTR 36 (1943): 1–38, 19–24; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. Michael Stone; CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 89–156, 102–103. For the debate concerning the date, see Segal, The Book of Jubilees, 35–40. 204 Davenport, The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees, 72–75, distinguished different sources in Jub. Later Segal, The Book of Jubilees, 317–324, suggested that the text of Jubilees originates from two sources. He calls one of them the “legal redactor” because of the nature of that text. More recently, James L. Kugel “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees,” RevQ 24 (2009): 215–272, has argued that the work of the legal redactor could actually all belong to later additions to Jub. He calls this “work of the Interpolator.” He dates the additions by this Interpolator later than the rest of the text of Jub. 205 For recent studies on the DSS evidence on Jub., see Eibert Tigchelaar, “The Qumran Jubilees Manuscripts as Evidence for the Literary Growth of the Book,” RevQ 26 (2014): 579–594; Matthew Philip Monger, “4Q216 and the State of Jubilees at Qumran,” RevQ 26 (2014): 595–612. For the levels of redaction, see e.g., Segal, Book of Jubilees, 322, locates the redaction layers of Jub. in a similar context as the “Qumran sect,” though he does not assume that the text was composed within the sect itself. Further, Gabriele Boccaccini, “Enochians, Urban Essenes, Qumranites: Three Social Groups, One Intellectual Movement,” in Early Enoch Literature (ed. John J. Collins and Gabriele Boccaccini; JSJSup 121; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 301–327, 317. Cf. Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 80–83, who argues that Jub. does not reflect any “sectarian” concern but that it aims at the salvation of all Israelites.

164

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

Several points suggest that Jub. was an important text for late Second Temple Judeans. It claims authority for itself, i. e., Mosaic origin, by saying that God commanded an angel to dictate it to Moses on Mount Sinai (Jub. 1:4–6, 27).206 The number of copies found at Qumran demonstrates that this text was one of the most popular texts in the context of the DSS. Moreover, the fact that other ancient Jewish texts show familiarity with Jub. and quote it strengthens the argument that it was widespread. The Damascus Document (CD XVI, 3–4) refers to “The book of the divisions of the periods according to their jubilees and their weeks.” Quotations in ancient texts are often seen as a sign of an authoritative status. Further, the quotations of Jub. preserved in the writings of the church fathers such as Epiphanius and Origen suggest the text continued being known and used in the first centuries C.E.207 These observations imply that whereas the significance of many ancient texts remains unknown, regarding Jub. one can conclude with confidence that the text must have been well-known in the late Second Temple era in Judea.

3.1.4.2 Women in Jubilees Given the importance of Jub. on the one hand and its depictions of certain female figures that differ drastically from the Pentateuch narration on the other, surprisingly little is written regarding the portrayal of women in it. Already the early studies on Jub. pointed out that the depiction of women differed from the Gen narrative.208 Later, Betsy Halpern-Amaru wrote the fundamental study on Jub. and women, Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. Halpern-Amaru demonstrates in detail how the treatment of women in Jub. differs from that of the Pentateuch and in particular of that of Gen, where most of the prominent Pentateuchal female figures appear. Halpern-Amaru claims that while Jub. does not usually add major blocks of new material in order to develop the characters, the changes are provided by manipulations of the text. Such a manipulation can be a shift in the grammar, word change or an inversion of a sequence of events.209 206 “Then he said to an angel of the presence: ‘Dictate to Moses (starting) from the beginning of the creation until the time when my temple is built among them throughout the ages of eternity’” (Jub. 1:27). 207 These connections were acknowledged already in the early commentaries of Jub., e.g. Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Bible of Jubilees, introduction. 208 Charles, The Book of Jubilees, lix, lxi, points out the increased concern with endogamy in Jub. 209 Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 137. Later, the theme of women in Jub. was addressed by William Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on ­Sexuality (Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic G ­ recoRoman Era; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007). This title does not focus on women but broadly on sexuality (including women), 113–305. Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, discusses the patriarchs and their wives on pp. 249–275.

Texts from Judea

165

Halpern-Amaru claims that with these tools the Pentateuchal women are given more space in the Jub. narration. They serve a specific purpose for the writer of Jub. The women bear the moral quality of each generation by bringing forth its leaders and being wives for them. Hence, women become a key element for the right pedigree of the Israelite priests, and the writer of Jub. spends a great amount of time clarifying the genealogies and sexual unions. Only marriages within Israel are permitted and kinship unions provide the closest consanguinity.210 Therefore, according to Halpern-Amaru, the women play  a crucial role in  a priestly worldview. The ideal spouses become the facilitators of the covenant in the Jub. narrative.211 Halpern-Amaru’s theory regarding women in Jub. is not totally clear-cut. While the author spends considerable time arguing that the Pentateuchal women are prominent in Jub.,212 she equally admits that actually the narration of Jub. is not that interested in women themselves. They are interesting only when they serve as “facilitators of the covenant,” i. e., mothers for future priests.213 The only woman who is seemingly developed in Jub. from the Gen narrative is the figure of Rebekah.214 As the VA indicated, some texts composed in the second century B.C.E. focused largely on the right marriages and endogamy. This theme is reflected in various texts already studied in this research, and this theme is equally prominent in Jub.215 The crucial question, or threat, of intermarriage provides the background where women serve to provide the genetic purity. This theme, which appears throughout Jub., is specified by the figure of Dinah in Jub. 30:1–26. Dinah is taken by force to the Hivites and raped by their leader (Jub. 30:2). Dinah’s own role in this episode and the Hivites’ willingness to be circumcised are omitted from the episode (cf. Gen 34:1–31). After the Jews take revenge, Jub. stresses many times that it was done to maintain the purity of the Israelites. Hence, the requirement of Jub. for the right pedigree does not merely concern the priests. Hebrew woman are also prohibited to “defile” themselves 210 Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 149. 211 Ibid., 143. 212 Similarly, Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, 305, describes the positive stance of Jub. towards women: “through its remarkable affirmative portrayal of sexual intimacy and its value in marital relations.” 213 This view also applies to the secondary wives of the patriarchs, such as Keturah, Bilhah, Zilpah and Tamar. See Michael Stone, “The Genealogy of Bilhah,” DSD 3 (1996): 20–36; Halpern-Amaru, “Bilhah and Naphtali in Jubilees,” DSD 6 (1999): 1–10. 214 Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 137; Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, 260–262 views Rebekah as a stronger character than her husband in Jub. 215 Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 152–3, 159; Stone, “The Genealogy of Bilhah,” 20–36. This theme and its prominence in the Hellenistic era has been pointed out in the earlier sections of this study. See e.g. 3.1.2.3.

166

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

with foreigners.216 As most of the episodes that deal with women in Jub. go back to the issue of marriage, it can be questioned whether this type of emphasis on women actually promotes women per se. Whereas Halpern-Amaru’s study focuses on the matriarchs of Gen, the other women who appear in Jub. have not been analyzed as thoroughly. In what follows I will analyze how the writer of Jub. depicts the figure of Miriam, whose main role in the Exod narration was the role of the sister. She is the daughter of a priestly family and therefore related to the question of purity. Yet her sexuality (unlike Dinah’s) is not an issue in Jub.217 I will return to the question of women’s portrayal at the end of this section in light of my analysis of Miriam.

3.1.4.3 Analysis of Jubilees 47:4 In ch. 47 of Jub., the narration turns to describe the infancy of Moses, who is also the listener of the re-narrated ancient history of the Israelites. As a consequence, the narration appears in the second person singular, “you,” in chs. 47–50 of Jub. This indicates that Moses himself is addressed. The general chronology of jubilees that appears throughout the text is also put into practice in these chapters. Moses’s birth (Jub. 47:1) follows the order of the jubilees: 47:1 During the seventh week, in the seventh year, in the forty-seventh jubilee [2303], your father came from the land of Canaan. You were born during the fourth week, in its sixth year, in the forty-eighth jubilee [2330], which was the time of distress for the Israelites. 47:2 The pharaoh, the king of Egypt, had given orders regarding them that they were to throw their sons — every male who was born — into the river. 47:3 They continued throwing (them in) for seven months until the time when you were born. Your mother hid you for three months. Then they told about her. 47:4 She made  a box for you, covered it with pitch and asphalt, and put it in the grass at the riverbank. She put you in it for seven days. Your mother would come at night and nurse you, and during the day your sister Miriam would protect you from the birds. 47:5 At that time Tarmuth, the pharaoh’s daughter, went out to bathe in the river and heard you crying. She told her slaves to bring you, so 216 Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” 15–25, thinks that this concerns moral impurity rather than ritual impurity. Moral impurity can defile the whole of Israel. Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, 188, points out that in Jub. the defilement does not happen only through intermarriage but also through sexual relations. Further, Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees, 120–147; Robert A. Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi (SBLEJL 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 158–161; Cana Werman, “Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,” HTR 90 (1997): 1–22. Cf. James L. Kugel, “The Story of Dinah in the Testament of Levi,” HTR 85 (1992): 1–34. 217 In the following discussion my intention is to focus on the depiction of women in Jub. and in particular the image of Miriam. Hence I will not include the literary-critical study, i. e., an analysis regarding the possible sources of Jub. 47:1–8, here.

Texts from Judea

167

they brought you to her. 47:6 She took you out of the box and pitied you. 47:7 Then your sister said to her: “Should I go and summon for you one of the Hebrew women who will care for and nurse this infant for you?” [She said to her: “Go.”] 47:8 She went and summoned your mother Jochebed. She gave her wages and she took care of you.218

In this passage the author of Jub. elaborates on Exod 2.  The most striking differences from Exod 2 are found in Jub. 47:3. The text states that the Hebrew children were thrown into the Nile for seven months. In contrast in Exod the time period is not specified. Rather Exod 1:22 simply states that all Hebrew boys had to be thrown in the Nile. Moreover, Jub. 47:3 relates that Moses’s mother hid the baby for three months, but after that it was made public somehow and she had to find him a new asylum.219 The author of Jub. adds to the Exod narration the reason why Moses was placed in the basket. This does not appear in Exod 2:3 where it is said that the mother placed Moses in a basket when she could not hide him any longer. Regarding the sister of Moses of Exod 2:4 Jub. makes some significant mod­ ifications. Most importantly, whereas in Exod the sister remains anonymous, in the Jub. narrative this sister is identified as Miriam (Jub. 47:4). Jubilees’ introduction to Miriam happens quite unexpectedly. When Moses is born and hidden, there is no mention of other children in the family. Moreover, the terse reference to “Miriam your sister” confirms that the sister who follows the events is indeed Miriam. This is the only passage where Jub. refers to the figure of Miriam by name. Another continuation in relation to the Exod text is Miriam’s motive to be around Moses. According to Exod 2:4 the anonymous sister simply wants to know what happens to Moses.220 In Jub. the sister appears to be close to Moses, and the tradition adds a new motive for her presence by the Nile. In Jub. 47:4 Miriam’s task is to protect Moses from birds during the daytime.221 It is uncertain why the birds were expected to cause  a threat to Moses. The Nile region was known for its rich wildlife, and evidently a small baby would be in danger there. Halpern-Amaru points out that Jub. 11:11–13, 18–21 mentions birds in relation to Mastema.222 In her view, therefore, the reference to the birds in Jub. 47:4 could

218 VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 305–307. See ibid. for a discussion concerning different witnesses to the passage of Jub. 47:1–8. 219 Jub. 47:3 “Then they told her.” The text is not clear in this passage. Yet the content implies that some people told others about Jochebed’s acts. 220 “His sister stood at a distance, to see what would happen to him” (Exod 2:4). 221 Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, 186, points out only Miriam’s protective role during the day whereas her mother protects Moses in the night. 222 Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 123. For the term Mastema, see Michael Mach, “Demons,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:189–192.

168

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

likewise be interpreted as a sign of Mastema.223 This could be the case. For the writer of Jub. the birds represented some danger, i. e., they were the messengers of the opponent. This motif clearly indicates elaboration on the story of Exod 2. While in the Exod narrative the characters do not appear to know what will happen to Moses, the point of view of Jub. is again different. The events that the angel tells Moses have already taken place. Therefore a certain inevitability shadows them throughout the narration. Moses is pushed towards the Pharaoh’s daughter. Her name, Tarmuth, also appears in the text. After the daughter of Pharaoh has adopted Moses, Miriam approaches her to inquire whether she could find  a nurse for Moses. The continuation of the traditions follows the Exod storyline. While the name of Moses’s mother does not appear anywhere in the Exod narration, Jub. 47:8 mentions Jochebed. This implies that this name was already connected with the Moses tradition and the Levite family (cf. Num 26:59). Here the writer of Jub. deals with Jochebed atypically for the general style of the text. Whereas elsewhere the writer spends a great deal of time analyzing the pedigrees of the female figures (e.g., Jub. 8:1, 6–7; 19:10), strikingly the family lineage of Jochebed is not studied at all! This peculiar treatment indicates that the author may have been uneasy about Jochebed. Halpern-Amaru has suggested that the degree of consanguinity between Moses’s parents caused a problem for the writer of Jub., who accepted uncle-niece marriages and even described them as the ideal but who prohibited unions between aunt and nephew.224 The illegal marriage of Moses’s parents could not be erased from the tradition. Nonetheless the author does everything possible in order to avoid the topic. The particularities of this Jub. passage include placing the events in the book’s own chronology and giving more details of the story, especially the names of the various characters. This passage’s tendency to name the women who appear in the narrative stands out in contrast with Exod 2.

3.1.4.4 Miriam in Jubilees 47:4 The figure of Miriam is referred to in Jub. only briefly. Yet this mention allows me to draw some conclusions regarding the portrayal of this character and how it corresponds to the role of women in Jub. argued by Halpern-Amaru. 223 Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 123 and eadem, “Protection from Birds in the Book of Jubilees,” in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2) Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel (ed. Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness and Lawrence H. Schiffman; JSJSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 59–68. 224 Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 123. The Aramaic Levi Document, ch. 11–12, describes the birth of Jochebed to Levi. See Greenfield, Stone and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 98–99, 194; Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176.

Texts from Judea

169

The image of Miriam does partly coincide with that of the matriarchs of Gen. Like the matriarchs, the figure of Miriam in Jub. is aware of the promises, i. e., the future of the Israelites. This is demonstrated by her active role in the Jub. 47 narrative. She watches over Moses, not only to know what will happen to him, but also because her particular task is to protect him. Hence, it is possible that the writer anticipates her already knowing Moses’s future. While Jub. remains rather faithful to the narrative of Exod 2, the Miriam figure is rendered slightly more active than in Exod 2 because her specific task is to protect Moses. It seems that she is more aware of possible threats the infant could encounter and also perhaps Moses’s significance in Jub. than in Exod 2.  This observation is in line with the general tendencies of Jub. The book presents a later view of the historical events. It is written from a later perspective and the writer, as well as the audience, knows what will happen.225 This allows the writer to take a particular perspective in his narration: determinism. Everything follows a determined order. Various events take place to support that order — nothing happens by mistake. The chronology of Jub. is one sign of this order. Moreover the determined order reflects God’s great works. Nonetheless, the depiction of Miriam in Jub. does not completely correspond to the image that Halpern-Amaru proposes for the women of the Pentateuch.226 This can be partly explained by the distinct function of this figure in the narration. Most importantly, the figure of Miriam is not portrayed in the light of genealogies. She is not a mother bringing forth a child, nor is she a co-partner for an Israelite patriarch in Jub. Hence, the concept of the moral responsibility of her generation to bring forth offspring cannot be applied to her directly.227 This is the only reference to Miriam in Jub. It affirms that the writer was familiar with Moses’s family tradition. Yet, given the positive portrayal of the figure of Miriam and her suggested role as a facilitator of the covenant,228 it is slightly surprising that Jub. does not preserve other references to Miriam. For instance, Jub. narrates the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Jub. 48:13–14) but then the text jumps to the feast of Passover. Hence, the writer has left out the victory songs attributed to Miriam and Moses. In light of our analysis, it is plausible that the song traditions were widespread by this time. Yet this type of narration was not of interest to the writer of Jub., who does not rephrase any songs from Gen or Exod. As a result, I am tempted to think that the writer consciously left out the

225 VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 11–13. 226 See 3.1.4.2. Further, Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 147–159. 227 Ibid. 228 This term is from Halpern-Amaru (see n. 211), who calls the matriarchs facilitators of the covenant. This term appears throughout her book. See especially The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 75–102, which discusses the matriarchs.

170

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

victory songs after crossing the sea. Perhaps the songs did not serve the purpose of this text. Jubilees, as preserved to us, focuses on law. It retells generally events that are necessary for its overall purpose. From this perspective, the victory songs had little importance to the writer of Jub. Jubilees clearly presents Miriam as a member of the Levite family. Referring to her by name in a context where Moses’s family origin is spelled out seems to be an attempt to build a bridge to Miriam as well. Jubilees 47:1–9 names Moses, Miriam, Jochebed and Amram as members of the same family. Furthermore, Jub. mentions only three Levite women altogether: Melka (Jub. 34:20), Jochebed (Jub. 47:8) and Miriam (Jub. 47:4). Therefore, whereas the reference to Miriam is short, it is still important that this text brings Miriam into its narrative.

3.1.4.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts Jubilees 47, with its reference to the figure of Miriam, is not preserved in the earliest copies of the text. Thus, there is no explicit evidence that this narrative would belong to the earliest strata of the composition. However, as there is no evidence that this passage should be dated later than the rest of the text, I have in this study dealt with Jub. 47:1–8 as an integral part of the composition. The reference to Miriam preserved in Jub. seemingly builds on at least two earlier traditions. As demonstrated in 3.1.4.3, the author of Jub. rewrites Exod 2:4–8 remarkably in Jub. 47:1–8. Moreover, it reflects the genealogy of the Levite family of Num 26:59. The family history was already explored earlier in 3.1.2.7, where I addressed the VA. As  a connection between Jub. and VA has been previously suggested, it is worthwhile to briefly say something more on that matter as well. In this study, I first considered VA earlier due to its earlier paleographic date. On the literary level, the relationship between these two texts has usually been based on the motif of burying the ancestors’ bones (Jub. 46:1–16; in the VA the episode appears at the beginning of the text, most completely preserved in 4Q544 1 1–9). Most of the studies view the narrative preserved in VA as the earlier of the two, and Jub. is suggested to be an elaboration of it.229 Others have viewed the relationship between the texts more critically, claiming that it is difficult to establish their relationship definitively.230 As the comparison of the two texts seems immovable for the time being, other points of view should be brought into the discussion. 229 Puech, “Visions d’Amram,” 286–287; Halpern-Amaru, “Burying the Fathers: Exegetical Strategies and Source Traditions in Jubilees 46,” 150–151; van Ruiten, “Between Jacob’s Death and Moses’ Birth: The Intertextual Relationship between Genesis 50:15–Exodus 1:14 and Jubilees 46:1–16,” 484, seem to accept that VA is earlier. Instead of claiming that Jub. depended directly on that, they suggest that Jub. used a tradition similar to that preserved in VA. 230 VanderKam, “Jubilees 46:4–47:1 and 4QVisions of Amram,” 158, has argued that actually nothing links the two texts together despite their rewriting of burying the ancestors’ bones.

Texts from Judea

171

The Visions of Amram allows women a quite considerable amount of space. While women are generally not acknowledged in the narrations of the Hebrew Bible, the VA names Miriam and Jochebed several times in the text. This makes them stand out in the text (in contrast to Exod 2, which does not identify them). Jubilees also gives them more space by naming them.231 This aspect, which is the first step in bringing the women into the narratives, is visible both in the VA and in Jub. While Jub. reflects an increased concern with the credentials of the matriarchs, other ancient Jewish texts deal with other women in the same light. The Aramaic Levi Document narrates the women of the Levite family in detail. The focus of this text also seems to fall on the correct marriages.232 Yet it limits the discussion to the priests. The Visions of Amram discusses the marriage of Miriam in particular. This may be surprising because in the earlier texts Miriam is not known as an ancestor mother or as  a spouse. Hence, VA should be seen as one of the early attempts to bring Miriam more closely into the Levite family. Regarding the relationship with Jub., it is evident that somehow the women are dealt with similarly in the two texts. To a certain extent the treatment of Miriam in VA resembles that of the matriarchs in Jub. What makes the texts somehow different is that VA seems to focus on Miriam instead of her spouse. She is dealt with as the child of Amram. This point of view is different from Jub., which considers women only in term of their suitability as partners for their men. Moreover, the aunt-nephew marriage is not avoided in the VA. Rather the text mentions the union between Amram and Jochebed whenever possible and presents their union as the ideal. This feature makes VA remarkably different from Jub., but similar to the ALD, which also highlights and approves of the marriage between Amram and Jochebed. Hence, at least concerning the marriage practices, the VA and the ALD share  a common interpretation that differs from Jub. This remark strengthens the link between the VA and the ALD.233

3.1.4.6 Summary Jubilees adds to the narration of Exod 2 by identifying the unnamed sister as Miriam. This reference stresses the importance of Miriam in particular in Moses’s childhood. Moreover, as the author or authors of Jub. holds a special interest in the Levites, we should read Jub. 47:1–9 in light of that emphasis. For the authors of Jub. the figure of Miriam was a member of the Levite family. She 231 See my previous analysis in 3.1.4.3 and 3.1.4.4. 232 Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality, 106–111. 233 I elaborate the depiction of women in these three texts in more detail in Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176.

172

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

is highlighted as a woman who belonged to the Levites. This emphasis suggests a date for Jub. prior to the Hellenistic religious reform, i. e., before the mid-second century B.C.E. The portrayal of Miriam in Jub. corresponds with the depiction of the matriarchs and other prominent women in the same text. Jubilees does not usually add any further block of material regarding the female figures. Yet it changes the narrative strategically in order to fulfill its own goals. In the case of Miriam, recognizable additions are the name of the figure and her task of protecting Moses. With these little insertions in the narration Miriam becomes one facilitator of the covenant. Interestingly, the DSS preserved 14–15 copies of the book of Jub. Moreover, the possible quotation of Jub. in the CD suggests that it was a known text in the late Second Temple era. Regarding Miriam, this text developes the portrayal of the unnamed sister from Exod. In Exod 2:4 Miriam (not identified by name but only as Moses’s sister) followed Moses in order to see what would happen to him. Jub. names her and gives her the task of protecting the baby. These differences of interpretation between the various texts did not seem to pose  a problem for their ancient audiences. They demonstrate how the interpretation of a single passage was changeable. Through the exegetical changes in the text Jub. 47:4 brings ­Miriam closer to the Levites and moreover strengthens her role in Moses’s childhood. This rewriting of Exod 2 suggests that some circles wanted to emphasize Miriam’s presence in Moses’s infancy. For them it was important to know that the sister figure, which appears in Exod 2 was Miriam.

3.1.5 Miriam’s Punishment Renarrated: The Apocryphon Pentateuch B (4Q377 2 I, 9) 3.1.5.1 Introduction The Apocryphon Pentateuch B (apocrPent. B, 4Q377) is the last of three texts found in Qumran that mention the figure of Miriam.234 According to the editors of 4Q377, James C. VanderKam and Monica Brady, the text contains at least one line that deals with Miriam’s opposition to Moses in Num 12.235 They also propose that 4Q377 2 I, 10 might allude to Num 12.236 On the basis of the remaining vocabulary, which is difficult to connect with Num 12, as well as the general style of 4Q377 2 I, which contains only one-line references to various texts, I have previously argued that line 10 does not continue the allusion to 234 James C. VanderKam and Monica Brady, “Apocryphon Pentateuch B (4Q377),” in ­Qumran Cave 4, XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2, 205–218. 235 VanderKam and Brady, “Apocryphon Pentateuch B,” 212. 236 Ibid.

Texts from Judea

173

Num 12.237 I will not repeat the entire discussion here because it does not add to the portrayal of Miriam. The current study, which looks for the reception of Miriam in 4Q377, assumes that the reference to her is just one line long. The manuscript 4Q377 contains altogether 6 frgs. Only the text preserved in the main frag. 1–2 can give an indication of the content of this manuscript, while frags. 3–6 are too small for further discussion. The text of 4Q377 1–2 does not directly quote the Pentateuch, but demonstrates an interest in the wilderness period, and it contains references to Exod, Num and Deut. The figure of Moses plays a prominent role throughout the narration.238 Most notably, he is referred to as “the anointed one” (‫ )משיחו‬in 4Q377 2 II, 5. This seems to be an affirmation of Moses as God’s spokesperson. Hence, it is not surprising that, prior to the DJD edition published in 2001, this text had  a title that stressed the centrality of Moses: “4QApocryphon of Moses C.”239 This title related it to 4Q374–375 (4QApocryphon of Moses A–B). In the DJD edition the text of 4Q377 was given a new title, The Apocryphon Pentateuch B, which does not solely highlight the key figure of the text but rather its wider content.240 The editors of the text interpreted it as a Pentateuchal renarration. In the same way that its first title carried generic implications, the new title indicates that it displays similarities with at least one other text, The Apocryphon Pentateuch A (4Q368), also published by VanderKam and Brady.241 237 The most important term in this line is the verb ‫נהג‬, which means to lead, guide, shepherd. This term appears about thirty times in the Hebrew Bible. Many of these are in the Pentateuch. In my detailed study, I demonstrate that in the Pentateuch most of the occurrences point to God being the subject. This seems to be the case also in 4Q377. Hence it is difficult to see that line 10 would continue the ideas of line 9. Hanna Tervanotko, “Miriam Misbehaving? The Figure of Miriam in 4Q377 in Light of Ancient Jewish Literature,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (ed. Armin Lange, Emmanuel Tov, Matthias Weigold, and Bennie H. Reynolds III; VTSup  140/1; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 309–323. 238 For the depiction of Moses in 4Q377 see Wido van Peursen, “Who Was Standing on the Mountain? The Portrait of Moses in 4Q377,” in Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions (ed. Axel Gaupner and Michael Wolter; BZAW 372; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 99–113 and Phoebe Makiello, “Was Moses considered to be an angel by those at Qumran?” ibid., pp.  115–127; Ariel Feldman, “The Sinai Revelation according to 4Q377 (Apocryphal Pentateuch B),” DSD 18 (2011): 155–172. 239 E.g., Géza Vermes, An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls (4th rev. ed. London: SCM Press, 1999), 77, 205; Daniel K. Falk, “Moses, Texts of,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 1:577–581, 581; George J. Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2:771–781 uses the title Apocryphon of Moses C. For the research history, see Émile Puech, “Le fragment 2 de 4Q377, Pentateuch Apocryphe B: L’exaltation de Moïse,” RevQ 21 (2004): 469–475. 240 See n. 234; the DJD edition (mainly frag. 2 II) has been revised by Puech, “Le fragment 2 de 4Q377, Pentateuch Apocryphe B: L’exaltation de Moïse,” 469–475; Falk, “Moses, Texts of,” 581. 241 James C. VanderKam and Monica Brady, “Apocryphon Pentateuch A (4Q368),” in Qumran Cave 4, XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2, 131–149; Howard Jacobson, “4Q368 fg. 3,” RevQ 21 (2003): 117–118.

174

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

The two texts exhibit common elements. The figure of Moses has a central role in them, and they both use the Pentateuch in their narrations.242 Despite these similarities, it is difficult to say how the connection between 4Q368 and 4Q377 should be viewed because the texts do not overlap. VanderKam and Brady also argue that their portrayal of Moses is different.243 Given these hesitations, this study treats 4Q377 as an independent text.244 The text of 4Q377 has a first century B.C.E. paleographic date.245 That should be taken as its terminus ad quem. This text was found in the Qumran caves, but it does not contain any of the characteristics that are usually recognized as “sectarian” features such as specific terminology referring to the community.246 Free use of the Tetragrammaton in this text (4Q377 2 II, 3, 4) can also be seen as a sign of a non-sectarian origin.247 As the use of the Tetragrammaton became more restricted in the mid 2nd century B.C.E., its appearance could be an indication that this text was composed before that.248 Because of the similarities that 4Q377 bears to other texts where Moses appears prominently (most notably 1Q22 and 4Q368) and due to a lack of similarities with other texts, I assume this text derives from the same context as they do. While all three texts were copied in the first century B.C.E., they may have been composed earlier. Moses was of particular interest for several compositions dating to the Hellenistic era.249

242 VanderKam and Brady, “Apocryphon Pentateuch B,” 207: “It is understandable that 4Q368 and 4Q377 have been associated with each other by being named 4QApocryphon Pentateuch A–B, even though the two do not overlap. Both clearly reflect and rework materials from various parts of the Pentateuch, especially Exod (the Sinai sections), Num and Deut.” 243 VanderKam and Brady, “Apocryphon Pentateuch B”, 207–8: “4Q368 portrays Moses and God conversing whereas in 4Q377 Moses is depicted as a man.” 244 Not all text editions of the DSS assign 4Q368 and 4Q377 to the same literary groups. For instance, Emanuel Tov and Donald W. Parry, eds., DSSR 3: 116–22, 596–99, group 4Q368 within the category of “Rewritten Bible,” whereas 4Q377 is “an unclassified document.” This differing grouping reflects the undetermined status of some Pentateuchal renarrations and the fluidity of the current terminology. 245 VanderKam and Brady “Apocryphon Pentateuch B,” 205–206; Brian Webster, “Chronological Index of the Texts from the Judaean Desert,” in The Texts from the Judean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series, 351–446, 372; Armin Lange, “Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library and the Hebrew Bible,” DSD 13 (2006): 277–305. 246 See my earlier discussion in 3.1.2.1. 247 Falk, “Moses, Texts of,” 581. 248 For the use of the Tetragrammaton in the DSS, see, e.g., Jonathan P. Siegel, “The Employment of Paleo-Hebrew Characters for the Divine Name at Qumran,” HUCA 42 (1971): 159–171; Hartmut Stegemann, “Religionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in den Qumrantexten,” in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, 195–217; Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 218–223, 238–245. 249 Daniel K. Falk, “Moses,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 967–970.

Texts from Judea

175

3.1.5.2 Fragment 2 of 4Q377 Five fragments are assigned to 4Q377. Fragment 2 is the largest of them. The fragment has two columns separated by  a margin. The bottom margin of the manuscript is also preserved in this frag. Column I of this frag. contains 11 lines, but only six of them preserve whole words. As a result, it is estimated that merely one third of the entire text of this column is preserved in 4Q377 2 I. VanderKam and Brady identify the following structure in the text of 4Q377 2 I: Lines 4–5 contain the list of spies of Num 13.250 Line 6 refers to the rearguard and the minimal age of military service of Num 1.251 Line 7 is a vacat, and line 8 may allude to the blessing of Levi in Deut 33:8.252 As mentioned earlier, the editors maintain that line 9 might renarrate the encounter between Miriam and Moses (and Aaron?) in Num 12.253 3. [  ] this 4. [  to the tri]be of Benjamin, Raphia 5. [  ] ymry to the tribe of Gad Elyo 6. [  ] the rearguard from twenty years of age 7. [  ] vacat 8. [  ] one of the pious ones and he lifted his voice 9. [  and] he returned [his] an[ger and ]Miriam [shut her]self from his eye(s) vacat years of 10. [  ] against us and lead to us because (4Q377 2 I)254

3.1.5.3 Vocabulary Analysis Based on the remaining words and reconstructions of the text of 4Q377 2 I, it seems that this text deals mainly with Num. Nevertheless, because of the fragmentary nature of this manuscript, it is possible that parts of the text that are not preserved refer to other parts of the Pentateuch. Hence, this study is not strictly 250 “from the tribe of Benjamin, Palti son of Raphu” (Num 13:9). 251 “Take a census of the whole congregation of Israelites, in their clans, by ancestral houses, according to the number of names, every male individually; from twenty years old and upwards, everyone in Israel able to go to war” (Num 1:2–3). 252 “And of Levi he said: give to Levi your Thummim, and your Urim to your loyal one, whom you tested at Massah, with whom you contended at the waters of Meribah” (Deut 33:8). The connection is based on the term “pious man” (‫ )איש חסיד‬that appears in both. For this line, see Feldman, “The Sinai Revelation according to 4Q377,” 168. 253 See the introduction of this section (3.1.5.1); VanderKam and Brady, “Apocryphon Pentateuch B,” 207. 254 I follow the translation by VanderKam and Brady, “Apocryphon Pentateuch B,” 212. Puech has proposed some alternative readings regarding line 10, “Le fragment 2 de 4Q377, Pentateuch Apocryphe B: L’exaltation de Moïse,” 469–475. See further, Feldman, “The Sinai Revelation according to 4Q377,” 172, for some adaptations.

176

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

limited to comparisons with Exod and Num but takes into consideration broader Pentateuchal material. One of the words that is legible in frag. 2 is “Miriam” in line 9. As 4Q377 uses Pentateuchal material, the appearance of the name could imply that 4Q377 lines 9 and 10 rework a Pentateuchal passage that mentions Miriam: Exod 15:20–21; Num 12:1–15; 20:1; 26:59 or Deut 24:9. However, Miriam is not the only character mentioned in this text. The name of Moses appears several times in 4Q377.255 Even more lines allude to Moses without specifically naming him.256 The frequent use of his name implies that Miriam cannot be the protagonist of the text: its main interest lies in Moses. Therefore the passage to which 4Q377 2 I, 9 refers should be found within texts where these two figures, Miriam and Moses, are presented together. This limitation of texts narrows down the possible references, because the two appear in interaction in only three passages of the Pentateuch: Exod 15:20–21; Num 12:1–15 and Deut 24:9. Further, it should be pointed out that by the time of 4Q377 Miriam was probably associated with Exod 2 tradition.257 Line 9 is fragmentary like the rest of the text. The first word in line 9 (‫)יבשי‬ is certain, as is the following (‫)חרון‬. Before the manuscript breaks, we can see traces of the next letter, which the editors suggest to be alef. In the Pentateuch the word “anger” (‫ )חרון‬appears in the wilderness passages (Exod 32:12; Num 25:4; 32:14; Deut 13:18). In these passages it is used in connection with another word describing anger, ‫אף‬. These terms indicate fury that does not point to just any type of anger, but exclusively the rage of God. Sentences that mention “great anger” (‫ )חרון אף‬of God and refer to the Deity in the third person in the Pentateuch use the Tetragrammaton.258 Interestingly, this expression is also used in the DSS to describe God’s anger (CD IX, 4, 6; X, 9; 4Q169 1–2 11; 4Q375 1 I, 3; 4Q504 1–2 III, 11; V, 5; 11Q11 IV, 5; 11Q19 LV, 11). In the DSS, however, its use is not restricted to the Deity. The two terms can likewise point to people, e.g., the Kittim (1QpHab 1 II, 12) and members of the community (4Q270 6 III, 18). Moreover, appearances of ‫ חרון‬and ‫אף‬ in the DSS do not require the context of the wilderness. The subject of line 9 is not known. The previous line may refer to Moses. 4Q377 2 I, 8 mentions “one of the pious ones” (‫)איש החסידים‬. This term also appears in 4Q377 2 II, 12 and there it points to Moses. Yet the vocabulary of 4Q377 2 I, 9 is difficult to connect with Moses. Based on the use of the terms ‫אף‬ and ‫חרון‬ in the 255 4Q377 2 II, 2, 5, 10. 256 E.g., 4Q377 2 II, 11: “When he was sanctified, and like a messenger he would speak from his mouth, for who of fles[h] is like him.” VanderKam and Brady, “Apocryphon Pentateuch B,” 214, 216. 257 See 3.1.4. 258 See the entries ‫ אף‬and ‫ חרון‬in HALOT 1:76, 351–2. Exod 32:12; Num 25:4; 32:14; Deut 13:18 refer to the Divine in the second person, and the Tetragrammaton does not occur in these passages. Note that the terms also appear in Exod 15:7–8, but in v. 8 where the term ‫ אף‬appears it does not indicate anger, but nostrils.

Texts from Judea

177

Pentateuch, the Tetragrammaton, which is used elsewhere in 4Q377 (2 II, 3, 5), could possibly be inserted here in line 9. Of the next word only the last letter, resh, survives. The editors suggest, on the basis of Num 12:14, that the word could be reconstructed “to shut” or “to close” (‫)תסגר‬.259 This verb is often connected with dealing with tsara’at in the Pentateuch, and it appears in Lev 13–14, where the treatment of this illness is discussed.260 The niphal form appears only once with ‫מן‬ (preposition) with the meaning “to be shut out” (Num 12:14). As only one letter of this word is preserved, this reconstruction is very uncertain. There is only one passage where Miriam appears in connection with God’s anger, and that is Num 12:9.261 The style of narration of 4Q377 is not evident. God speaks in some lines. For instance in 4Q377 1 I, 6: “I will judge between a man and his friend, between a father and his son, between  a man and his sojourner.” Meanwhile, the text of frag.  2 often points to an outside narrator who reports the events in the third person singular: 2 I, 8: “he lifted his voice”; 2 I, 9: “he turned his anger.” As we have seen, in 4Q377 2 I, 10 the narration appears in the first person plural form: “against us and lead to us.” The following column addresses the audience directly (2 II, 3): “He[ar], congregation of YHWH, and pay attention all assembly…[ ].”262 This might indicate again  a speaker who addresses the Israelites.263 In spite of this, the tense and the narrator of the text cannot be determined with certainty. It is possible that the narrator or the speaker changes in this text. Finally, we should consider the genre of the text of 4Q377. As it is preserved only fragmentarily one cannot discuss it with certainty. The text appears to be a narrative dealing with Moses’s and Israel’s experiences. This style should be compared with the passages where Miriam appears next in order to decide, which is the text the author used and reworked to create a new composition. Regarding the Pentateuchal Miriam passages, Exod 15:20–21 is best characterized as a victory song.264 Deuteronomy 24:8–9 appears in the context of rules and laws given to the people. The legal setting of that text is likewise indicated by the verbs “to follow” (‫)שמר‬, “to do” (‫)עשה‬, and “to command” (‫ )צוה‬and by its references 259 VanderKam and Brady, “Apocryphon Pentateuch B,” 207. Similarly Feldman, “The Sinai Revelation according to 4Q377,” 171–172, who reads: “…[And] Miriam [was shu]t from the eyes…” Cf. “Let her be shut out (‫ )תסגר‬of the camp for seven days, and after that she may be brought in again” (Num 12:14). “So Miriam was shut out (‫ )תסגור‬of the camp for seven days” (Num 12:15). 260 In Lev 13:4, 5, 11, 21, 26, 31, 33, 50, 54; 14:38, 46 the verb ‫ סגר‬appears in the hiphil meaning “to separate” or “to barricade” (a house). The exact nature of tsara’at, which is usually translated as “leprosy,” remains unresolved. See my earlier discussion in 2.3.3, and for a recent discussion, Baden and Moss, “The Origin and Interpretation of sāra’at in Leviticus 13–14,” 643–662. 261 “And the anger of the Lord was kindled (‫ )ויחר אף‬against them, and he departed” (Num 12:9). See 2.3.5. 262 Trans. VanderKam and Brady, “4QApocryphon Pentateuch B,” 214. 263 VanderKam and Brady, “4QApocryphon Pentateuch B,” 207. 264 See 2.1.4 and the literature cited there.

178

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

to priests who monitor correct conduct. Moreover, its use of the pedagogic remember-formula (‫ )זכר‬implies that audiences are reminded to bear in mind Miriam’s destiny and the commandments set in Lev 13–14 for tsara’at.265 Finally, Num can be described as a narrative concerning Israel’s forty years “in the wilderness.” As 4Q377 also reflects the “Sinai sections” and its style is somewhat similar, Num 12 corresponds to the content of line 9 the best. Based on these observations, it appears that the text of 4Q377 shares parallels with the Num 12 tradition. Therefore, I think that VanderKam and Brady are right in suggesting that 4Q377 2 I, 9 uses material from Num 12:1–15.266

3.1.5.4 Miriam in the Apocryphon Pentateuch B The allusion of 4Q377 to Num 12 contains only one line. The length of the allusion has implications. Most crucially, in light of such a short reference to Miriam, it is difficult to draw conclusions on how the author of the text interpreted ­Miriam. While 4Q377 2 I refers to several Pentateuchal passages, it does not single out any of them. None of them is highlighted above the others. Moreover, the short references and the lack of details or of indications where the Pentateuchal passages change have some consequences. This style suggests that the renarration did not quote its base text in detail. Rather it had a loose connection with the texts it reworked (the Pentateuch). Moreover, the brevity of the references implies that at least some people who used the text could relate to it even through a subtle hint. The author combined flexibly different literary traditions, and it is possible that at least some of audiences of the text knew the base texts, different sections of the Pentateuch, well. Regarding the reception of the figure of Miriam in 4Q377, this text demonstrates that the tradition of Num 12 was preserved in the DSS and known by the community who used 4Q377. Moreover, the style of 4Q377 reveals that Miriam must have been a known character by the time the text was written. People were expected to relate to the tradition of Num 12 with only a subtle reference. The incident of Num 12 was certainly known, as the renarrations of this passage demonstrate. Nevertheless, as the reference to Num 12 is only one line long in 4Q377, the cause of the conflict between the figures was not spelled out in the text. Nor was the figure of Miriam punished in this text. In comparison with Num 12 of the Hebrew Bible, the figure of Miriam was dealt with less harshly in the renarrations of this passage. This could signify that for some reason it was no longer appropriate to present Miriam in a disrespectful light. 265 See 2.2.3. 266 Similarly Tervanotko, “Miriam Misbehaving? The Figure of Miriam in 4Q377 in Light of Ancient Jewish Literature,” 209–323; Feldman, “The Sinai Revelation according to 4Q377,” 155, 171–172.

Texts from Judea

179

3.1.5.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts I have presviously addressed the tradition of Miriam’s punishment in two different places: while analyzing Deut 24:8–9 and Num 12. The former deals with Miriam’s tsara’at in a legal context, where the cause of the conflict between the figures is not spelled out. The text only refers to “what God did to Miriam,” and seemingly the author had Miriam’s illness, not the conflict, in mind while composing the passage. Meanwhile, the latter, Num 12, offers in its present format two different explanations for the conflict between the figures. Miriam speaks about Moses’s Cushite wife in Num 12:1 and questions Moses’s exclusive prophecy in Num 12:2. It seems that 4Q377 contains another vague reference to the conflict between the figures. As the passage refers to anger and Miriam being shut out, I suggest the author had in mind Num 12 rather than Deut 24:8–9, which refers to the laws. Meanwhile, it should be emphasized that this context (4Q377) leaves open the reason of the conflict and punishment. While I argue that 4Q377 2 I, 9 loosely depends on Num 12, the motif of the conflict cannot be established. Let me elaborate this a little further. Moses’s intermarriage is seldom repeated in the literature of the Second Temple era. It has been pointed out in this study (e.g., VA) that intermarriage was widely debated in post-exilic Judaism, and towards the second century B.C.E. attitudes concerning exogamy became stricter. Various Pentateuchal renarrations of the Greco-Roman era display uneasiness in their reports of Moses’s marriage. Some texts remain silent regarding Moses’s marriage. For instance, Jub. argues against mixed marriages (25:1–3, 7–11; 30:7–17; 33:18–20) but does not mention Moses’s wife, even while reporting his stay in Midian. Moreover, as my study has previously shown, the attitude against intermarriage is also expressed in various texts that belonged to the DSS. Particular interest is found in the nuptials of the Levite family.267 The only exception to this prohibition that the T allows appears in the recapitulation of Deut 21:10–14. While allowing  a warrior to marry  a beautiful captive woman, 11QTa LXIII, 10–15 introduces extraordinary restrictions on the religious and cultic dimensions of this exceptional case of intermarriage.268 Within the remaining texts from the DSS there is no reference to the marriage of Moses. This may be a coincidence of history.269 Nevertheless, a number of texts 267 See 3.1.2.3. 268 See Schiffman, “Laws Pertaining to Women in the Temple Scroll,” 210–28; Lange, “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12), 17–39. 269 James E. Bowley, “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Living in the Shadow of God’s Anointed,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. Matthias Henze; Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature; Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2005), 159–181, 171.

180

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

reflect that the preserved majority of the Jewish texts dating to the Greco-Roman era were uneasy with the theme of Moses’s intermarriage.270 Moreover, the purpose of 4Q377 (in particular col. II) seems to be promoting Moses. Therefore referring to a detail that may not be acceptable to everyone would put the figure of Moses in a questionable light. Given the length and the style of 4Q377 2 I, 9, and in particular the preserved name “Miriam,” it is plausible that this line that alludes to Num 12 did not deal with Moses’s marriage either. Meanwhile, on my view it should refer to a passage that dealt with Miriam, most likely in the context of the wilderness. I argued above that the line may rework Num 12 tradition. This text demonstrates that Miriam was also linked to the wilderness events in the Jewish literature that derived from the late Hellenistic era.

3.1.5.6 Summary The Apocryphon Pentateuch B gives us an example of how Miriam’s punishment tradition, found in Deut 24:8–9 and Num 12, was rewritten in the texts deriving from the Hellenistic era. Its focus is on the figure of Moses, while Miriam is mentioned only secondarily. The reference to the earlier tradition is oblique while the incident itself is not repeated. Like Deut 24:8–9, this text apparently skips the cause of the conflict between the figures. Given that Num 12 is the longest reference to Miriam in the Hebrew Bible, it is rather surprising that it was repeated so seldom. This suggests that as a theme it was not  a popular one. All in all, both the rare references to the tradition concerning Miriam’s punishment and the oblique way in which it was retold indicate that this encounter was considered somehow embarrassing and that it was not repeated in detail. This style is at home in the Hellenistic era, when the interpretation of Miriam is predominantly positive.

3.1.6 Excursus: The Levites in the Second Temple Period 3.1.6.1 The Texts through the Persian Era The various previous steps of this study have proposed for the figure of Miriam a close connection with the descendants of the patriarch Levi. The chapter of this study concerning Miriam in the texts up to the end of the Persian era demonstrates that the first texts that assume such  a connection are the Pentateuchal family genealogies. They list Miriam as  a member of the Levite family. Such  a portrayal is prominent in particular in Num 26:59 (see 2.5), and in the LXX 270 In contrast to the DSS, Moses’s marriage was a popular topic in wider literature dating to the Greco-Roman era: e.g., Artapanus (Frag. 3 [Praep. ev. 9.27.19]), Josephus (A.J. 2.252–253). For discussion, see Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, 145–147.

Texts from Judea

181

Vorlage of Exod 6:20 that I will analyze in what follows (see 3.2.1.2). These genealogies demonstrate that there was an interest in the origins of the Levite family. At times this family receives attention above the other branches of the sons of Jacob, e.g., in Num 26:59. Such interest suggests that Miriam was interpreted as a member of a recognized and prestigious family. Such references to the Levite family suggest that they played an important role in Second Temple Judaism. In this excursus I will look at the texts regarding the Levites more closely, seeking a more specific explanation for their prominence. The texts deal with the Levites as members of the family of Levi and as religious functionaries. On my view the two groups are profoundly intertwined in the ancient texts, and they cannot be totally distinguished from one another. As the figure of Miriam appears together with the Levites in several passages of the Persian and Hellenistic period texts, the fundamental purpose of this excursus is to shed some new light on the interpretation of Miriam in this period. Finally, I will argue that the adoption of Miriam into the Levites is profoundly intertwined with the Levites’ struggle for power reflected in various texts. However, before getting into those texts that deal with the Levites’ striving for a better position in the society, the earlier period should be taken into consideration in order to trace how the depiction of the Levites develop in the texts. It should be stated that the function of the sons of the patriarch Levi, i. e., the Levites, has been a matter of scholarly debate for a long time.271 Interestingly, in the earliest references to the Levites preserved in the Hebrew Bible, the tasks of the Levites are depicted rather similarly to those of the priests. This view is based 271 Since Julius Wellhausen’s, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, there has been  a wide acceptance that the division into “priests” and “Levites” does not reflect the earliest stage of the development of the priesthood. E.g., William F. Albright, “Jethro, Hobab and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition,” CBQ 25 (1963): 1–11; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962), 1:242–250; Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jüdischen Kultpersonals (FRLANT 89; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965); Hartmut Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie (Bei­ träge zu evangelischen Theologie 64; München: Kaiser, 1974), 147–58; Menahem Haran, Temple and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985); Ulrich Dahmen, Priester und Leviten im Deuteronomium: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien (BBB 110; Bodenheim: Philo, 1996); Joseph Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995); Risto Nurmela, The Levites: Their Emergence as  a Second-Class Priesthood (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 193; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998); Joachim Schaper, Priester und Leviten im achämenideschen Juda: Studien zur Kult- und Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit (FAT 31; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Alice Hunt, Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History (London: T&T Clark, 2006); Antje Labahn, Licht und Heil. Levitischer Herrschaftsanspruch in der frühjüdischen Literatur aus der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 112; Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010); Mark A. Leuchter and Jeremy M. Hutton, eds., Levites and Priests in History and Tradition (SBLAIL 8; Atlanta: SBL, 2011).

182

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

on the narrative preserved, for instance, in Judg 17:7–13; 18:3–6, 15–31, which describes the duties of the Levite who serves at Micah’s sanctuary. The Levite is for instance expected to teach, and he is known to consult God. His use of the ephod (Judg 18:20), which is known as priestly garments, indicates some cultic func­tion.272 All in all, these remarks suggest for the Levite a similar position to that of a priest. Even more telling, this Levite is called a priest (‫)כהן‬ in this passage (e.g., Judg 17:10, 13). There is nothing in this passage that would suggest the Levite to be a second category priest. His function is understood similarly to the priests. Even more so, the text suggests that Levites were highly appreciated in a priestly role, as Micah voices: “Now I know that the Lord will prosper me, because the Levite has become my priest” (Judg 17:13). Schaper has argued that the most distinctive difference between these priests and the Levites was that while the former served at the temple, the latter operated in private sanctuaries.273 This scenario suggests that while the two groups were assigned different fields, they were probably not in direct competition. Scholars have proposed that this situation where the Levites and priests, seen as one group of religious functionaries or two separate groups, could co-exist, later changed drastically. One possibility is that the status of religious functionaries was influenced by the centralization of the cult that the tradition places during the reign of King Josiah. It is possible that when the cult was practiced solely in the temple of Jerusalem, the Levites that served in other sanctuaries lost their status. This new situation forced the Levites to seek new tasks around the temple cult.274 Several texts describe them, and I will turn to those passages next. This situation appears to correspond roughly to some Pentateuchal passages that attest to the priesthood. They claim that the priestly tasks were given exclusively to the sons of Aaron (e.g., Exod 28–29; Num 3:3, 10), who served as the priests. They were anointed and ordained for their position. The procedures concerning their ordination are described in Exod 29. The priests were furthermore directly responsible for taking care of the Ark of the Covenant and the furnishings of the sanctuary (Num 4:5, 15). While the priestly tasks are clearly assigned for the descendents of Aaron, the duties of the Levites differ from them in many of the Pentateuchal narratives. 272 For the technical divinatory devices, see e.g., Frederick H.  Cryer, Divination in Israel and its Ancient Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation (LHB/OTS 142; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); Jason S. Bray, Sacred Dan: Religious Tradition and Cultic Practice in Judges 17–18 (LHB/OTS 449; London/New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 112–118. 273 Schaper, Priester und Levites, 84–115; idem, “Levites,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 885–887, 886. Note that Exod 28:4 mentions ephod as  a part of the priest’s vestments. Cf. Judg 18:20, where the Levite priest possesses the ephod. Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 85, 90, argues that that term “Levitical priest” is a standard designation in Deut for the pre-exilic priesthood. 274 Schaper, Priester und Levites, 95–115.

Texts from Judea

183

Numbers 3:6 states: “Bring the tribe of Levi near, and set them before Aaron the priest, so that they may assist him.” This defines their assisting role for Aaron. Against this background and particular tasks assigned to the priests, it is clear that the Levites and the priests are seen as two separate groups of religious functionaries. While the Levites could also share religious assignments, for instance, they are said to place the incense and the burnt offerings in Deut 33:10 and Jer  33:18, their function was primarily to assist the Aaronide priests by performing in front of the tent of meeting and doing service at the tabernacle (e.g., Num 3:6–10; 4:3–33). Apart from these tasks related to the cult, apparently the Levites were assigned some teaching responsibilities (Deut 33:10) that are not described further. Thus, the Levites were probably mainly known for their assisting the priests, but apart from that they also had cultic and instructive tasks.275 A few additional passages shed more light on the Levites in this era. First, let us turn to the Psalms. Interestingly, a number of psalms (Ps 42; 44; 45–49; 84–85; 87–88) contain the epithet “sons of Korah” (‫)בני קרח‬. Korah is known as a descendent of Levi in the Hebrew Bible. Exodus 6:21 lists Korah as a son of Izhar, son of Qahat, son of Levi. This genealogy is also referred to in Num 26:57–58 and 1 Chr 6:2, 18, 38; 23:12. While the Korahite temple singers appear explicitly only in the texts that derive from the Hellenistic era, most notably in 2 Chr, it has been suggested the musical tasks of the Korahites were recognized earlier. These psalms may have formed some part of the repertoire that belonged to the Korahite temple singers.276 The book of Malachi also builds up the image of the Levites in the Second Temple period. Malachi 2:1–9 severely criticizes the Jerusalem priesthood. The priests are accused of turning away from God and failing with their teaching. They mislead people with their instruction (Mal 2:8) and demonstrate partiality in their teaching (‫ ונשאים פנים בתורה‬Mal 2:9). Meanwhile, the author brings the Levites into this context as those who continue performing the duties in the right way.277 The passage suggests that the main obligation for the Levites is instruction, and that they perform well in this duty (Mal 2:6). Notably, this is in line with the tasks 275 Note that such an understanding is not reflected only in the texts of the Pentateuch, but also in e.g., Ezek 44:6–16. 276 Sigmund Mowinckel, Offersang og sangoffer: Salmediktningen i Bibelen (Oslo: H. Aschehoug & co, 1951), 359–360; Günther Wanke, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten (BZAW, 97; Berlin: Topelmann, 1966): 23–31; M. D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah (JSOTSup 20; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1982); Erich Zenger, “Zur redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung (ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger; Herders Biblische Studien 1; Bodenheim: Herder, 1994), 175–198. For the Levites’ possible role in shaping the Psalter, see Mark S. Smith, “The Levitical Redaction of the Psalter,” ZAW 103 (1991): 258–63. 277 Notably, the passage actually mentions Levi as a singular. I agree with Julia M. O’Brien, Priest and Levite in Malachi (SBLDS 121; Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1990), 104–106, who argues that through the ancestor Levi, Malachi draws an image of the ideal priesthood.

184

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

assigned to the Levites in the Pentateuchal passages (e.g., Deut 33:10). In contrast to the priests, Levi is referred to as an upright figure, who does not simply perform his duties well, but also manages to turn many from iniquity (Mal 2:6). This passage of Mal takes the position of the Levites even further. They are not only the right servants of God, but God is said to have established a covenant with Levi (‫ להיות בריתי את לוי‬Mal 2:4).278 While the priests are condemned for failure in teaching, the covenant with Levi is said to last (Mal 2:5). It seems that the author of this passage did not think that the role of the Levites was simply to assist the priests. Rather the author seems to promote them as an equally important group of religious functionaries. While the priests have failed in fulfilling their tasks, the Levites are viewed as the truthful ministers of instruction. This implies that the Levites were seen as a separate group from the priests, yet the author aimed at promoting them over the priests. Levi’s covenant with God is not referred to only in Mal. Such a covenant is also present in Neh 13:29, which invokes the failing of the priests. This reference is short, and it does not contain any further information on the Levites or how their covenant should be understood. Remarkably the priests and the Levites, perhaps understood here as two distinct groups with their own tasks, both have a covenant with God.279 Another text that knows the Levites’ covenant is Jer 33:14–26. This passage, while discussing the duties of the Levites, assigns them only ritual duties: “Levitical priests (‫ )לכהנים הלוים‬shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt-offerings, to make grain-offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time” (Jer 33:18). Interestingly, the author of the passage refers to a covenant with David and the Levites (Jer 33:20–21), not mentioning the priests as a group of their own. According to the author, God promises that the Levites will be numerous in the future, thus expecting continuity for them (Jer 33:22).280 278 For  a discussion regarding this covenant, see, e.g., Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 89–90, who thinks that the covenant is based either on the golden-calf episode in Exod 32:28–29 or the priesthood granted to Phinehas in Num 25:10–13. 279 “And one of the sons of Jehoiada, son of the high priest Eliashib, was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite; I chased him away from me. Remember them, O  my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, the covenant of the priests and the Levites. Thus I cleansed them from everything foreign, and I established the duties of the priests and Levites, each in his work” (Neh 13:28–30). See Armin Lange, “The Covenant with the Levites (Jer 33:21) in the Proto-Masoretic Text of Jeremiah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Go Out and Study the Land, 95–116, who points out the possibility that the term Levites is  a later addition in Neh 13:29 inspired by Mal 2:4b–8. Further, Klaus-Dietrich Schunk, Nehemia (BKAT 23.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), 400. 280 For a through analysis of this passage, see Lange, “The Covenant with the Levites (Jer 33:21) in the Proto-Masoretic Text of Jeremiah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 95–116, who argues that the proto-Masoretic redaction of Jer 33:14–29 was written in the early 3rd century B.C.E. It reflects  a situation where the Jerusalem high priests deserve no political power. That is promised to the house of David while the priestly duties are given to the Levites.

Texts from Judea

185

All in all, from this survey concerning the Persian era one can conclude that the functions ascribed to the Levites varied. All the texts seem to suggest that the priests and the Levites were understood as two separate groups of religious functionaries. Some authors seemingly interpreted the Levites as subordinate to the Aaronide priests. Then the Levites are described primarily as assistants for the priests. Yet this line of interpretation is not clear-cut in the texts of the Persian era. Several texts suggest a more prominent position for the Levites in religious practice and society. They are discussed as people in charge of the sacrifice. They are equally known as the teachers. Finally, strikingly, some texts that criticize the Jerusalem priesthood refer to the covenant between God and the Levites. The authors of these texts appear to promote the Levites as the true functionaries of the religious practice. The texts that suggest the Levites a role similar to that of the priests seem to reflect some animosity between the two groups. The relationship between the priests and the Levites may have been complex.281

3.1.6.2 The Texts of the Hellenistic Era When we move to observe the later texts, those that are assigned to the Hellenistic period in this study, the Levites and their position remain on the agenda of various compositions. Some of the texts continue highlighting the Levites as  a group distinct from the priests that performs next to them. Such a portrayal can be particularly distinguished in 1 Chr, which depicts the Levites as the assistants for the temple cult (1 Chr 23:28–32). Apart from that function, 1 Chr assigns the Levites other tasks. They work, for instance, as scribes (e.g., 1 Chr 24:6, 31), gatekeepers (1 Chr 26:1, 19), treasurers (1 Chr 26:20–28), and they also worked in various administrative functions (1 Chr 26:29–32).282 Notably, as pointed out above, the Levites are also described as temple musicians (1 Chr 25:1–31). While it is difficult to argue that the Korahites performed these psalms at the time of 1 Chr, it is notable that compositions that were produced in different times ascribed the Levites the roles of singers and musicians.283 While 1–2 Chr mostly portray the Levites’ role as religious functionaries and the various tasks assigned to them, the Jewish literature of the Hellenistic era 281 Schaper, “Levites,” 886, thinks that the Levites strengthened their position within the Temple personnel towards the end of the Persian era. Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 92, suggests that the cause of the tension between the groups was, as suggested above, their uneven power. Moreover, in Blenkinsopp’s view this had regard to the control of the rebuilt Temple, which, apart from the religious function, also applied to political power. 282 2 Chr 34:12–13 affirms the tasks as musicians, scribes, administrators and guards. For the description of the various tasks, see Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet, 94–98. 283 Mowinckel, Offersang og sangoffer, 360, points out that in 1 Chr 25:1–6 the singing task is assigned to the sons of Asaf, Heman and Jehutun. Hence, he claims that Korahites were not known to be in charge of the temple singing at the time of 1 Chr.

186

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

gives ample attention to the Levites as members of the family of Levi. Texts such as the ALD, the VA, and Jub., which are all taken into account in this study, build up our understanding concerning the interpretation of Levi and his descendents during the Hellenistic era. These texts witness to the notion that the Levites (understood both as religious functionaries and as members of the family of Levi) had a special relationship with God. The Aramaic Levi Document witnesses to the priesthood of Levi and his descendants. Several passages of the text display interest in this theme. Chapter 5 of ALD attests to Levi being appointed priest in Bethel, and the appointment extends to the descendants of Levi. Hence they take over priestly responsibilities.284 The Aramaic Levi Document, chs. 6–10, elaborates the duties of the priesthood and in those chapters Levi himself instructs his sons.285 Furthermore, ALD 7–10 regards the sacrificial cult. The author explains how Levi and his descendents are also expected to perform this duty. All these details reflect the author’s interest in the priesthood and the family of Levi. A similar tendency is present in VA, where the ancestor father instructs his offspring from his deathbed (4Q545 1 I, 1–3). I discussed earlier how the members of Amram’s family are notably linked to raz.286 This implies that they had access to divine information. Amram himself appears to receive information regarding the future of his children.287 Interestingly, this text refers explicitly to the priesthood of Aaron, yet it is announced to Aaron’s father Amram. This makes one think that some promises were already transmitted to the previous generations. It is possible that the priesthood did not begin with Aaron but existed already. Jubilees adds to this depiction. The revelation is given privately to Moses, but the book also suggests that there was some tradition of knowledge that was passed down from Jacob to Levi and later his sons (Jub. 32:22–26; 45:16). These passages suggest that Levi also had a role as a scribe.288 In other passages, Levi receives 284 The fundamental studies on this topic include James L. Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings,” HTR 86 (1993): 1–64 and Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi. Both scholars emphasize that the foundations for Levi as a priest can be traced in the texts of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deut 33:10; Mal 2:1–9). For Levi’s special role in ALD, see Greenfield, Stone and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 35–39. 285 Henryk Drawnel, “Priestly Education in the Aramaic Levi Document (Visions of Levi) and Aramaic Astronomical Book (4Q208–211),” RevQ 22 (2005–2006): 547–574, 547–551. 286 Amram’s own visions are mentioned at least four times (4Q544 1 10–11; 4Q546 9 2; 14 5; 4Q547 9 8) in the text. Also, Moses (4Q545 3 2–4), Aaron (4Q545 4 15–16) and Miriam (4Q546 12 4) are said to access raz. See 3.1.2.4. 287 See 3.1.2.6. 288 Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 129; VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, 118–120; Greenfield, Stone and Eshel, The Aramaic Levi Document, 34–38. For a full discussion of the heavenly tablets, see Florentino García Martínez, “The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, 333–349.

Texts from Judea

187

the preferred blessing (Jub. 31:12–17), and he is raised above his brothers. These remarks suggest that the author gave the Levites a particular importance. More importantly, as Jub. portrays the patriarchs behaving like priests, e.g., bringing sacrifices, the priesthood is not limited only to the sons of Aaron.289 In sum, these three texts depict the forefathers of Aaron performing as priests and later passing the information concerning priesthood forward to their offspring. Such perspectives suggest that the authors of these texts did not think that performing certain priestly tasks, such as performing sacrifices, was limited to the descendents of Aaron. Rather the Levites more broadly were known to engage in priestly duties. A careful reading of these texts adds to our previous conclusion that the roles of the priests and Levites were not always differentiated from one another. This in turn suggests that the relationship between the two groups was not harmonious at times. Possible clashes between the priests and the Levites are hinted at already in the earlier texts of the Persian era, which describe the Levites as a group that has  a covenant with God and that performs duties typically assigned for the priests,290 but the rivalry between the groups becomes clearer in some of the texts deriving from the Hellenistic era. As we have seen, several of the texts of that era portray the Levites as the true priests and claim that they performed the priestly duties before the establishment of the Aaronide priesthood. This portrayal where the Levites perform similar assignments as the priests does not agree with the two-tiered priesthood depicted in the Hebrew Bible in general and in the Pentateuch in particular, which separates the priests and the Levites from one another and ranks the priests higher than the Levites. In light of the texts analyzed briefly here, it seems that at least from the late Persian era onward there were groups that claimed a priestly legitimacy for the Levites. The texts suggest that this was done in various ways. On the one hand, texts blame the the priests for failing in their role, and on the other, texts argue that the Levites actually had their own covenant with God since the time of the patriarchs. That would make them the authentic priests. It is possible that this

289 Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings,” 1–64. According to Jeffrey Stackert, “The Cultic Status of the Levites in the Temple Scroll: Between History and Hermeneutics,” in Levites and Priests in History and Tradition, 199–214, T also adds to this portrayal by depicting the Levites in a priestly function. Only the altar service appears to be an exclusively priestly task. 290 It is possible that this conflict has early roots. The Pentateuch reflects that there were tensions between the temple priests and the Levites. For instance in Num 16, which narrates Korah’s revolt, Moses claims that the reason behind the rivalry is his seeking of power. Notably Korah was known as a Levite. The writer of this passage was of the opinion that the Aaronide priesthood ranks higher than the Levites. It is difficult to imagine that such an argument was phrased unless there were people who somehow questioned it. Cf. Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings,” 48.

188

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

controversy reflects a historical situation where the Levites and the priests were in conflict.291 We should conclude that these compositions suggest that in the Hellenistic era the relationship between the priests and the Levites was a matter of intense debate.292

3.1.6.3 Miriam as Levite This background on the development of the Levites in ancient Jewish texts also provides  a context in which the several texts that emphasize the figure of Miriam were composed. In view of my earlier remarks, it appears that in the earliest Miriam traditions she was known as an independent figure.293 Meanwhile, her family connections develop gradually. First she is depicted in connection with Moses and Aaron, who appear prominently next to her in the passages describing the time spent in the wilderness. Notably in these references to Miriam the Levites are not mentioned. Given that Miriam’s adoption into the Levites takes place in later texts, one has to assume that her affiliation with the Levites was  a later phenomenon.294 While the tardiness of Miriam’s adoption into the Levites has been suggested before, it has not yet been thoroughly explored. In my view the history of Miriam connects with the history of the Levites to a certain extent in the Second Temple era. In this last part of the excursus I will seek the function of Miriam as a Levite in relation to the history of the Levites discussed earlier. Importantly, the figures of Jochebed and Amram play a crucial role in bridging the figures of Aaron, Moses and Miriam with the Levite family. Jochebed and Amram are not mentioned by their names in Exod 2:1, the passage that attests to the marriage of Moses’s parents. Exodus 2:1 simply points to a man from the house of Levi (‫ )איש מבית לוי‬and a Levite girl (‫)בת לוי‬. These titles attributed to Moses’s parents suggest that the father was understood to be affiliated to the Levites. Meanwhile, Moses’s mother could also be interpreted as a Levite, but the term ‫ בת לוי‬could also be translated more literally. If the term referred to the figure of Levi rather than to his tribe, the term ‫ בת לוי‬could be read “Levi’s daughter.”295 291 Dahmen, Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium, 398–401, has suggested that the priests that functioned in the temple were more powerful, whereas the Levites did not have as prominent a position in relation to the religious practice. Hence, at least some of the Levites may have experienced this situation and their treatment as unfair and claimed an equal access to the priesthood. 292 Kugler, From Patriarch to Priest, 224–226. 293 Cf. my discussion on Exod 15:20–21; Num 12:1–15; 20:1. 294 Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 90; Rapp, Mirjam, 368; Fischer, Gotteskünderinnen, 84. There is a general consensus that Miriam’s Levite connection appears to be a later phenomenon. 295 Propp, Exodus, 148, points this out.

Texts from Judea

189

Despite these identifications the parents remain anonymous in Exod 2, and their further family credentials are not revealed.296 Other texts provide evidence of how their identities were viewed. The ren­ dering of Levi’s daughter in the LXX as “one of Levi’s daughters” reveals that some people were not at ease with too close consanguinity, i. e., the literal translation of ‫בת לוי‬.297 Meanwhile, other passages appear to emphasize the close connection.298 When they are referred to as Amram and Jochebed already in other texts (e.g., Exod 6:20; Num 26:59), it means that the texts no longer refer to them as just any Levite man and woman, but that they are direct descendants of Levi. This connection is emphasized in the VA and the ALD, which frequently highlight Jochebed as Amram’s spouse.299 This interpretation creates continuity between the Levites and Aaronites. Through their ancestors Jochebed and Amram, who were direct descendant of Levi, the sons of their child Aaron, the priests, are also Levites. In my view, this union between the Levites and Aaronites provides  a background for the affiliation of Miriam as well. Since by the time the Levites became more prominent in the texts she was known as the sister of Moses and Aaron, her adoption into the Levites was natural. Hence, while it is difficult to argue that Miriam was independently co-opted into the Levites, it is more likely that because of her already existing family bonds with Moses and Aaron, she became a Levite in the texts. As  a matter of fact, such  a connection provided Miriam  a needed family background. Before that she was known as an independent figure without a fixed position. The connection with the Levite family served to provide Miriam with an appropriate background. I will return to this point, namely Miriam’s family connections, later in this study. Compared with other female figures that appear in the family lists, Miriam is mentioned regularly. This raises a question about her adoption into the Levite branch. Why was it important to highlight that Miriam was one of the Levites? First, I think it is crucial to emphasize that whereas Miriam figure appears more frequently than other women in the lists, she appears in particular in those texts that aim at building  a stronger picture of the Levites, such as the VA and Jub. These texts seemingly strengthen Miriam’s role in the history of the Jews. Miriam 296 See the discussion concerning Num 26:59 (2.5.2) where the figure of Jochebed appears for the first time. 297 ἔλαβεν τῶν θυγατέρων Λευι καὶ ἔσχεν αὐτήν (Exod 2:1 LXX). The Vg. follows this rendering loosely: egressus est post haec vir de domo Levi accepta uxore stirpis suae. Propp, Exodus, 148, translates it “a wife of his extraction.” The close consanguinity is avoided in Jub. too. See 3.1.4.2 and 3.1.4.5. 298 Propp, Exodus, 148, argues that the P-source emphasizes that Jochebed was Amram’s aunt. 299 See 3.1.2.2. Further, Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176.

190

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

features in different roles in these texts. She appears as  a child of Amram and as a direct descendant of Levi. She is known also as the sister taking care of the infant Moses and thus ensuring the future of the Israelites. Moreover, Miriam is described as a visionary to whom divine secrets were revealed. Furthermore, VA attests to Miriam’s marriage and offspring. This text suggests for Miriam the role of an ancestor mother. Evidently, Miriam appears frequently in the texts that have  a distinctive Levitical interest. The frequency and the content of the references to Miriam in comparison to the female figures in general suggest that Miriam served a specific purpose in the Levite texts. At the least, emphasizing Miriam could have served to demonstrate that this figure who played a remarkable role in Israelite history was a member of the large Levite family. Yet I think it is possible that Miriam was brought into the Levite texts for other reasons as well. This concerns the history of the Levites (see 3.1.6.1 and 3.1.6.2). Given her exceptional depiction described above, it seems that the presence of Miriam could have been another attempt to promote the Levites and to strengthen them, especially vis-à-vis the priests. In particular, the Levite lists that mention Miriam support this argument. Importantly, Miriam was known as  a rather independent character. She did not have any further family members who could have been brought in contact with the Levites through her (i. e., sons or a husband).300 Therefore it seems that her name appears in the lists because it was important to mention that she was a Levite.301 Even more so, the texts of the Hellenistic era, especially the VA and Jub., that promote the Levite family create for her  a more prominent role in the early history of the Jewish people. Thus, her affiliation with the Levites increased the importance and weight of this family. Finally, it is important to consider the date of the texts that highlight Miriam. The majority of the texts that emphasize Miriam were written around the same time as those texts that promote the Levites. Thus, Miriam’s adoption into the Levites overlaps nicely with the emphasis on the Levites that appears in the literature. The Levites start to appear in priestly functions in the late fourth and early third century B.C.E. (3.1.6.2).302 It is difficult to interpret this correspondence as a mere coincidence. Rather, it is logical to assume that the two were interrelated.

300 The texts of Ptolemaic Egypt and of the Roman era, which I will examine in the following chapters of this study, will add to this idea. 301 I think that the independent Miriam traditions were integrated with the traditions concerning Aaron and Moses. Later the three were adopted into the Levites. See 2.7. 302 See my earlier discussion regarding the ALD and the VA in 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.7. Cf. James L. Kugel, “How Old is the Aramaic Levi Document?” DSD 14 (2007): 291–312, who has proposed a Hasmonean date for the ALD.

Texts from Judea

191

The next main chapter of this study will outline this argument more clearly. After the Hellenistic religious reforms, the Levites are no longer a concern. This has been explained in various ways.303 What the various theories appear to share is that they claim that the Levites, who until then were a known group, ceased to have power. Such a theory would explain why the depiction of Miriam in the Hellenistic era differs drastically from that of Roman times. I will return to this question when analyzing the data of the next chapter.

3.1.7 Conclusions Regarding the Hellenistic Texts from Judea Notably, the Judean texts of the Hellenistic era bear witness to  a changing interpretation of Miriam vis-à-vis the earlier texts. Importantly, some of the traditions composed in Hellenistic Judea display dependency on the earlier texts. 1 Chronicles 5:29 mentions Miriam in the context of the Levite family. This connection is developed further in the VA. This text brings Miriam into closer contact with the Levites by shedding more light on her own family life. The Song of Miriam preserved in the RPc builds on the Exod 15 tradition. Jubilees’ reference to Miriam associates her with Moses’s infancy tradition of Exod 2. Finally, the apocrPent. B elaborates Num 12. By rewriting the known Pentateuchal traditions with their own emphases, these texts create new traditions. Yet, whereas the texts through the Persian era focus on Miriam as a character of the Exodus and wilderness periods, the texts composed in the Hellenistic era include interpretations that extend from her childhood to her adulthood and beyond. In VA Miriam is depicted as  a daughter whose marriage is arranged by her father. Furthermore, she becomes an ancestor mother who has children and whose children are listed in the text. Jubilees associates Miriam with the anonymous sister of Exod 2:4 and 7. These additions to Miriam’s biography make her a better-known character for the audiences of ancient Jewish literature, and they add to her significance as a character of the Jewish history. In this chapter I dealt extensively with the portrayal of Miriam as  a Levite. Miriam’s adoption into the Levites happens in texts throughout the Persian era (Num 26:59; LXX Vorlage of Exod 6:20), but this connection finds its peak in the Hellenistic era. Some of the texts that this section dealt with, especially VA

303 E.g., Cana Werman, “Levi and Levites in the Second Temple Period,” DSD 4 (1997): 211–225, who suggests that the Levites did not exist in the Second Temple period. Texts such as the ALD aim at explaining their absence. For counterarguments see Lange, “The Covenant with the Levites (Jer 33:21) in the Proto-Masoretic Text of Jeremiah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” n. 40. Schaper, “Levites,” 885–887, demonstrates it is possible that the tasks of the Levites changed over the years. Labahn, Licht und Heil, 147, thinks that the Levites should be seen as a multi-functional group until their disappearance in the first century B.C.E.

192

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

and Jub., have been identified as texts that promote the Levites.304 Significantly, regarding Miriam, the Levite connection was enabled by two factors. The earlier references to Miriam knew her as an independent character. The figure appears in the earlier texts either alone or in connection with Aaron and Moses. She was not known to have a distinguished family tree of her own. Hence, the affiliation to the Levites in the lists provided this character the background that was required for a female figure in antiquity. On the other hand, given the rare references to women in general in the texts attesting to the Levites, Miriam’s prominence in them makes sense only if this figure was also thought to add to the significance of the Levites. When the Levites contested for the priesthood, the Levitical origin of various important religious figures was pointed out. Miriam was one of the characters who were thought to bring more weight to the Levites. Miriam’s adoption into the Levites offers some interesting perspectives for the interpretation of women in the texts of the Hellenistic era. The Levite texts generally depict men in the central roles, whereas women’s task is to support them. Women are usually brought into the narrative to facilitate the story of men. This viewpoint ultimately diminishes their importance as individuals of their own.305 This may apply to Miriam too. Yet my study shows that the figure of Miriam was consciously brought into the Levite lineage. She was thought to bring additional importance to the family. In the texts from the Hellenistic period, Miriam undergoes important narrative changes. She no longer appears as the sister figure, but now she is made an ancestor mother with her own offspring. This could be seen as developing her into a matriarchal kind of prototype. The change took place for political reasons, to promote  a specific priesthood and thus, male lineage. In this respect it is uncontested that the Judean texts from the Hellenistic era do limit Miriam when they are compared with the earlier references to Miriam in the texts of the Persian era, which allow her more space as an independent character. Nonetheless, in light of the Levite texts and the emphasis on Miriam in them, I would like to bring forward other observations too. While in many ways Miriam resembles the female prototype noted by Halpern-Amaru in Jub.,306 Miriam’s role is not limited to that of  a spouse. Importantly, when she is depicted as  a spouse in VA, she is known as a more important figure than her husband. Fur 304 See my analysis in 3.1.6. For an overview of texts that mention the Levites, see Robert C. Stallman, “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” JSP 10 (1992): 169–183; White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times, 146–149; Joseph L. Angel, Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 86; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 278–95. 305 This is the conclusion of Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 147–159. Further, see Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176. 306 See Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees, 147–159.

Texts from Egypt

193

ther, VA attests to Miriam’s raz. Miriam is the only female figure who is known to access divine knowledge in the Hellenistic era. This notion suggests that she is thus not interpreted only as Levite women generally (i. e., as facilitators of their men), but, at least partly, her interpretation overlaps with that of the prominent Levite men.

3.2 Texts from Egypt 3.2.1 The Interpretation of Miriam in the Septuagint 3.2.1.1 Introduction In this section of my study I will turn to the analysis of the LXX. Previously in this research I have already used the LXX for text criticism while tracking the ­history of the textual development. For various passages referring to Miriam, such as Exod 15:20–21 and Num 12:1–15, the LXX provided an important witness for the history of the text. Therefore the LXX reading was taken into consideration. In what follows, my use of the LXX differs from the previous use in ch. 2. Because the LXX provides an important witness to the interpretation of the texts and traditions of the Hellenistic era, it will be asked whether the LXX tradition of the Hebrew Bible can reveal something else regarding those passages that present the figure of Miriam. Here my task is twofold. First, when analyzing the LXX, attention will be given to determining whether the text tradition differs from the one preserved in the Hebrew Bible or whether it rather reflects  a different Hebrew Vorlage. Second, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible has  a history of its own, and this is sometimes reflected in it. The LXX was translated for the purpose of the Jewish community in Alexandria in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.E.307 As a translation creates new understanding for the text, the LXX should be viewed as a product of interpretation. Moreover, it does not merely represent the ideas of the respective translator or a single individual. Rather, the content of the LXX reflects the interpretation of the context where the translation originated. Therefore the 307 The primary source for the history of the LXX is Let. Aris. that describes the translation process. An expanded version of the story is in Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus § 3,6. The historicity of the narration is disputed. The Let. Aris. is discussed in, e.g., R. J. Shutt, “Letter of Aristeas,” in OTP 2: 7–11; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, 97–103; Raija Sollamo, “The Letter of Aristeas and the Origin of the LXX,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Oslo, 1998 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SBLSCS 51; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001), 329–342; Benjamin G. Wright III, “The Letter of Aristeas and the Question of Septuagint Origins Redux,” JAJ 2 (2011): 304–326, 323–326.

194

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

LXX sheds light on the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible of the community that provided the translation. It has been acknowledged for long that the Alexandrian community was especially influenced by Hellenistic culture.308 Hence, when analyzing the figure of Miriam in the LXX, special attention will be given to the potential Hellenistic features that appear in the text. I will ask whether these aspects appear due to the lack of an idiomatic counterpart for a Hebrew expression in the Greek language or if they rather mirror a broader portrayal of Miriam. This overall analysis of the LXX will reveal how the reception of Miriam developed in a different era and context. This section will follow roughly the chronological sequence of the LXX translation. The Pentateuch was translated first in the third century B.C.E., and the prophets soon after that.309 It is possible that these parts of the Scriptures were considered to be the “core” texts. The other writings were translated only later. Nevertheless, they were also made available in Greek before the beginning of the Christian era.310 Moreover, the study of the ancient translations is a field of scholarship of its own. The LXX has its own history, and  a large variety of manuscripts dating from different eras attests to the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible.311 Within the limits of this research it is not possible to take into account the entire textual history of the LXX. Therefore I depend on the work of other scholars. My analysis is based on the Göttingen edition of the LXX, which is the fruit of scholarly work on various Greek manuscripts. It represents the oldest version of the LXX as far as it can be reconstructed with the manuscript evidence we have. Only regarding 1 Chr 5:29 is my study based on the edition by Alan England Brooke, Norman McLean and Henry St John Thackeray due to the lack of a Göttingen edition for that book.312 308 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE), 82–124; Tessa Rajak, Translation & Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 309 I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah — A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 76–94; Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 59–73; Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 136–137. 310 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 137. 311 For an introduction to the LXX studies, see Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914); Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study; Robert A. Kraft, “Earliest Greek Versions (‘Old Greek’),” IDBSup, 811–815; Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000); Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 2000); Anneli Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays (rev. and enl. ed.; Leuven: Peeters, 2007). 312 Alan Brooke, Norman McLean and Henry St John Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek: The Latter Historical Books: 1 and 2 Chronicles (Vol. 2.3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932).

Texts from Egypt

195

In this section I will concentrate on those passages where the MT and (the Vorlage of) the LXX differ from each other regarding the figure of Miriam. The results of this investigation will be presented at the end of the section. They will provide an important tool for the later sections of this study. They will be used as  a reference to discuss the sources behind the later Miriam traditions. When comparing the MT and the LXX with one another, one can ask whether the Miriam traditions depended primarily on the MT tradition or on the LXX tradition, or if they used some other tradition, which is unknown to us.

3.2.1.2 Exodus 6:20 20. καὶ ἔλαβεν Αμραμ τὴν Ιωχαβεδ θυγατέρα τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἑαυτῷ εἰς γυναῖκα, καὶ ἐγέννησεν αὐτῷ τόν τε Ααρων καὶ Μωυσῆν καὶ Μαριαμ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῶν· τὰ δὲ ἔτη τῆς ζωῆς Αμραμ ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα εξ ἔτη.313 Exodus 6:14–25 is a passage that my study deals with for the first time here, as the same passage preserved in the MT does not mention the figure of Miriam. This list also contains a genealogy of the Israelite tribes and their descendants (cf. Num 26:59; 1 Chr 5:29 analyzed previously in this study). Regarding the presence of women in this list, only a few are mentioned. Exodus 6:15 mentions a Canaanite mother of Shaul (son of Simeon),314 although the name of the mother is not spelled out. Exodus 6:20, 23, and 25 concentrate on marriages of the Levite family.315 The marriages of Amram, Aaron, and Eleazar are also referred to in this list. While the text does not convey much information about these female figures, references to them suggest that their origins are known. These women are first referred to as someone’s wife and secondly as someone’s daughter. These kinships follow the usual pattern of women in genealogies.316 The Masoretic text of Exod 6:14–25 states that the children of Amram were Moses and Aaron: “Amram married Jochebed his father’s sister and she bore him

313 “And Amram took Iochabed, the daughter of his father’s brother, for his own wife, and she bore him both Aaron and Moyses and Mariam, their sister. Now the years of Amram’s life were one hundred and thirty-six years” (trans. Larry J. Perkins, NETS). Cf. The MT: ‫ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דדתו לו לאשה ותלד לו את אהרן ואת משה ושני חיי עמרם שבע ושלשים ומאת שנה‬ For the sake of clarity I will specify all the used translations in this section of my study. 314 “The sons of Simeon: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Shaul, the son of  a Canaanite woman; these are the families of Simeon” (Exod 6:15 NRSV). 315 “Amram married Jochebed his father’s sister and she bore him Aaron and Moses, and the length of Amram’s life was one hundred and thirty-seven years” (Exod 6:20 NRSV); “Aaron married Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon, and she bore him Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar” (Exod 6:23 NRSV); “Aaron’s son Eleazar married one of the daughters of Putiel, and she bore him Phinehas” (Exod 6:25 NRSV). 316 See 2.5.2 and 3.1.1.2.

196

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

Aaron and Moses” (Exod 6:20 NRSV). Meanwhile, the LXX presents a variant for this list. It attests to a genealogy that mentions Miriam among Amram’s offspring. This addition stands out in the list of Exod 6:14–25, which otherwise does not display any interest in sisters as kin.317 Importantly, the LXX is not the only early translation of the Hebrew Bible that refers to the figure of Miriam in Exod 6:20. The SP and the Peshitta also present the name of Miriam in this list. The SP is similar to the LXX. Meanwhile, the Peshitta differs from them in two aspects. First, it adds Miriam to the list, yet without the definition “their sister.” Hence, the Peshitta states: “Jochebed bore Aaron, Miriam and Moses” (translation is mine). Second, the sequence of the names of Amram’s children in the Peshitta, where Miriam comes after Aaron, but before Moses, is different from the LXX and the SP, which present Aaron and Moses first and then Miriam “their sister” (τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῶν).318 It is possible that the Peshitta highlights that Moses was the youngest of Amram’s children by presenting his name last. These examples demonstrate that this passage was not fixed but was transmitted in different forms. Either there were different versions of the Hebrew text or the Greek translator felt free to add explanatory information that was obviously correct in genealogical passages. Apparently the majority of the textual witnesses to this passage know Miriam as one of Amram’s children. Yet before drawing further conclusions, other passages of the LXX that refer to Miriam should be taken into consideration.

3.2.1.3 Exodus 15:20–21 20. Ελαβεν δὲ Μαριαμ ἡ προφῆτις ἡ ἀδελφὴ Ααρων τὸ τύμπανον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐξήλθον πᾶσαι αἱ γυναῖκες ὀπίσω αὐτῆς μετὰ τυμπάνων καὶ χορῶν, 21. ἐξῆρχεν δὲ αὐτῶν Μαριαμ λέγουσα ῎Αισωμεν τῷ κυρίῳ, ἐνδόξως γὰρ δεδόξασται· ἵππον καὶ ἀναβάτην ἔρριψεν εἰς θάλασσαν.319

317 Here I focus merely on the figure of Miriam and traditions around her, whereas other studies have pointed out other differences between the MT and the LXX versions of Exod 6:20. See also Ben Zion Wacholder, “A Qumranic Polemic against a Divergent Reading of Exodus 6:20,” JANESCU 16–17 (1984–85): 225–228, which focuses on the age of Amram in Exod 6:20. 318 The LXX: τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῶν; cf. the SP: ‫ואת מרים אחתם‬.  319 “Then Mariam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dances. And Mariam took their lead, saying: “Let us sing to the Lord, for gloriously he has glorified himself. Horse and rider he threw into the sea” (trans. Larry J. Perkins, NETS). Cf. the MT: ‫ותקח מרים הנביאה אחות אהרן את התף בידה ותצאן כל הנשים בתפים ובמחלת‬ ‫ותען להם מרים שירו ליהוה כי גאה גאה סוס ורכבו רמה בים‬

Texts from Egypt

197

The origin of the Hebrew name Miriam is not known.320 Greek texts vocalize this name differently. Usually it appears as Μαριάμ, and sometimes Μαρία. Interestingly, this name was among the most popular ones for a female in late antiquity, together with the name Salome.321 Exodus 15:21 of the MT reads: “Miriam sang to them” (NRSV).322 The verb the LXX employs for the same verse is ἐξάρχω, which literally means “to begin, to act as a leader, to initiate.”323 The verb was used in classical Greek, where it stood in particular in Greek tragedies to designate alternating choruses: “to begin, to initiate” (in which case the verb appears in the middle voice).324 In the usage of the LXX, Exod 15:21 is not the only passage where this verb appears. This verb in the active is also used in the following passages: Exod 32:18; Num 21:17; 1 Sam 18:7; 21:11 (12); 29:5; Jdt 15:14; 16:2; Ps 146 (147):7; Isa 27:2; 1 Macc 9:67; 3 Macc 4:6. As most of these passages refer directly to a context that presents a song or some other poetic activity, it is evident that the Greek verb ἐξάρχω is often used in the context of the opening of a song or poem.325 This characteristic use of the verb may have influenced the understanding of Exod 15:20–21. The term χορός is directly connected with the previous verb. The word means a dance or a band of dancers.326 It suggests that the women’s singing that took place on the shore of the Sea of Reeds was not interpreted as a random event or a spontaneous act of celebration. Rather the later reception of it was that the women formed  a group of dancers, similar to those that performed at other festivities. Notably, the LXX also renders this term in other passages where the significance should be interpreted in a similar way. The noun appears regularly in the LXX. It is employed for instance in the context of Jephta’s 320 Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE (TSAJ 91; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 242–248. For the various proposals concerning the etymology of the name, see Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses, 9–10. 321 Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I Palestine 330 BCE–200, 242–248. Ilan shows that together with the name “Salome” almost half of the women in the population had this name. The most popular woman called Mariame was king Herod’s wife. Ilan, Lexicon, 9, ponders whether this name was popular because it was in use in the Hasmonean family or whether the Hasmonean family adopted it because it was so popular. Significantly, one of the most important figures of the New Testament is called Μαρία. The two Marias get mixed in later literature, for instance in the Quran. See, Barbara Freyer Stowasser, “Mary,” in Encyclopedia of the Qur’an, 3:288–295. 322 See n. 319. 323 LSJ, 588; J. Lust, E. Eynikel and K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 1:158; Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 248. 324 E.g., Iliad 18.51; 18.606; Odyssey 4.19. Also in the middle voice in Hymni Homerici 27:18. See LSJ, 588. 325 ἔξαρχος,” which applies to the second leader of the chorus. 326 Similarly in Classical Greek. LSJ, 1999; Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 2:518; Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 734.

198

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

daughter’s singing and dancing (Judg 11:34), and when referring to young women of Shiloah dancing (Judg 21:21) or when talking about the band of prophets in 1 Sam 10:5, 10.327 The Greek terms that appear in Exod 15:20–21 imply a more organized celebration than those of the MT. The translator may have had ancient Greek drama in mind when writing these lines. The vocabulary of this passage strengthens the suggestion that Exod 15:20–21 was also not interpreted as  a spontaneous performance but perhaps as a cultic celebration.328 Whereas verse 15:20 preserves an introduction for the song, the actual song follows in 15:21. Also there the LXX differs slightly from the MT. First of all, while Miriam addresses men and women in the second person masculine plural form, “sing to the Lord” at the beginning of v. 21 in the MT, in the LXX the verb is rendered in the first person plural cohortative, “let us sing.” When the two text forms are compared, the passage of the MT sounds a little clumsy, and it raises several questions regarding whom Miriam addresses and with whom she really performs. I discussed these points in 2.1.2 and 2.1.4. Moreover, the LXX employs the same verb form (῎Αισωμεν, “let us sing”) at the beginning of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1). Therefore, in the LXX the incipit of Moses’s song in 15:1 and Miriam’s song in 15:21 are identical, both beginning with the first person plural cohortative, ῎Αισωμεν (“let us sing”). This is clearly at variance with the MT, where the Song of Sea (15:1) begins with a first person singular (‫“ אשירה‬I will sing”), while the Song of Miriam (15:21) begins with a second person masculine plural imperative (‫“ שירו‬sing”). The fact that the LXX harmonizes the two verses could be  a sign that the ancient readers found it difficult to explain why the song attributed to Moses and the Song of Miriam in the MT that follow one another used different grammatical forms (Moses first person singular and Miriam second person plural) when their audience should have been the same.329 Moreover, the first person plural form of Exod 15:21 in the LXX might also find some explanation from other ancient literature. Women who act as one group correspond better to the idea of alternating choruses that the verb usually used in Homeric texts indicates.330 This passage could have its roots in the Jewish setting of ancient Ptolemaic Egypt. Various texts witness to theater performances in Alexandria,

327 For further references, see e.g., Exod 32:19; Judg 9:27; 1 Sam 29:5; 2 Sam 6:13; 1 Kgs 1:40; Ps 149:3; 150:4; Cant 7:1; Lam 5:15; Isa 5:12; Jdt 3:7; 15:12; 3 Macc: 6:32; 4 Macc 8:4; 13:8; 18:23. 328 Cf. Burns, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only through Moses, 39–40, who sees Exod 15:20–21 of the MT as a cultic celebration. 329 The later literature aims at explaining this. Philo of Alexandria (see 4.1.4.1 and 4.1.5.4) explains that the songs were performed consequtively by both men and women. The rabbis were against the mixed choirs (b.Sotah 48a). 330 See n. 324.

Texts from Egypt

199

and it is possible that the passage may have been modified in order to fit the Greek ideal. The author had in mind two choruses that alternated their performances.331 Hence, the LXX might have attempted to “improve” the syntax of the passage in order to clarify it to the readers. Further, the contextual reading of the passage, where the translator adds interpretation to the verse, makes it more understandable to the ancient Alexandrian audience. It should be also remarked that the pronoun αὐτῶν probably refers to the women who appear in this verse. In comparison with the MT, the LXX creates a more logical text. Regarding the other textual witnesses to Exod 15:20–21, the SP follows the MT. Hence, it may have depended on the same text as the MT. Meanwhile, the Pentateuch Tgs. and the Vg. are in line with the LXX. They preserve the verb in the first person plural. This strengthens the argument that the later translations preserved the form where the text-critical problem was polished. Notably, these witnesses demonstrate that the first person plural verb form did not appear only in the Greek text, but also in the other ancient witnesses to this passage. The rest of 15:21 also suggests that the LXX aimed at improving the MT by making it more understandable.332 The MT reads: “horse and its rider” (‫)סוס ורכבו‬. It adds a suffix to the second term. Meanwhile the LXX reads: “horse and rider” (ἵππον καὶ ἀναβάτην) without an equivalent for the suffix. I think this minor change should also be understood as an attempt to create a more idiomatic expression and perhaps a suitable poetic structure. The LXX translation of Exod 15:20–21 is mostly similar to its equivalent in the MT. The most significant interpretation appears in v. 21, where the verb ἐξάρχω suggests that Miriam is pictured as a leader of a women’s chorus. This is a clear interpretation of the events, and it should be understood as a contextualization into a Hellenistic setting. Miriam’s exclamation “Let us sing” in Exod 15:21 suits this picture. It could be understood in the context of two alternating choruses of men and women.

331 Here I find myself influenced by the later literature and especially by Philo of Alexandria, who explicitly writes about the two choirs and their performances. I see the risk of circular argument, yet my impression is that these texts, the LXX rendering of the songs of Exod 15 and Philo’s interpretation of the same songs, that were productions of the same context (i. e., Alexandria), witness together to the Alexandrian understanding of Exod 15 that saw the passage containing two choruses. 332 Concerning the Greek rendering of ‫ גאה‬as δόξα, see Larry Perkins, “‘Glory’ in the Greek Exodus: Lexical Choice in Translation and Its Reflection in Secondary Translations,” in Translation is Required: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect (ed. Robert J. V. Hiebert; SBLSCS 56; Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 87–102.

200

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

3.2.1.4 Deuteronomy 24:8–9 8 Πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ ἐν τῇ ἁφῇ τῆς λέπρας· φυλάξῃ σφόδρα ποιεῖν κατὰ πάντα τὸν νόμον, ὃν ὰν ἀναγγείλωσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ Λευῖται· ὃν τρόπον ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν, φυλάξεσθε ποιεῖν. 9 μνήσθητι ὅσα ἐποίησεν κύριος ὁ θεός σου τῇ Μαριαμ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ἐκπορευομένων ὑμῶν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου.333 The LXX translation of Deut 24:8 emphasizes the importance of the law. Apart from the list of authorities that people should respect in the MT, the LXX adds that what is commanded in the law (τὸν νόμον) should be followed. This reading is present in the SP, which also refers to the law (‫)התורה‬. Deuteronomy refers to the Torah in various passages where it emphasizes rules and orders.334 As the references to the Torah are so widespread, it is plausible that the mention of the Torah already existed in the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX. The translator did not create the term. While in the passages from Exod the translator of the LXX aimed at improving the text and making it more understandable, in Deut 24:8–9 the text has not been corrected at all. In my earlier analysis of Deut 24:8–9 in section 2.2.2 I pointed out that this passage mixes the second person singular and plural forms (i. e., Numeruswechsel). Notably the translator of the LXX follows the text in detail and does not harmonize the changes of the persons in the translation (in Deut 24:9 “your God” (‫ )אלהיך‬appears in the second person singular whereas “when you were coming out of Egypt” (‫ )בצאתכם‬appears in the second person plural).335

333 “Guard yourself against the attack of leprosy; you shall be very watchful to do according to all the law, whatever the priests, the Levites, may announce to you. As I have commanded you, be watchful to perform. Remember what the Lord God did to Mariam on the way, when you were coming out of Egypt” (trans. Melvin K. H. Peters, NETS). Cf. the rendering of the MT: ‫השמר בנגע הצרעת לשמר מאד ולעשות ככל אשר יורו אתכם הכהנים הלוים כאשר צויתם תשמרו לעשות‬ ‫זכור את אשר עשה יהוה אלהיך למרים בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים‬ 334 Deut 4:8, 44; 17:11, 18–19; 27:1, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:20; 30:10; 31:12, 24, 26; 32:46. 335 John William Wevers, “The LXX Translator of Deuteronomy,” in IX Congress of the International Organization for the Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995 (ed. Bernard A. Taylor; SBLSCS 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 57–89, 65, writes, “Probably the most vexing problem in the text of Deut is the seemingly irrational inconsistency of number. Though the second plural is more common in the book than the singular, the two do fluctuate, at times within a single verse. TarN admittedly avoided the problem by its consistent plural, but this is obviously secondary. The translator was also much exercised by the problem, at times even making it worse. On the whole, however, he did tend to make the text somewhat more consistent, particularly in small units of text. Thus LXX often changes number somewhat later in a verse than MT, and at times simply levels the text.”

Texts from Egypt

201

3.2.1.5 Numbers 12:1–15336 12 1  Καὶ ἐλάλησεν Μαριαμ καὶ Ααρων κατὰ Μωυσῆ ἕνεκεν τῆς γυναικὸς τῆς Αἰθιοπίσσης, ἣν ἔλαβεν Μωυσῆς, ὅτι γυναῖκα Αἰθιόπισσαν ἔλαβεν, 2 καὶ εἶπαν Μὴ Μωυσῇ μόνῳ λελάληκεν κύριος; οὐχὶ καὶ ἡμῖν ἐλάλησεν; καὶ ἤκουσεν κύριος. 3 καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος Μωυσῆς πραῢς σφόδρα παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς ὄντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. 4 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος παραχρῆμα πρὸς Μωυσῆν καὶ Μαριαμ καὶ Ααρων ᾿Εξέλθατε ὑμεῖς οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου· καὶ ἐξῆλθον οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου. 5 καὶ κατέβη κύριος ἐν στύλῳ νεφέλης καὶ ἔστη ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου, καὶ ἐκλήθησαν Ααρων καὶ Μαριαμ καὶ ἐξήλθον ἀμφότεροι. 6 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς ᾿Ακούσατε τῶν λόγων μου· ἐὰν γένηται προφήτης ὑμῶν κυρίῳ, ἐν ὁράματι αὐτῷ γνωσθήσομαι καὶ ἐν ὕπνῳ λαλήσω αὐτῷ. 7 οὐχ οὕτως ὁ θεράπων μου Μωυσῆς· ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ μου πιστός ἐστιν· 8 στόμα κατὰ στόμα λαλήσω αὐτῷ, ἐν εἴδει καὶ οὐ δι᾽ αἰνιγμάτων, καὶ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου εἶδεν· καὶ διὰ τί οὐκ ἐφοβήθητε καταλαλῆσαι κατὰ τοῦ θεράποντός μου Μωυσῆ; 9  καὶ ὀργὴ θυμοῦ κυρίου ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἀπῆλθεν. 10 καὶ ἡ νεφέλη ἀπέστη ἀπὸ τῆς σκηνῆς, καὶ ἰδοὺ Μαριαμ λεπρῶσα ὡσεὶ χιών· καὶ ἐπέβλεψεν Ααρων πρὸς Μαριαμ, καὶ ἰδοὺ λεπρῶσα. 11 καὶ εἶπεν Ααρων πρὸς Μωυσῆν Δέομαι, κύριε, μὴ συνεπιθῇ ἡμῖν ἁμαρτίαν, διότι ἠγνοήσαμεν καθότι ἡμάρτομεν 12  μὴ γένηται ὡσεὶ ἴσον θανάτῳ, ὡσεὶ ἔκτρωμα ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ μήτρας μητρὸς καὶ κατεσθίει τὸ ἥμισυ τῶν σαρκῶν αὐτῆς. 13  καὶ ἐβόησεν Μωυσῆς πρὸς κύριον λέγων ῾Ο θεός, δέομαί σου, ἴασαι αὐτήν. 14  καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν Εἰ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῆς πτύων ἐνέπτυσεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτῆς, οὐκ ἐντραπήσεται ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας; ἀφορισθήτω ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσελεύσεται. 15 καὶ ἀφωρίσθη Μαριαμ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς ἑπτὰ ἡμέρας· καὶ ὁ λαὸς οὐκ ἐξῆρεν, ἕως ἐκαθαρίσθη Μαριαμ.337 336 For restricting this passage to vv. 1–15 see 2.3.1 n. 97. 337 “1. And Mariam and Aaron spoke against Moyses on account of the Ethiopian woman whom Moyses had taken, because he had taken an Ethiopian woman. 2. And they said, ‘The Lord has not spoken only to Moyses, has he? Did he not also speak to us?’ And the Lord listened. 3. And the man Moyses was very meek, more than all the people who were upon the earth. 4. And the Lord said at once to Moyses and Mariam, and Aaron, ‘Come out, you three, to the tent of witness.’ 5. And the three came out to the tent of witness. And the Lord descended in a pillar of cloud and stood at the door of the tent of witness. And Aaron and Mariam were called, and they both came out. 6. And he said to them, ‘Hear my words: if there is a prophet of you for the Lord, in a vision I will be known to him, and in sleep I will speak to him. 7. Not so my attendant Moyses; in my whole house he is faithful. 8. Mouth to mouth I will speak to him, in visible form and not through riddles. And he has seen the glory of the Lord. And why were you not afraid to speak against my attendant Moyses?’ 9. And the anger of the Lord’s wrath was against them, and he departed. 10. And the cloud withdrew from the tent, and behold Mariam was leprous like snow, and Aaron looked upon Mariam, and look, she was leprous. 11. And Aaron said to Moyses, ‘I beg you, Sir, do not lay extra sin upon us, because we were ignorant in that we sinned. 12. Do not let her be like unto death, like a miscarriage coming out of a mother’s womb, and it devours half her flesh.’ 13. And Moyses cried out to the Lord, saying, ‘O God, I beg you, heal her!’

202

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

In Num 12:4 God tells Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to go out to the tent. The MT renders this: “And the three of them went out” (‫)ויצאו שלשתם‬. Meanwhile, the LXX adds the destination to “to the tent of meeting” (τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μαρτυρίου) at the end of the verse. This seems to be an addition, a repetition from earlier in the same verse in order to clarify the text. The three went to the tent of meeting as they had been told to do. As was pointed out above (2.3.2) one of the most challenging verses to read in this passage is Num 12:6, which contains several text critical issues. The MT reads “and he said” (‫ )ויאמר‬without any indirect object (i. e., to whom God speaks). The LXX adds this object to the verse “And he spoke to them” (καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς). This addition connects the following text to the conversation between God and Moses, Aaron and Miriam (cf. Num 12:4). The sentence ‫“( אם יהיה נביאכם יהוה במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר בו‬when there are prophets among you, I the Lord make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams,” Num 12:6 NRSV) has some difficult syntax. This sentence is presented as the speech of God. The syntactical difficulty here comes from whether the term God (‫ )יהוה‬should be taken with the conditional clause or with the main clause. If God applies to the latter clause, the problem is the shift from the third person narrative to the first person verb forms (‫ אדבר‬and ‫)אתודע‬. Meanwhile, if God is connected with the former clause, then there is the question of how the term relates to that clause. The LXX rendering connects the term with the subordinate clause (Cf. the NETS translation). It appears that the LXX Vorlage is similar to the MT, but the LXX interprets how God actually relates to this

14. And the Lord said to Moyses, ‘If her father when spitting had spat in her face, would she not be put to shame for seven days? Let her be separated for seven days outside the camp, and afterwards she shall enter.’ 15. And Mariam was kept apart outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not set out until Mariam was cleansed.” (trans. Peter W. Flint, NETS). Cf. the rendering of the MT: ‫  ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה על אדות האשה הכשית אשר לקח כי אשה כשית לקח‬1 ‫  ויאמרו הרק אך במשה דבר יהוה הלא גם בנו דבר וישמע יהוה‬2 ‫  והאיש משה ענו מאד מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה‬3 ‫  ויאמר יהוה פתאם אל משה ואל אהרן ואל מרים צאו שלשתכם אל אהל מועד ויצאו שלשתם‬4 ‫  וירד יהוה בעמוד ענן ויעמד פתח האהל ויקרא אהרן ומרים ויצאו שניהם‬5 ‫  ויאמר שמעו נא דברי אם יהיה נביאכם יהוה במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר בו‬6 ‫  לא כן עבדי משה בכל ביתי נאמן הוא‬7 ‫  פה אל פה אדבר בו ומראה ולא בחידת ותמנת יהוה יביט ומדוע לא יראתם לדבר בעבדי במשה‬8 ‫  ויחר אף יהוה בם וילך‬9 ‫ והענן סר מעל האהל והנה מרים מצרעת כשלג ויפן אהרן אל מרים והנה מצרעת‬10 ‫ ויאמר אהרן אל משה בי אדני אל נא תשת עלינו חטאת אשר נואלנו ואשר חטאנו‬11 ‫ אל נא תהי כמת אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו ויאכל חצי בשרו‬12 ‫ ויצעק משה אל יהוה למאר אל נא רפא נא לה‬13 ‫ ויאמר יהוה אל משה ואביה ירק ירק בפניה הלא תכלם שבעת ימים תסגר שבעת ימים מחוץ למחנה ואחד תאסף‬14 ‫ ותסגר מרים מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים והעם לא נסע עד האסף מרים‬15

Texts from Egypt

203

sentence. The LXX interprets the name of God as dativus commodi. It expresses that the prophets function for the benefit of God or through God. Again in Num 12:8 the LXX makes the text easier to understand. The MT is not very explicit regarding Moses’s communication with God. It mentions that Moses has seen ‫“( הוהי תנמת‬the image/likeness of the Lord”), which remains somewhat unclear for the reader. The LXX renders Num 12:8 “he has seen the Lord’s glory” (δόξα). This interpretation of ‫ותמנת יהוה‬, and in particular the use of the term δόξα, makes it clear that Moses did not see God directly.338 While Moses is known to communicate directly with God (“Mouth to mouth I will speak to him” Num 12:8 NETS), he just saw God’s glory (δόξα). Regarding the disputed illness of the figure of Miriam in Num 12:10, the LXX translates the term tsara’at as Λέπρα. The original meaning of this skin disease that can be very widespread remains unknown.339 As pointed out above, in the Hebrew Bible tsara’at can affect a house or clothes (e.g., Lev 13:47, 59; 14:44, 55), and this indicates a wide range of significance. Interestingly, this larger significance is not transmitted into the LXX, which rather reflects only one side of tsara’at, the medical one.340 Hence for translating tsara’at, only one term was selected, and this left the tsara’at word only its medical meaning.341 This is significantly narrower than the original Hebrew term. It is possible that the original significance of the term tsara’at was no longer known when the passage was translated or the translator was not aware of it. As Num 12 is the most extensive passage referring to Miriam, it requires some immediate reflections. Numbers 12 of the LXX displays some variants in comparison with the MT. I have presented the most important ones above. They are of little importance, however, regarding the portrayal of the figure of Miriam. They might reveal something about the interpretation history of the passage. The book of Num is well represented in the Qumran library.342 At least one

338 Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 175, defines δόξα as “1. Status of honor and distinction, 2.  External splendour, magnificent appearance, 3.  An opinion which appears to be or commonly held to be right.” Cf. NETS: “And he has seen the glory of the Lord.” Meanwhile the MT (NRSV): “and he beholds the form of the Lord.” For a complex study of anthropomorphism in the LXX, see Charles T. Fritsch, The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943). 339 Some modern translations of the MT note this, e.g., NRSV. For tsara’at, see 2.3.3 and the literature cited there. Note that the term exists in neighboring languages and in Akkadian; its significance is breaking out (of the skin). 340 LSJ, 1039; Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 2:280; Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 429. 341 See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 816–824. 342 Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (New York: Harper Collins, 1999), 108, write that a total of eleven scrolls attesting to Num were found at Qumran.

204

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

copy of Num (4QNumb) agrees not only with the MT and SP, but also with the LXX.343 Different variants of the text were equally in use. Moreover, 4QNumb dates to the first century B.C.E. This indicates that at least some of the changes took place already while the text was transmitted in Hebrew. Later some changes found their way from the Hebrew Vorlage to the LXX. As for the storyline, the LXX is close to the MT, and no rewriting in terms of creating a new story can be recognized.344

3.2.1.6 Numbers 20:1 1. Καὶ ἦλθον οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ, πᾶσα ἡ συναγωγή, εἰς τὴν ἔρημον Σιν ἐν τῷ μηνὶ τῷ πρώτῳ, καὶ κατέμεινεν ὁ λαὸς ἐν Καδης, καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν ἐκεῖ Μαριαμ καὶ ἐτάφη ἐκεῖ.345 This verse attests that the figure of Miriam died in a desert called Sin (‫צן‬, e.g., Num 13:21; 27:14, 33:36, 34:3; Deut 32:51; Josh 15:1; sometimes this name appears in the locative form ‫צנה‬ , e.g., Num 34:4; Josh 15:3). The Greek text reveals that the name of the desert was written in different ways in different texts. In some manuscripts the text refers to “Sinai” instead of “Sin.”346 It is possible that the confusion between the names was caused by the Greek writing of Sinai (‫)סיני‬ Σιναι, which does not differentiate the Hebrew letters samek and tsade. Both Hebrew letters are rendered in Greek with sigma. The locative ending ‫ה‬-  suffixed to ‫צן‬  (i. e. ‫צנה‬ ) may also cause confusion. It makes the name Sin resemble Sinai even more. Therefore in Greek the names Sin + the locative ending and Sinai get confused. One explanation for this mistake could be  a weak knowledge of Palestinian geography. For people living far away, Sin and Sinai did not perhaps sound like two different places.347

343 Jastram, “4QNumb,” 215 explains that when all the variants of the text are counted, it agrees with the LXX in ca. 35 % of them. 344 Anssi Voitila, “The Translator of the Greek Numbers,” in IX Congress of the International Organization for the Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995, 109–121, 120–121. 345 “And the sons of Israel, the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Sin in the first month, and the people stayed in Kades, and Mariam died there and was buried there” (trans. Peter W. Flint, NETS). Cf. the rendering of the MT: ‫ויבאו בני ישראל כל העדה מדבר צן בחדש הראשון וישב העם בקדש ותמת מרים ותקבר שם‬ 346 Some later (medieval) manuscripts confuse this name with Sinai. Instead of Sin, they preserve Sinai: M´mg n 527 Arm; izin Latcod 91; yzin Latcod 92; etzin Latcod 96. Also, σινα 15c–82–376–707 550’–761* (vid)  730 424 Latcod 100 Bo Sa112. I will return to this misunder standing in the later sections of this study. 347 Levine, Numbers 1–20, 487: “Kadesh is correctly to be located in the Wilderness of Zin, in southern Canaan, not in Sinai; but the geography of the various sources seems to move or slide in more than one direction.”

Texts from Egypt

205

While the MT narrates that the Israelites arrived at the desert in the first month, again some copies of the LXX display variation. Most notably some important texts attest that the Israelites arrived in Sin in the third month (τριτω).348 One reason behind these variations could lie in different calendars, which I have already dealt with in 2.4.2. The first month, which was considered the most important, was in the spring. Meanwhile several sources attest that the New Year was actually celebrated in the fall. Therefore some of the sources have used the religious calendar, others the civic calendar.349 Some people may have calculated that as the Israelites left from Egypt in the first month, they arrived in Sin in the third month. Moreover, according to Num 33:38, which refers to Aaron’s death, it took place in the fifth month. It is possible that some people who knew this tradition calculated that Miriam’s death took place just a little before (as it does in Num). Therefore they may have concluded that it was in the third month. This tradition that attests to Miriam’s death in the third month downplays the figure a little because the first month was considered the most important. Nonetheless, it demonstrates that there were different traditions regarding Miriam’s death.

3.2.1.7 Numbers 26:59 59. καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ Ιωχαβεδ θυγάτηρ Λευι, ἣ ἔτεκεν τούτους τῷ Λευι ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ· καὶ ἔτεκεν τῷ Αμραμ τὸν Ααρων καὶ Μωυσῆν καὶ Μαριαμ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῶν.350 Numbers 26:59 is the first passage in the Hebrew Bible (MT) that presents the complete family genealogy of the Levite offspring (See 2.5). It is equally the only passage of the Hebrew Bible where the name of Miriam appears together with the third person plural masculine suffix: ‫את אהרן ואת משה ואת מרים אחתם‬. This is similar to Exod 6:20 of the LXX, which states: καὶ Μαριαμ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῶν. (Cf. the LXX of Num 26:59 also preserves: καὶ Μαριαμ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῶν.) Because of these distinctive similarities, it has been suggested that Exod 6:20 of the LXX depends on Num 26:59. One could envisage that a scribe who copied Exod 6:20 realized its resemblance to Num 26:59 and decided to add the 348 Most importantly, this term is present in B* 106. This is mentioned here because the same tradition will repeat itself later in other texts referring to Miriam. 349 James C. VanderKam, “Calendars,” ABD 1:814–820, points out that the Hebrew Bible preserves traces of three different systems of calendars. That could also have created some confusion in the later texts. 350 “And the name of the wife of Amram was Iochabed, daughter of Leui, who bore these to Leui in Egypt, and she bore to Amram: Aaron, Moyses and Miriam their sister” (trans. Peter W. Flint, NETS). Cf. the rendering of the MT: ‫ושם אשת עמרם יוכבד בת לוי אשר ילדה אתה ללוי במצרים ותלד לעמרם את אהרן את משה ואת מרים אחתם‬

206

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

name to Exod 6:20 as well. This type of reworking of the text is called harmonizing, and its purpose was to make the two genealogies, Exod 6:20 and Num 26:59, more compatible.351 The proposal that Miriam’s name was added later to Exod 6:20 in the LXX has received some support from scholars. Some have suggested that the list of Exod 6:14–25 lists women only as wives and spouses.352 That could justify Miriam’s absence from the list. My impression, however, is that the inclusion of women into the list of Exod 6:14–25 may not have been so clear-cut. For instance, while the women of the Levite family are referred to as spouses or wives, Exod 6:15, which refers to “Saul, the son of a Canaanite woman,” introduces a woman who is not referred to as a spouse in this list. Moreover, this phenomenon (i. e., a list selecting women in specific roles only) does not occur in the other genealogies and does not negate the possibility that Miriam may have appeared in this list at an earlier date. We must reconsider, therefore, Miriam’s inclusion in this list. Importantly, the other witnesses to Exod 6:20 raise questions about the reliability of the theory that the name of Miriam was added later. The name of Miriam does just not appear in the LXX version of Exod 6:20 alone; rather, the other textual witnesses (the SP and the Peshitta) also preserve the name. Therefore, if the name is an addition, it was evidently added in the Hebrew Vorlage, where it was later transmitted into the translations.353 It is also possible that at some point two different editions of Exod 6:20 in Hebrew were in use: some that mentioned Miriam and others that did not. Nonetheless, it is logical to think that one of the versions was earlier than the other, and therefore this matter should be explored further. The figure of Jochebed, who is the other well-known Levite woman, sheds more light on these lists. Miriam’s presence in the list should be evaluated in relation to Jochebed. Importantly, various studies demonstrate that with respect to these two figures, Miriam’s traditions were certainly established earlier. Scholars claim that some of the texts that refer to Miriam (e.g., Exod 15:20–21) go back to the exilic or even the pre-exilic period.354 Miriam’s association with Moses and Aaron, which appears in almost all references to her (Exod 15:20; Num 12:1–15; Num 26:59; 1 Chr 5:29; Mic 6:4), is a literary construction of the late Persian or early Hellenistic era. 351 Eshel, “4QDeutn — A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing,” 120–121, formulates that harmonizing tends to unify texts and delete the contradictions, and harmonizing may also enrich the texts with additional details from parallel texts (this can be something done unintentionally). 352 Propp, Exodus, 277–278. Cf. Houtman, Exodus, 2:518, is of the opinion that Exod 6:20 of the LXX added the name of Miriam on basis of Num 26:59. 353 The date ante quem is the third century B.C.E., when the Pentateuch was translated into Greek, but in my view the name was already added to some of the Hebrew manuscripts before this. 354 See 2.1.1.

Texts from Egypt

207

Jochebed, meanwhile, remains  a disputed figure in ancient Jewish texts. In Exod 2, she is an anonymous character who witnesses Moses’s birth, and the Hebrew Bible does not contain any independent tradition concerning her. Jochebed is  a character that appears only in the family genealogies, those of Exod  6:20 and Num 26:59, without a tradition of her own. This indicates that her ultimate purpose is to demonstrate that the children of Amram, and especially Aaron the future priest, had ideal family credentials. Moreover, even in the genealogies, Jochebed’s function is not uncomplicated. In light of the permissible marriages of Lev 18:12 and 20:19, the union of aunt and nephew was not legal. This notion partly explains the lack of further literary traditions on Jochebed. All in all, the survey on Num 26:59 should be concluded by stating that the references to Jochebed in the Hebrew Bible are much fewer than those to Miriam. This ratio of references indicates that the figure of Miriam was a better-known character than Jochebed in ancient Jewish literature.355 Furthermore, because Exod 6:14–25 lists the Levite women, it would be indeed surprising that the name of Miriam, who was known as a Levite, was missing from it. I will turn to this question more in detail below.

3.2.1.8 Micah 6:4 4. διότι ἀνήγαγόν σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, ἐξ οἴκου δουλείας ἐλυτρωσάμην σε καὶ ἐξαπέστειλα πρὸ προσώπου σου τὸν Μωυσῆν καὶ Ααρων καὶ Μαριαμ.356 The LXX rendering of Mic 6:4 does not demonstrate any notable differences with the MT. The only variation concerns the additional καὶ-conjunctive before the name “Miriam.” The manuscript evidence attests unanimously to the presence of Miriam in this text. All in all, the text appears to be logical enough for readers that it did not require further explanation. Further, one can assume that this passage does not contain any significant interpretative translation.

355 See Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176. 356 “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from a house of slavery, and I sent before you Moyses and Aaron and Mariam” (trans. George E. Howard, NETS). Cf. the rendering of the MT: ‫כי העלתיך מארץ מצרים ומבית עבדים פדיתיך ואשלח לפניך את משה אהרן את מרים‬

208

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

3.2.1.9 1 Chronicles 5:29 καὶ υἱοὶ Αμβραν· Ααρων καὶ Μωυσῆς καὶ Μαριαμ.357 1 Chronicles 5:29 does not reflect a different text form from that of the Hebrew Bible.358 Yet  a few remarks are in order here, mainly because they may reveal something of the translation and interpretation process. The writing style of the name of Amram raises some questions. It differs from the critical text of Exod 6:20 and Num 26:59, where the name also appears. The writer of Chronicles adds the beta letter (β) in the text. Moreover, instead of the final mu-letter (μ), the name ends with nu (ν). These observations indicate that the different translators may have had different approaches to transliteration of names. Different trans­ literations are found throughout the text. Some typically Semitic names may have been difficult for the Greek audience.359 The second point that is of interest in this passage is the term “sons” (υἱοί). Usually the LXX employs the term τέκνα when it addresses a mixed group of children. This happens, for instance, in 1 Chr 2:30, 32. Here the translator of 1 Chr employs the term to indicate childlessness. The term υἱός, meanwhile, is generally reserved for the male gender.360 Therefore, the reference to sons, which points to an exclusively male group, is peculiar in this case where Miriam is included. It demonstrates the dependency on the Hebrew original text that uses the term ‫בן‬. The scribe who rendered the text into Greek did not approach it critically but aimed at providing as close a translation as possible. The possibility that the name Miriam was introduced into this passage later was discussed in 3.1.1.5. The appearance of the name Miriam in the LXX version of 1 Chr 5:29 demonstrates that if it was an addition to the MT, it must have been added to the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX to 1 Chronicles before its translation, i. e., ca. the first and second centuries B.C.E.

3.2.1.10 Miriam in the Septuagint The importance of Miriam in the Hellenistic context is highlighted by the contextualization of the Miriam tradition. Particularly, the Hellenistic reading of Exod 15:20–21 signifies that the new interpretation rendered Miriam a heroine 357 “And Ambram’s sons: Aaron and Moyses and Mariam” (trans. S. Peter Cowe, NETS). Cf. the rendering of the MT: ‫ובני עמרם אהרן ומשה ומרים‬ 358 While this verse is 1 Chr 5:29 in BHS and the LXX, in some English Bible translations (e.g., KJV and NRSV) it is 1 Chr 6:3, and 1 Chr 5 ends with v. 26. 359 Ms. 85 preserves the name as αμρααμ; 55 αμμραν; 52 αμνραμ; 121 αμραν; 15, 38, 54, 56, 72 and the ancient Armenian version preserve αμραμ, 19 and 135 αβραμ; Bb αμβραμ. 360 LSJ, 1846–1847; Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 2:486; Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 694.

Texts from Egypt

209

of the Hellenistic period. In Exod 15:20–21 she performs as the leader of a Greek chorus. The interpretation of Miriam in Num 12 in the LXX differs from the MT. This passage plays down somewhat the larger significance of the term tsara’at. For the Greek-speaking audience the question of tsara’at became merely a medical one. Hence, the interpretation of the LXX of Num 12 follows the general understanding of the LXX regarding tsara’at. It translates the chapters of Leviticus that deal with this illness faithfully with the term lepra. In the case of Miriam this interpretation may have meant that the illness was reduced from the impurity reflected in the MT to  a medical question. People probably understood that Miriam was punished with the illness, but its cultic dimension could have been different from Judea where Miriam’s illness was known as tsara’at. The most important reference to Miriam in the LXX appears in Exod 6:20. In light of the evidence presented in this analysis, I concluded that on my view it is unlikely that the name was added to the list later. Therefore, rather than being an addition to the list of the LXX, it appears that the name is missing from the MT. This conclusion finds support in earlier studies concerning female figures in the LXX Vorlage. Anneli Aejmelaeus has demonstrated that the depiction of the figure of Hannah in the LXX version of 1 Sam 1 varies significantly from the MT.361 For instance, in the LXX version Hannah makes the vow before God, whereas in the MT, this particular detail of being in front of the Lord (1 Sam 1:9) does not appear. Hence, in the MT Hannah’s vow does not take place in front of God and is thus not necessarily legitimate.362 Hannah’s presence in the MT is marginal when read next to the witness provided by the LXX. Aejmelaeus argues that this 361 Aejmelaeus has addressed this matter several times. See, e.g., her keynote lecture at the IOSOT 2010, “How to Reach the Old Greek in 1 Samuel and what to Do with it.” Further, Aejmelaeus, “Hannah’s Psalm: Text, Composition, and Redaction,” in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (ed. Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen; Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95; Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 2008), 354–376; eadem, “Corruption or Correction? Textual Development in the MT of 1 Samuel 1,” in Flori­ legium Complutense: Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera (ed. Andrés Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales; JSJSup 157; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1–17. For earlier studies on this passage, see Emanuel Tov, “Different Editions of the Song of Hannah,” in Tehillah le-Moshe, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 149–170. Repr. in Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 433–455; see n. 2 and the literature cited there. Moreover, for women in the LXX Vorlage see also, Kristin De Troyer, “Septuagint and Gender Studies: The Very Beginning of a Promising Liaison,” in A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Strategies (ed. Athalya Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 326–343, who, like Aejmelaeus, proposes more careful reading of the MT vis-à-vis the LXX. 362 Aejmelaeus, “Corruption or Correction? Textual Development in the MT of 1 Samuel 1,” 1–17. In her article, Aejmelaeus further points out the differences in 1 Sam 1:18 in the MT “Hannah went on her way” vs. the LXX: “went to her quarters” and “ate and drank with her husband.” These differences clarify the point that in the LXX Hannah is thought of as being at the temple and later eating the sacrificial meal with her husband.

210

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

particular expression was removed from the MT and that the LXX preserves an earlier witness for the story. Furthermore, Aejmelaeus concludes that in the story of Hannah the MT reveals fairly massive editorial measures, which aimed at “polishing the text by removing details that may have been considered doubtful from  a theological, religious-conservative or even sexist viewpoint.”363 This implies that some changes in the text aimed at playing down the figure of Hannah. While translators of each book should be considered separately, and one cannot automatically draw parallels between the works of different translators, Aejmelaeus’ suggestions are helpful in the case of Miriam. On my view, likewise in the case of Miriam the MT of Exod 6:20 preserves a text type that at least partly plays down this figure. The context of Exod 6:20 may explain this. Miriam fitted poorly with the general purposes of the lists, which were composed to highlight the male lineage of the family. Moreover, in the case of the Levites, the focus was on the priests and their genealogies. This task questioned the role of Miriam in the context of the lists. Miriam had  a wider tradition behind her, one that contained a strong image of Miriam as an independent figure. Furthermore, Num 12 depicts her as a character that challenges Moses for his leadership position. Such traditions may have made Miriam a suspicious and unwelcome character for some of the priestly lists, or at least to the hand that edited Exod 6:20. To phrase this  a little differently, Miriam may not have matched the image that some authors assigned women in the genealogies. Lacking her own family in the Hebrew Bible, Miriam could not be counted as an ideal ancestor mother. It seems that these notions, which can be called “religious-conservative, theological or sexist” (as Aejmelaeus does), could have compromised her position in the genealogies that ultimately attest to the male lineage and where the women are referred to as spouses or mothers. These remarks may have motivated the scribes that copied the list of Exod 6:14–25 in the MT to remove her name from it.

3.2.1.11 Summary All in all, the passages of the LXX where the figure of Miriam appears do not generally display remarkable differences in comparison with the MT. Typically, the variations between the two text forms concern small details. The purpose of the minor changes in the Greek text (or usually in its Hebrew Vorlage) is to render the text more understandable. They are small grammatical alterations, and they should be understood as corrections in order to improve the text. These appear in particular in the Greek translation of Num, whereas the translations of the other books reflect less editing. The translator who transmitted the text noticed 363 Aejmelaeus, “Corruption or Correction? Textual Development in the MT of 1 Samuel 1,” 1–17. Some differences between the LXX and the MT regarding women are also pointed out by Gafney, Daughters of Miriam, 76 n. 1.

Texts from Egypt

211

the problems in the text and made small improvements. These do not generally influence the presentation of the figure of Miriam. The second difference between the traditions occurs at the level of translation and interpretation. There the Greek text bears witness to its own context and culture of ancient Egypt. Surprisingly, several passages (e.g., the LXX rendering of Num 20:1) reveal that the scribes who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek were not familiar with the geography or other culturally related details of these texts. At several points they need to turn to their own creativity in order to find a suitable translation. The context of the translation that is reflected in the text does not always mean ignorance of the Palestinian origin. The Hellenistic context is also reflected positively in the text. For instance, Exod 15:20–21 is clearly dependent on a Greek idea of the chorus. All in all, the contextual changes add to the picture of Miriam, and they are repeated in later renarrations that depend on the LXX portrayal of Miriam. The most important reading of Miriam in the LXX concerns Exod 6:20. In this passage, the LXX differs from the MT, and it demonstrates that the editor of the list preserved in the MT deleted Miriam from the family list of Exod 6. Anneli Aejmelaeus has suggested that the MT story of Hannah (1 Sam 1), in comparison with the version preserved in the LXX, reveals editorial changes that aimed at cleansing the text of details that could have been suspicious from a theological, religious-conservative or sexist viewpoint.364 In the light of the results brought forward in this chapter, I would like to suggest that  a similar editorial process can be distinguished behind the passages of the Hebrew Bible that refer to the figure of Miriam. As the present evidence of this analysis does not allow me to elaborate on these questions further at this point, I will return to them in the final conclusions of this study.

3.2.2 Miriam Referring to Moses’s Marriage: Demetrius the Chronographer, Fragment 3 3.2.2.1 Introduction Demetrius the Chronographer was  a third century B.C.E. writer in Ptolemaic Egypt. Unlike the anonymous writers of the LXX who are not known to us, Demetrius is the first identified Greek-writing Jew.365 Importantly, the vocabulary he 364 Aejmelaeus, “Corruption or Correction? Textual Development in the MT of 1 Samuel 1,” 1–17. 365 Jacob Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Hellenistische Studien 1–2; Breslau: Druck von Grass, Barth und Comp., 1874–75), 35–82, 219–223 (the text), is still considered the best single treatment of Demetrius.

212

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

employs in his writings demonstrates familiarity with at least the Pentateuch of the LXX. Further, Demetrius refers to Ptolemy IV who ruled ca. 221–204 B.C.E. Consequently, this date can be used as  a marker for the date when the Greek translation of the Pentateuch was already in use.366 The date similarly provides a terminus post quem for Demetrius’ own writings.367 Demetrius probably wrote at least one work called “On the Kings in Judea.”368 None of his works are preserved. They remain only as quotations by later authors, in a total of six fragments. Fragments 1–5 are preserved in Eusebius’ (ca. 250–300 C.E.) Praep. ev. 9.29.1–3.369 In Eusebius’ writings different sources are interwoven. The church father quotes the work of Alexander Polyhistor, who lived in the first century B.C.E. and who depends on other writers. One of the writers Polyhistor knew was Demetrius. The sixth fragment that contains text attributed to Demetrius is preserved in the Strom. 1.141.8 of Clement of Alexandria.370 Even if a first-hand witness to Demetrius’ writings is lacking, the references to his text provide an important window on Hellenistic Judaism because the text attributed to Demetrius regards the author’s interpretation of some passages of the Hebrew Bible. Fragments 1–5 deal with Gen and Exod: frag. 1 contains the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, frag. 2 deals with patriarchal chronology, frag. 3 provides the genealogy of Moses and Zipporah, frag. 4 preserves the tradition concerning the Israelites staying in Marah and Elim, and frag. 5 attempts to answer how the Israelites got their weapons during the Exodus. Finally, frag. 6, which provides an important reference to the date when the text was written, provides a chronology between the various deportations of Israel and Judah and Demetrius’ own time. These examples demonstrate that, while it is difficult to reconstruct a complete picture of Demetrius’ writings due to the fragmentary nature of the sources, 366 Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 36 n., 43, 49; the reference to Ptolemy IV appears in frag. 6.  367 Albert-Marie Denis, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien testament (SVTP 1; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 250; E. J. Bickerman, “The Jewish Historian Demetrius,” in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults (ed. Jacob Neusner; SJLA 12.3; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 72–84, 77; Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors: Historians (Pseudepi­ grapha Series 10; SBLTT 20; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 51; J. Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” in OTP 2:843–854, 843–844. 368 Carl R. Holladay, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” ABD 2:137–138, 137. This is disputed; cf. Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” 843, n. 3. 369 For the full text, see e.g., Karl Mras, Eusebius Werke 8.1: Praeparatio Evangelica (GCS 43:1 Berlin, 1954–56). 370 See e.g., Otto Stählin, Clemens Alexandrinus, Storomata 1–4 (GCS 52; Berlin, 1960), 87. Clement also uses Alexander Polyhistor for his writings. Clement reckons the time from the fall of Samaria to Ptolemy IV Philopator who reigned 221–205 B.C.E. This supports the estimation of the date of Demetrius.

Texts from Egypt

213

his interest seemingly lies in chronologies, genealogies, and time.371 The writer might have been a professional chronographer, and his profession could explain the epithet that he was later given: “the Chronographer.”372 Notably Demetrius’ text finds parallels only with a limited part of the LXX, i. e., that of the Pentateuch. This leads us to some speculation. The preserved material may be coincidental because his texts are preserved only fragmentarily. It may be that Demetrius’ original work was much more extensive and extended to other parts of the Hebrew Bible too. The preserved material could equally imply that this was the part of the LXX that Demetrius found the most interesting. Both options are possible. Demetrius’ style of writing appears to employ the method known as “problems and solutions” or “questions and answers,” an Aristotelian genre, that was popular in antiquity.373 There the writer poses a question at the beginning of the text and then provides an answer for it using various styles of writing. This style is clear in fragment three, where Demetrius, apart from the genealogies of Moses and Zipporah, addresses the figure of Miriam.

3.2.2.2 Analysis of Fragment 3 The preserved text in frag. 3 is a fine example of Demetrius’ rewriting. It deals with a Pentateuchal passage, and it reveals his interest in genealogies and offering new readings and interpretations for difficult passages.374 He (Demetrius) says, however, that Moses fled into Midian and there married Zipporah the daughter of Jethro, who was, as far as it may be conjectured from the names of those born from Keturah, of the stock of Abraham, a descendant of Jokshan, who was the son of Abraham by Keturah. And from Jokshan was born Dedan, and from Dedan, Reuel, and from Reuel, Jethro and Hobab, and from Jethro, Zipporah, whom Moses married. The generations also agree, for Moses was seventh from Abraham, and Zipporah, sixth. For Isaac, from whom Moses descended, was already married when Abraham, at the age of 140 married Keturah, and begot by 371 For Demetrius’ chronologies vis-à-vis other ancient chronologies, see Ben Zion Wachol­der, “Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles,” HTR 61 (1968): 451–481; Bickerman, “The Jewish Historian Demetrius,” 72–84 372 Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 65–72; Wacholder, “Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles,” 458; Denis, Introduction, 251. 373 Holladay, Historians, 137. This method may have been particularly prominent in ancient Alexandria. Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Interpretation of the Bible by the Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading & Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling; CRINT; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 519–546, 528–530; Adam Kamesar, “Philo, Grammatike and the Narrative Aggada,” in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. John C. Reeves and John Kampen; JSOTSup 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 216–242, 216–223. Notably, Philo of Alexandria employs a similar methodology in his works. I will turn to Philo’s style more in detail in 4.1. 374 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 33.

214

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

her a second son (Jokshan). But he begot Isaac when he was 100 years old, so that (Jokshan), from whom Zipporah derived her descent, was born 42 years later. There is, therefore, no inconsistency in Moses and Zipporah having lived at the same time. And for this reason also, Aaron and Miriam said at Hazeroth that Moses had married an Ethiopian woman. (Demetrius the Chronographer, frag. 3:1–3)375

Despite the brevity of this reference to Miriam, it allows its audience to associate the passage with the text of Num 12.376 The connection between this text and Num 12 is based on the words Miriam, Aaron, Moses and on the Ethiopian woman. The three figures, Aaron, Moses and Miriam are mentioned together only in a limited number of passages of the Hebrew Bible, yet only Num 12 refers to Moses’s marriage. Demetrius’ account that Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman appears to bear witness to the same tradition.377 While Demetrius seems to use the tradition of Num 12 that concerns Moses marriage, he does not use other elements of Num 12 in his composition. The conflict of Num 12 is not spelled out in his re-narration, and the writer’s opinion on it remains unknown. In order to continue the analysis of Demetrius, therefore, one has to take into consideration the wider concerns that the author displays in frag. 3. Demetrius’ genealogy in 3:1–3 sheds more light on his intentions. Demetrius’ approach to Num 12 resembles his treatment of the other Penta­ teuchal passages. The passage also reflects that the author’s main intention is solving the existing problems of the text he analyses, i. e., the Pentateuch. Demetrius produces an extensive description of Moses’s genealogy that does not as such depend on any genealogy of the Hebrew Bible but picks up elements from Gen 25:1–3; 1 Chr 1:32, and perhaps Exod 2:18–22 and 3:1.378 The author studies Moses’s genealogy in detail, and in the end he comes to the conclusion that Moses’s wife Zipporah was Abraham’s descendant. This statement has considerable consequences for the later interpretation of their marriage. In light of Demetrius’ conclusion, Moses’s foreign wife was not of foreign origin.379 There-

375 Translation by Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” 853. For the Greek text see Karl Mars, ed., Eusebius Werke. Achter Band: Die Praeparatio Evangelica. Erster Teil Einleitung, die Bücher I bis X (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982), 528. 376 Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 42–44. See Hanna Tervanotko, “Miriam’s Mistake: Numbers 12 Renarrated in Demetrius the Chronographer, 4Q377 (Apocryphal Pentateuch B); Legum Allegoriae and the Pentateuch Targumim,” in Embroidered Garments, 131–150, for  a more detailed analysis of this verse and its connection to Num 12. 377 Cf. 2.3 where I analyze the MT and the LXX readings of Num 12, respectively. 378 Hanson, “Demetrius the Chronographer,” 853, points out that there is no evidence in the Hebrew Bible for Jethro as Reuel’s son. Only Demetrius proposes this relationship. 379 See my earlier discussions regarding intermarriage (2.3.3, 3.1.2.3). They reveal the attitudes concerning intermarriage in the Hellenistic era. In light of the earlier discussion it is surprising that Demetrius mentions Zipporah. Nonetheless, careful reading of the passage reveals Demetrius’ purpose.

Texts from Egypt

215

fore, according to Demetrius’ study the marriage between Moses and Zipporah was acceptable. By building this genealogy, Demetrius erases the problem that Moses’s intermarriage caused for later interpretation.380 Whereas Num 12:1 seemingly interprets Miriam’s reference to Moses’s foreign wife as criticism, for the previously presented reasons Demetrius’ re-narration does not display any disapproval. Miriam and Aaron mention Moses’s marriage but without any judgments. Therefore, in this retelling, the conflict between the figures is somehow reconciled. While the author is seemingly aware of it, the passage does not discuss it. Consequently, as there is no open conflict, there is no penalty either, and a punishment of Miriam is not mentioned.

3.2.2.3 Miriam in Demetrius the Chronographer Demetrius’ renarration of Num 12 erases the conflict between Miriam and Moses. As  a consequence, Miriam, who has been punished and dealt with severely in Num 12, no longer receives such harsh treatment. She is presented as a character that simply addresses the matter of Moses’s marriage. Miriam and Aaron say that Moses had married an Ethiopian woman. Demetrius’ treatment of the figure of Miriam does not say much about his reception of Miriam. Dramatic abbreviations are characteristic of his writings, and they can be recognized in the other fragments where his works are preserved.381 Hence, it is evident that Demetrius does not aim at dealing with the whole passage equally. Rather the writer concentrates on a small piece of his text. Because his main interest was the family genealogies, he evidently focuses on Moses’s marriage and the family genealogy in frag. 3. The figure of Miriam plays an important role in clarifying Moses’s family relations, yet Miriam per se was not the writer’s prime interest while composing this passage. Nevertheless, Demetrius’ interpretation of Num 12 and the manner in which he rewrites the figure of Miriam is important. By mentioning Miriam in this context he shows that he was aware of Miriam’s role in the tradition of Num 12. Yet for Demetrius, Miriam remains a character who simply addresses Moses’s marriage. This shift to erase the conflict between the figures is important for several later interpretations of Num 12.

380 Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 34. Note that Demetrius’ association of Zipporah with Abrahamic origin is reflected in later texts, such as the rabbinic literature, e.g., Sifre Numeri 99. 381 See, e.g., the traditions concerning Jacob or the water of Mara, frags. 2 and 4

216

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

3.2.2.4 Relationship with the Earlier Texts As pointed out above, it is likely that Demetrius knew the LXX. Thus, he probably used it also as the base for his own writings. Demetrius’ text provides the earliest preserved rereading of Num 12.  It differs from the MT and the LXX in many aspects. Most strikingly, while the author grounds his composition on the already existing tradition (Num 12), he creates a new genealogy that does not have any forerunners. We do not know whether Demetrius depended on other sources apart from Num 12 for this particular interpretation. It seems that he is aware of a genealogy of Abraham and Keturah to arrive to his conclusions, but this tradition is unknown to us. Demetrius was the first Greek-writing Jew whose texts are at least partly preserved. Hence, these passages contain information on how the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria read the Pentateuch. At least in light of frag. 3 the question of Moses’s marriage was important for the author, and probably also for the Jewish community in Egypt. Perhaps the question of family origins was even more fundamental for those Jews who lived in Egypt and could not practice their religion and tradition by, for instance, going to the temple.382 Demetrius’ use of the past and references to Jewish history point to the importance of maintaining the Jewish identity while living abroad. This emphasis on identity maintenance characterizes the Hellenistic Jewish writers of the diaspora.383 Their purpose was to remind the people of their past and to connect them with the Jewish past in the foreign land. Those Pentateuchal passages that related to Egypt were among the most interesting for the Jews living in Alexandria. It is difficult to give one label to Demetrius. On one hand, the author is  a historian, while on the other his dealing with the text comes close to a method of exegesis.384 Probably the re-narration of Gen-Exod was interesting to Demetrius 382 Martin Hengel, “The Interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in the pre-Maccabean period,” in CHJ 3:167–228, 227 and Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 410–412, accept that in Hellenistic Egypt there were different groups of Jews whose level of assimilation was different. Furthermore, Rajak, Translation & Survival, 114–119. The question of intermarriage is not addressed directly in the literature concerning the Egyptian Jewish communities. Yet, given the partly high level of assimilation it is possible that some people married outside their own group, while for others it was unthinkable. Rajak (Translation & Survival, 108) thinks that intermarriage occurred even if it was not generally approved. 383 Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, 62–66, explains that, while Demetrius was influenced by his context, his interests were still thoroughly Jewish. His interests are reflected both in the themes with which he deals and in his language; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 29–32. 384 E.g., van der Horst, “Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors,” 528, calls Demetrius “a historian.” Meanwhile, N. Walter, “Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur vor Philon von Alexandrien,” ANRW II.20.1 (1987): 67–120, 77–78, calls Demetrius “an Exegete,” as does Shaye J. D. Cohen in From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (2nd ed.; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 197. I think these labels are modern and do not necessarily describe the author’s function in antiquity.

Texts from Egypt

217

because of its “historical” value and precisely because of the genealogies that these texts provided. Nevertheless, by explaining genealogies and chronologies the author’s rewritings also had some theological consequences.

3.2.2.5 Summary Demetrius provides an example of the interpretation of the Pentateuch in Hellenistic Alexandria. It is a reasonable assumption that Demetrius’ writing depended on the LXX translation of the Hebrew Bible. Presumably the LXX provided the base for Demetrius as he continued interpreting the Pentateuch. Like the genealogies of the Hebrew Bible, the Alexandrian interpretation demonstrates that the various lists were not so fixed that some adjustments could not be made to them. Demetrius’ account of Num 12 implies that genealogies of prominent figures continued to be discussed in the Egyptian context. Demetrius is the first writer whose account of Num 12 is preserved. His interpretation differs remarkably from the Hebrew Bible. First, Demetrius raises only one theme from Num 12 and focuses on that. He is interested in the origin of Moses’s wife. Demetrius argues that this wife was not actually a foreigner. Second, this reading has some consequences for Demetrius’ interpretation of the figure of Miriam. By arguing that Zipporah is of Abrahamic origin, Demetrius erases the reason that he thought caused the conflict between the figures. As there is no longer a conflict between the figures, the focus of this rereading of Num 12 is not on Miriam’s punishment. As we shall see, Demetrius’ new reading of Num 12 leads the way for later Jewish re-readings of Num 12 that do not focus solely on Miriam’s punishment.

3.2.3 Miriam and the Infant Moses II: Exagoge 18–26 3.2.3.1 Introduction The last text to be considered in this section on texts that derive from the Egypt is the Exagoge.385 This text introduces a new genre to the rewriting of a Pentateuchal tradition, as it takes the form of a traditional drama; significantly, the Exagoge is 385 Usually studies refer to the writer of Exagoge, the so-called Ezekiel the Tragedian, instead of the name of his text. As my analysis is based on the comparison of the texts, I prefer referring to the title of the work. Moreover the question of the writer is debatable. For the title of the text, see Pierluigi Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique: Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire (SVTP 21; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 7, who explains that while the LXX gives the second book of Moses the title Έξοδος the title Έξαγωγή was equally used in some ancient texts, see e.g., Aristobulos and Philo of Alexandria, who use it in their writings. The two terms should be seen as synonyms. Similarly, Rajak, Translation & Survival, 21.

218

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

the only Jewish play of considerable length remaining from this period.386 The drama follows the standard pattern of a tragedy, consisting of five acts that deal with the history of the Jews.387 As the name of this drama implies, it concerns the story of the Israelites departing from Egypt narrated in Exod 1–15. No copies of the complete play are preserved, and it is estimated that the preserved text contains about 20–25 % of the total play.388 Like Demetrius’ texts the Exagoge is also preserved in other authors’ quotations. It was first preserved by Alexander Polyhistor, whose writings were later transmitted by Christian church fathers.389 The text is attributed to a writer called “Ezekiel” whose name appears in the text.390 The epithet “the Tragedian” goes back to Clement of Alexandria, who remarks that Ezekiel was a writer of tragedies (Strom. 1.23.155). Clement’s use of the title suggests that ancient authors already recognized the writer of Exagoge as a playwright.391 The writer’s name Ezekiel indicates  a Jewish origin.392 There are also other reasons that support the view that the author was  a member of the Jewish community of Alexandria. One is the theme of the play. It may not have been a random choice for the author; rather, it seems more likely that the author chose to write about Exodus because it was somehow important for him. Further, Ezekiel 386 For  a discussion regarding the genre, see Howard Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1–5. Jacobson argues that Exagoge may be the most significant source of evidence not only for Jewish drama but also for Hellenistic drama in general. For the history of research, see Lanfranchi, L’exagoge, 299–337, who discusses the studies from the 15th century until today. 387 R. G. Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” OTP 2:803–819, 805. 388 Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors: The Epic Poets Theodotus and Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian (Pseudepigrapha Series 12; SBLTT 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 306; Pieter W. van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist,” JJS 34 (1983): 21–29, 21. 389 Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.28.2–3; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.23.155f. Critical editions of this text include P. Fornaro, La voce fuori scena. Saggio sull’Exagoge di Ezechiele con testo greco, note e traduzione (Torino: G. Giappichelli, 1982); Holladay, The Epic Poets, 301–529; B. Snell, R. Kannicht, and S. Radt, eds., Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 288–301; Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel. 390 The writer’s name appears before verses 1, 32, 68, 90, 132, 193, and 243. 391 Letter of Aristeas (316) refers to a certain tragic poet who adapts some of the incidents recorded in the Hebrew Bible to his plays. Previously it was suggested that this was a reference to Ezekiel. That remains highly doubtful for several reasons. The date of the Let. Aris. is debated, and hence its relation to Exagoge is questionable. On top of that, it is uncertain that the mention of a tragic poet in the Let. Aris. would specifically point to Ezekiel because the poet mentioned in the letter is Theodectus. See e.g., Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, 48; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 98; Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” 803–804; Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique, 10. Despite these questions concerning the relationship between the Let. Aris. and Exagoge, the first can be an important witness that Ezekiel was not the only writer to synthesize Greek drama and the Pentateuchal tradition. 392 Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 17–20. For the name, see Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE, 170–171, lists it under the category “biblical names.”

Texts from Egypt

219

appears to know the Pentateuchal tradition and other biblical traditions well. Yet he does not depend solely on those literary traditions that were later preserved in the Hebrew Bible. Thus, he may have known wider ancient Jewish traditions.393 I will discuss this topic later. Ezekiel wrote in Greek, and the form of his work, preserved in the quotations, is that of other Greek dramas in antiquity.394 Moreover, the writer attempts to integrate various Hellenistic heroic qualities into Moses, and he depicts Moses as a divine king.395 These characteristics betray his knowledge of Hellenistic literature. From time to time, Ezekiel displays his dependency on the LXX. This indicates that the text must have been written after the LXX, or at least Exodus, was translated.396 Moreover, the mention of Ezekiel in the writings of Alexander Polyhistor establishes a terminus ante quem for his work in the first century B.C.E.397 Apart from the date, Ezekiel’s use of the Greek texts witness to the place where he operated. The author’s familiarity with ancient Greek literature (LXX and drama) points to a place where the Greek Scriptures were easily accessible to him. His knowledge of drama suggests that he had obtained at least some education. Ezekiel must have acquired at least a basic knowledge of theater. These details make Alexandria the most likely milieu for Exagoge. Alexandria was the cultural center of Egyptian Jews, and various sources attest to its rich cultural life, including flourishing literature and drama. While there were also other major Jewish cities in the ancient Mediterranean area, from the perspective of culture, Alexandria was unique in the Hellenistic era. The Jews also participated in the cultural activities of Alexandria.398 The Exagoge is  a truly Hellenistic Jewish work. It constitutes  a significant piece of evidence that the Jews were engaged in this drama. Concerning the use of the Exagoge, it is possible that this drama did not remain at the level of literature. It could actually have been acted.399 This would also mean that Ezekiel was 393 Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 20–23; Holladay, The Epic Poets, 302–303. 394 John Strugnell, “Notes on the Text and Metre of Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge,” HTR 60 (1967): 449–457; Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” 803. 395 Van der Horst, “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist,” 21–29; Holladay, The Epic Poets, 303. 396 Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” 805; Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 6.  397 See 3.2.2.1. For various studies on the date of Exagoge, see Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 6–13. Cf. Lanfranchi, L’exagoge, 10, who argues that all the theories explored by Jacobson are unconvincing. 398 Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 13–17; Holladay, The Epic Poets, 312; cf. Lanfranchi, L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique, 39–56, who studies at length the Jewish attitudes to theater in the Greco-Roman era. He accepts the idea that some Jews took part in the various cultural activities. 399 Cf. Delcor, “Jewish Greek Literature of the Greek Period,” in CHJ 3:406, who questions whether this play was actually acted. Delcor has doubts concerning a theater run exclusively for Jews. He likewise thinks that some of the Exodus scenes would have been difficult to depict in the theater.

220

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

confident about his writing skills in his own context and felt competent to present Jewish drama for  a mixed audience.400 As the Exodus events were known in Hellenistic Egypt, it is possible that Ezekiel aimed to challenge the anti-Semitic Exodus traditions.401 Given the content and the genre of Exagoge and its potential apologetic nature, one should assume that its audience was both Jewish and Greek.

3.2.3.2 Analysis of Exagoge 18–26 Miriam my sister kept watch close by. Then the king’s daughter, together with her maids, came down to clean her youthful skin by bathing. Immediately, when she saw me, she took me, lifted me from the water. And she knew I was a Hebrew child. And then said my sister Miriam as she ran to the princess: “Do you want me quickly to find you a nurse for this child from the Hebrews?” and she hastened the girl on her way. She went and told my mother, and right away came my very mother and she took me in her arms. And the king’s daughter said, “Woman, nurse this child, and I will repay your expenses.” And she named me Moses, because she drew me up from the wet bank of the river. (Exagoge 18–31)402

The figure of Moses is the protagonist and the hero of Exagoge. This is reflected in various ways. Most importantly, Moses is the narrator of the story, i. e., his voice describes the events. Therefore, the Pentateuchal events are narrated from his perspective. Exagoge gives special attention to the birth and childhood of Moses. The first act (vv. 1–65) of Exagoge renarrates events recorded in Exod 1–2. The Jews are oppressed in Egypt, and they are required to throw their infant boys into the river. Moses relates that when he was born, his mother hid him for three months and afterwards placed him in the marsh by the river’s bank. The account found in vv. 18–31 of the Exagoge differs drastically from the Hebrew Bible, for instance by making the situation even harsher for the Jews. First, the Hebrews are commanded to throw their children in the Nile, while in Exod 1 of the Hebrew Bible the Pharaoh commands all his people to do this to the sons that are born to the Hebrews. This shift makes the command crueler, for the Jews are told to 400 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 134. 401 Peter Schäfer, Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 15–33, shows through anti-Semitic quotations of the writers of the Greco-Roman era that this tradition was well known. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 18; van der Horst, “Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors,” 525. Furthermore, John J. Collins, “Reinventing Exodus: Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt,” in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow and Rodney A. Werline, Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000), 52–62, compares the versions of Exodus by Artapanus and Manetho. 402 Trans. Holladay, The Epic Poets, 349–351. For the Greek text, see Eusebius Werke. Achter Band: Die Praeparatio Evangelica, 524–526.

Texts from Egypt

221

kill their own children. Second, while the author of Exagoge attests to the harsh oppression of Jews, he has left out from his narrative the saving midwives who appear in Exod 1:15–20. Their absence similarly renders the situation even more dramatic for the Jews than the narrative in the Hebrew Bible. The figure of Miriam is outlined in the narrative. She watches from “close by” what happens to Moses (v. 18: Μαριὰμ δ᾽ ἀδελφή μου κατώπτευεν πέλας). In Exod 2:4 the unnamed sister stays at a distance to see what will happen to him (μακρόθεν Exod 2:4 LXX). Ezekiel thus highlights the closeness of Moses’s sister with this indication that she is there to protect him. In relation to this, Ezekiel adds the term “immediately” (εὐθὺς) in v. 21 of Exagoge. The purpose of this term is to emphasize that Moses did not wait for long in the water. This also has to do with his protection and comfort. The quick action is highlighted also in the rest of the passage. Miriam asks if she can “quickly” (ταχύς) go to find a nurse for Moses (vv. 24–25), and the princess urges Miriam to do so hastily (v. 26). Moreover, Moses’s mother enters the scene “right away” (ταχύς). All these descriptions imply that Moses was not left alone for  a moment, but that the people around him took good care of him.

3.2.3.3 Miriam in Exagoge Exagoge provides an important witness to the tradition of Exod 2.  While the earlier sources, the Hebrew Bible as well as the LXX, do not mention the name of the sister of Moses who appears in them, the Exagoge demonstrates that by the time it was written, the tradition on which Ezekiel draws associated Miriam with the unnamed sister. As the Exagoge was written in Egypt, one has to assume that the tradition linking Miriam with Moses’s infancy was known at least in some of the Jewish communities of the Egyptian diaspora. Given Ezekiel’s style of re-narrating of Exod 1–2, where he rather freely picks up or leaves out material, his handling of Moses’s family is noteworthy. In the Exagoge’s account of Exod 1–2, Miriam is the only family member whose name is preserved in the text. The narrator Moses explicitly refers to “Miriam my sister.” If one thinks about a dramtic setting where the Exagoge is performed on a stage, this phrase is even more emphatic. It implies that the family connection between the characters must have been evident, and that by this time the figure of Miriam must have been quite popular. Meanwhile, Moses’s mother is referred to several times in the text, but she is never mentioned by name. Even more striking is that Moses’s father is completely omitted from the Exagoge.403 Ezekiel portrays Miriam as an active character who takes quick action. Miriam is present near the riverbank in order to watch over Moses. Here the writer of 403 Behind this omission may be the writer’s uneasiness with the too close consanguinity between Moses’s parents. See Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in Jubilees, 123.

222

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

Exagoge employs the Greek verb “to watch closely” or “to observe” (κατοπτεύω).404 This interpretation was probably not the author’s own, but came from the LXX where the figure of Miriam and her watching over Moses was given  a more intense significance with the verb “to observe” (κατασκοπεύω).405 The term “near” (πέλας) that appears in the same line emphasizes the physical closeness of Miriam.406 It has been suggested that this emphasis on Miriam’s proximity was made in order to defend the family honor. The sister did not stay as far away as could be concluded from reading Exod 2!407 The text is only preserved in fragments and thus there is no certainty as to whether Miriam also appeared in other passages. It seems that this work dealt with Exod 1–15, and therefore Miriam may have appeared only in the events before the crossing the Sea of Reeds. This remains uncertain. Hence, conclusions regarding how Ezekiel viewed Miriam in general must be made cautiously. As the passage refers to Miriam by name, it is the first known attempt to bring her into the narration of Exod 2. Moreover, the emphasis on her staying close to Moses suggests a positive interpretation of her.

3.2.3.4 Relationship with Earlier Texts The two elaborations of the tradition of the infant Moses of Jub. and the Exagoge resemble each other strikingly. Both texts pay only a little attention to Exod 1. They share the tendency to harden the Pharaoh’s command to the Israelites, who are required to throw their own children in the Nile. Moses is hidden for three months until his mother cannot continue hiding him any longer. Neither Jub. nor the Exagoge is very explicit regarding the following events, but it seems Jochebed’s secret, hiding her child, is uncovered.408 Again the rendering of Exagoge and Jub. differs in a similar manner from Exod. In Exod 2:3 Moses’s mother places the baby in a basket because she cannot hide him any longer. Hence, both Exagoge and Jub. make the story more risky for Moses’s family. Not only can his mother no longer hide him; someone has revealed her secret, and the family is probably in danger. Moreover, both texts emphasize that Miriam stayed close to Moses. As the closeness is also reflected in other texts, it seems to have been the common interpretation. 404 LSJ, 929; Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie, A Greek English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 1:250. 405 LSJ, 912. The term implies spying; see Gen 42:30; Deut 1:24; Josh 2:1, 2. 406 LSJ, 1356; Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie, A Greek English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 2:364. This term appears only once in the LXX: Prv 27:2. 407 Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel, 76. 408 The text of Jub. 47:3 is a little cryptic. VanderKam, The Books of Jubilees: A Critical Text, reads: “Until they told about her.” O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees,” OTP 2:138: “and they reported concerning her.” Robertson, “Ezekiel the Tragedian,” OTP 2:808, says, “when found out, she robed me.”

Texts from Egypt

223

Exagoge and Jub. both mention Miriam as Moses’s sister. The Exagoge, which is narrated from Moses’s perspective, refers to Miriam as “my sister” (Μαριὰμ ἀδελφή μου) whereas Jub., narrated by an angel, refers to “your sister.” As the latter lacks Greek evidence,  a closer comparison between the two texts is not possible. The Latin and Ge’ez texts of Jub. resemble Exagoge.409 Whereas Jub. and Exagoge agree widely on several details, they are still very different from one another. The narrator of the story is the most evident disparity. In Exagoge it is Moses who narrates his own childhood, whereas in Jub., it is the angel who tells Moses about past events. Moreover, while Ezekiel assures the audience that Moses was not abandoned in the water and did not wait for long, for Jub. 47:4 it is more important to follow its internal chronology. Jubilees narrates that Moses was placed in the basket for seven days. The Exagoge, like Exod  2:9, attests to the daughter of Pharaoh promising Moses’s mother that she will be paid for taking care of the child, but Jub. does not mention this. Furthermore, Miriam’s presence is highlighted more in the Exagoge, whereas Jub. mentions her only once. These examples are sufficient to show that the two narratives were not by any means identical. Each text has its own emphasis. Therefore, at least in light of this analysis, it is unlikely that one of them would have used the other as source material. Despite this, it is worth adding that the dates of composition of the two texts are probably close. Their narratives also share some elements that are absent in the Hebrew Bible. Most notably, both texts highlight Miriam’s presence and physical closeness to Moses. Hence, the interpretation that they both mirror and that diverges from the Hebrew Bible may share some common roots. On my view it seems likely that the tradition that emphasized Miriam’s role in Moses’s childhood was known and perhaps widespread. It is possible that due to the fact that the Exod 2 narrative in the Hebrew Bible lacks her name, there was a need to highlight that the sister in this tradition was indeed Miriam.

3.2.3.5 Summary Ezekiel’s Exagoge brought together Greek theater, the Hebrew Bible (the LXX) and elements from wider ancient Jewish traditions. The method of Ezekiel’s rewriting is an important witness to the Jewish culture in Alexandria. It is difficult to imagine that the writer of this text could somehow be isolated in his society. Rather, he was probably a Jew who was profoundly integrated into the Hellenistic culture. The tradition regarding Exod 2 and the figure of Miriam is not preserved in the Hebrew Bible or in the LXX. Nevertheless, before the Exagoge was composed, Miriam was connected with this tradition. People identified Miriam as the 409 Ge’ez: Māryā әhәtka, Lat.: Soror tua maria.

224

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

anonymous sister. The Exagoge provides the first witness to this tradition in  a diaspora setting. In this re-narration, the figure of Miriam no longer stays far off. Rather, she is placed close to Moses in order to see better what will happen to him and to protect him. The interpretation that the anonymous sister was Miriam was not an isolated one. The traditions preserved both in Jub. and in Exagoge suggest that by this time it was a common understanding. On my view these traditions, and perhaps others too, were composed to respond the question of who the anonymous sister of Exod 2 was and to clarify for the audience that she was Miriam.

3.2.4 Conclusions regarding the Hellenistic Texts from Egypt This section has dealt with the references to Miriam deriving from Ptolemaic Egypt. The most extensive witness to the interpretation of Miriam in that era is the LXX. The analysis presented in section 3.1.1.9 demonstrates that the LXX references to Miriam do not display remarkable disparities in comparison with the MT. Typically, the differences between the two text-forms concern small details. The purpose of the minor changes in the Greek text (or usually in its Hebrew Vorlage) is to render the text more understandable. At times the changes are due to the translator’s attempts to find a suitable rendition. Sometimes such changes reflect the culture where the text was produced. This is especially true of the Greek translation of Exod 15:20–21, where the figure of Miriam’s performance is modelled after a Greek chorus. Not withstanding these adjustments, my analysis also suggests that the LXX preserves a text form (the LXX Vorlage) that is more inclusive regarding Miriam. Most importantly, the name of Miriam appears in the list of Exod 6:20 of the LXX, while the MT does not have it. This observation is more revealing from the perspective of the MT than of the LXX. I argued that it shows how the editors of the MT removed the name of Miriam from the earlier version of the text they had at hand. This deletion resulted in two different versions of the list. The rereading of Miriam is witnessed by two different texts deriving from the Jewish communities of Ptolemaic Egypt: the fragments of Demetrius the Chronographer and the Exagoge. Both texts can broadly be described as rewritings of the Pentateuch, and they both display dependence on the LXX. Demetrius’ rewriting focuses on family genealogy. By making Zipporah an Abrahamic descendant it glosses over the conflict between Moses and Miriam in Num 12.  The Exagoge similarly revolves around the figure of Moses. It retells the Exodus events in the form of  a drama narrated by Moses. This text confirms the previous assumption that at least from the second century B.C.E. onward the figure of Miriam was connected with the Exod account of the infant Moses hidden in a basket. This association is not surprising given that Moses was not

Miriam in the Texts of the Hellenistic Era

225

known to have other sisters. Rather, one can ask whether this association really took place only in the second century B.C.E. or if it existed earlier. The re-narrations of Miriam build a positive portrayal of this figure. Demetrius notably removes the conflict of Num 12, and the Exagoge ameliorates her role in Exod 2. While witnesses to the interpretation of Miriam in texts from Ptolemaic Egypt are limited, these two texts together suggest that the figure of Miriam was interpreted in a positive way. The tradition that discusses her conflict with Moses is not transmitted in the new texts composed in the era. Moreover, bringing Miriam into closer contact with Moses (in the Exagoge)  and associating her with him may have been the means to highlight her role in the Jewish history. Miriam was identified as the sister of Moses, whose role in Moses’s childhood was remembered.

3.3 Miriam in the Texts of the Hellenistic Era The interpretation of the earlier Miriam traditions continued during the Hel­ lenistic era. Texts deriving from both Judea and Egypt testify to the new interpretations of the Miriam traditions during this period. In this section I read the texts from Judea and Egypt together, asking how the two groups differ from each other and what kind of historical realities are reflected in them.410 When the texts of Judea and Egypt are compared, it is evident that they share some common interests. Both groups of texts display a notable interest in Miriam’s role in Moses’s infancy. New interpretations concerning the tradition of Exod 2, which does not attest to Miriam but to an anonymous sister, are preserved in Jub. and Exagoge. They demonstrate that by the Hellenistic era, different communities deemed that Miriam was Moses’s anonymous sister of Exod 2:4. It is important to highlight that this interpretation was not linked to a particular geographical context, but rather that it was recognized in various Jewish communities regardless of their location. They jointly interpreted Miriam in  a positive way: Miriam appears in these literary traditions as an active character that protects Moses. She has a crucial role regarding Moses’s future but also regarding the future of the Jews.411 410 It should be pointed out that the number of texts preserved from Judea and Egypt is not even. Miriam is mentioned in two texts deriving from Egypt, in contrast to five texts of Judean origin. It is possible that even more texts of the Hellenistic era discussed Miriam, but they have not been preserved or have not yet been discovered. As the number of the texts cannot be confirmed, the starting point for this section is to discuss the interpretation of Miriam in light of the texts that are available. 411 Later Jewish literature interprets Miriam as an active child. This role is visible for instance in the L.A.B., which will be studied in 4.2. Furthermore, other texts, e.g., the Pentateuch Targumim of Exod 2; b. Sotah 13a; b. Meg. 14a, develop this image.

226

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

The fact that both texts, Jub. and the Exagoge, mention Miriam only briefly suggests that the tradition they bring forward is not new. Both texts seem to presuppose that Moses has a sister and that this sister was a known character. Let me elaborate on this a little more. Associating Miriam with the anonymous sister of Exod 2:4 in Jub. and the Exagoge is not surprising, rather, it seems like a logical continuation of earlier literary traditions. Miriam was already known as Moses’s sister in earlier texts, i. e., those that I dealt with in the section on the Persian era. It is possible that Miriam could have been linked with Exod 2 in the late Persian era, that being the time when Miriam’s role as a member of the Levites started to gain a stronger foothold in the literature. Furthermore, Miriam is the only sister figure attributed to Moses that appears in early Jewish texts.412 This fact explains her connection with Exod 2. All these different remarks support my theory that presenting Miriam as the anonymous sister of Exod 2 is not  a new invention of the authors of the Exagoge and Jub. Rather, by the time these texts were composed, the tradition of Miriam as the sister of the infant Moses was already widespread or at least close to that. Despite the similarities between the Exagoge and Jub., they are not so extensive that one could argue for a direct dependence between them, i. e., that Jub. quoted the Exagoge or vice versa. Rather, they display some differences in their depiction of Miriam. The author of the Exagoge claims more space for the figure in the narrative by referring to her several times and by stressing her quick action. Meanwhile, Miriam appears only briefly in Jub. Hence, I argue in this study that the writers of these compositions probably elaborated on the tradition of Exod 2 independently. Finally, regarding Exod 2, one should ask what made this particular literary tradition  a target of multiple rewritings in ancient Jewish literature. Probably various factors contributed, yet most notably the short narrative of Exod 2:4 leaves the identity of Moses’s sister open. Moses was a popular figure throughout the Greco-Roman era, and his family history and origins were important to the Jews in Judea and in diaspora.413 While Moses’s life per se was discussed, this particular point, the identity of his sister who played a key role in his infancy, called for clarification. Another shared literary tradition in the Judean and Egyptian texts concerns re-narrations of Num 12. Demetrius (the Chronographer) and apocrPent. B both refer to it. Remarkably, this account, which puts Miriam in an unfavorable light, is shortened drastically in both texts. Such abbreviation suggests that, similar to Exod 2 as dealt with above, this tradition was also well known. The authors of the texts expected their audiences to be familiar with it. The re-narrations do not highlight any details of this encounter. Rather, both texts allude to Num 12 more obliquely. Partly this is done in order to get around the tradition concerning 412 Cf. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews 2. 413 Falk, “Moses,” 967–970.

Miriam in the Texts of the Hellenistic Era

227

Moses’s intermarriage, which may have been a sensitive topic for the authors of the text. Yet this ideological “polishing” does not show Miriam in a negative light. Rather, when the conflict between the figures is taken out of the re-narrations, there is no reason to narrate Miriam’s punishment either. In light of the preserved texts we can see that the interpretation of Miriam between the Egyptian and the Judean texts varies little. Most notably, the Judean texts show more interest in Miriam’s connection with the Levites. The Levite politics and Miriam’s connection with them play  a central role in some of the Judean texts analyzed above. This aspect is not present in the Egyptian texts. This difference between the texts may reflect a historical situation that was lived more intensively in Judea than in Egypt. The Temple was located in Jerusalem, and hence the people of Judea may have been more involved in the question of the priesthood and local political power than the Jews of the diaspora.414 Meanwhile, people in the diaspora made donations to the Temple, joined pilgrimages during major festivals, and discussed the sanctity of the Temple and the alternative temples. Furthermore, the Egyptian texts may have been more interested in the questions of family relations outlined in both Demetrius and the Exagoge. The political aspects of the temple and the priesthood, however, seem not to have been their major concern.415 One further observation concerning the texts deriving from the Hellenistic era requires additional attention. The texts analyzed in this chapter challenge the idea that the authoritative portrayal of Miriam was preserved in the Hebrew Bible. While most people certainly used this text, others were familiar with the LXX (and its Hebrew Vorlage). The Miriam tradition preserved in the LXX traditions was binding for the community that used that text. Thus, at least the Jews living in Egypt and perhaps those elsewhere knew the text that preserved Miriam’s name in Exod 6:20, in contrast to the MT. Moreover, the status of texts such as 4Q365 (RPc) and Jub. remains open for us. It is possible that they also were highly regarded by some Jewish groups in the Hellenistic era. There are not features in the RPc that would suggest it to be somehow secondary among Pentateuch manuscripts. Thus, it is possible that some people read the longer version of the Song of Miriam as their accurate text. In the case of Jub., many scholars hold that it was a highly esteemed text in late Second Temple era, in light of the preserved fragments of the text in the DSS and the possible citations in ancient Jewish literature. Despite such considerations that grant these texts a firm footing in the context of the late Second Temple era literature, their status cannot be established with certainty in light of our present evidence. 414 Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 419–421, discusses the relationship of the diaspora Jews with the Temple. 415 Ibid.

228

Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era

These examples are sufficient to conclude that the interpretation of Miriam was not tightly tied to the Hebrew Bible, or at least to the tradition of the MT. It was richer in the Hellenistic era. Given the positive image of Miriam transmitted in texts such as the RPc and Jub., it is also true that the interpretation of Miriam in the Hellenistic era viewed her as more active than what the texts of the Persian era suggest. Notably the texts of the Hellenistic era assign her a more visible role in Moses’s childhood and in the celebration after the Exodus.

4. Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era 4.1 Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria 4.1.1 Introduction Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher who lived ca. 20 B.C.E.–50 C.E.1 Philo lived in Alexandria, and his family was wealthy and distinguished. They held the right of Roman citizenship, and they occupied leading positions in the society of Alexandria.2 The family background influenced Philo’s own participation. He was actively involved in Alexandria’s cultural and political life. In sum, Philo was not a typical Jew living in the diaspora; he is a representative of the small group of Jews who joined the elite. Philo’s education is the most notably reflected in his writings. For instance, in one of his texts, Congr. 74, he describes his own training as a philosopher, explaining that it included geometry, grammar and music.

1 Philo’s dates can be established rather securely. His trip to Rome heading a delegation around 40 C.E. is a known date. Philo writes about it in his Legatio ad Gaium. Josephus also records this event A.J. 18.257. For the date and sequence of events, see E. Mary Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (2nd ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 47–50. Regarding Philo’s title “philosopher,” H. A. Wolfson, Philo (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947), 2:439–460, was the first to call Philo  a philosopher. I also use this title in my work because I imagine that is the best description of how Philo understood his own role. His philosophy depends greatly on the Scriptures and focuses on their interpretation. Important introductions to Philo include: Émile Bréhier, Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie (Paris: Picard, 1925); Isaak Heinemann, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung (Breslau: Marcus, 1932; reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1962); Erwin R. Goodenough, An Introduction to Philo Judeaeus (2nd ed.; London: Blackwell, 1962); Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (rev. and ed. Géza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87); Yehoshua Amir, Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien (Vluyn: Neukirchen Vluyn, 1983); David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timeus of Plato (Philosophia Antiqua 44; Leiden: Brill, 1986); Ellen Birnbaum, The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews and Proselytes (BJS 290; Studia Philonica Monographs 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996); Adam Kamesar, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo (The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 2 Daniel R. Schwartz, “Philo, His Family, and His Times,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 9–31, 11–13. Philo’s brother Alexander the Alabarch is known in the texts of Flavius Josephus as a wealthy man who served Claudius’ mother Antonia. Philo’s nephew Alexander Tiberius was the Roman procurator of Palestine in 46–48 C.E., and under the emperor Nero he became the procurator of Egypt.

230

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

Philo wrote in Greek. He was a productive writer, and altogether thirty-eight of his titles are preserved.3 His style of writing varies, but the major part of his texts includes those where he interprets the Jewish Scripture, and his goal was to interpret the Scriptures in the light of the thinking of his own time. His style of writing reveals that he was familiar with the Scriptures through the LXX translation.4 In the background of Philo’s interpretation one can identify ancient Greek thinking. Its influence on Philo was immense. Platonic philosophy, in particular, had an impact on Philo. Perhaps more than anything, the Platonic concept that distinguishes two levels of reality (lower, visible world and higher, invisible world)  influenced Philo’s own thinking.5 The philosopher applies this twofold concept of reality for his own interpretation, where he splits the meaning of the scripture in two: the literal and the allegorical. The two are not of equal importance for Philo. The literal sense is adapted to human needs, whereas the allegorical meaning is the real one, which only the initiated comprehend.

4.1.2 Women in the Texts of Philo A theme that occurs frequently in Philo’s writings is the relationship between gender and characteristics of the human soul.6 To connect soul and gender Philo uses Greek philosophy. Generally while discussing the male protagonists of the Scriptures, Philo interprets them as representative of the positive and the highest 3 For an introduction to these titles and their classifications, see e.g., James R. Royse, “The Works of Philo,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 32–64. For the translations, see F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, trans. and ed., Philo: Complete Works (LCL; 10 vols; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1929–1953). The quotations of Philo in this chapter follow their translations. 4 In the remaining analysis of this study I will use the term “Jewish Scriptures” to denote texts that were widely in use in the late first century C.E. I do not think that a closed canon existed at this time. Rather some texts were in process to acquire such status. By using the term “Jewish Scriptures,” my aim is to acknowledge this on-going process vis-à-vis the earlier sections of this study, where such a process was not as crucial. For Philo’s use of the Jewish Scriptures, see e.g., Peter Katz, Philo’s Bible: The Aberrant Tet of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950). 5 But other ideas as well, e.g., for Plato’s idea of the “creator God, Father and Maker,” which appears prominently in Timaeus, see Philo’s Aet. 7–16. For the relation between Philo and Plato, see e.g., Thomas H.  Billings, The Platonism of Philo Judaeus (Ancient Philosophy Editions, Commentaries, Critical Works 3; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1919); Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. 6 Philo’s ideas on gender have previously been studied to a certain extent. The first study that was dedicated to this topic is Richard A. Baer Jr., Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female (ALGHJ 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970). See also Dorothy Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women (BJS 209; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); Sharon Lea Mattila, “Wisdom, Sense Perception, and Philo’s Gender Gradient,” HTR 89 (1996): 103–129; Judith Romney Wegner, “Philo’s Portrayal of Women: Hebraic or Hellenic?” in ‘Women Like This’: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (ed. Amy-Jill Levine, SBLEJL 1; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 41–66; Joan

Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria

231

part of the soul, the intellect (νοῦς).7 Meanwhile, although Philo accepts that some of the women in Pentateuch represent various virtues, he has a strong tendency to connect the category of femininity with the lower parts of the soul, sense-perception (αἴσθησις) in particular.8 As intellect is higher than sense-perception in ancient Greek thinking, so are women less valued than men for Philo. Scholars have already dealt with Philo’s ideas regarding gender in general and women in particular, yet his interpretation of individual female figures has not received much attention.9 Two terms are characteristic of Philo’s discussion on women. The terms “woman” (γυνή) and “virgin” (παρθένος) appear regularly throughout his writings. The first of the categories, that of women, designates ordinary females  – those who are bodily. Most of the “mortal” women, such as wives and spouses, fall into this category.10 According to Philo, they are created to be secondary, and they remain subordinated to men in everything. Evidently, Philo does not recognize views regarding equality between the sexes. Rather he promotes male supremacy and avoids giving women any independent role.11 Nevertheless, Philo’s concept of the female sex is more complicated because he does not deal with all women in an even way. Remarkably, not all the women are treated as γυνή in Philo’s texts. Rather the author accepts that a few women can enter into the category of rationality or of intellect (νοῦς) that is generally reserved exclusively for men in his thinking. The number of the women who are treated similarly to the male category of νοῦς is very small. Of the female figures that are portrayed in the Hebrew Bible and that Philo deals with, only Sarah, Zipporah, Rebekah, Leah, Dinah, Tamar, and Hannah enter this higher category E. Taylor, “Virgin Mothers: Philo on Women Therapeutae,” JSP 12 (2001): 37–63, 41–46; David Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second Temple Judaism (BJS 331; SPhilo 4; Providence, R. I.: Brown University Press, 2001), 199–219; Colleen M. Conway, “Philo of Alexandria and Divine Relativity,” JSJ 34 (2003): 471–491. 7 Lit. “mind, sense, intellect, reason” (see, LSJ 1180–81). For Philo this term applies in particular to the part of the understanding that is capable of the rational. 8 Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, 39. Lit. “sense-perception, sensation” (LSJ, 42). This concept is already present in Philo’s interpretation of Genesis, where men are depicted as part of nous and women as bodily; see Opif. 69, 165; QG 1.25. Moreover Opif. 151 describes Philo’s view of Eve as the addition of sense-perception and lust to a mind that had hitherto enjoyed spirituality. See also Leg. 1.31–32 and Opif. 143, which attest to the creation stories. They provide further witness to Philo’s understanding of the two sexes. Yehoshua Amir and Maren Niehoff, “Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria),” in EncJud 16:63–64, explain that while generally Philo was influenced by Plato’s thoughts, regarding his view on women it was Aristotle’s biology, according to which men and women are physically different, that made an impact on him. See Ebr. 73, 211; Abr. 100–101. 9 For the studies on women, see n. 6. For specific female figures, see e.g., Valentin Niki­ prowetzky, “Rébecca, vertu de constance et constance de vertu chez Philon d’Alexandrie,” Sem 26 (1976), 109–136; repr. in Études philoniennes (Paris: Cerf, 1996), 145–169. Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 91–178, dedicates a considerable amount of space to several female figures. 10 LSJ, 363; Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 71. 11 Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 58; Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy, 200.

232

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

of people.12 When Philo discusses them and their belonging to the category of intellect (νοῦς), he does not employ the term γυνή that concerns mortal women. Rather he uses the term “virgin” (παρθένος) when referring to them.13 Philo’s use of the term “virgin” is anomalous. This term does not appear with a similar use elsewhere in ancient Jewish literature, and therefore one should consider what the term “virgin” (παρθένος) implies in this case. These women, whom Philo treats as virgins, are spouses and mothers of the early Israelite leaders, except the figure of Dinah. Most of these women are treated as adults in the biblical narratives, and even more so, the texts sometimes emphasize their age (e.g., Sarah). Therefore the term “virgin” (παρθένος) cannot apply to any medical state, sexual inexperience or age in Philo. Rather the author seems to use this term to divorce these women from passion and permit them to escape from the bondage of the body.14 The function of this title is to accentuate their separation from ordinary womanhood. Virginity is a quality attributed to these women that makes them more man-like. They no longer suffer from the weaknesses that ancient Greek philosophy, which influenced Philo, attributed to them. With respect to Philo’s use of the term “virgin,” it should be understood as an honorific title. This is particularly noticeable when Philo discusses the notion that souls, also those of men, can become “virgins.”15 Hence, virginity for Philo 12 Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 73, describes Hannah and Tamar as “virgin mothers.” These women continued being called virgins despite their motherhood. Here the title implies an honorific use. 13 LSJ, 1339. This term designates principally young women, i. e., maidens, girls. It could also apply to unmarried women who were not virgins. Various goddesses were called virgins (e.g. Athena in Pausanias 5.11, 10). In the latter cases, the title virgin should therefore be understood as an honorific. Philo uses the term “virgin” (παρθένος) in the following passages: Cher. 49–52; Post. 32, 132–234; Agr. 152, 158; Plant. 129; Migr. 31, 206, 224–225; Fug. 114, 141; Mut. 53, 194, 196; Somn. 1.200; Somn. 2.185; Ios. 43; Mos. 1. 12, 52–53, 57, 311; Mos. 2. 7, 236–238, 242-243; Decal. 102; Spec. 1.101, 105, 107–108, 110, 112, 129; Spec. 2. 24, 30, 56, 125; Spec. 3. 25–26, 65, 80-81; Spec. 4.178, 223; Virt. 28, 37, 42, 57, 114; Praem. 53, 153, 159; Contempl. 68; Flacc. 89; Legat. 227; QE 2.3. 14 Even if Philo demonstrates great admiration for these “best women,” he has difficulties with them. As he cannot refer to them as women, he has to interpret them otherwise. Sometimes allegorical interpretation offers him a solution. He compares them, for instance, to wisdom. Hence they are not admirable as women but as qualities. When avoiding discussing certain characters as “female” Philo is not alone. This feature is recognizable in other texts of the first centuries C.E. See, e.g., Elizabeth Castelli, “Virginity and Its Meaning for Women’s Sexuality in early Christianity,” JFSR 2 (1986): 61–88; eadem, “I Will Make Mary Male: Pieties of the Body and Gender: Transformation of Christian Women in Late Antiquity,” in Body Guards: The Cultural politics of Gender Ambiguity (ed. Julia Epstein and Kristina Straub; New York: Routledge, 1991), 29–39; Susanna Elm, ‘Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (Oxford Classical Monographs; New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). 15 E.g., Cher. 50. Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, 51–53; Mattila, “Wisdom, Sense Perception, and Philo’s Gender Gradient,” 105–108. The discussion in 4.1.4.1 on Contempl. that deals with virgins will illuminate this notion further.

Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria

233

is a state that can be lost but equally obtained, and under this category women can become manlike. Thus Philo’s use of the terms “woman” and “virgin” is not always consistent. Previously scholars have noted that Philo interprets characters in various ways in different passages. This applies in particular to Rachel and Miriam, who Philo sometimes interprets as women and other times as virgins.16 In my following analysis I will turn to Miriam more in detail and ask: how did Philo understand Miriam in relation to the categories of woman and virgin?17

4.1.3 Texts Referring to Miriam Philo mentions Miriam five times in his works: Contempl. 87; Agr. 80–81; Leg. 1.76; 2.66–67; 3.103.18 The first of these references appears in the texts that can be described as the author’s “historical narrations.” It belongs to Philo’s accounts of the Jewish life. The rest of the occurrences are preserved in texts that also follow the Pentateuchal tradition, but where Philo more freely employs his chosen method of exegesis, i. e., allegorical interpretation. This division between the texts is not always clear-cut, but it makes Philo’s method of renarration more evident.19 16 See Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 119–123, 161–168. 17 This is preliminarily discussed by Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 119–123, but she does not discuss further whether Philo has a system according to which he applies these terms to Miriam. Hence, my aim is to take Sly’s theory a step further. 18 Exodus 2:4, which refers to the sister of Moses, is not included in this research because there is no certainty about the time when Miriam became associated with this tradition. Consequently, the passages where Philo refers to the anonymous sister of Moses (e.g., Mos. 1.12, 16–17; Mos. 2.256 and Som. 2.142) without specifying her identity are left out of this study. Given that Miriam’s role in the Exod 2 narrative was firmly established at least from the second century B.C.E. on, it is probable that Philo had Miriam in mind when he composed those passages. This seems to be the case in Mos. 2.256 in particular, where he elaborates Exod 15 and the choirs that occur there. It is peculiar that Philo does not mention Miriam by name. He may have aimed at being faithful to the LXX rendering of Exod 2:4, which does not mention Miriam (καὶ κατεσκόπευεν ἡ ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ μακρόθεν μαθεῖν, τί τὸ ἀποβησόμενον αὐτῷ). This is not certain, though, because elsewhere in his texts Philo does not hesitate to modify the text for his own purposes. Because of the ambiguity that thus remains in these passages that refer to the sister, they are not included in this study. Cf. Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 119–123, which takes into account those passages that refer simply to “the sister,” associating them with Miriam. 19 The division of Philo’s texts and different variations of it have been standard since the beginning of the 20th century. See Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timeus of Plato, 64–65. Runia’s categories are: the exegetical writings, the philosophical treatises and the historical-­ apologetic treatises. Royse, “The Works of Philo,” 33–34, discusses the exegetical works, the so-called apologetic and historical writings and texts that treat traditional themes of Greek philosophy as separate groups. See also Romney Wegner, “Philo’s Portrayal of Women — Hebraic or Hellenic,” 44–58, who highlights how Philo’s view on women is different in the passages where he applies his method of allegorical interpretation. Hence this division between Philo’s is important for discussing Philo’s view on women.

234

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

4.1.4 Miriam in Philo’s Historical Texts 4.1.4.1 De vita contemplativa 87 This wonderful sight and experience, an act transcending word and thought and hope, so filled with ecstasy both men and women that forming a single choir they sang hymns of thanksgiving to God their Saviour, the men led by the prophet Moses and the women by the prophetess Miriam. (Contempl. 87)20

Philo’s Contempl. deals with the group of Therapeutae.21 The historicity of this group is still under discussion. Some researchers claim that Philo presents  a pure utopian dream in his description of this group.22 Others maintain that this group, like others, such as the Essenes, that Philo likewise discusses, did indeed exist.23 While Philo’s narration of Therapeutae remains unique, the description shares some parallels with another ancient group of philosophers, that of the Indian Gymnosophists. Their historicity is usually not questioned.24 As it seems that groups of philosophers existed in antiquity, I assume in this study that Philo discusses  a real group when he addresses the Therapeutae. I think that Philo’s description of this group resembles that of other historical groups. Moreover, if the Therapeutae were an imaginary group, it would be difficult to explain why Philo included women, whom he elsewhere marginalizes, in it.25 Nevertheless, given the potential hazards, the analysis regarding this group will proceed with caution.26 20 Philo IX (trans. F. H. Colson; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967). 21 This is a name given by Philo in Contempl. 2. He also refers to them as Therapeutrides, a name that derives from the Greek verb θεραπεύω (“to be an attendant, to do service”). 22 E.g., Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa as  a Philosopher’s Dream,” JSJ 30 (1999): 40–64. Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, 98 n. 2, also sees the description as “a projection of his own ideals rather than an accurate description of a real community.” 23 M. Simon, Les sects juives au temps de Jésus (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1960); Ross Shepard Kraemer, “Monastic Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Egypt: Philo Judaeus on the Therapeutrides,” Signs 14 (1989): 342–70; Taylor, “Virgin Mothers: Philo on Women Therapeutae,” 37–63. Philo refers to his own dealing with Essenes in Contempl. 1. Moreover, for a comparison between the two groups, see Francesca Calabi, Filone di Alessandria (Roma: Carocci, 2013), 88–92, who equally (pp. 92–94) seems to accept the notion that the group was historical. 24 Prob. 74, 92–93. For Philo’s attitudes towards non-Jews such as the Gymnosophists, see e.g., Ellen Birnbaum, “Philo’s Relevance for the Study of Jews and Judaism in Antiquity,” in Reading Philo: A Handbook on Philo to Alexandria (ed. Torrey Seland; Grand Rapids, Mich. and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2014), 200–225. 25 Joan E. Taylor, “The Women ‘Priests’ of Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa: Reconstructing the Therapeutae,” in On the Cutting Edge: The Study of Women in Biblical Worlds. Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (ed. Jane Schaberg, Alice Bach and Esther Fuchs; London: Continuum, 2003), 102–122, 105. 26 It should be pointed out that the relationship between the Therapeutae and the Essenes has been discussed at length. For Philo’s description of the Essenes see Prob. 75–91 and Hypoth.

Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria

235

According to Philo, this group consisted of ascetics who chose to retire from their lives and went to live in an isolated community outside Alexandria. They gave up their property, contacts with families and friends, and dedicated themselves to study, meditation and worship. As this community consisted of both men and women, according to Philo, his description of it sheds more light on his interpretation of females. Interestingly, the women that appear to belong to the Therapeutae are called “virgins” (παρθένοι) by the author (Contempl. 68).27 This observation suggests that Philo’s use of the title “virgin,” which was discussed briefly above, was not reserved uniquely for the prominent female figures of the Hebrew Bible. Rather, it seems that the term “virgin” could equally be used for historical women or at least for women whom Philo describes as historical characters.28 While the term could be used for both historical characters and figures of the Scriptures, its rare occurrences should be emphasized. Philo uses the term only rarely and only for selected women. The author’s use of the term “virgin” for the Therapeutae should be understood in light of his use of it for the female figures of the Hebrew Bible. According to Philo, the women that belonged to the community of the Thera­ peutae were the best of women, who had given up their “worldly, mortal,” i. e., “feminine” lives. They were exemplary figures. In Contempl. 68 Philo emphasizes that most of the women, despite their old age, are virgins with respect to their purity. Here the author thus discusses the term concretely with regards to sexuality. Philo mentions the figure of Miriam in the context of a festival of the Therapeutae community that took place on every fiftieth day (Contempl. 87). Philo narrates that a part of this celebration was a performance in choruses. The community formed two choruses, one of men and the other of women, who united and sang 11.1–18. For discussion concerning the potential relationship between the Essenes and the Therapeutae, see, e.g., Vermes, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 2:593–597; Valentin Nikiprowetzky, “De Vita Contemplativa revisité,” in Études philoniennes, 199–216; Jean Riaud, “Les Thérapeutes d’Alexandrie dans la tradition et dans la recherche critique jusq’aux découvertes de Qumrân,” ANRW 20.2:1189–1295. Nonetheless, David M. Hay, “Things Philo Said and Did not Say About the Therapeutae,” SBL Seminar Papers 1992 (SBLSP 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 673–683, points out that the similarities between these two groups mainly concern their lifestyles, whereas Philo does not directly discuss the ideas of the Therapeutae. Similarly, Joan E. Taylor and Philip R. Davies, “The So-Called Therapeutae of De Vita Contemplativa,” HTR 91 (1998): 3–24. All in all, given the complexity of this issue, a more detailed discussion regarding the relationship between these two groups is beyond the scope of this study. 27 For this term and its function in Philo’s texts, see 4.1.2 and the literature cited there. 28 See 4.1.2. Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 210 n. 43; Taylor, “Spiritual Mothers: Philo on Women Therapeutae,” 53–63. Furthermore, Bernadette Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue (BJS 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982), 134, has proposed that the roles of the female Therapeutae mirror religious leadership positions of some Jewish women in ancient Egypt.

236

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

together in memory of Exod 15 and the crossing of the Sea of Reeds. While the groups of men and women performed the celebration, Philo relates that, as in Exod 15:20, where Miriam acted as the leader for the women’s chorus, she is understood to perform the same task in the celebration of the Therapeutae. Philo’s use of the LXX is particularly discernable in this portrayal. His narrative reflects a dependency on the narration of the LXX, where the choruses of men and women are clearly separated as an imitation of Greek drama.29 This depiction has some important implications. As the female members of the Therapeutae community are virgins and they are led by Miriam, Philo seems to suggest that the figure of Miriam was an exemplar for these ideal women  – the best of women. Miriam is referred to as the female prophet (τὴς προφῆτιδος) in this context. This title bears some interesting consequences for the interpretation of Miriam. First it implies that Philo probably understood and portrayed her as a counterpart of Moses, who is equally referred to as a prophet (του πρπφήτου). The two act together, and thus they are referred to with the same title. Second, the attribution “female prophet,” which Philo here grants to Miriam, underlines her prominence in this passage. This hints that Philo may have intended to portray the two groups of the performing Therapeutae, that of men and that of women, as equals. Elsewhere in Contempl., his discussion of this group of elevates them to an ­unusual level of exemplarity.30 The title “virgin” reinforces this positive portrayal, emphasizing the women’s equality to the group of men.31 It specified that the people in question, the female Therapeutae, were exemplary figures, ones who had given up their earthly lives, and so different from all other women in Philo’s treatises, who could hardly have been an equal counterpart for the group of men led by Moses. As Philo ususally sees women subordinated to men his dealing with the Therapeutae is unusal. Philo probably sees the female Therapeutae as virgins in two ways. On the one hand, he considered them members of the highest level of the soul. On the other hand, these women were living in chastity, and thus Philo also treated them as virgins in a more concrete sense. Finally, it should be pointed out that despite this favorable depiction of women, namely, referring to them as “virgins,” this title (παρθένος) is not explicitly given to the figure of Miriam in Contempl. Therefore, Philo’s interpretation of Miriam is not completely clear. Philo presents her as a leader to the female members of the Therapeutae who are referred to as virgins, yet she is not explicitly said to be a virgin. Nonetheless, it would be difficult for him to depict a group whose leader 29 See 3.2.1.3. Hay, “Things Philo Said and Did not Say,” 682, points out the term μίμημα. The two choruses were hence thought to copy, i. e., imitate, what happened in ancient times. This depiction clearly depends on the LXX translation of Exod 15. 30 Philo’s admiration for this group is particularly evident in the beginning of Contempl. 31 Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, 100.

Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria

237

had a lower status than her followers. In Philo’s mind, a regular, mortal woman would certainly be unable to lead a group of virgins. Hence, on my view Philo probably had the title “virgin” in mind when describing Miriam’s function in Contempl. 87. His portrayal of an ideal female figure that is later imitated by the virgins comes very close to taking Miriam to the highest rank of his categories meant for females.

4.1.5 Miriam in Philo’s Allegorical Texts 4.1.5.1 Legum allegoriae 1.76 Philo refers to Miriam three times in his Leg. While the author’s focus in these passages is to interpret Gen and focuses on specific themes, he mentions Miriam in connection to them.32 Notably, in all three instances Philo uses Num 12. Typically for Philo’s allegorical interpretation in general, and also in his Leg. in particular, the interpretation is often far from the base text.33 In what follows I deal with these passages in the order they appear in Leg. But, though in travail, it never brings to the birth, for the soul of the worthless man has not by nature the power to bring forth any offspring. What it seems to produce turn out to be wretched abortions and miscarriages, devouring half of its flesh, an evil tantamount to the death of the soul. Accordingly Aaron, the sacred word, begs of Moses, the beloved of God, to heal the change in Miriam. That her soul may not be in travail with evils; ‘Let her not become as one dead, as an abortion coming out of the womb of a mother; consuming half of her flesh.’ (Leg. 1.76)34

In Leg. 1 Philo deals with Gen 2:12, and the river Pheison that runs around the land of Havilah, which Philo interprets as “in travail” (Leg.1.74).35 This in turn brings into his mind an association with stillbirth referred to in Num 12:12, a passage that deals with Miriam’s punishment. According to Philo, Aaron bids Moses to heal Miriam in Num 12 in order that she would not be occupied with evil things. The passage refers to Moses as “the beloved of God” (θεοφιλούς). It is thus his special status in front of God that may cause God to listen to him and thereafter 32 In the treatises Leg. 1 and 2 Philo interprets Gen 2:1–3:1. In treatise 3 he continues dealing with Gen 3:8b–19. 33 Given the complexity of these passages, it should be emphasized that this study aims at discussing only limited parts of them. I will merely focus on the figure of Miriam and on what kind of image of her these passages in all their complexity convey. For Philo’s method of interpretation, see e.g., Adam Kamesar, “Biblical Interpretation of Philo,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, 65–94. 34 Translations of Leg. follow Philo I (trans. F. H. Colson; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971). 35 Here Philo bases his allegory on the term Havilah that derives from the verb ‫ חול‬trans­ lated as “travail, bear, bring forth.” This verb appears in association with childbirth, e.g., in Isa 51:2.

238

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

to heal Miriam. Miriam should be healed that her soul would not “be in travail with evils.” Philo quotes the Greek translation of Num 12:12 in this context.36 This quotation specifies Philo’s understanding of Miriam. Like Num 12:12, which refers to something that is not complete, i. e., a fetus that is half consumed at its birth, Miriam needs healing so that her soul is not occupied with evil things. Sly has explained that according to Philo Miriam exemplifies the foolish mind (ἀφροσύνη) in this passage.37 She is not complete and she brings forward evil things. Regarding Philo’s two categories attributed to the women, it is evident that Philo considers Miriam as an earthly woman (γυνή in contrast to “virgin”) in Leg. 1.76. After her speaking against Moses she needs to be healed.38

4.1.5.2 Legum allegoriae 2.66–67 In the second reference to Miriam preserved in Philo’s allegorical texts, the author discusses Gen 3 and Adam and his wife’s nudity and shame (Leg. 2.64–65). His analysis of shame brings Num 12:13 and Miriam’s punishment into his mind. Miriam serves as an example in this context. This passage understands her as personified sense-perception (αἴσθησις) and discusses her shamelessness (ἀναισχυντία). Miriam is said to have acted shamelessly because of her ­speaking against Moses. In this context Philo also addresses the shamelessness of sense-perception when it brings into mind shameful things.39 Examples of shamelessness are all the unseemly actions, when the mind uncovers shameful things which it ought to hide from view, and vaunts itself in them and prides itself on them. Even in the case of Miriam, when she spoke against Moses it is said, “If her father had but spat in her face, should she not feel shame seven days?” For veritably shameless and bold was sense-perception in daring to decry and find fault with Moses for that for which he deserved praise. In comparison with him, who was “faithful in all God’s house,” sense-perception was set at naught by the God and Father; and it was God Himself who wedded to Moses the Ethiopian woman, who stands for resolve unalterable, intense, and fixed. For this Moses merits high eulogy, that took to him the Ethiopian woman, even the nature that has been tried by fire and cannot be changed. (Leg. 2.66–67)

The connection between Miriam and shame is based on Num 12:14, which refers to the shame explicitly. Miriam’s shame is her speaking against Moses. Here Philo emphasizes that Miriam’s speaking and the act of sense-perception was particularly shameful because she spoke against Moses on something that he, as a matter of fact, had to be applauded for. 36 See 3.2.1.5 where I discuss the LXX translation of Num 12. 37 Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 120 builds this theory on Leg. 1.75, where the term ἄφρων appears. Colson, LCL, translates it “foolish,” cf. LSJ “senseless.” 38 Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 120. 39 Ibid.

Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria

239

While the passage starts with the description of Miriam, it later connects with the theme of Moses’s marriage of Num 12:1 (Leg. 2.67). The author spends  a great amount of time describing the marriage. He focuses on the excellence of Moses’s Ethiopian wife by describing her as unalterable, intense, and fixed. As a consequence, the Ethiopian wife is not interpreted as a mortal woman, but Philo appears to raise her to a higher level: that of understanding, rationality.40 Philo’s use of these terms creates  a clear contrast to Miriam, who is characterized as sense-perception throughout Leg. 2.66–67. Philo’s dealing with Moses’s marriage is peculiar. The author is clearly aware of the foreign background of Moses’s wife and spends time discussing it. Yet his handling of Moses’s Ethiopian wife in Leg. 2.67 does not reflect any seeming discomfort with the theme, or at least the reader notices that Philo does not openly polemicize Moses’s foreign wife. Even more so, elsewhere Philo reports Moses marrying “the most beautiful daughter” of a priest in Arabia.41 In those contexts he openly reports Moses’s exogamy. Elsewhere in his writings, however, Philo spends a significant amount of time arguing against intermarriage. He goes so far as to claim that it was Moses himself who set the laws against it!42 This type of enthusiastic treatment can hardly be reconciled with the fact that Moses married a foreign woman. Therefore Philo’s dealing with Moses’s marriage asks for further clarification. On my view, it seems that Philo, in order to balance between the foreign background of Moses’s wife and his own refusal of intermarriage, consciously ignored the foreign origin of Moses’s wife when dealing with Num 12.  Philo’s extensive praise of Zipporah and her elevation to the highest category of people could lead us to think that Num 12 was somehow a difficult passage for him. This description clearly stands out when it is compared with Philo’s other accounts of women. Philo probably could not resolve the contradiction that this passage created with his ideas regarding intermarriage. The literary tradition that Moses married  a foreign woman was well known, and it was impossible to erase it. 40 See Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 73, 140, who thinks that Philo here raises Moses’s Ethiopian wife to the highest category of people. Further, Louis H. Feldman, Remember Amalek: Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible According to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus (Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College Press, 2004), 138 n. 217, points out that Philo’s positive depiction of the Ethiopian woman may be influenced by, e.g., Homer (Iliad 1.423), who describes Ethiopians as blameless. Moreover, Tacitus (Hist. 5.2.2) claimed that Jews descended from the Ethiopians. 41 Mos. 1.59. 42 “But also, he says, do not enter into the partnership of marriage with  a member of  a foreign nation, lest some day conquered by the forces of opposing customs you surrender and stray unawares from the path that leads to piety and turn aside into a pathless wild” (Spec. 3.29). For Philo and intermarriage, see e.g., Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 410–412, who explains that the non-acceptance of exogamy was one of the features that characterized the diaspora communities of the Jews during the Greco-Roman era.

240

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

Hence, his method to overcome such a contradiction with his own values is that when he writes about Num 12 he does not question Moses’s marriage, but focuses his attention on Miriam and Moses’s Ethiopian wife. The discussion of Miriam’s shame and irrationality becomes a counterpart for Moses’s exemplary behavior. Citing the LXX, Philo claims that Miriam notably spoke against (καταλαλέω) Moses. While Philo does not specify the contents of Miriam’s speech, the attention he devotes to Moses’s foreign wife in this passage may suggest that he had Miriam’s question concerning the wife (Num 12:1) in mind while writing the passage. His rewriting of Num 12 provides a new understanding of the passage and of the conflict.

4.1.5.3 Legum allegoriae 3.103 Miriam’s connection with shamelessness is repeated in Leg. 3.103, where Philo discusses instruction. He claims that Moses got his instruction from God and Bezalel from Moses. In contrast to Moses and Bezalel, who are disciples of higher authorities, Miriam is associated with sense-perception. In this context Num 12 serves to justify Philo’s idea. Bezalel is instructed by Moses. And all this is just as we should expect. For on the occasion likewise of the rebellion of Aaron, Speech, and Miriam, Perception, they are expressly told “If a prophet be raised up unto the Lord, God shall be known unto him in a vision” and in a shadow, not manifestly; but with Moses, the man who is faithful in all His house, He will speak mouth to mouth in manifest form and not through dark speeches. (Leg. 3.103)

In this passage of Leg., where Philo, once again, uses Num 12, he now explicitly draws from vv. 6–8 the discussion of Moses’s primacy before God vis-à-vis other prophets. In this context Philo is influenced by  a Platonic dualism that allows him to discuss prophecy on two levels. This is evident in Leg. 3.100, where Philo says of Moses: “There is  a mind more perfect and more thoroughly cleansed, which has undergone initiation into the great mysteries,  a mind which gains its knowledge of the First Cause not from created things, as one may learn the substance from the shadow, but lifting its eyes above and beyond creation obtains a clear vision of the uncreated One, so as from Him to apprehend both Himself and His shadow.” Generally what characterizes Philo’s interpretation of Miriam in Num 12 in all three passages is that he emphasizes Miriam speaking against Moses (Leg. 2.66–67) and rising against him (Leg. 3.103). These appear to be the causes that result in a negative depiction of Miriam. Meanwhile, Philo does point out Aaron’s role in the conflict in Leg. 3.103. He writes about the rebellion of Aaron “Speech” (λόγος) and Miriam “Perception” (αἴσθησις). Thus, Philo deemed Aaron and Miriam together spoke against Moses.

Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria

241

This notion further describes Philo’s negative treatment of Miriam in Leg. Whereas the author acknowledges Aaron’s presence in the conflict spelled out in Num 12, he does not pay any attention to it; in fact, he ignores it. In his elaborations of Num 12, therefore, it is only Miriam who is accused of the conflict. All three passages of Leg. that refer to Miriam display her rather negatively. Philo treats Miriam as an allegorical representation of the less virtuous part of the soul (sense-perception). While all three passages contain a direct quotation of Num 12, they quote different parts of the text. This might indicate that Philo understood not only specific parts of Num 12 but also the chapter as such to contain a negative interpretation of Miriam. The interpretation preserved in Leg. differs drastically from Contempl. 87, which links Miriam with the qualities of virginity and rationality. In all three passages of Leg. Philo describes Miriam as a symbol of foolishness, shamelessness and sense-perception. The author does not apply his woman-virgin dichotomy in the passages of Leg., nor does he state that Miriam appears as a woman (γυνή) in them. Despite this lack of explicit terminology it is evident that Miriam cannot be an exemplary figure or a virgin to Philo here. In contrast with Contempl., here she is not led by understanding, but by senses. She is fully a bodily character in this text. Comparing this passage with the previous ones, we can conclude that ­Miriam is an allegorical representation for both the rational and the sense-perception in Philo. Her mistake is challenging Moses and speaking against him, but when she acts alongside Moses, as in Exod 15:20–21, she is praised.43

4.1.5.4 De agricultura 80–81 The contrast between the categories of woman and virgin presented above becomes even more apparent in the last text of this analysis. In Agr. Philo returns to his favorite image of the two choirs of Exod 15.44 This time the image of the two choirs serves as an allegory of how men and women work together in harmony. The choir of the men shall have Moses for its leader, that is Mind in its perfection, that of the women shall be led by Miriam, that is sense-perception made pure and clean. For it is right with both mind and sense to render hymns and sing blessings to the Godhead without delay, and tunefully to strike each of our instruments, that

43 This theory corresponds well with the study of Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 91–116, where Sly argues that in the philosophy of Philo the biblical female figures are divided into two groups: good and bad. In the former group he lists, for example, the midwives and the women who adorned the tabernacle; in the latter one, Eve, Potiphar’s wife and the Midianite women. 44 Exodus 15 is likewise renarrated in Sobr. 13; Mos. 1.180 and Mos. 2.256. These passages refer to the unnamed sister performing next to Moses.

242

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

of mind and that of sense-perception, in thanksgiving and honor paid to the only Saviour. So we find the Song by the seashore sung by all that are men, with no blind understanding but with keenest vision, with Moses as their leader; it is sung also by the women who in the true sense are the best, having been enrolled as members of Virtue’s commonwealth, with Miriam to start their song. (Agr. 80–81)45

This passage sheds further light on Philo’s differing views of men and women. In Agr. 80–81 Philo emphasizes that all men are accepted to the chorus, and they all participate in singing: “sung by all that are men, with no blind understanding but with keenest vision.”46 Enrolment in the chorus of women is arranged differently. First of all, it is clear that not all women are accepted in it. Entry to the chorus is open only to some selected individuals of the groups of women. Here Philo’s interpretation of Exod 15:20 differs drastically from the Scriptures where all the women follow Miriam.47 Philo evidently points to his exemplary women, the virgins.48 Again here, according to Philo, in contrast to men (who all rank in the higher category), there was a division among women. Some women are unworthy of joining the choruses. Regarding Philo’s interpreteation of the figure of Miriam, in Agr. 80–81 she returns to being an exemplary figure and a leader of the women. She appears as the head of the women’s chorus, who acts next to Moses. As this seems to be, broadly speaking, a similar interpretation of Moses and Miriam to the one we have seen in Contempl. 87,49 it seems that Philo interprets Miriam again in a positive light. Nonetheless, before drawing further conclusions concerning the interpretation of Miriam in the allegorical texts, the term “purified outward sense” (αἴσθησει κεκαθαρμένη) should be clarified. This term takes the audience back to Philo’s interpretation of Miriam as sense-perception prominent in the three passages of Leg. As demonstrated above, all three passages that refer to Miriam (1.76; 2.66–67; 3.103) present her as a symbol for sense-perception. Hence, while

45 Philo III (trans. F. H. Colson; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968). 46 Albert C. Geljon and David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation. Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 4; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 176, suggest that Philo bases this on Exod 15:1. 47 Cf. LXX reading “καὶ ἐξήλθοσαν πᾶσαι αἱ γυναῖκες”. This is also pointed out by Geljon and Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation, 176. 48 Colson, Philo III, 491, suggests that perhaps Philo did not remember the passage correctly. Colson reminds his audience that Exod 15:20 preserved in both the MT and the LXX states that all women followed Miriam to sing. Hence all women performed. Despite this, Philo selects into the choir only some of the women. In any case, it seems that Philo’s statement is made on purpose in view of his ideas of  a selected group of virgins. Similarly, Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 122, who argues vigorously that Colson, claiming that Philo did not remember the passage correctly, is missing a point here. 49 For a more detailed comparison between the two versions, see Geljon and Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation, 173–176.

Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria

243

Miriam is portrayed as the leader of the women in Agr., this term indicates that Philo is aware of his own interpretation of Miriam in Leg. Somehow Philo seems to make an intertextual reference to his own thinking in Agr. 80–81. It would be simplifying too much to conclude that Philo makes  a literal reference to his own work (i. e., Leg.) here. That would imply that Leg. was written before Agr., and there is no certainty regarding the order in which Philo wrote his treatises. Rather, it has often been pointed out that his works seem to be intertwined.50 While literal dependencies are difficult to prove, one can say that Philo is seemingly aware of his ideas that are preserved in other treatises. In this case he is aware of his own interpretation of Miriam as sense-perception. This symbolic reading of the passage makes sense especially when one takes into consideration that in the Pentateuch, Exod 15 and the performance of the songs takes place before Num 12 and Miriam’s punishment. Therefore, if Philo read the texts in a chronological order, he could not think of Miriam as sense-perception prior to the Num 12 events. This outlines Philo’s symbolic interpretation of some female figures. All in all, concerning Agr., one can say that Philo’s treatment of Miriam does not simply display a positive interpretation of this figure; it reflects a negative interpretation of Miriam that depends on Num 12 preserved more at length in Philo’s Leg. De agricultura 80–81 raises some questions concerning Miriam’s leadership. How can Miriam, who is both virtuous but also  a part of sense-perception be the leader for the group of women “who in true sense are the best?” Philo’s term αἴσθησει κεκαθαρμένη seems to provide the answer for this inquiry. Philo suggests that at this point, when she performs as the frontrunner for the group of women, Miriam is cleansed from her previous state of sense-perception. Unfortunately, Philo does not explain what purification and cleansing mean here. Apparently, some transformation that qualifies Miriam to be among the best of women has taken place. She is still known as a character that is or was sense-perception, but as a result of some change she can now enroll among the best of women. She is no longer incited by her negative inclinations.51 One could think that αἴσθησει κεκαθαρμένη points to Miriam’s purification either from illness or from her earlier misbehaving. Both models of interpretation find support in ancient Jewish texts. Most importantly, both themes, illness and misbehaving, appear in Num 12. Philo could have pointed to Num 12:13 where Moses asks for Miriam’s healing. Moreover, terminology that mirrors purification was used when tsara’at was discussed (Lev 13–14). Hence, purification as a ritual 50 The only certain date concerning Philo’s biography and his works regards his trip to Rome that took place in 39/40 C.E. His remarks concerning the trip must have been written after this date. For the date and sequence of events, see Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium, 47–50. 51 Geljon and Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation, 175.

244

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

following illness fits this context.52 Furthermore, Miriam’s purification from sins (i. e., from her misbehaving) is witnessed by some early Jewish literature. The early rabbinic literature hints that Miriam’s sins were atoned.53 Reconciliation appears to be a condition for Miriam’s elevation to the same level with Moses and Aaron in various rabbinic texts. The uneven interpretation of men and women who perform in choruses in Agr. 80–81 is mirrored in the depiction of Miriam and Moses. Philo does not set any conditions for men who enroll in their chorus. They are free to participate and perform under Moses’s leadership. Meanwhile, women’s participation is different. The leader of the women’s chorus, Miriam, has to be cleansed and purified in order to perform. Moreover, all the women are not allowed to participate. In contrast to the men, only the best of the women can participate. If this is in line with Philo’s interpretation of Exod 15 of Contempl., the chorus may have been meant only for the virgins. This observation of my study also confirms a point made by Sly earlier. The best of the women may appear to be independent in the narrative, and at first glance they appear to act on their own agency. Nonetheless, on Philo’s interpretative framework, they must operate next to men, and their function must support men.54

4.1.6 Philo’s Interpretation of Miriam It is not an easy task to unfold and analyze Philo’s interpretation of Miriam. The texts that refer to the figure are highly allegorical, and the core of Philo’s method is to move from the figure, i. e., Miriam, to the soul as the locus of thought, feeling and action. This technique allows the author to generalize the experiences of the figure and to use them as encouragement or reproach for his audience.55 Hence, when Philo discusses Miriam, he does not construct her to be a real character. Rather in both positive and negative cases of interpretation, Miriam becomes a symbol or a representation. 52 Taylor, “Spiritual Mothers: Philo on Women Therapeutae,” 54, has suggested that this could indicate that Miriam was perhaps “made virginal,” i. e., understood as a virgin in this passage. 53 Sifre Devarim 338: “Go up to this mountain of Abarim……It is known by four different names: Mount of Abarim, Mount of Nebo, Mount of Hor and the peak of Pisga. Why is it called Mount of Nebo? Because three prophets who did not die because of their sins, were buried here: Moses, Aaron and Miriam.” Translation by the author. For the date of this text, see Günter Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrash (8th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2008), 268–269; Jay Harris, “Midrash Halakhah,” in CHJ 4:336–368. 54 Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 130. Cf. Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, 75, who argues that the category of “virgins” concerns women’s sexuality, and by giving it up, females can enter into this group. 55 Geljon and Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation, 8. 

Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria

245

Judith Romney Wegner has argued that Philo’s negative treatment of women reflects the influence Greek culture exerted on Philo.56 This short survey also supports the view that allegorical interpretation and extended discussions of the structure of the soul, rather than renarration of the Pentateuchal traditions per se, enabled Philo to play down female figures.57 Another sign of Philo’s attitude towards women is his category of virgins that reach the pinnacle of women and are no longer considered as women but as male-like figures, who have given up the negative inclinations that come with their womanhood. This category remains inaccessible for most women, and only a few fulfill the high expectations that Philo expresses for virgins. As a consequence, this concept of virginity allows Philo to treat women who do not directly represent the virtues of virgins with hostility. He associates defilement and corruption with femininity. Meanwhile, the terminology that splits women into two classes cannot be applied to men.58 Philo’s use of the terms “woman” and “virgin” also provide a key to understanding his reception of Miriam. While Philo does not apply either of these titles directly to Miriam, his treatment of Miriam reflects his understanding that she belongs to both of these female categories. Philo interprets Miriam sometimes as a woman and other times according to his cateogory of virgins. Interestingly, it is not Miriam per se that belongs to the category of woman or virgin. Rather it seems to be Miriam’s relationship with the figure of Moses in particular that influences Philo’s separation of Miriam into two different characters to a great extent. Philo interprets Miriam as a woman when she is a character who challenges Moses (Num 12), and he subordinates her to Moses. Yet when Philo presents the two on the same level, Miriam appears in  a narrative as  a representative of the best of women, a quasi manly figure. It is specifically this characterization, which assumes her abandoning her mortal womanly inclinations, that qualifies her as a leader. Philo’s swinging between the two portrayals of Miriam is peculiar. It is notably different from his portrayals of other female figures that the author calls virgins, i. e., those that are described as mothers and spouses in the biblical narratives. Women such as Leah, Zipporah, Tamar and Hagar are appointed to the group of the virgins without any references that would betray Philo being hesitant about their function (see 4.1.2). Meanwhile, Philo is much more diffident 56 Romney Wegner, “Philo’s Portrayal of Women — Hellenistic or Hebraic,” 61–66; Winston, The Ancestral Philosophy, 198–219. 57 Having said this, I do want to emphasize that a dichotomy “Hebraic vs. Hellenic” where Jewish and Greek influences are stricktly separated from one another is not helpful when texts that were composed during the Hellenistic era (here I understand it broadly as an era that continued culturally even during the Roman occupation) are analyzed. For Jewish and Greek interpretation of women, see Hanna Tervanotko, “Unreliability and Gender? Untrusted Female Prophets in Ancient Greek and Jewish Texts,” JAJ 3 2015, forthcoming. 58 Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 89.

246

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

with the figures of Sarah and Rebekah, who appear in several passages as individuals and self-determining women. These qualities are in conflict with the role that Philo and his Greek models typically assign to women. When their heroine roles cause problems for Philo, he deals with these figures as types or allegories.59 This observation provides  a clearer background for Philo’s understanding of Miriam. His treatment of Miriam as an allegory and not  a historical figure reveals his difficulty with this figure. Unlike Sarah and Rebekah, Miriam did not have a family of her own, or at least the author’s treatment indicates that he may not have been aware of a tradition regarding Miriam’s own family. It is also possible that Philo was familiar with these literary traditions, but concisously did not make use of them. Miriam does not qualify per se for Philo’s interpretation of an exemplary female figure. Philo’s solution for the lack of a male counterpart is that Miriam is evaluated vis-à-vis her brother Moses who appears next to her in the biblical narratives. When Miriam appears to support Moses (Exod 15), Philo deals with her with acceptance. When the figure fails in her role of the supporting female for Moses, Philo downgrades her to the category of mortal women. This implies, on my view, that despite her close connection with Moses, Miriam may have been seen as an independent figure even in Philo’s time.

4.1.7 Relationship with the Earlier Texts Philo’s writings reflect dependence on some earlier texts. When referring to M ­ iriam, the author appears to use two literary traditions in particular: Contempl. 87 and Agr. 80–81 use Exod 15:20–21, whereas Leg. 1.76; 2.66–67 and 3.103 depend on Num 12.  Philo’s decision to concentrate on these passages and to leave others out is in line with his general style of interpretation. He has his reasons to focus on specific passages. For instance, Leg. and Agr. serve his exegetical purposes. Meanwhile, in his Contempl. he discusses the community of the Therapeutae. The passages of the Scriptures that Philo uses in his references to Miriam do not contain any features that would lead one to suspect that he used other versions of his base texts than those preserved in the LXX.60 Despite the general tendency to use the text of the LXX as the base of his interpretation, some details of Philo’s renderings ask for further clarification. First of all, vis-à-vis the texts originating in the context of Ptolemaic Egypt, Philo appears to build a new interpretation of Miriam. He is seemingly not using 59 Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 146. For an analysis of different passages where Sarah and Rebekah perform in folk-heroine roles, see ibid., 147–160. For the allegorical method, see e.g., Geljon and Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation, 8. 60 For Philo’s use of the LXX, see n. 4.

Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria

247

the Alexandrian traditions preserved in texts such as Demetrius and Exagoge. Most concretely, Philo’s texts differ from the earlier traditions in two ways. Philo does not name Miriam in the context of Exod 2:4 but refers to her as “the sister.” This seems to be  a conscious choice from the author because various texts of this study associate Miriam with this tradition.61 Furthermore Miriam’s presence in the life of the infant Moses is confirmed in the rabbinic texts.62 These texts demonstrate that a tradition that associated Miriam with the sister of Exod 2:4 was certainly known at the beginning of the Common Era. Furthermore Philo’s repetitious dealing with Num 12 differs from that of Demetrius. While the latter erases the conflict between the figures,63 Philo puts extra stress on it, emphasizing Miriam’s role in it in particular. Philo’s rendering of the conflict preserved in Num 12 strengthens some ideas put forward in the discussion of the other texts from the Hellenistic era. First, his interpretations confirm the theory that in later narrations of Num 12, Miriam solely was considered guilty for acting against Moses. Such an understanding seems to have been prevalent from early on. Meanwhile, Aaron’s participation is referred to more vaguely in the texts, also in Philo’s Leg. 3.103.64 This strengthens my previous argument that in later interpretations of Num 12, the conflict was interpreted as something that happened between Miriam and Moses. This may have contributed to Philo’s negative interpretation of Miriam in Num 12. Moreover, while Philo refers to Miriam’s speaking out (i. e., Num 12:1–2) as the cause of the conflict in Leg. 1.76 and 3.103, the details of the conflict are not spelled out.65 Meanwhile, while he deals with Num 12 in Leg. 2.66–67, Philo seems to have Num 12:1 and the question concerning Moses’s foreign (Cushite) wife in particular in mind. This rendering, which explains that the reason for Miriam’s punishment was her criticism of the foreign wife, is not found in other texts. Hence, Philo is the first author whose text allows us to make conclusions regarding the cause of the conflict. Philo seems to explain that the reason behind the conflict was Miriam’s criticism of Moses’s Cushite wife, in a situation where Moses should have been in fact applauded for marrying her. As noted above, Philo mostly deals with Miriam in relation to Moses.66 Mean­ while he does not deal with any tradition that would concern Miriam’s own family. This raises the question of whether the author was aware of such traditions. A tradition regarding Miriam’s family was already composed.67 Further references 61 See 3.1.4; 3.2.3; 4.2; 4.3. 62 E.g., b.Sotah 1.9. 63 See 3.2.2. 64 Further, some later rabbinic texts mention Aaron in this context. Miriam and Aaron talk about Moses, but of Miriam’s initiative. See Ginzberg, Legends of Jews 3. 65 Cf. 3.1.5; 3.2.2. 66 See 4.1.6. 67 See 3.1.2.3; 3.1.2.6.

248

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

to Miriam’s family derive from Philo’s own time.68 In light of the textual evidence of the first century C.E., the answer to this question cannot be known with any certainty. If Philo did know these traditions about Miriam’s family, it may simply have been the case that those traditions were perhaps not relevant for him. Despite his ignorance or reluctance to speak of Miriam’s family, Philo’s treatment of Miriam in the context of Agr. (4.1.5.4) shows that he may have been aware of traditions that were later preserved in rabbinic texts. He included Miriam’s portrayal as purified outward sense in his text. Furthermore, as has been argued earlier, Philo was a learned man, and the idea that he did not know Jewish literary traditions does not appear plausible. Hence, this analysis shows that rather than revealing lacunae in his education, Philo’s silence on some Miriam traditions suggests that his use of his sources is not even. Philo consciously uses some earlier traditions, for instance Num 12, and leaves out others in order to make the passages serve his purposes. Moreover, Philo’s well-known ideal of women as virgins may have influenced his portrayal of Miriam. The decision to avoid discussing Miriam’s family may have been  a conscious choice. By doing so, Philo made Miriam appear as an unmarried woman. Such  a portrayal that avoids Miriam’s family life allowed Philo to emphasize her qualities as an exemplary woman who was not bound by the limits of her femininity.69 Furthermore, Philo’s portrayal of Miriam made her better fit his ideal and the purpose he assigned her in his texts.

4.1.8 Summary Philo aims at giving the Jewish Scriptures a higher meaning.70 Bound up already in this notion is his relationship to the ancient Jewish literature. He uses them as his base texts and aims at drawing lessons for his audience from them. In his portrayal of Miriam, the author builds on texts from the Pentateuch. Philo’s rewritings do not display similarities with the earlier texts that refer to Miriam, apart from the Pentateuch. Quite the opposite, in fact, is the case; in view of the earlier texts, Philo’s provide a totally different reading of Miriam. While the previous texts appear to build up a positive reading of Miriam and to remain silent about Num 12, which could convey a questionable portrayal of Miriam, Philo picks up on that. His frequent references to this text directly and indirectly reflect  a conscious negative depiction. Philo is therefore the first author that we observe building up a negative reading. My analysis agrees

68 I will come to these references in 4.3.4; 4.3.5. 69 Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 220. 70 For Philo’s use of Jewish Scriptures, see n. 4.

Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

249

with some earlier studies that suggest that Philo’s portrayal of Miriam is highly motivated by Hellenistic ideas of women that remained alive in the first century C.E. Apart from generally depicting women as inferior to men, Philo is particularly motivated by the prominence and independence that Miriam acquires in ancient texts. The author seemingly struggles with these characteristics. Philo does not discuss Miriam’s own family; rather, he presents her as a supportive female figure for Moses. In this role and in particular in his renarration of Exod 15 where Miriam performs next to Moses, Philo somehow approves of Miriam. Yet this does not imply equality between the figures. When Philo’s depiction of Miriam is compared to his other portrayals of women, it turns out that he deals with Miriam as he does with other women on occasions when they too perform independently. She gets absorbed by the male figure next to her.71 This seems to be the main problem for Philo. He is trying to depict Miriam next to Moses, but as this image does not correspond to the image of Miriam preserved in earlier traditions, he does not find support for it. His solution is to take out all the references that could indicate an independent depiction and to interpret Miriam only on a symbolic level.

4.2 Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 4.2.1 Introduction The Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (L.A.B.) is another witness to the rewriting of the Jewish Scriptures. This composition renarrates biblical history from Gen to 1 Sam, from the creation of Adam to the death of Saul, singling out some of the most prominent events and characters.72 The text of L.A.B. is preserved in 71 See the analysis by Sly, Philo’s Perception of Women, 128–129. 72 For the origin of the title, see Guido Kisch, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Publications in Medieval Studies 10; Notre Dame, Ind.: The University of Notre Dame, 1949), 3–5, who explains that the title Pseudo-Philo can be traced back to Johannes Sichardus (1499–1552) who produced the first “critical” edition of the text in 1527. Fundamental studies on L.A.B. include, apart from Kisch’s Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Leopold Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” JQR, Original Series, 10 (1898): 277–332; M. R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo with Prolegomenon by Louis H.  Feldman (Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1971); Charles Perrot et Pierre-Maurice Bogaert in collaboration with Daniel J. Harrington, Les Antiquités Bibliques 1–2: Introduction Littéraire, Commentaire et Index (SC 230; Paris: CERF, 1976); Frederick J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993); Howard Jacobson, A Commentary of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation 1–2 (AGJU 31; Leiden: Brill, 1996); Bruce Norman Fisk, Do

250

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

medieval manuscripts that were found in Germany and in Austria.73 These copies influenced the history of research tremendously. Most notably, some of these medieval manuscripts preserved texts of both Philo of Alexandria and L.A.B. Hence, the earlier research attributed L.A.B. to Philo. This history explains the title “Pseudo-Philo” that is sometimes attributed to L.A.B.74 A look at both L.A.B. as well as the texts written by Philo of Alexandria reveals that the former cannot belong to the Philonic corpus. For instance, in contrast to several of Philo’s texts, L.A.B. does not attempt to comment on the already existing text. Rather, the writer of L.A.B. aims at writing a new account of the known events.75 Thus the name “Pseudo-Philo,” which is still sometimes used, does not describe the content of the text accurately, but at best it refers to the transmission history of this text.76 On the one hand, the contents of L.A.B. generally follow the sequence of the biblical narrative. On the other hand, the composition differs from it in many aspects. For instance, L.A.B. completely skips many parts of the biblical narrative. In other places the author seems to pay particular attention to other events and provides more detailed accounts than the biblical narrative. Another important feature of L.A.B. is its notable awareness of non-biblical traditions. It has been pointed out that L.A.B. has many roots in the ancient Jewish traditions and legends on which various rabbinic texts are based. They reveal a character that is somewhat close to haggadic midrashim such as expansions in the narratives that aim at explaining gaps of the base text.77 All in all, it seems that the author of L.A.B. was selective with the range of narratives that are incorporated in the new composition.

You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo (JSPSup 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). 73 Berndt Schaller, “Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Ps.-Philonischen Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum im Mittelalter,” JSJ 10 (1979): 64–73. For the Hebrew paraphrases of the L.A.B. likewise preserved in a medieval text, see Daniel J. Harrington, ed. and trans., The Hebrew Fragments of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum preserved in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel (Pseudepigrapha Series 3; SBLTT 3; Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1974). 74 Kisch, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 3–5, 22–30. 75 The inconsistencies between the compositions of Philo of Alexandria and L.A.B. were pointed out already by Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” 306–307. For a more complete discussion of the nature of L.A.B., see Perrot and Bogaert, Les Antiquités Bibliques 2, 22–28; Daniel J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in OTP 2: 297–303; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible, 9–25. 76 See n. 72 for examples. 77 Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” 314, 322. For the term hag­gadic midrashim, see, e.g., Gary G. Porton, “Defining Midrash,” in The Study of Ancient Judaism I: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur (ed. Jacob Neusner; New York: Ktav, 1981), 55–92, 72–79; Günter Stemberger, Midrasch: Vom Umgang der Rabbinen mit der Bibel (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1989), 21–26.

Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

251

These observations concerning the relationship between L.A.B. and its base text, and especially the similarities with haggadic midrashim, have influenced the discussion regarding the date of L.A.B. Given the similarities with the rabbinic literature, L.A.B. has often been dated slightly prior to them. Subsequently, L.A.B. is often viewed as representing “an intermediary period” between the Jewish Scriptures and the rabbinic corpus. Presently, the vast majority of scholars agree that the text was written in the first century C.E.78 The discussion concerning the first century date is framed by the question of whether the composition was written prior to or after the destruction of the Temple. This matter is debated. Notably the Temple may be referred to in this text only once (L.A.B. 19:7). Yet this is not certain because the text does not mention the Temple explicitly. Some scholars think that the absence of the Temple is a sign that the writer is not interested in this topic or that it no longer exists. Hence, the text was written after the destruction of the Temple.79 In my view this is not the case. Something as significant as the destruction of the Temple would have left its traces in any text written soon after its destruction. Therefore the mention of the Temple should be seen as an argument that it existed.80 It is possible that the Temple stands, but the writer is simply not interested in this topic. In addition to the date, the provenance and the original language of L.A.B. have also been discussed. The traditional view regarding them was proposed at the end of the 19th century. Leopold Cohn saw the origins of L.A.B. in ancient Judea and argued that it was written in Hebrew.81 Whereas the original language 78 The first century C.E. date is defended by James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, 29–32; Perrot and Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon Les Antiquités Bibliques 2, 67–70; Porton, “Defining Midrash,” 72; Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” OTP 2:299; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 262–268; Fisk, Do You Not Remember, 330; cf. Feldman, Remember Amalek, 1, who argues that Josephus might have known L.A.B. 79 For proposals regarding a later date, see Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 209, who thinks the most plausible date is sometime in the second century C.E. Similarly, Mary Therese DesCamp, Metaphor and Ideology: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and Literary Methods through a Cognitive Lens (Biblical Interpretation Series 97; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 3–4. Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria”, 328, ascribes the text to the 4th century C.E. Similarly, A. Zeron, “Erwägunngen zu Pseudo-Philo’s Quellen und Zeit,” JSJ 11 (1980): 38–52, argues a 4th century C.E. date for the composition. Similarly, Tal Ilan, “The Torah of the Jews of Ancient Rome,” JSQ 16 (2009): 363–395, 381, assumes a 3rd or 4th century date for the composition. For discussion regarding the date see Fisk, Do You Not Remember, 33–44. 80 For scholars who support this date, see n. 78. 81 Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” 311. Similarly, Kisch, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 16–18; Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” OTP 2:299; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 3, 6. Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 210–211, suggests that the text was written in Galilee. Jacobson claims that L.A.B.’s interest in magic and demons could point to this area, which has been thought to be particularly superstitious. For studies that propose L.A.B. origins outside Judea, see Cheryl A. Brown, No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women. Studies in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities and Josephus’

252

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

of the composition was Hebrew, between that and the preserved Latin copies of it, it was transmitted in Greek. Hence, the Latin version could be a translation of the Greek text.82 The present study follow this current concensus view on L.A.B.

4.2.2 Women in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum The way L.A.B. deals with biblical female figures has been a point of interest for many scholars and commentators. It stands out in its first century C.E. context. While Philo selectively uses passages that display female figures prominently and tends to play the women down,83 the writer of L.A.B. deals with female figures totally differently. In several places L.A.B. does not merely include those passages of the Jewish Scriptures where female figures appear prominently; it sometimes augments these passages where women appear in order to highlight their presence. For instance, Micah’s mother, who in the Jewish Scriptures is referred to merely in Judg 17:1–4, appears in L.A.B. throughout the narrative of chs. 44–47. Moreover, the renarration of Judg 4–5, focusing on Deborah, is four times longer than the text it rewrites. L.A.B. dedicates three chs. (30–33) entirely to Deborah.84 But Deborah is not the only woman who receives an emphasized portrayal in L.A.B. Other female figures that receive a more detailed treatment in L.A.B. include, for instance, Jephta’s daughter and the figure of Tamar. Tamar’s pregnancy (of Gen 38) is also detailed, and she is given an honorific title “our mother” in L.A.B. 9:5.85 Jewish Antiquities (Gender and the Biblical Tradition; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 23–27, who suggests the text was composed in Syria. More recently, Ilan, “The Torah of the Jews of Ancient Rome,” 363–395, has proposed that the composition originated within the Jewish community of Rome. Ilan argues that all the studies arguing for  a Judean provenance ultimately go back to the analysis of Cohn. Hence, that early view regarding this text has seldom been challenged. 82 Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” 307, indicates that several Latin terms are simply transliterated from Greek. Furthermore most of the names that appear in the Jewish Scriptures are written according to their Greek form. Moreover, Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” 308–311, analyzes that in many places L.A.B. displays variance with the LXX and remains in closer agreement with the Hebrew Scriptures. For a thorough analysis of the two levels, see Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 1:215–223. Cf. Ilan, “The Torah of the Jews of Ancient Rome,” 375–379. 83 For the interpretation of women in Philo, see 4.1.2. Notably the section concerning the texts of Josephus (4.3) will add to this. 84 Tervanotko, “Obey me like your mother”: (L.A.B. 33:1) Deborah’s Leadership in Light of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” 301–323. 85 Pieter van der Horst, “Tamar in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical History,” in Feminist Companion to Genesis (ed. Athalya Brenner; The Feminist Companion to the Bible 5 [First Series]; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 300–305, argues that the reference to Tamar as “our mother” reminds the reader of the style in which the patriarchs, especially Abraham, are referred to as “fathers.” See also Brown, No Longer Be Silent, 40–71; DesCamp, Metaphor and Ideology, 318–319.

Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

253

Scholars have long recognized this emphasis on female figures in the L.A.B. Most of the time, however, they have explained it without much rigour. For example, Charles Perrot and Pierre-Maurice Bogaert note in their often-quoted commentary on L.A.B. that the author often places female figures in the centre of the text. They call this particular feature of the text the “feminism of the author.”86 Yet, they do not spend much time analyzing individual passages where female characters appear or explain what the “feminism” of the author really is. Thus, their commentary does not shed further light on the female figures or the ways in which the author understood them. Other scholars have dealt with L.A.B. similarly.87 Meanwhile, some recent studies have proposed new avenues for the study of L.A.B. Cheryl Anne Brown has recently compared the prominent female figures of L.A.B. with wisdom symbolism, finding numerous parallels.88 Mary Therese DesCamps has suggested that a female author composed the text.89 Before moving on to our text analysis it is necessary to emphasize that L.A.B. is  a rare example of early Jewish texts that preserve  a notably positive stance towards women. As said earlier, not much is known regarding the anonymous author, and hence any possibility, including female authorship cannot be excluded per se. Nonetheless, the fact that other texts reflecting first century C.E. ideas are so negative about women cannot alone determine the question of the identity of the writer. In that regard one can certainly conclude that the treatment of women in the L.A.B. is different from that of its contemporaries, but one theme cannot count as evidence for authorship.90 86 Perrot and Bogaert, Pseudo-Philon: Les antiquités bibliques, 2:52–53. 87 See also Pieter van der Horst, “Portraits of Biblical Women in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” JSP (1989): 29–46; idem, “Tamar in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical History,” 300–304; Betsy Halpern-Amaru, “Portraits of Women in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities,” in ‘Women Like This’: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, 83–106; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 258–259. Cf. Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 250–251, who thinks that studies arguing that L.A.B. is well disposed to women are “well-intentioned but perhaps a bit generous.” Jacobson points out that L.A.B. does not, for instance, deal with the matriarchs. For Jacobson this appears as a sign of uneven treatment. I do not agree with his view. The ancient authors emphasized some figures and were less interested in others. While the author of L.A.B. dealt with the female figures of Gen only briefly, the author’s dealing with these particular figures cannot be interpreted as evidence that the author was not generally interested in female figures. 88 Brown, No Longer Be Silent, 25–27. 89 DesCamps, “Why Are These Women Here? An Examination of the Sociological Setting of Pseudo-Philo through Comparative Reading,” JSP 16 (1997): 53–80; eadem, Metaphor and Ideology, 4 n. 9, 347–348. Note that while DesCamp’s study is the most complex on this issue, she is not the first to propose a female authorship for L.A.B. This was earlier proposed by van der Horst, “Portraits of Biblical Women in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum,” 29–46, who points out that the final seven chapters of the Testament of Job could hardly be written by a man. He thinks they originated in a Jewish movement in which women played the leading role. 90 I will return to the question of authorship in 4.2.6.

254

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

4.2.3 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 9:10 The first reference to Miriam in L.A.B. appears in its renarration of Exod 2. The account of L.A.B. regarding the events of Exod 2 is drastically different from the other renarrations of the same events analyzed earlier in this study (cf. 3.1.4; 3.2.3). And Amram of the tribe of Levi went out and took  a wife from his own tribe. When he had taken her, others followed him and took their own wives. And this man had one son and one daughter; their names were Aaron and Miriam. And the spirit of God came upon Miriam one night, and she saw a dream and told it to her parents in the morning, saying, “I have seen this night, and behold a man in a linen garment stood and said to me, ‘Go and say to your parents, Behold he who will be born from you will be cast forth into the water; likewise through him the water will be dried up. And I will work signs through him and save my people, and he will exercise leadership always.’” And when Miriam told of her dream, her parents did not believe her. (L.A.B. 9:9–10)91

It is not  a surprise that this event is recorded in L.A.B. The author of the text appears to hold a particular interest in the stories of miraculous births. The birth of Abraham is narrated in L.A.B. 4:11, and whereas the author generally ignored the figure of Rebekah in the narrative, the miraculous birth of her sons “from a womb that was closed up” is acknowledged in L.A.B. 32:5. Regarding the story of Moses’s birth, the author builds the narrative around the figure of Amram and his decision to marry and procreate despite the Egyptians’ plot against the Jews (L.A.B. 9:3–6). Amram’s idea is favourable for God, who plans to perform signs and wonders through him (L.A.B. 9:7). The narrative stresses Amram’s Levite affiliation, including the detail that he takes a wife from his own tribe (L.A.B. 9:9). Hence, the writer’s understanding was that Amram’s wife was also a Levite. Remarkably their closer family connection, emphasized in other ancient Jewish texts, is not spelled out in L.A.B. Yet as Jochebed’s name appears in L.A.B. 9:12 it seems that the author was indeed familiar with their union. Thus, the author must have left the information concerning their kinship out of the narrative on purpose in L.A.B. 9:9.92 Furthermore, before turning to the miraculous birth of Moses, the text mentions that Amram and his wife already had two children: Aaron and Miriam. The two children are mentioned in an evenhanded way (L.A.B. 9:9). 91 Translations of L.A.B. follow Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in OTP 2: 297–377. 92 I have dealt with the motives of excluding this tradition from other texts e.g., Jub. above. Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 419, points out that Amram is understood to re-take his wife in L.A.B. 9:9, i. e., not to separate from her.

Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

255

In L.A.B. 9:10 the author turns to the figure of Miriam more specifically and narrates her dream concerning Moses’s birth. The birth of her brother is announced to her.93 While often in ancient Jewish literature it can be difficult to distinguish between a dream and a vision, in L.A.B. 9:10 the terminology points to  a dream (Lat. “somnium”) that Miriam saw. That may imply that it was  a nocturnal experience. The passage contains more information concerning the dream. It explains that the dream was not a random vision, but that it was God’s messenger who made the announcement. The text refers to “a man (Lat. “vir”) in white linen.” Scholars have argued that the man was an angel.94 The claim finds the most concrete support in the Jewish Scriptures (e.g., Ezek 9:11; Dan 10:4), where figures dressed in linen garments appear as angels.95 Furthermore, Jewish legends identify this angel as Gabriel, who was known to bring Amram and Jochebed together after their separation, e.g., Tan. B. 3, 84; Zohar 2, 19a. Finally, apart from announcing Moses’s birth, Miriam’s dream makes a reference to future events. The content of the dream declares: “likewise through him the water will be dried up.” This is clearly an allusion to the events of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Exod 14–15).96 This reference to Miriam predicting future events to her family makes Miriam appear as a prophetic figure. She has information concerning future events, and she transmits it to her audience. Importantly, Miriam is the member of Moses’s family to whom his significance is revealed. Notably, however, Miriam’s audience does not accept her message. Her parents do not believe her dream account, and therefore her prophecy, at this point of the narrative, seems to be in vain. Frances Flannery-Dailey has pointed out that this concerns the ridiculousness of a woman receiving a divinely-sent dream.97 This observation suggests that the author may have had some sort of gender bias similar to other ancient writers while composing this text. The rest of the passage does not mention Miriam. When the author turns to deal with Moses’s birth and the following events, i. e., Moses’s mother hiding the baby, Miriam is not included in the narrative. It is somewhat surprising that 93 Cohn, “The Apocryphal Work of Philo of Alexandria,” 318, notes that the mention of Miriam’s prophecies concerning her younger brother appear in various midrash: e.g., b.Sotah 12 b; Exod. Rab. 2.4. 94 Perrot and Bogaert, Les Antiquités Bibliques 2, 59–63; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 59; Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 419–421, finds the description of the figure similar to the angel that appers to Joshua at Josh 5:13 and divine figure of Dan 8:15. 95 Similarly in the NT. See Mark 16:5 and Luke 24:4. 96 Fisk, Do You Not Remember, 31. Fisk’s ideas here are influenced by Eckart Reinmuth, Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und seiner Bedeutung für die Interpretation des lukanische Doppelwerks (WUNT 74; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994), 111, who calls such a narrative feature “Korrelationsprinzip”. See also L.A.B. 9:14, which likewise echoes the sea events. 97 Frances Flannery-Dailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras (JSJSup 90; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 120.

256

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

given her importance in the beginning of this passage L.A.B. does not narrate her following the basket as the other traditions do. Her role, therefore, in L.A.B. 9:10 is to be the recipient of the divine dream and the announcer of Moses’s future, yet at this point in the story she is the only person who recognizes her communication with the divine and the significance of her dream.

4.2.4 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 20:8 And after Moses died, the manna stopped descending upon the sons of Israel, and then they began to eat from the fruits of the land. And these are the three things that God gave his people on account of three persons; that is, the well of the water of Marah for Miriam and the pillar of cloud for Aaron and the manna for Moses. And when these three came to their end, these three things were taken away from them. (L.A.B. 20:8)

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 20:8 attests to the gifts that the Israelites received during their wandering in the wilderness. These gifts were the pillar of cloud that protected the Israelites, the manna and the well for when they were thirsty. L.A.B. 20:8 is not the only passage that mentions them, as the gifts also appear in L.A.B. 10:7. These appearances suggest that by the time of L.A.B. they were already known as a tradition. Moreover, the writer of L.A.B. did not create this trope but incorporated it into this narrative from elsewhere. The book attributes another previously unknown tradition to the figure of Miriam, that concerning the well. It outlines that the well was given to the people particularly for Miriam’s sake. Therefore, the author of L.A.B. argues a significant role for the figure of Miriam by claiming that this character was somehow special and she deserved a well.98 Nonetheless, the tradition concerning the well does not as such derive from those passages of the Jewish Scriptures that refer to Miriam. Hence, its origins need some clarification. The gifts attributed to Moses and Aaron in L.A.B. have clear Pentateuchal origins. Exodus attests to the pillar of cloud in the passages related to the wilderness period and to the manna (Exod 16:13–15, 31, 35) that the Israelites ate in the wilderness. The same passages do not refer to a well, but water is a prominent topic in Num 20:7–11, which mentions the mouth of the well in the rock. Moses opens the well by striking the rock.99 Nevertheless, the figure of Miriam is not 98 This is the only appearance of this tradition in the Greco-Roman literature. Cf. the rab­binic literature, e.g., b. Ta’an 9a; Mek. Exod. 16.35. These references were first pointed out by Cohn, “Apocryphal Work of Philo of Alexandria,” Translation by Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 329. 99 “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and command the rock before their eyes to yield its water. Thus you shall bring water out of the rock for them; thus you shall provide drink for the congregation and their

Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

257

addressed in this context. Nor do the Scriptures directly link the question of water to Miriam anywhere else. Numbers 20:1, which attests to Miriam’s death, offers one solution for the question of the origin of the well.100 The next verse, Num 20:2, deals with the lack of water. It implies that there was no water left for the Israelites: “Now there was no water for the congregation; so they gathered together against Moses and against Aaron” (Num 20:2). This change of topic that appears in Num 20:1–2 might seem rather sporadic unless the two themes were somehow connected. The random change of theme in Num 20:1–2 influenced the interpretation of water that was connected with the figure of Miriam.101 Such an interpretation, which aims at creating a bridge between two verses that do not at first appear to have anything in common, would be in line with the style of various rabbinic commentaries that seek to reason away the occurring inconsistencies of the Scriptures.102 Murphy claims that the aim of the passage L.A.B. 20:7–8 is to connect the removal of each gift with the death of each figure. The effect of this is to idealize the past, when the people, under the leadership of Israel’s heroes, received gifts from God.103 Hence, the figure of Miriam does not appear in this context merely in order to explain the lack of water; the gift assigned to her emphasizes her leadership next to Moses and Aaron.

4.2.5 Miriam in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum Ancient Jewish literature contains several texts that promote Miriam’s role in Moses’s infancy, and L.A.B. also elaborates her role in Exod 2.  Remarkably, in contrast to the other renarrations of Exod 2, L.A.B. does not portray her as the protector of the infant Moses, but as a visionary who knew about his importance prior to his birth. This literary tradition links with earlier texts that portray livestock. So Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he had commanded him. Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, ‘Listen, you rebels, shall we bring water for you out of this rock?’ Then Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff; water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their livestock drank.” (Num 20:7–11) 100 See 2.4. 101 Steinmetz, “A Portrait of Miriam in Rabbinic Midrash,” 55. 102 m.Abot 5:6 does not go into details regarding the well; it is possible that it does not attest to the well of Miriam mentioned in the L.A.B. Moreover, a well was a popular motif in early Jewish literature, and therefore m.Abot 5:6 can equally point to another tradition. James, Biblical Antiquities of Philo, 105–106 n. 7, also explains that the idea of a well as a gift derives from rabbinic interpretation of Num 21:16–17, where the geographical name Beer is identified with ‫באר‬, which means a well. See also Jacobson, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 672. 103 Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 99–100.

258

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

Miriam as  a visionary, e.g., Num 12.  Yet the portrayal of Miriam preserved in L.A.B. differs from Num in one significant aspect: Num 12 discusses her dreams, in contrast to Moses’s direct communication with God. Such  a juxtaposition between different characters is not evident in the tradition preserved in L.A.B. There Miriam receives a message that is not announced by God but that certainly has  a divine origin. In light of this account it is difficult to draw  a clear line between “direct” communication with God and one that is somehow “indirect.” The dream attributed to Miriam is of interest here. It has been pointed out that whereas dreams and visions appear frequently in the Jewish literature of Greco-Roman times, the dreams attributed to women are rare. Of approximately one hundred examples of dreams, only 5 are explicitly assinged to women.104 Hence, it is of importance that this dream is assigned to Miriam. She was known as one of the few women who had divine dreams. While L.A.B. 9:10 builds the image of Miriam as a seer of divine dreams, it also raises her above the other members of Moses’s family. Notably, within her family she is the only member to whom Moses’s future and significance are revealed. In the narration of L.A.B. Miriam knows more than the other members of her family. The other reference to Miriam preserved in L.A.B. 20:8 presents her alongside Moses and Aaron. This passage reveals her significance for the author and most likely for a broader community. It is unlikely that she would have been connected with the water unless she was already a notable figure for the community. Rather, Miriam’s presence in L.A.B. 20:8 alongside Moses and Aaron indicates that she was considered as one of the exemplary figures and the leaders of the wilderness era. The claim that the three provided different gifts for the Israelites implies that Miriam was viewed as an equal of Aaron and Moses. This tradition implies that Miriam was one of the important figures. Her passing away was remembered later on, and some people connected it with the lack of water. All in all, the references to Miriam preserved in L.A.B. display the author’s positive interpretation of Miriam. She is referred to as an active figure. She is the sister accessing  a divine dream, and she has, therefore, an important role in the Exodus events. Yet she is equally one of the important leaders of the Israelites. For the author of L.A.B. it may have been important to depict Miriam as  a member of the Levite family. Her parents’ tribal affiliation is emphasized in L.A.B. 9.  Moreover, in both narratives Miriam appears in connection with Moses and Aaron. Thus, while the author emphasized Miriam’s role, she is clearly presented next to her kin.

104 Flannery-Dailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests, 120. The women are Miriam in L. A.B. 9:10, Rebekah in Jub. 35:6, Glaphyra in B. J. 2.114–116 (the same dream also in A.J. 17.349–353), Tratonica in C. Ap. 1.206–207. Similarly in the NT, see Matt 27:19.

Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

259

4.2.6 Relationship with the Earlier Texts This study has already touched on the relationship of L.A.B. with some other ancient texts when considering Miriam’s dream. Connection with other ancient Jewish texts will be considered in more detail now. Notably, the earlier chapters of my study demonstrate that the earliest references to the figure of Miriam assign her a prophetic role. Miriam’s role as a prophet is mostly elaborated in Exod 15 and Num 12. Furthermore, the latter text reveals that Miriam’s prophecy was connected with visions. In Num 12 Miriam’s communication with God through visions is contrasted with Moses’s direct communication with God. Miriam’s role as  a visionary is developed in later Jewish texts, the VA and L.A.B. They attest to Miriam accessing divine information. Given the common perspective on the figure of Miriam that these texts share, their mutual relationship should be examined. Currently, the VA is assigned to an earlier period than L.A.B. Despite this, is it possible that the writer of L.A.B. was familiar with the VA and in particular with its reference to Miriam’s raz? The style of rewriting the Pentateuchal traditions reflected in the VA and L.A.B. differs. The Visions of Amram focuses on developing the story of the patriarchal house, in particular, the family of Amram. The text puts the narrative in a framework that closely resembles a testament of its protagonist Amram.105 Meanwhile, L.A.B. retells the Pentateuchal stories, generally maintaining the Pentateuchal narrative style. Hence, its rewriting is not put in  a totally new framework such as in the VA. Despite these differences concerning the frameworks of the narratives, the two separate accounts of the family of Moses do nonetheless resemble each other. They share other similarities in addition to their mutual witness to Miriam’s visions. First, L.A.B. narrates events from Amram’s life. It dedicates a large part of ch. 9 to Amram, and thus it goes well beyond the Pentateuch narrative in affirming Amram’s role in the history of the Jews. Amram is characterized by speaking against intermarriage. Moreover, according to L.A.B. he “takes  a woman from his own tribe” (9:9). The name of Jochebed appears in L.A.B. 9:12.106 In L.A.B. 9:5 Amram praises Tamar for having a child with her father-in-law and hence not having a relationship with Gentiles. I have argued above that endogamous marriages in general and the union between Amram and Jochebed in particular are of interest in the VA.107

105 See 3.1.2. 106 Jochebed was the daughter of Levi (see 1Q21 Col d. 8–9). 107 See 3.1.2.2. For the polemics against intermarriage in L.A.B., see Feldman, Prolegomenon, xlvi.

260

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

Second, Amram is specified as God’s chosen one in L.A.B. 9:8, where God observes Amram and decides: “I will kindle my lamp that will abide in him, and I will show him my covenant that no one has seen. And I will reveal to him my law.” This speech implies God’s intervention in Amram’s life. God also interacts with Amram in the VA by revealing some events of his future to him. The third similarity between these texts concerns the visions.108 Miriam’s vision is narrated in L.A.B. 9:10. Miriam’s dream takes place during the night when “a spirit of God” comes upon her and she is told to give a message to her parents regarding their descendant. Hence, L.A.B. and the VA both equally present Amram and Miriam as figures that received divine messages. Fourth, both texts stress Miriam’s Levite origins. L.A.B. 9:9 mentions the tribal affiliation of Amram and Jochebed. The Levitical lineage and succession is of major interest for the writer of the VA. Fifth, several scholars have suggested and my study confirms that these texts highlight the female figures to some extent, and that their treatment of women is somewhat unusual. These similarities that the two texts share could indicate that the writer of L.A.B. did not create the tradition that attested to Miriam having dream visions of 9:10, but that the writer knew  a tradition of the VA (or  a similar text) and used it.109 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum does not depend on one sole source, but rather draws from different traditions. Regarding Miriam, the previous analysis demonstrates that L.A.B. uses material that is not present in other texts taken into account in this study. Hence, their origin must be sought elsewhere. Notably, many of these traditions find parallels in the rabbinic literature. Miriam’s dream is preserved in b. Sotah 12b and Exod. Rab. 2.4. Meanwhile, Tg. Ps.-J. 20:2 and Mek. Exod. 16.35 mention Miriam’s well. While the rabbinic texts represent  a later era than L.A.B., they offer a complementary viewpoint to the history of the traditions. They demonstrate unanimously that these traditions were very well known. This study supports the view that the composition shares intertextual parallels with rabbinic literature. L.A.B. was written in a context that was familiar with traditions that were later preserved in the rabbinic texts.110 Hence, it seems logical to assume that their context was one where rabbis operated.111 108 For VA, see 3.1.2. Dreams seem to be a wider motif in L.A.B. See 8:10; 9:15; 18:2; 23:6; 28:4. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 59, writes that they draw attention to God’s direction of events. Robert Karl Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus (AGJU 36; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 206–225. 109 Cf. Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus, 207, who first argues that L.A.B. is earlier than A. J. He claims that the Latin text of L.A.B. can be defined as more original than Josephus’s text in several details (ibid., 217–225). 110 For the discussion concerning the first century C.E. Judaism, see Schiffman, “Early Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism,” 279–290. 111 This study does not permit the further elaboration of this point. For the context where the first-century rabbis operated, see Catherine Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic

Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

261

Regarding the origin of L.A.B., it is possible that the text was composed in Judea. This claim is supported by the fact that the themes that are prominent in L.A.B., Miriam’s Levite origin and her visionary role above the others, are found in the texts that share a Judean origin (such as the VA). It is also possible, however, that these themes were important for some diaspora communities. Meanwhile, as we have seen, the preserved Egyptian texts do not mention them, and it seems these themes were not as important for the Egyptian communities as for the Judaen ones. Thus Judea seems a more likely option for the site of composition.

4.2.7 Summary Liber antiquitatum biblicarum preserves two references to Miriam. They set forward a new interpretation of the figure by emphasizing her leadership. The author portrays Miriam as uniquely significant in relation to her kin. She is the member of the family who has  a divine dream concerning Moses’s birth. While her parents do not believe her, the audience of the text is convinced of the origin of her dream and knows the truthfulness of her prediction throughout the narrative. Later she appears as an exemplary figure next to Moses and Aaron. Remarkably, the author is not dealing with Num 12 tradition, nor does L.A.B. preserve any hint of a negative interpretation of Miriam. I have argued that the image of Miriam in L.A.B. does not have exact parallels in other surviving ancient Jewish literature. Despite this, the author of L.A.B. probably did not create a new interpretation of Miriam, but more likely depended on already existing traditions. One of the sources the writer used may have been the VA or another text that preserved a similar tradition of Miriam. Moreover, the parallels that L.A.B. shares with the VA indicate that this emphasized interpretation of Miriam was not unique. Rather it is possible that such a positive portrayal was part of known Miriam traditions. The thematic parallels that the text shares with the VA, most notably Miriam’s visionary role, the reference to her Levite origins and her close connection with Aaron and Moses, suggest  a Judean origin for the L.A.B. I am provisionarily willing to accept this theory.

Movement in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 66; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 226, who suggests that in the first century C.E. the study of Scriptures was not institutionalized, but rather took place in study houses.

262

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

4.3 Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 4.3.1 Introduction The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (ca. 37−100 C.E.) was born and raised in Judea as a descendant of a distinguished family of priests (C. Ap. 1.54; Vita 198).112 Despite his priestly background, Josephus’s own priestly activities are not clearly apparent in his texts. In other words, it is difficult to know whether he was active as a priest or not.113 Meanwhile, Josephus discusses his association with different religious groups, stating that he has first-hand experience from them. He states that he was  a member of the Pharsiees. Yet, he claims that prior to his affiliation with them, he also familiarized himself with Essenes and S­ adducees.114 Thus he claims to be familiar with all the major Jewish groups of the late Second Temple era. While his memberships in these groups and his activities as a priest are not clear-cut, all these references to religious activities taken together demonstrate Josephus’s distinct interest in the Jewish religion. Josephus’s life sphere was not limited to the Judean context and Jewish people. Later in his life Josephus resided in Rome, and probably all his surviving works, Bellum judaicum, Antiquitates judaicae, Vita and Contra Apionem were produced during the years spent there. The most extensive of his works, Antiquitates judaicae (A.J.), which mentions Miriam, is of particular interest for this study. This composition deals with the complete history of the Jews from the creation to the outbreak of the Jewish revolt (66−67 C.E.). Antiquitates judaicae reflects a portrayal of its writer, who is a Jew 112 For an introduction to Josephus and his life, see, e.g., Richard Laquer, Der jüdische Histo­ riker Flavius Josephus (Giessen: Münchowsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920); Henry St John Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1929); Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Gerald Duckworth and Co, 1983); Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993); Denis Lamour, Flavius Josèphe (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000). 113 Rajak, Josephus, 18, 169–172, 185–192, thinks the author describes only once an activity that could imply his practicing his priesthood. This takes place in B. J. 3.352, and it applies to his ability to interpret prophecies in the sacred books. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” JJS 25 (1975): 239–262; Shaye J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (CSCT 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 144–151. 114 For his time with the Essenes and the Sadducees, see Vita 10–12, where Josephus explains his residing with them. Steve Mason, “Was Josephus a Pharisee? A Reexamination of Life 10–12,” JJS 40 (1989): 31–45; André Lemaire, “L’expérience essénienne de Flavius Josèphe,” in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001: Studies on the Antiquities of Josephus (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 12; Münster: Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, 2002), 138–151. Rajak, Josephus, 34, points out that while Josephus speaks of “going through” all these groups, he does not say what this really meant in practice. Hence, it is hard to tell how well he actually knew them.

Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 

263

aiming at defending and promoting his own culture. Josephus specifies in A.J. that his task was to write the entire history for the Greek-speaking world that was not familiar with the Jews. This task is specified in A.J. 1.5, for example, where the author writes: “I have taken in hand this present task thinking that it will appear to all the Greeks deserving of studious attention. For it is going to encompass our entire ancient history and constitution of the state, translated from the Hebrew writings.”115 It seems, therefore, that the probable audiences of this work are the Gentiles who needed explanations of Jewish history and the Jewish lifestyle.116 Antiquitates judaicae provides another important witness to the rewriting of Pentateuchal passages.117 Josephus obviously used the Jewish Scriptures as his base text for his rewriting. Yet, apart from the Scriptures, the author also knew a number of other texts. His use of them in different passages varies. Interestingly Josephus’s own views are also frequently reflected in the text. He has his own ideas — historical, political, religious and cultural — and these are consistently seen throughout A.J., particularly in the changes he has made in his rewriting of the biblical passages.118

4.3.2 Women in the Texts of Josephus Some fundamental studies regarding Josephus’s views on women in A.J. have been carried out previously.119 They agree by and large that Josephus’s treatment of women is not equal to his treatment of men. Josephus’s treatment reflects a 115 All the translations in this chapter follow Louis H.  Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4. (Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary: ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2000). For Josephus’s self-understanding of his task, see also A.J. 16.174. 116 Steve Mason, “Should Any Wish to Enquire Further (A.J. 1.25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’s Judean Antiquities/Life,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives (ed. Steve Mason; JSPSup 32; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 64–103, 66, points out that the earlier scholarship (e.g. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome; Seth Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, [CSCT 18; Leiden: Brill, 1990]) tended to interpret A.J. as Josephus’s attempt to rehabilitate himself with his fellow Jews. In contrast, Mason argues that several passages of A.J. are written for an audience that knew nothing about Judaism. 117 About half of the text reworks the accounts of the Hebrew Bible (Books 1–10). Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula, Mon.: Scholars Press, 1976); Pere Villalba i Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (ALGHJ 19; Leiden: Brill, 1986); Étienne Nodet, Le Pentateuque de Flavius Josèphe (Paris: Cerf, 1996); Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 356–361. Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (JSJSup 58; Leiden: Brill, 1998), is  a complete study of Josephus’s renarration of Biblical passages. 118 Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 539. 119 Evelyn Stagg and Frank Stagg, Women in the World of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978); Betsy Halpern-Amaru, “Portraits of Biblical Women in Josephus’ Antiquities,” JJS 39 (1988): 43–70; Brown, No Longer Be Silent; Bärbel Mayer-Schärtel, Das Frauenbild des Josephus: Eine sozialgeschichtliche und kulturanthropologische Untersuchung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995);

264

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

gender bias, and the author tends to downplay various female figures in his account of Jewish history. It seems that Josephus mentions women only when their presence becomes absolutely necessary for his narration.120 Like Philo of Alexandria, Josephus was familiar with Hellenistic views of women, and Josephus’s works reflect that it had an influence on his thinking.121 Concerning women, this means that the author viewed women as notably inferior to men. This is of course not a notion one finds only in ancient Greek thinking, but it seems that both Josephus and Philo knew the Hellenistic expression of this concept. Moreover, an example of his dependence on the Greek thinking is that for Josephus women constitute their own class. As a result, when he writes about individual women they are only compared with other women. Usually these “other women”, i. e., women that serve as a basis for assessment, appear as negative figures (such as Eve) and they contribute to creating a general negative overall interpretation of women.122 Athalya Brenner, “Are We Amused? Small and Big Differences in Josephus’ Re-Presentations of Biblical Female Figures in the Jewish Antiquities 1–8,” in Are We Amused? Humour about Women in the Biblical Worlds (ed. Athalya Brenner; JSOTSup 383; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 90–106. For particular female figures, see Martin Braun, Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike 6; Frankfurt: Klosterman, 1934), 23–117, which deals exhaustively with Josephus’s depiction of Potiphar’s wife. Gregory E. Sterling, “The Invisible Presence: Josephus’ Retelling of Ruth,” in Understanding Josephus, 104–130; Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, who deals with the portrayals of Deborah (ibid., 153–163; repr. from Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky), Ruth (ibid., 193–202; repr. from JSP 8 [1991]), and Esther (ibid., 513–538; repr. from Transactions of the American Philological Association 101 [1970]); William Loader, Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in the Writings of Philo and Josephus and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman era; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011). 120 Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities,” in Josephus, the Bible and History (ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 59–80. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 162, argues that when Josephus is compared with, for instance, the rabbinic literature, his depiction of Deborah is reduced due to Josephus’s misogyny. Eileen M. Schuller, “Women of the Exodus in Biblical Retellings of the Second Temple Period,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (ed. Peggy L. Day; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 178–194, also recognizes Josephus’s playing down of women. Cf. Tal Ilan, Integrating Women into Second Temple History (TSAJ 76; Tübingen: Mohr, 1999; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 85–126, who argues that Josephus’s description of women in general, and in particular historical female figures that are depicted as demonic and evil, predominantly reflects ideas from his source, Nicolaos of Damascus. Note that this analysis primarily concerns the historical women of A.J. Therefore Ilan’s theory cannot be directly applied to Josephus’s portrayal of female characters of the Scriptures. 121 E.g., A.J. 20.262–263. For Philo’s view on women, see 4.1.2. 122 Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 564, argues that Josephus’s comments would have reminded the author’s audience of “misogynist comments in Homer (Odyssey 11.436–39), Plato (Timaeus 90E), and Aristotle (De Generatione animalium 775A).” Cf. Philo’s view on women studied previously in 4.1.2.

Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 

265

Apart from the concept of women as such in Josephus’s A.J., his portrayal of some individual women has already been analyzed.123 One of the primary characteristics of Josephus’s reformulation of women is that he tends to feign ignorance of those passages of the Jewish Scriptures that do not contribute to building the image he intends to convey. In addition to removing some passages and figures completely, he also reshapes the depiction of various women in order to make them better fit the purposes he assigns them. Josephus’s reshaping of various female figures also aims at making the characters fit better with Hellenistic ideas about women.124 In Josephus’s A.J. the women are passive, and their honorific titles or other indications of power are removed. Often, direct speeches of women, a sign that could reflect independence, are also taken away. For instance, the figure of Deborah is played down in his renarration of Judg 4–5, while the surrounding characters are emphasized.125 The Pentateuchal matriarchs and other women are defined and motivated by their male counterparts — their fathers, husbands and sons. Women appear as a class of their own in the text, but their value as characters (and persons, in some cases) is ultimately measured in relation to their men. Finally, therefore, the women’s purpose in Josephus’s renarrations of the biblical accounts is usually to develop their male counterparts.126 Despite these rather critical views of Josephus’s portrayal of female figures in A.J., some scholars claim that the author is not equally negative on all women. Some have argued that his description of matriarchs, in particular, is accommodating. His portrayal of matriarchs in A.J. is not as harsh as his depiction of women in general.127 The figure of Sarah, for example, is not marginalized in A.J. She appears frequently in the passages dealing with the life of Abraham (e.g., A.J. 1.151, 197–198, 207, 213). Interestingly, in the passage that deals with Sarah sending Hagar away (Gen 16:5–6), Josephus points out that God approved of Sarah. Such an evaluation does not derive from the Scriptures and thus may reflect Josephus’s own interpretation of Sarah. It is possible that Josephus was aiming at building an image of Sarah that could be approved of, and therefore he took any hint that Sarah may have acted on her own or mischievously out of the narrative. 123 See n. 119. 124 Halpern-Amaru, “Portraits of Biblical Women in Josephus’ Antiquities,” 43–70; Brenner, “Are We Amused? Small and Big Differences in Josephus Re-Presentations of Biblical Female Figures in the Jewish Antiquities 1–8,” 91 and the literature cited there. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 162, 537–538, thinks that such “Hellenization” takes place at least in the cases of Deborah and Esther. 125 Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 162. 126 Halpern-Amaru, “Portraits of Biblical Women in Josephus’ Antiquities,” 143–170. 127 James L. Bailey, “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Matriarchs,” in Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987), 154–179. It is of interest that whereas Josephus aims at accommodating the matriarchs, L.A.B. ignores them almost completely! For comparison, see 4.2.2.

266

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

The reason for this shift in the author’s treatment of some women is not certain. There is no concensus on why Josephus does not treat all women in an even-handed way. He may deal with some women more accommodatingly because of his perception of these women’s own merits. An adapting portrayal of these characters can also mean that the new depiction of the characters served better the purpose Josephus had in mind for them. While several studies concerning Josephus’s treatment of women in general have been made available, his views on particular individuals have received much less attention. Even though Josephus mentions the figure of Miriam altogether four times in his A.J. (2.221; 3.54, 105; 4.78), an analysis that focuses on his interpretation of Miriam is still lacking. In this section I will analyze the passages referring to Miriam and compare them to Josephus’s general attitude towards women. Does Josephus’s portrayal of Miriam follow his usual style concerning women, i. e., that they are presented merely in relation to their male counterparts, or does his portrayal of Miriam create an exception?

4.3.3 Antiquitates judaicae 2.221, 2.226128 Then, having smeared it with asphalt, for the asphalt has the ability to bar the entrance of water through the wicker-work, they put the child in it, and casting it upon the river they left his welfare in God’s hands. The river received and carried it, and Mariame, the sister of the child, having been bidden by her mother, went along beside him as he was carried to see where the wicker-work would go. (A.J. 2.221)129 But when he did not accept the breast but rejected it and did this with many women, Mariame, who chanced upon what was happening, so as not to seem to be there intentionally but out of curiosity, said, “In vain, O queen, you send for these women who have no kinship with it to nurture the child. If, however, you would see to it that one of the Hebrew women were brought, perhaps it would accept the breast of one of its own nation.” (A.J. 2.226)

The earlier sections concerning Jub., Exagoge and L.A.B. show that while Exod 2 has only  a cursory treatment of Moses’s childhood, the later Pentateuchal renarrations display  a distinct interest in this episode. They continue to build Moses’s biography of this period and fill the existing gaps.130 This attempt can be 128 While I usually deal separately with every passage that mentions Miriam, in this section I am here combining the study of the two passages A.J. 2.221 and 2.226 because they belong together in this passage and build up a common portrayal of Miriam. 129 The translations in this section follow Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 3: Judean Antiquities, Books 1–4 (ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 1999). 130 Note that Philo’s Mos. 1.12–16 also refers to Exod 2, yet without mentioning the name of the sister.

Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 

267

recognized also in A.J. 2.210–228, where Josephus gives a more complex account of Moses’s birth. In Josephus’s version, Amram’s wife is pregnant and Amram turns to God to seek help, for all the Hebrew male children should be cast into the river (A.J. 2.206). God appears to Amram in  a dream (κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους, A.J. 2.212–217) and promises to take care of him. Moreover, God also reveals Moses’s birth and significance. Aaron’s destiny is likewise revealed to Amram (A.J. 2.216). Amram discloses his the dream to his wife Jochebed. Moses is born, and the parents hide the child for three months (A.J. 2.218). Then he is placed in the basket, and the figure of Miriam follows it to see what happens (A.J. 2.221). In particular the last notion concerning hiding the child reveals Josephus’s dependence on the Greek translation of the Scriptures. According to Exod 2:2 preserved in the LXX, Moses’s parents together hide the baby for three months: “The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was a fine baby, she hid him three months. When she could hide him no longer she got a papyrus basket for him, and plastered it with bitumen and pitch; she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds on the bank of the river” (Exod 2:2–3). Interestingly, in the MT version it seems to be that Moses’s mother alone is responsible for hiding the child. Josephus’s retelling of the Exod 2 events emphasizes the role of Moses’s father, Amram. This attempt to build a more thorough history for Amram is not new. Most importantly, the text known as the VA builds Amram  a history of his own. I will turn to the specific similarities between the two stories in 4.3.8, where I discuss the relationship of A.J. with some earlier texts. Let me then turn to the figure of Miriam in this passage. Josephus adds more to the tradition concerning Moses’s nativity. In A.J. Moses’s birth is announced as the first child of the family. The passage does not refer to Amram’s other children at all, and it is only in A.J. 2.221 that Josephus mentions that Moses had an older sister whose name is Mariame (Μαρίαμε is the Greek version of Miriam).131 When Moses is hidden in the basket, Josephus, like the authors of Exagoge and Jub., points out that the sister who followed the basket was indeed Miriam. Josephus writes (A.J. 2.221) that Miriam followed the basket “along beside him” (ἀντιπαρεξῄει φερόμενον). This could be understood as a reference that Miriam remained close to the baby Moses, in contrast to Exod 2:4, where she stands far off to see what is going to happen to the baby.132 A detail of this passage that may contain Josephus’s reworking concerns the basket that is placed in the Nile. Feldman argues that while in Exod 2:5 it is Moses’s mother alone who places the basket in the river, the statement in A.J. 2.221 that 131 Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I Palestine 330 BCE–200, 242–248, demonstrates that this name was one of the most popular female names in late antiquity. King Herod’s wife was also called Mariame. 132 Cf. Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 194, who writes that the statement that Miriam went along beside the ark as it was borne is Josephus’s addition.

268

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

Moses’s parents put his ark upon the river so as to place him into God’s hands is Josephus’s addition.133 Moreover, Josephus adds to the motivation of Miriam’s behavior. She does not follow the basket in order to see what happens to the baby. Rather she follows the basket “having been bidden by her mother” (κελευσθεῖσα ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς). This portrayal of Miriam as  a passive character who acts on order of the others clearly removes the figure’s autonomy in this passage. This motivation that Josephus assigns to Miriam is not present in other texts that elaborate Exod 2 — Exagoge or Jub. In contrast, they rather stress Miriam’s active role alongside the infant Moses by emphasizing that she follows Moses in order to protect him. Interestingly, even according to Philo, the anonymous sister follows the basket because of  a divine order (in Mos. 1.12–16). Hence, Philo assumes that the sister is acting from a command of God addressed to her. Even if this removes the sister’s autonomy in this passage, and, like Josephus, assumes that the sister does not act independently but because of an order, it is still provides a far more positive reading of the sister than Josephus’s reading of Miriam in A.J. 2.221. It assumes for Miriam a role in God’s plans and some kind of communication between the two. Miriam is even more degraded in A.J. 2.226, which explains that she did not follow Moses purposefully (i. e., to protect him) but out of curiosity. This is in striking contrast with texts such as Jub. that outline Miriam’s purpose as Moses’s protector.134 Moreover, it is possible that “curiosity” aimed at creating a negative notion for Miriam’s following. It did not describe Miriam as a supportive, passive woman, but rather  a character acting out of her own interest and wanting to satisfy her own curiosity. Josephus’s distinctive style of portraying Miriam continues when he describes Miriam following the basket. The author relates that Miriam followed the cradle and witnessed Moses refusing the milk that the daughter of Pharaoh offered him (A.J. 2.226). Miriam then approaches the Pharaoh’s daughter and suggests that she find a woman of Hebrew origin who could breastfeed Moses. When such a woman (Moses’s mother, who is not referenced by her name here) appears, Moses gladly accepts the milk. This account aims at highlighting Moses, and in the process, it de-emphasizes Miriam. A similar tradition is preserved in Jub. 47:7–8 and Philo’s Mos. 1.12–16 (where the anonymous sister appears). Moreover, the name of Pharaoh’s daughter Thermutis appears only in A.J. and in Jub. Hence, it is probable that this tradition did not derive from Josephus’s hand. Rather he incorporated an already existing interpretation into his composition and modified it for his purpose. 133 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 194. 134 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 195, claims that highlighting Miriam’s curiosity is Josephus’s attempt to explain the figure’s presence on this occasion. This is surely the case, but motivating Miriam’s presence is accomplished by marginalizing her function.

Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 

269

All in all, the portrayal of Miriam in Josephus’s renarration of Exod 2 appears to be well in line with Josephus’s general portrayal of female figures (4.2.2). Josephus’s interpretation of Exod 2 removes those features related to the figure of Miriam that could depict her as active and independent. The purpose of the Miriam figure in this passage is to voice the piety of her brother. She is present but without her own narrative. The author has removed any attributions to an active, independent character from this passage. The previous analysis indicates that Miriam’s presence in the tradition of Exod 2 was firmly established. This may be one of the reasons why Josephus could not omit Miriam completely, but rather had to accommodate this figure to his own purpose.

4.3.4 Antiquitates judaicae 3.54 So long as Moyses held up his hands the Hebrews subdued the Amalekites. Therefore, Moyses, being unable to endure the exertion of holding up his hands, for as often as he let them down, so often did it happen that his men suffered losses, ordered his brother Aaron and the husband of his sister Mariame, Ouros by name, to stand on either side of him and to support his hands, and by helping him not to allow them to grow weary. (A.J. 3.53–54)

At least three different early traditions attest to Miriam’s marriage. First, and according to the preserved textual evidence, the earliest one attests to Miriam’s kinship marriage with her uncle Uzziel in the VA.135 This union between uncle and niece remains exceptional because it is not narrated in other texts. A second tradition that regards Miriam’s marriage is preserved in the rabbinic literature. Typically for the rabbinic tradition, it combines two persons. It identifies Miriam with Ephrath, second wife of Caleb in 2 Chr 2:19. This tradition makes Miriam the mother of Hur, the grandmother of Ouri and the great-grandmother of Bezalel.136 Josephus also displays an interest in Miriam’s family and writes about her marriage. Josephus narrates how Moses, Aaron and Hur fought against the Amalekites (Exod 17:8–16). It is in this context where the author mentions that Hur (the 135 See 3.1.2.3 and 3.1.2.6. 136 Targum to Chronicles 2:19–20: “Azubah died, and Caleb married Miriam, who was called Ephrath; she bore him Hur. Hur became the father of Uri, and Uri became the father of Bezalel” (trans. J. Stanley McIvor, The Targum of Chronicles [Aramaic Bible 19; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1994], 49–50). McIvor, Targum to Chronicles, 50 n. 18, states: “This is one of Tg. Chr’s ‘compressed expansions.’ Miriam is identified with Ephrath, an identification found also in 4:4 and 4:17. This opens a window on a vast expanse of theological and political discussion.” Similar expansions are also visible in Sifre Numeri 78; b.Sotah 11b–12a; Exod. Rab. 1.17. See White Crawford, “Traditions about Miriam in the Qumran Scrolls,” 41–42; Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 66–67.

270

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

LXX: Ωρ) was “the husband of his (Moses’s) sister Mariame, Ouros by name” (τῆς ἀδελφῆς Μαριάμης τὸν ἄνδρα Οὖρον ὄνομα). The passage does not contain any further information regarding their marital relation. As Josephus stands alone in attesting to Miriam’s marriage to Hur, and this tradition is contradicted in other ancient texts, it is relevant to ask about the origin of this account. Hur, who fights together with Aaron and Moses, is an important figure for the Israelite community during the wilderness period. It is possible that Hur was part of the early traditions concerning the Israelites wandering in the wilderness. Later this character disappears from the narratives. The next reference to Miriam in A.J. provides some clarity for Josephus’s interpretation of Miriam’s marriage.

4.3.5 Antiquitates judaicae 3.105 Their names, for they have been recorded officially in the sacred books, were these: Basaelos, son of Ouri, of the tribe of Ioudas, grandson of Mariame the sister of the general, and Elibazos, son of Isamachos of the tribe of Danis. (A.J. 3.105)

In the biblical genealogies, Miriam is present as one of the children of Amram. Notably, while these lists extend to the family and children of Aaron, Miriam’s own family is not mentioned anywhere. Rather, throughout the narratives she remains distinctively “the sister.”137 The role of the sister appears to have been the most important familial relationship assigned for the figure in the early texts. The later texts witness to an important shift concerning Miriam’s family relationships. Previously, in 4.3.4 it was pointed out that Josephus’s A.J. attests to Miriam’s marriage to Hur of Exod 17:10, 12 in A.J. 3.54. Josephus’s interest in the family of Miriam does not end there. The author elaborates Miriam’s family in another passage where he deals with Bezalel, who is God’s appointed chief artisan of the tabernacle. Bezalel appears in the biblical narratives and is first introduced in Exod 31:2: “Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah.”138 A similar family connection is present in 1 Chr 2:19–20: “And Hur begat Uri and Uri begat Bezalel.”139 In A.J. Josephus continues Bezalel’s introduction by adding that he was also a grandson of Miriam, “the sister of the general” (τῆς ἀδελφῆς τοῦ στρατηγοῦ).140 137 For the passages Num 26:59–62 and 1 Chr 5:29, where Miriam appears in the family lists, see sections 2.5 and 3.1 if this study. 138 Also in Exod 35:30 and 38:22. Meanwhile, Bezalel appears without reference to his family credentials in Exod 36:1–2; 37:1. 139 See also 2 Chr 1:5. 140 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 258, remarks that the manuscripts that preserve this text read “son” (υἱὸς δὲ Μαριάμης τῆς ἀδελφῆς τοῦ στρατηγοῦ), and that this is an error by the

Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 

271

These references shed additional light on Josephus’s interpretation of the family of Miriam. They indicate that Josephus read Miriam as the daughter of Amram who married a character called Hur. Together they had a son called Uri who later became the father of Bezalel. Such a lineage, which connects Miriam with Hur, Uri and Bezalel does not appear in the Scriptures and needs some further reflection. The family tree that Josephus provides can be explained by combining different characters that are called Hur in the ancient Jewish texts. Apparently, Josephus combined Exod 17:10 and 12, which refers to Moses’s companion, and 1 Chr 2:19–20, which Bezalel’s grandfather called Hur. For Josephus, the Hur of Exod 17 and of 1 Chr 2:19–20 become one single figure.141 Josephus’s combination of figures becomes even clearer when observing their tribal affiliation. Given Miriam’s family background she belongs to the Levites, and it is assumed that Hur of the Exod passages is also a Levite.142 If both Miriam and Hur were Levites, the tribal affiliation of their children and grandchildren should naturally be Levite. Nonetheless, Josephus claims Bezalel is Judahite. Hence, Josephus follows the lineage presented in 1 Chr 2 that presents the Judahite family. This has consequences for the interpretation of Miriam. Evidently, Josephus does not deal with her as a member of the priestly family, but following the tribal affiliation of her husband, she is now considered a Judahite. Given the prominence of the Levites outlined earlier in this study on the one hand and the polemics associated with the tribe of Judah reflected in several late Second Temple texts on the other hand,143 this change of the family tree downgrades the figure of Miriam considerably. Josephus’s method in A.J. 3.105, the so-called “reduction of characters,” resembles what happens in the rabbinic literature where various characters are identified with others.144 There is no certainty whether this “reduction of characters” reflects Josephus using an interpretative style similar to rabbis or if it was done unintentionally. In the timeframe this overlap is possible because the writings of Josephus are dated to the same period that the rabbinic movement is said to copyist. Hence the correct reading should be “grandson” (υἱωνος). Notably, in the rabbinic tradition (e.g., Exod. Rab. 1.12) Miriam is married to Hur’s father Caleb. Hence, following this lineage she would be Bezalel’s great-grandmother. Nodet, Le Pentateuque de Flavius Josèphe, 66. Nodet points out the possibility that Josephus actually refers to “son of Miriam” here. This could indicate that he simply copied his source. 141 White Crawford, “Traditions about Miriam in the Qumran Scrolls,” 41; Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram, 66–67. 142 White Crawford, “Traditions about Miriam in the Qumran Scrolls,” 41. 143 The reputation of the Judahites was questionable in the Hellenistic era, due to Judah’s marriage to a Canaanite woman and his illicit relationship with his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen 38, cf. Jub. 41). The critical views towards this character are reflected in e.g. Jub. (41:23) and the Testament of Judah (12:6). Both texts refer to Judah’s sin, marrying a Canaanite woman. 144 Günter Stemberger, Der Talmud. Einführung, Texte, Erläuterungen (4th ed.; Munich: C. H. Beck, 2008), n. 252; McIvor, Targum to Chronicles, 50 n. 18, calls it “compressed expansion.”

272

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

have emerged. The fact that the rabbinic literature likewise portrays Miriam in connection with the Judahites supports this view.145 Even if Josephus refers to Miriam’s marriage in this almost accidental manner, the sentence where he refers to Hur as “their sister Miriam’s husband” in A.J. 3.54 suggests that the figure of Miriam was more well known than her husband. Josephus creates a bond between Hur and Miriam, Moses and Aaron. This may imply that Hur was known through his wife. Meanwhile, Miriam is not referred to as “wife of Hur” anywhere in A.J. This type of presentation, where a woman is better known than her husband, is unusual in antiquity, where genealogies usually follow only the male lineage. It is important to note that a similar presentation also occurs in the passage dealing with Bezalel, where Bezalel is introduced as “grandson of Miriam, the sister of the general.” These two passages demonstrate that these two male characters were known through their affiliation with Miriam. In contrast, whenever Josephus mentions Miriam, she is introduced as “the sister of Moses” and not in relation to her husband. This mention of Miriam stands out in Josephus’s narration where women are usually ignored. Josephus may depend on his sources here. When Miriam is referred to in the genealogies of the Hebrew Bible, she is addressed as the sister of Moses (Exod 6:20; Num 26:59; 1 Chr 5:29). This depiction was evidently more persistent than that of Hur’s wife.

4.3.6 Antiquitates judaicae 4.78 At that time the end of life overtook his sister Mariamme, who had completed her hortieth year since she had left Egypt, on the new moon of the month of Xanthikos according to the moon. They buried her lavishly at public expense on  a certain mountain they call Sin; and Moyses purified the people after they had mourned for thirty days in this manner. (A.J. 4.78)

The passage where Josephus shows the greatest interest in Miriam describes her death, which the author reports extensively. Josephus maintains that Miriam died 40 years after the Exodus. This appears to be Josephus’s addition to the narrative, and it may be based on Num 33:38; it is calculated to correspond with 145 Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews 3:60, talks about “the Judean Hur” in relation to the fight against the Amalekites. Unfortunately Ginzberg does not provide further references to this tradition or in particular Hur’s origin. Hence, I think it is probable that the rabbinic traditions, like Josephus, assume that Hur is the character from 1 Chr 2:19–21. Furthermore, rabbinic texts explain the unexpected disappearance of Hur by suggesting that he was murdered by people for opposing their demand to make a golden calf. Exod. Rab. 48.3; b.Sanh. 7a. Moreover, the suggested date of Exod. Rab. does not provide further evidence for this tentative connection. Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrash, 275–276, dates this text to  a much later era. For Josephus and rabbinic tradition, see Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, 1998), 65–73.

Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 

273

the death of Aaron, who was said to have died the fortieth year after the departure from Egypt.146 At this point (i. e., A.J. 4.78), Josephus discusses Miriam on an equal level with the figures of Aaron and Moses.147 All three characters die on the first day of the month Xanthicos in Josephus’s account.148 That month corresponds to Nisan in the Jewish calendar. Josephus regularly uses the Macedonian names of the months, and moreover in A.J. 1.81 he says that Moses dedicated this month (­ Xanthikos) for festivities to commemorate the Israelites’ departure from Egypt.149 In addition, the mourning for these three figures appears similar in the narrative because Josephus says that Miriam, Moses and Aaron were all mourned for thirty days. The length of the mourning period regarding Miriam is an addition to the death account of Num 20:1. Josephus or the source he uses may have added it in order to make it correspond to the mourning period of Miriam’s two brothers. This account harmonizes the death accounts of the three figures, which in the earlier traditions differ from each other. Josephus’s account of Miriam’s funeral differs drastically from funerals found in the Pentateuch, where mourning and the funerals remain more family matters, especially with regards to women. Usually men’s funerals had more of a public nature, whereas women’s funerals were more of a family affair.150 Immediate family members are responsible for the burial and, at least in light of Num 20:1, it is only the immediate close group of people who take part in Miriam’s funeral. Meanwhile, Josephus refers to a public funeral that was organized at a great expense. This detail in the narrative suggests that it was directed to the Greek-speaking audience in 146 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 356. “Aaron the priest went up Mount Hor at the command of the Lord and died there in the fortieth year after the Israelites had come out of the land of Egypt, on the first day of the fifth month” (Num 33:38). 147 It is not unusual in ancient Jewish literature that women’s death notices receive attention. It is recognized that women were often elevated to the level of their male counterparts in funerals and rituals linked to the end of their lives. See Rachel Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period (JSJSup 94; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 317–319. 148 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 356, points out that some rabbinic texts agree with Josephus that Miriam died on the first day of Nisan, whereas others state that she died on the tenth of Nisan. Regarding the Pentateuchal account of Miriam’s death preserved in Num 20:1, see section 2.4. 149 “Moyses designated Nisan, that is Xanthikos, as the first month for the festivals, because it was in this month that he led the Hebrews out of Egypt. He began [the year] with this [month] also for all the honors with respect to the divine; however, he preserved the first arrangement [of the months] with regard to sales and purchases and other activities. He says that the Flood began on the twenty-seventh of the previously mentioned month.” 150 Levi Yizhaq Rahmani, “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs, Part Three,” Biblical Archeologist (1982): 43–53, 44, writes that the city commission participated in the funeral procession of a man, though not that of a woman. Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period, 337; cf. Archer, Her Price is beyond Rubies, 266–278, who points out the differences between the burial practices for men and women.

274

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

particular. The condition for a lavish public funeral at that time was that one was a patriotic citizen and an important political figure. Thus, Josephus’s interpretation of Miriam’s death seemingly reflects Greco-Roman burial practices.151 Note that Miriam was not the only female figure who was commemorated with such  a funeral in A.J. According to Josephus, Sarah was also buried at public expense.152 This detail emphasizes Josephus’s accommodating portrayal of Sarah. Numbers 20:1 narrates Miriam dying in Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin. According to this tradition she was also buried at this site, which actual location is unknown today. Josephus differs from that tradition by narrating that Miriam was buried on a mountain called Sin (Σιν). As the name “Sin” closely resembles “Sinai,” this could be interpreted as the Mount Sinai located in the Sinai Peninsula. In any case, Josephus’s location of Sin, which according to him is in the vicinity of Petra, excludes any connection with Mount Sinai. Miriam’s burial place in A.J. has been explained in various ways. One possibility is that Josephus was guided by a necessity to point to a concrete place of burial for Miriam, and that had to be distinguished from the place where Aaron dies. Therefore, it is possible that Josephus invented the name Sin to separate it from Aaron traditions.153 On the other hand the use of the LXX where Sin and Sinai resemble each other may have influenced Josephus’s terminology.154 As Josephus’s account of Num 20:1 is the only tradition that refers to Miriam being buried on Mount Sin, it is plausible that it is his own interpretation of Num 20:1. All in all, Josephus seems to go against his usual policy regarding women in his description of Miriam’s death. First, Miriam’s death account is harmonized with the accounts of Moses and Aaron. This is peculiar in light of Josephus’s regular attempts to downgrade Miriam elsewhere in his text, as well as his tendency to depict Miriam in relation to Hur and the Judahites. Second, Josephus deals with Miriam as an important character in this passage, as the description of her public funeral demonstrates. Notably, A.J. 4.78 does not appear to refer to her husband and offspring, but rather to the Israelites (i. e. “the people” τὸν λαὸν) as the people who bury her. Hence, Miriam is described as a person recognized by the entire community in this passage. She appears as a somewhat public figure. Different factors may have influenced this depiction. Given Josephus’s Gentile audience, it is possible that his portrayal of Miriam’s funeral in A.J. 4.78 was 151 Feldman, Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible, 356. For funeral practices of Greco-Roman times see Fernand de Visscher, Le droit des tombeaux romains (Milan: Giuffré editore, 1963); Donna C. Kurtz and John Boardman, Greek Burial Customs (London: Thames and Hudson, 1971); Jon Davies, Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity (Religion in the First Christian Centuries; London: Routledge, 1999). 152 Cf. A.J. 1.237. 153 Nodet, Le Pentateuque de Flavius Josèphe, 152–153. 154 For the LXX rendering of Num 20:1, see 3.2.1.6. Different witnesses to the LXX text of Num 20:1 attest to different names of Sin.

Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 

275

influenced by his attempt to demonstrate that the high-class Jewish customs did not actually differ that much from those of the ruling class, but that, for instance, their burial practices were alike. Yet this may not be the only reason behind Josephus’s description. In the background of Josephus’s treatment of Miriam’s death could also be the Jewish proclivity for emphasizing important female figures on their death.155 For example, Josephus’s interest in Sarah’s funeral demonstrates that depicting the death of prominent female figures was not odd for him. Moreover, the interest in the concept of the afterlife that evolved in the Hellenistic era pushed various authors to discuss death in more detail. This may have influenced Josephus.156 All in all, despite the marginalizing of Miriam that takes place elsewhere in A.J., in this passage Josephus seems to deal with Miriam on the same level with Moses and Aaron.

4.3.7 Josephus’s Interpretation of Miriam Josephus refers to Miriam altogether four times in A.J. On the one hand the writer has reduced the passages where Miriam is depicted as an independent figure (Exod 15:20–21; Num 12:1–15), but on the other he adds Miriam elsewhere (Exod 17:8–16). This treatment is in line with his style of dealing with female figures of the Pentateuch. The titles that Josephus attributes to the figure of Miriam reveal his treatment of this figure. In all four references to Miriam, the writer calls her remarkably “the sister of Moses” (or the sister of “the general”). The title “sister” remains the most important attribution for Miriam throughout A.J. Meanwhile, the titles attributed to Miriam in the Scriptures that imply leadership, such as “the prophetess” of Exod 15:20, or other references to a position of power, are completely removed from Josephus’s narration of the Pentateuchal events. This observation supports Halpern-Amaru’s theory that for Josephus the women are measured in relation to their male counterparts. Moreover, Josephus’s depiction of Miriam in this way corresponds to his portrayal of women identified in the earlier studies. He limits the female figures as much as possible and turns them into passive characters.157 155 Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period, 317–319; Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, 225–249. 156 See e.g., Joseph Sievers, “Josephus and the Afterlife,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, 20–34; Davies, Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity, 110–124; On the evolution of the concept of the afterlife in Judaism, see John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. With an essay “The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,” by Adela Yarbro Collins (Hermeneia: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 394–398. 157 Halpern-Amaru, “Portraits of Biblical Women in Josephus’ Antiquities,” 43–70. Halpern-­ Amaru points out the limitations imposed on Rebekah, whose assertiveness has to be restrained. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible, 162, 537–538.

276

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

The author’s frequent references to “the sister” indicate that one of the reasons why Miriam appears at all in A.J. is due to her kinship to Moses. As the figure does not seem to carry any specific function in the text, she could have been omitted. Nonetheless her presence reveals that Miriam was too well known in the Jewish traditions and folklore to be totally removed. Josephus’s elaboration of the biblical passages referring to Miriam also betrays his contradictory interpretation of the figure. While the author reduces the picture of Miriam mirrored in the Scriptures, his treatment of the figure that depends on other sources presents male figures in relation to Miriam: Hur is the husband of Miriam, and Bezalel is the grandchild of Miriam. These references suggest that Miriam was a better-­ known figure than the other two. Miriam’s affiliation to the Judahites raises some questions. This grouping is peculiar in light of the literature of the Hellenistic era that emphasizes Miriam as a Levite. It is possible that Josephus’s own life is reflected in this interpretation. Josephus belonged to the priestly family, and it seems that his view of the Levites was uneasy.158 This is reflected in his A.J., where several of the tasks that the Pentateuch assigns to the Levites are now carried out by the priests. Feldman has further singled out a number of passages where the Levites are completely omitted.159 This happens, for instance, in Josephus’s renarration of Exod 2. Josephus turns to Amram and Jochebed several times in his narrations, but their Levite origin, known in several other texts, does not appear in A.J. Meanwhile Josephus calls Amram “one of the well-born among the Hebrews” (A.J. 2.210). Such  a treatment, where the tribal affiliation does not appear, seems to be a conscious avoidance of their Levite origin. This extends to Miriam as well. Nowhere in A.J. is she referred to as a Levite descendant. Rather Josephus constructs a closer contact with the Judahites for her. Josephus hints that, on some level, the conflict between the priests and the Levites that was raging in the Hellenistic era continued in Roman times (A.J. 20.216–218). This may have influenced his treatment of figures that were known as Levites, and when possible he changed the genealogies in order to make them more favorable to the priests. Against this general downgrading of Miriam, it is rather surprising that when Josephus deals with Miriam’s funeral, she is suddenly granted a more prominent position. This is indicated by the state funeral organized for Miriam, as well as the 30-day-long mourning period. When Josephus describes this, he returns to and is influenced by those passages of the Scriptures where Miriam is described 158 Schwartz, Josephus and Judean Politics, 88–90, has identified  a number of priestly revisions in Josephus’s renarrations of the Hebrew Bible. Cf. Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible, 62. 159 Feldman, Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible, 62; idem, “The Levites in Josephus,” Henoch 28 (2006): 91–102.

Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 

277

in connection with Moses and Aaron and with the Israelites, rather than with the Judahites. These details hint that Josephus was, despite his hesitance to report more, aware of wider Miriam traditions and the prominence of this figure in the Jewish literature and could not totally ignore them. Alongside his reduced image of Miriam, he simultaneously contributes to the positive literary tradition of this figure. Yet this happens when Miriam’s independence is reduced and she is presented as an ancestor mother. She is  a prominent figure who transmits her credentials to her offspring in A.J.

4.3.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts Concerning the sources of the text, it has been pointed out that whereas Josephus may have had a specific idea in his mind while writing A.J., he did not write this composition alone. Rather, he used already-existing literature, and large portions of the text are copied from Greek sources available to him. I have above dealt with the author’s use of the LXX in the respective four passages where he discusses Miriam. Significantly, Josephus does not rewrite all the Pentateuchal passages where the figure of Miriam appears; he has left out some of the most prominent passages, such as Exod 15:20–21 and Num 12. His rewritings, therefore, reflect a selective use of his sources. In what follows I will examine other possible texts that Josephus may have used while writing about Miriam in A.J. I pointed out above that Josephus’s version of Moses’s birth emphasizes the role of his father Amram. This emphasis, which works to create  a literary tradition around Amram, who is himself only a marginal figure in the Scriptures, resembles the style of VA (see 3.2). As the possible relationship between these two texts has not been analyzed elsewhere, allow me to elaborate it a little. Amram’s dream is preserved in A.J. 2.212–217.160 Amram’s dreams preserved in A.J. and the VA should be regarded as a part of later tradition vis-à-vis the Scriptures. In both traditions concerning the dream, Amram foresees Moses’s birth and receives an announcement about his significance. Further, in both traditions it is God who addresses Amram directly in the second person singular. Both dreams also address Aaron’s future as a priest, 160 For general studies concerning Josephus’s accounts of various dreams, see Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus. Seemingly Gnuse is not aware of the tradition preserved in the VA, as he does not take that into account in his study. Rather he compares Amram’s dream to the other dreams that appear in A.J., arguing that dreams are a common motif in it. Other studies of Josephus’s dream accounts include John Hanson, “Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity,” ANRW II. 23.2, 1395–1427; Flannery-Dailey, Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras.

278

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

claiming that his descendants will also be priests forever (Cf. 4Q545 4 15–17).161 Given these remarkable thematic overlaps between the two texts, it seems likely that Josephus is not creating  a totally new tradition in his account of Moses’s birth. Rather it is possible that he is aware of earlier traditions that highlighted the role of Moses’s father.162 Meanwhile, regarding Amram’s dream narrated by Josephus, it is not surprising that unlike the VA, which emphasizes the figure of Miriam as another child of Amram and whose significance may have also been announced in a divine dream, Josephus does not refer to Miriam when he narrates Amram’s visions. He anticipates the birth of two sons. Moreover, Amram’s dream in A.J. resembles the dream attributed to Miriam in L.A.B. 9:10.163 In both dreams a divine being addresses the dreamers, Miriam and Amram, in second person singular. Both dreams contain a message that the unborn child will save the Jewish people.164 Likewise it is announced that the significance of the child will not perish, but will somehow remain alive for the future generations.165 In both narratives Miriam and Amram tell the content of their dreams to other people. Apart from these obvious similarities, the narratives also differ remarkably. As I have already pointed out, Josephus’s version of the dream is much more complex than the one assigned for Miriam in L.A.B. For instance, the reception of the dreams varies. Whereas according to Josephus (A.J. 2.217) Jochebed and Amram fear together after this announcement, in L.A.B. Miriam’s parents do not believe her. Hence, Miriam remains the only person to know Moses’s future significance. The accounts also differ in content. In A.J. the announcer is God, whereas in L.A.B. an angel appears to Miriam. In A.J. (2.216) the dream also applies to Aaron and his future priesthood. In L.A.B. the dream concerns only Moses’s birth. Moreover, in L.A.B. the audience does not have a direct account of the dream (a third person narrative), but merely the report that Miriam delivers to her parents. These observations invite a consideration of the relationship between the dream accounts preserved in A.J. and in L.A.B. Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis, analyzes the account of L.A.B. vis-à-vis that of Josephus that is attributed to Amram. Gnuse argues that L.A.B. 161 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1–4, 191, 193, argues that this addition of Aaron was motivated by the fact that Josephus himself was a priest and hence a descendant of Aaron. Given this, the matter of priesthood could have been especially important for him. Cf. Gnuse, Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus, 209. 162 See 3.1.2. Sterling, “The Invisible Presence,” 119, points out that Josephus recasts a father from a supporting to a leading role more than once. Cf. A.J. 5.318–319. 163 See 4.2.3. 164 Josephus writes (A.J. 2.216): “He [the child] shall deliver the race of Hebrews from their distress among the Egyptians.” 165 A.J. 2.216: “he shall be remembered as long as the universe shall endure not only among Hebrew men but also among foreigners.”

Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus 

279

reflects a closer connection with Exod 2, which both texts rework.166 Meanwhile, A.J. with all its additional details (e.g., Aaron, the priesthood) appears to be a much more embellished account of the same tradition. This, in Gnuse’s view, reflects a later development. He further claims that the account preserved in L.A.B. reflects a birth announcement formula known from other ancient texts. These notions make the dream attributed to Miriam earlier than the one attributed to Amram.167 In general I agree with Gnuse’s arguments and think that the dream attributed to Miriam should be regarded as earlier than the one ascribed to Amram. It is likely that Josephus took this dream tradition from elsewhere. He may have known it from L.A.B. or from other ancient Jewish sources. Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that Miriam’s dream preserved in L.A.B. is not the first context where Miriam is connected with dreams and, more precisely, with divine knowledge. There is even earlier evidence of the figure of Miriam with dreams and visions. Numbers 12 hints at Miriam’s role as  a visionary.168 More significantly, VA, where Miriam was linked with the term raz (4Q546 12 4), implied that in early Jewish literature this figure was one of the selected that had access to divine hidden knowledge.169 Therefore, I argued that the term raz in connection with Miriam in the VA should be interpreted similarly as with other prominent figures. Miriam, like other people who are connected with raz, had visions. If my theory is right, both VA and later L.A.B. attest to Miriam’s visions. L.A.B. specifies Miriam’s visions. She had a divine dream. With regards to the other literary traditions Josephus may have used, it seems that A.J. resonates with some rabbinic traditions. In particular the similarities between the family lineage of Miriam that Josephus provides and the descriptions of Miriam’s marriage preserved in the rabbinic literature suggest that he may have been familiar with an early version of  a tradition that portrays Miriam as Bezalel’s grandmother.170 Moreover, Josephus certainly knew of Philo of Alexandria (A.J. 18.259; 20.100), but his knowledge of Philo’s writings and their philosophy remains a question mark. Evidently the two authors shared, at least partly,  a similar cultural background and heritage. Regarding women, both authors generally downplayed them in their texts. This is demonstrated especially 166 Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus, 223–225. 167 Gnuse’s analysis of the overall passage is exhaustive (see Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus, 205–225). He concludes (Dreams and Dream Reports, 222–223) that Josephus’s story is more extensive and contains more details and theologizing. These could be indications of reworking. The most important evidence for the earlier version is the fact that in L.A.B. it is only the mother of Moses who places the basket in the Nile. This closely follows the version in the Hebrew Bible, whereas in Josephus the father is added in this passage. Similarly, Feldman, “Pseudo-Philo’s,” 65. 168 See 2.3.6. 169 See 3.1.2.4. 170 A.J. 3.54, 105. Cf. Sifre Numeri 78; b.Sotah 11b–12a; Exod. Rab. 1.17.

280

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

by their selective use of their source texts. They use only those passages that fit their general purposes. Further, both authors tend to compare the female figures to their close male kin. Such analysis often results in negative evaluations. This applies to Josephus’s and Philo’s descriptions of Miriam as well. Interpretations of Miriam provided by Philo and Josephus mirror  a selected use of the Jewish Scriptures. Their interpretations of Miriam (or the sister) appear to coincide in particular in their renarrations of Exod 2. For Philo the anonymous sister follows the basket because she has been asked to do so, whereas in A.J. Miriam follows the basket because her mother ordered her to do so. Still, their descriptions of Miriam also differ. While Philo presents Miriam as  a leader of women, Josephus has omitted such portrayals. This observation suggests that Josephus, despite also interpreting Miriam in the light of Hellenistic ideas, did not depend on Philo’s texts or interpretation. The lack of further overlapping indicates that he probably did not use Philo’s texts when creating his own interpretation of Miriam. This may have happened because their interpretations of women were ultimately not compatible or simply because Josephus did not have all Philo’s texts at hand. Rather, the themes that become prominent in the rabbinic literature, such as visions and Miriam’s family life, suggest that Josephus was aware of other Miriam traditions that existed in the first century C.E.

4.3.9 Summary Josephus’s treatment of Miriam resembles his attitude towards women in general. He narrows the depiction of Miriam in his elaboration of the Pentateuchal passages, and he deals with her only when it is absolutely necessary for his narrative. Miriam remains a secondary character next to the figure of Moses. This supportive role provides Miriam her most important function in A.J., which is the role of the sister. Interestingly, Josephus pays attention to Miriam’s own family lineage too. It may be that this theme, Miriam as a spouse and as an ancestral mother, allows the author to place the figure in a category he found appropriate for women. Miriam’s independence as a figure may not have suited his narrative. Moreover, it is likely possible that as various Miriam traditions were well-known, there was a need to clarify the various connections of this figure, including her own family line. Thus, the expansion in the tradition may have been motivated by Josephus’s narration but also by the communities he knew and frequented. While Josephus’s portrayal of Miriam as the sister in A.J. has the result of minimizing her character, this is the role that qualifies her to be part of the narrative. From time to time Josephus allows Miriam more space. She is clearly a well-known figure in her own family tree and among the Judahites. The most accommodating depiction concerns Miriam’s death. Her funeral and mourning appear harmonized with the traditions linked to Moses and Aaron. Hence,

Miriam in the Texts of the Roman Era 

281

despite being interpreted as a Judahite, Miriam somehow maintained the bond with Moses and Aaron. This tradition was so soundly established that Josephus, despite his efforts, could not exclude it from A.J. My impression is that the part of Josephus’s depiction that builds a positive image of Miriam coincides frequently with the traditions preserved in the rabbinic literature, as the overlapping regarding A.J. 3.54, 3.103 and 4.78 indicate. Meanwhile, the marginalized image of Miriam echoes the depiction of Miriam preserved in Philo and suggests that the two authors used similar literary methods while interpreting Miriam.

4.4 Miriam in the Texts of the Roman Era The final part of this study has taken into consideration texts that were produced after the turn of the era in the first century C.E. The texts of this era differ from those that were taken into consideration earlier in this study. Most notably, two of the authors of the Roman era are known: Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus. Hence, it is possible to discuss their attitude regarding women in general and factors that may have influenced their attitudes, taking where they operated into particular account. The third witness to Miriam from the Roman era, L.A.B., differs from Josephus and Philo. Its history cannot be established with certainty. All of the three texts mention Miriam several times. These multiple references provide a complex image of Miriam in the first century C.E. The texts of the Roman era continue reworking the Pentateuchal traditions. They agree with the texts of the Hellenistic period by demonstrating an interest in the interpretation of Exod 2. Moses’s birth and Miriam’s role in his childhood continued to be of interest in the early Roman era, demonstrated by the fact that all three texts rewrite Exod 2.171 Concerning the figure of Miriam, significantly, L.A.B. and A.J. deal with Miriam’s role in this passage in opposing ways. Notably, in L.A.B. Miriam receives divine information concerning Moses’s future and significance in  a dream. She is the only person of her family who receives information concerning Moses. Hence, she becomes the heroine of this rewriting of Exod 2. I argue (4.2.6) that L.A.B. built on two earlier Miriam traditions in the vision narrative: one that she was present in Exod 2, and the other that attributes to her the qualities of a visionary. Josephus’s rewriting of Exod 2 in A.J. also includes a vision narrative. It differs in several ways from the one preserved in the L.A.B. The most crucial variation in view of the figure of Miriam in Josephus’s narrative is that the author attributes the dream to Amram, making him the protagonist of this passage. Meanwhile, Miriam’s role in the version preserved by Josephus is more limited, and her own autonomy is marginalized. 171 For Philo’s treatment of Exod 2, see n. 18.

282

Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era

Philo, Josephus and L.A.B. also report on Miriam’s role in the wilderness era. When discussing the wilderness era, the authors of these compositions give attention to different traditions. Philo focuses on Exod 15 and Num 12, using the two passages for very different purposes. On the one hand, Miriam is an exemplary figure when she performs next to Moses; on the other hand, in his renarrations of Num 12, Philo portrays Miriam not as a human but as a symbol for “the outward sense.”172 The two other texts, L.A.B. and A.J., refer to different wilderness traditions. Josephus displays a particular interest in Miriam’s genealogy, and he sets forth a family tree for this figure. His report on Miriam’s family connections and in particular on her distinguished funeral imply that the writer was conscious of the importance of this figure. The author of L.A.B. includes in the text  a tradition about Miriam’s death, which took place during the wilderness period. Similarly to the author’s dealing with Exod 2, this passage (L.A.B. 20:8) also refers to Miriam as a past exemplary figure. The author claims that the Israelites received water for Miriam’s sake in the wilderness, and that when the figure died, the water also ran out. Notably, such  a rewriting of Miriam’s death that only loosely connects with Num 20:1 raises Miriam next to Moses and Aaron as past heroes. These examples demonstrate that, whereas Miriam’s connection with the infant Moses was a popular depiction, the Jews were likewise aware of her role during the era spent in the wilderness. Generally speaking, while all three authors use the Jewish Scriptures as their base texts, their ways of interpretation and possible dependence on other texts and traditions lead them to different conclusions. This becomes particularly evident, for instance, when Miriam’s tribal affiliation is considered. Remarkably, the authors of the Roman era do not seem to share  a common interpretation regarding Miriam’s tribal connection. The author of L.A.B. presents Miriam as  a Levite in its rewriting of Exod 2 (preserved in L.A.B. 9). In contrast to that, Josephus details Miriam’s connection with the Judahites in several places. Furthermore, Philo appears to be completely uninterested in the question of tribal affiliation, or at least his texts do not display any interest in this topic. These differences in the texts of the Roman era bring forth some questions concerning the status of tribes. Most importantly, with their disagreement concerning Miriam’s tribal affiliation, these texts differ from the literary traditions of the Hellenistic Judean texts, which frequently refer to the Levites and aim at promoting them. The different views presented in the texts of the Roman era can be partly explained by the diaspora setting where Josephus and Philo wrote. Perhaps the tribal affiliation did not receive as much attention there as in Judea.173 172 For Philo’s twofold picture of Miriam, see 4.1.6. 173 See 4.2.6.

Miriam in the Texts of the Roman Era 

283

Philo and Josephus belonged to the high elite in their social contexts.174 Even though they wrote in the Roman era they were influenced by Hellenistic ideas. Their texts mirror Hellenistic features and Hellenistic ideals, and these are n ­ oticeably applied in their treatment of women too. They tend to describe women as passive characters whose primary purpose is to support their male counterparts in the texts. Philo and Josephus’s portrayals of Miriam reflect these ideas. Their texts reveal that the Miriam who is portrayed as an active and independent figure in some of the early traditions fits poorly with their Hellenistic ideal of women. Most notably, as Miriam lacks an evident male counterpart, her evaluation is construed in relation to the figure of Moses. Such an interpretation has the result that the texts composed by Philo and Josephus contain the most critical portrayal of Miriam of ancient Judaism. Philo’s treatment of Miriam reflects the harshest elaboration of this figure. He depends on Num 12 when creating a critical interpretation of Miriam. In comparison with the other texts deriving from the same era, it becomes clear that the method Philo employed in his texts, namely allegorical interpretation, opened a way for him to deal with women negatively. In contrast to other rewritings that depended on their base texts, allegorical interpretation allowed the author to take the discussion further. It is of major importance that Philo’s texts had a huge impact on the forms of early Christianity that built on Greek philosophy. The three texts display some affinities with traditions that were later preserved in the rabbinic texts in addition to the Jewish Scriptures. This demonstrates that the traditions concerning Miriam were not limited to the texts that are known to us. Furthermore, such traditions were available to the first century authors. They knew them and could use them selectively for their purposes. People interpreted the existing and known Jewish texts according to their needs. Regarding the figure of Miriam, for those representing the higher society, and the elite, the task was to show that this important Jewish woman fulfilled the Hellenistic ideals of femininity. In comparison with these texts and the elitist viewpoint represented by their authors, L.A.B. displays the opposite treatment of women. For its author it was important to continue the literary tradition that Miriam was one of the early leaders. Its acceptance of women into leadership provides a striking contrast with the texts of Philo and Josephus, where women appear in supportive roles for their male counterparts. Such  a portrayal could reflect a less hierarchical and organized community where both men and women were accepted as leaders.

174 For Philo, see, e.g., Schwartz, “Philo, His Family, and His Times,” 11–13. For Josephus, see e.g., Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian, 144–151.

5. Conclusions 5.1 Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature In the introductory section of this study I indicated some lacunae in earlier Miriam scholarship. Most notably, the vast majority of the studies on Miriam have concentrated on the portrayal of Miriam preserved in the Hebrew Bible, thus making use only of a part of the ancient Jewish literature that refers to this figure. Meanwhile, the other literature that equally refers to Miriam has been incorporated into the discussion only in limited ways (1.2.2). In this way, the selected texts, in this case the canonical ones, receive a disproportionate significance. Subsequently, such partial use of ancient texts results in an incomplete and unbalanced image of Miriam in ancient Judaism. Further, in the introductory part (1.2.2) of this study I proposed that taking into consideration all the texts of the Second Temple era that refer to Miriam would result in a different conclusion than those studies which only include the references preserved the Hebrew Bible. As a methodological basis for this study I claimed (1.3.2.2.) that intertextual relations do not evolve in a vacuum. Rather, following Mikhail Bakhtin, it was proposed that texts are composed in specific socio-historical contexts. This principle was incorporated in my study in such a way that, first, it was claimed that the various rewritings of the texts create an intertextual web. Second, following Mikhail Bakhtin, I established that texts reflect historical realities. Hence, the texts that discuss Miriam, i. e.,  a female literary figure, do not reflect merely attitudes towards this figure. Their treatment of Miriam should be regarded as a reflection of how women were received at the times they were composed. In what follows I will elaborate the results of the text analysis from these two perspectives, intertextuality and social history. The earliest references to Miriam were analyzed in ch. 2. They portray Miriam as one of the early leaders of the Israelites who is associated with Exodus events (Exod 15:20–21) as well as with the wilderness period (Num 12:1–15; Num 20:1; Mic 6:4). Exodus 15:20–21 assigns her  a role as  a prophetess. I argued that the author of Num 12 may have had this role in mind when composing the passage, which portrays Miriam in communication with God and addresses her prophetic, possibly visionary, role (12:2, 6–8). This description contrasts her with Moses, who communicates with God directly. I also acknowledged that equally possible is that the title “prophetess” reflects Miriam’s leadership function, which may be connected with political and religious power in the earliest literary traditions concering the figure.

286

Conclusions

While I positioned my discussion in relation to the P-source, which is argued to go back to Persian era, my analysis indicates that some of the texts of the Hebrew Bible that mention Miriam, Exod 15:20–21, Num 12:1–15 and 20:1, contain elements that are earlier than P. Therefore, various sources behind the early passages, including P but even those that were composed earlier, were all familiar with Miriam traditions. These sources differ from one another in their depiction of Miriam. For instance, the earliest sources portray Miriam independently (2.1.8, 2.3.6). The P-source refers to Miriam most notably in the context of genealogies (2.5.5). Furthermore, the Dtr editorial layer does not emphasize the family connection. Rather it calls people to remember the past events where Miriam played a role (2.5.6; 2.6.4). Already in the Second Temple era these varying accounts were narrated one next to another. I agree with those scholars who have previously argued that Miriam was an independent figure in the beginning (Num 12:1; 20:1), but that later she developed in close contact with the figures of Moses and Aaron. Miriam’s leadership function was connected with those of Moses and Aaron (Mic 6:4). Moreover, some texts indicate a relationship of close kinship between them (Exod 15:20; Num 26:59). Meanwhile, other passages suggest that the relationship among the three figures was not straightforward. For instance, in Num 12:1 Miriam openly challenges Moses. This can hardly be seen simply as a traditional depiction of  a sibling relationship where sisters remain in the background. The inconsistencies in the passages referring to the family connection as well as the gradual chronological intensification of the connection indicate that this kinship was a literary construction. As pointed out above, it appears primarily in P. The chronology of the early references to Miriam roughly follow the order of the books preserved in the Hebrew Bible. The portrayal of the figure evolves from the early leader to the sister figure. Yet due to the incompleteness of the sources and their multiple redactional layers, it is difficult to detect evident literary dependencies. My view is that the literary tradition concerning Miriam’s punishment in Num 12 might assume Deut 24:8–9 or another text where the incident was articulated. Furthermore, the family genealogy of Num 26:59 assumes that the Levitical connection that places Miriam, Aaron and Moses as sons of Amram is widely attested. In ch. 3, where I dealt with the texts of the Hellenistic era, the role of Miriam evolves. Her most frequent role continues to be that of the sister, which was developed in the latest texts of the Persian era (2.7). Miriam’s family connections are emphasized in the genealogy of 1 Chr 5:29, which assumes an established Levitical lineage where Miriam, Moses, and Aaron appear as the children of Amram and Jochebed. Furthermore, the two rewritings of Exod 2 that indepen­ dently rework the tradition concerning Moses’s birth, namely Jub. and Exagoge, emphasize Miriam’s significance in Moses’s infancy. Their similarities provide

Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature 

287

support for the claim that Miriam was known as the anonymous sister of Exod 2 before the second century B.C.E. The rewritings of Num 12 reflect  a common interpretation of the passage. Both Demetrius (the Chronographer) and 4Q377 marginalize the dispute. This is accomplished by omitting the cause of the conflict between the figures. Hence, while the incident is remembered in various texts, the negative interpretation of Miriam found in Num 12 is not retold. It is possible that the dispute was omitted because a quarrel between the siblings was thought to be embarrassing, and it would cast a shadow onto the Levite family. Such a shift in the new compositions has important consequences for the interpretation of Miriam. When the authors do not focus on the motif of the conflict and Miriam’s punishment, it results in a more positive interpretation of Miriam. She is present in the traditions about the wilderness era, but there is no judgment on her behavior. The analysis of the Judean texts and the Egyptian texts of the Hellenistic era reveals disparities between the texts that originated in these two contexts. The Judean texts are characterized by their interest in Miriam’s family relations. First, they discuss Miriam as a member of the Levite family. This emphasis is evident and particularly strong in the so-called Levitical texts: 1 Chr, VA, and Jub. These texts recognize her as the daughter of Amram and Jochebed and the sister of Aaron and Moses. Furthermore, VA displays interest in the family connections by discussing Miriam’s own family and offspring. Emphasizing Miriam as a member of the Levitical family is not coincidental. Together with Jochebed she is the only female figure that appears frequently in the Levite lists. It was argued in 3.1.6 that Miriam’s presence in the Levite texts serves a particular purpose. On my view the figure of Miriam was incorporated into the text traditions concerning the Levite family for the reason that she was thought to give more weight to the Levites as a priestly family, but in the process, the figure of Miriam accrued a certain status as well. Her presence in the Levite narratives and family lists works also as a reminder that individual members of this family were prominent characters. Furthermore, the Judean texts add to Miriam’s visionary role. It is referenced, for example, in the VA. Miriam’s role as a visionary strengthened her link with the Levites because several members of the Levite family were known to have access to divine information. Thus, it is no coincidence that Miriam’s visions are emphasized in the Judean texts. Again, Miriam’s prominence, namely her access to divine knowledge, which connected her with Amram and Levi, brought more weight to the Levite family as a whole. All in all, the Judean texts show a remarkable interest in the Levites. It seems that the status of the Levite tribe was somehow at a stake and needed to be promoted in the Hellenistic era. The texts that were composed in the Egyptian context during the Hellenistic era share some interesting parallels with the Judean texts. Most notably, similar to the Judean texts, they demonstrate a general dependency on the Pentateuchal

288

Conclusions

traditions. Furthermore, the tradition that makes Miriam the unnamed sister of Moses of Exod 2:4 is repeated in both Judean and Egyptian corpora. Yet the Egyptian texts also differ strikingly from the Judean texts. Most notably, they display a dependency on a text form, or better Vorlage, which is now preserved in the LXX. Moreover, whereas families are also of interest in Egyptian texts (3.2.2), a noticeable emphasis on the Levites is absent from them (3.2.4). These similarities and differences suggest that, while the family connections were of interest for the Egyptian community (cf. 3.2.2; 3.2.3), the position and status of the Levites as a tribe was not as burning an issue in the diaspora as it was in Judea. The interpretation of Miriam changes drastically in the texts of the Roman era (ch. 4). Most notably, Philo and Josephus interpret women in the light of Hellenistic ideals (4.1; 4.3). They have great difficulties in dealing with the passages of the Pentateuch that assign Miriam a rather independent role. Consequently, they limit their treatment of those passages and focus rather on highlighting Miriam as  a supporter of Moses. Josephus furthermore creates for Miriam her own family, thus excluding the possibility of her remaining an independent figure. It is of interest that the third text that derives from the first century C.E., L.A.B., takes the opposite direction in its interpretation of Miriam (4.2). This text presents Miriam as a member of the family to whom Moses’s significance is revealed and as a co-leader next to Moses and Aaron. Importantly, L.A.B. demonstrates that different interpretative models coexisted in the first century C.E. The chronological analysis applied throughout the text analysis enables me to draw some conclusions regarding the interpretation of Miriam in the Jewish Scriptures (the MT) vis-à-vis the other text forms and ancient Jewish texts. The most concrete outcome is that when the MT is compared with the other text forms and especially with the LXX, some variations occur. Most notably it appears that the name of Miriam was omitted from the list of Exod 6:20 of the MT, whereas the LXX Vorlage preserves the name. This observation suggests that the editorial process behind the MT, or at least behind Exod 6, preferred a text type that omits Miriam (3.2.1). This perspective obtains in the Song of Miriam as well. In ch. 2, I pointed out that the song attributed to Miriam provides an earlier witness for the Exodus events than the Song of the Sea of Exod 15:1–19. Yet it is peculiar that in the preserved version, the song appears to be more like  a repetition of the chorus line of the Song of the Sea. The Reworked Pentateuchc, which preserves a more extended version of the song, sheds more light on this question. It indicates that different versions of the song were known in the Second Temple era. They may have circulated side by side. As many scholars are now willing to identify the text of RPc as another copy of the Pentateuch, it may be that this extended version of the song was known as an “authoritative” song. A similar situation also applies to Jub. It is generally established that this text had an authoritative status in antiquity. At least for some circles of Jews it was

Role of Women in Ancient Judaism 

289

an important text (3.1.4.1). As this text places Miriam in the rewritten context of Exod 2:4, one can assume that this tradition had become rather fixed by the second century B.C.E. All in all, the analysis of the various texts that refer to Miriam sheds new light on our knowledge of this figure. Together the passages demonstrate that the literary traditions about Miriam were not limited to those that are preserved in the Hebrew Bible; on the contrary, much of the early portrayal of Miriam has been lost in extensive editorial processes of the Hebrew Bible. Taking into consideration all text material that refers to the figure helps to recuperate some parts of the early interpretation of Miriam.

5.2 Role of Women in Ancient Judaism Let me now turn to consider the historical realities reflected in the texts. The text analysis reveals that from the late Persian period onward the interpretation of Miriam becomes narrower. On the whole, she is no longer viewed as an independent figure, but her most important role is that of the sister. Such an interpretation is reflected in particular in the P-source and in the texts of the later eras. From the Hellenistic era forward, Levitical politics and Hellenistic ideas concerning women contributed to this view (3.3). Generally speaking, these broad observations reinforce the earlier studies that suggest that women enjoyed more freedom in non-structured contexts (1.2.2) than in contexts where hierarchies were put in place. Texts that do not reflect institutionalized power structures did not restrict the roles of the women to those of mother or caretaker but allowed women to perform in multiple roles. They enabled women to function with more freedom, to take over public tasks, and even participate in leadership. In addition to contexts that do not emphasize political hierarchies, it should also be mentioned that for instance times of crisis could challenge the typical power structures. In atypical settings, women, who were usually forced to remain in their own sphere, could find their way into other fields and take over tasks that were typically reserved for men. The portrayal of Miriam preserved in some texts echoes this description. It has been pointed out in previous studies that the Exodus and the wilderness era marked times of transition in the history of the Israelites (1.2.2). Moses held a leadership position within the community, but his leadership was not an institutional one. This unusual setting, more charismatic individual leadership and a period of transition, may have contributed to the image of Miriam in those texts that grant her unusual freedom. This image is reflected in the earliest references to Miriam (see 2.1; 2.4). Miriam is the subject of constant interpretive shifting and diversity. Already some of the Pentaeuchal passages attempt to demonstrate that while Miriam had

290

Conclusions

some position in the early history of the Israelites, she was subordinate to Moses in her prophetic function (2.3) but also as his kinswoman. Miriam’s marginalization is particularly visible in P, where Miriam becomes a character that appears only in the lists. Despite this general tendency to constrict Miriam, it should be pointed out that throughout the Second Temple era there were also texts that provided women more space, e.g., the Levitical texts or L.A.B. In those texts the status of women was not fixed but they culd appear in various roles. Seemingly, in the Second Temple era the early traditions did not have one singular interpretation. Rather they were subject to different ways of interpretation and renarration.

5.2.1 Marriage Practices Let me now return once more to the idea of texts as reflections of society in general and as reflections of women’s reality in particular. In what follows I will elaborate this notion further from the two perspectives that are emphasized in various ­Miriam traditions and that carry implications for the situation of women: the status of married women vs. unmarried women, and female prophecy in ancient Judaism. The idea that women hold more freedom in texts that reflect various egalitarian contexts is pertinent to the marriage practices of ancient Judaism. This is reflected in the texts concerning Miriam in two different ways. On the one hand, the texts discuss marriage practices in general; on the other hand Miriam’s own family life is also of concern in some texts. The earliest Miriam passages that refer to marriages do not demonstrate a particular anxiety over them. Marriages are not controlled, and foreign spouses are accepted (2.3.3). This situation changes drastically in the post-exilic literature (3.1.2.3; 3.1.4.2). The first regulations concerning “legitimate” marriages apply to the priests. Later in the Hellenistic era, the regulations are extended and concern not only the priests but all the Jews, men and women. Some of the texts referring to Miriam display  a concern that an unmarried woman could cause danger for the community. Texts that refer to Miriam’s own marriage, such as the VA and A.J., seemingly aim at demonstrating that Miriam, elsewhere known as an unmarried woman, was in fact married. The worry these texts reflect is obvious. Miriam was a member of a prominent family, and through marriage she could bring new people into the family.1 Moreover, her union with a wrong person could jeopardize the reputation of the entire family. Hence, it is important to know that Miriam married in the first place; second, it is vital to know whom she married. Miriam’s marriage narratives explain that she 1 Seth Daniel Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology (JSOTSup 185; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 264–265. For the marriage of Levite women, see Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176.

Role of Women in Ancient Judaism 

291

did not bring outsiders into the family circle, but that she married according to regulations. The description of Miriam in the later texts in contrast to the earlier ones demonstrates how the strict marriage laws could have had an impact on the status of women in ancient Jewish societies. Apart from marriage practices and anxiety around the right match, the texts that deal with Miriam’s marriage also reveal some of the socio-political realities of their authors. First of all, the question concerning the right match betrays the class-consciousness behind the text. The question of the right spouse may not have been as crucial for poor people as it was for the rich. The right marriages were  a major concern primarily for rich people or people who had power to negotiate them and to enter into profitable contracts. For them the right marriage was an instrument to establish their power more firmly and, in some cases, to claim more power (cf. studies of the genealogies in 2.5 and 3.1.1). Meanwhile, the less wealthy people would have had much less power to negotiate their marriages. They simply wanted to marry well.2 Against this background it is of interest that the right marriages become particularly significant in the texts that deal with the Levites. These texts bring more women into their narratives by naming them. Furthermore, women are many times described as the ideal companions for their spouses. Despite these features, which may appear at first to promote female figures, the political interest (3.1.6) behind these texts reveals their selective dealing with women. The Levite texts display an interest in women especially when the discussion concerns right matches and marriages. Women are generally observed from the perspective of the right priestly pedigree. Significantly, the Levites appear to have been in favor of kinship marriages (3.1.2.3). Marriage with near kin was an effective strategy to maintain power in one tribe or clan. As I pointed out earlier (3.1.6), the Levite texts are strongly motivated by competition and pursuit of power. That appears to characterize the male protagonists of the texts, whereas women are only offered a marginal role in these texts. As women become mostly names that provide the right credentials for the future priests, it is  a sign that they were used to promote and achieve men’s political purposes. This point is highlighted by the depiction of Jochebed in Jub. (3.1.4). Whereas most of the Levitical texts mention her, Jub. remains silent about it, even though its author probably knows about the union. The reason for this silence may be the embarrassment that aunt-nephew marriage could create. Hence, women are brought into and taken out of the narratives for specific reasons. Women facilitate the struggle to increase the power of the Levites.3 2 Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 229–229. 3 I elaborate women’s role in much more detail in Tervanotko, “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees,” 155–176, where I consider more broadly what “ideal match” signifies in these texts.

292

Conclusions

5.2.2 Women’s Prophecy Ancient Judaism preserves  a rich prophetic literature. Despite this, it does not witness to many women in prophetic roles. The tendency to reserve this office mainly for men is distinguished in different eras. In the earlier texts (ch. 2) only four women (Miriam, Deborah, Huldah and Noadiah) are known as prophets. Furthermore, the study of the female prophets in the early texts has been flavored by the idea that the title “female prophet” is anachronistic (2.1.6). This use of the title suggests the women had even more marginal roles in the history of Judaism. Women’s positions as God’s spokespersons do not change in the Greco-Roman era. In this period, too, women’s prophecy seems to have been limited, and the period does not attest to any “new” prophetesses. Furthermore, only five women are described as having divine dreams.4 This scant evidence suggests that the phenomenon continued to be marginal in the Jewish texts. Despite the low number of references that link women with prophecy, the references to Miriam reveal that this figure was connected with  a prophetic role. I argue that an anachronistic use does not explain the title “prophetess” in Miriam’s case. Rather it indicates that from early on the figure was connected with prophetic acts. The most concrete example of her prophecy is Num 12 (2.3) where her role next to Moses is addressed. This passage witnesses God addressing Miriam and Aaron and assigning them roles that differ from that attributed to Moses. The passage suggests Miriam a role as a visionary. Importantly, Miriam’s visionary role is also attested in the later texts. The term raz that appears in the VA indicates that Miriam’s function as a divine communicator continued in the Hellenistic era. She is the only known female figure who accesses raz,  a category that is generally reserved for male figures exclusively. Furthermore, in the first-century L.A.B., Miriam is the member of Moses’s family who accesses divine information through  a dream. These multiple references demonstrate that literary traditions that witnessed to Miriam as a visionary were known during the Second Temple era. Putting these references in the perspective of women’s history, there is strong evidence that while it was mostly men who functioned as prophets, such roles were not odd for women either. Importantly, several studies demonstrate that the concept of prophecy as such shifts in the Greco-Roman era. This era does not witness new prophets — men or women — in the classical sense. Rather, traditionally it was held that prophecy and inspiration ended at Ezra. Meanwhile, prophecy as a phenomenon is viewed differently from the Persian era onward. One example of the shifting paradigm 4 See 4.2.3. For dreams and visions in the Greco-Roman Era, see Flannery-Dailey, ­Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras. She points out that these accounts do not render a favorable picture of the dreamers.

Implications of this Study 

293

is that prophecy is sometimes connected with the Scriptures and knowledge of divine mysteries.5 Furthermore, it is connected with the term raz (3.1.2.4), which implies communication with God.6 People who accessed raz were known to be in touch with God. The Levitical politics of the Hellenistic era may have put extra pressure on women in prophetic roles. The religious interest of the Levitical texts focuses on the priesthood. As the priestly office was not accessible to women, female religious professionals were pushed to the margins. Hence, recovering women’s prophecy is even more challenging in this period and is even more difficult than it is in the texts from the Persian era. This era does not witness to “new” female prophets. Nonetheless, even in the Greco-Roman period, special situations could allow women to break free from those categories to which they were typically relegated (5.1).

5.3 Implications of this Study This study reveals that a chronological reading that takes rewriting as an interpretative method into account can make a significant contribution to women’s history in ancient Judaism. The Pentateuchal Miriam traditions were rewritten several times over centuries. Analyzing the methods of rewriting helps to single out ideological characteristics prominent in different historical eras. The results provide  a contradictory image of Miriam. On the one hand she becomes a tool of Levitical politics, whereas on the other she continues enjoying a freer role that authors of texts such as the RPc and the L.A.B. grant her. These two main lines of interpretation are profoundly intertwined in the texts where the Miriam figure appears. The confusion becomes particularly clear when Miriam’s family relations are put under close examination. Whereas various traditions concerning Miriam’s own family were composed, most of the texts still continue to refer to her as “the sister.” The other roles could not overrule this title. I agree with the scholars who have argued that the interpretation of women in ancient Jewish texts is not singular but reflects different groups in antiquity.7 It is important to acknowledge that the marginalization of women does not happen in only one place or within one group of people. Levitical texts certainly narrow the function of some women, and Philo of Alexandria deals with women particularly 5 E.g., Martti Nissinen, “Transmitting Divine Mysteries: The Prophetic Role of Wisdom Teachers in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (ed. Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta; JSJSup 126; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 513–534, 532. 6 Ibid., 529–531. 7 E.g., Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, 228.

294

Conclusions

harshly. In light of these individual examples, it is clear that different historical circumstances provided different interpretative mechanisms, and that some of these mechanisms enabled marginal treatment of women. The treatment of Miriam in ancient Jewish literature reflects most  a reality in which women had little space as active agents. This tendency to restrict and marginalize women is visible in the treatment of married women in the texts. While unmarried women were seen as potential threats to the community, married women were not. Nonetheless, their interpretation is also problematic. Married women were often only interpreted from the perspective of procreation. The interpretation of Miriam in the Greco-Roman era shows that when the political goals in the texts are emphasized, the room for women gets narrower. Prominent women who had good family origins but not an evident male custodian may have enjoyed occasional freedom. Their prestigious origins gave them status before society. Nonetheless, such status did not go uncontested. As I have demonstrated in this study, many ancient Jewish writers preferred to transmit a literary tradition of Miriam as a sister, wife, or mother, rather than an independent female figure.

Bibliography 1. Bibles Brooke, Alan E., Norman McLean and Henry St John Thackerey. The Old Testament in Greek: The Latter Historical Books. 1 and 2 Chronicles. Vol. 2.3. Cambridge: University Press, 1932. Gall, August Freiherr von. Der hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. 5 vols. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1918. JPS Hebrew – English Tanakh: The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New JPS Translation. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999. Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version Containing the Old and New Testaments and the Deuterocanonical Books. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers in conjunction with Oxford University Press, 2005. Kittel, R. and K. Ellige. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesell­ schaft, 1997. Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. 4th ed. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1950. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Societatis Literarum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931-.

2. Editions and Reference Works Abegg Jr., Martin, Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English. New York: HarperCollins, 1999. Attridge, Harald W., Torleif Elgvin, Jósef Milik, Saul Olyan, John Strugnell, Emanuel Tov, James C. VanderKam and Sidnie White Crawford. Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. DJD 13. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Bernstein, Moshe, Monica Brady, James Charlesworth, Peter Flint, Haggai Misgav, Stephen Pfann, Eileen Schuller, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and James VanderKam in consultation with James VanderKam and Monica Brady. Qumran Cave 4. XXVIII: Miscellanea, Part 2. DJD 28. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. Beyer, Klaus. Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997–2004. Börner-Klein, Dagmar. ed., Der Midrasch Sifre zu Numeri, übersetzt und erklärt. Rabbinische Kommentare. Tannaitische Midraschim. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1997. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Josef Fabry. eds., The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 17 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmams, 1974-. Brown, F., S. Driver and C. Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1979. Charlersworth, James H. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

296

Bibliography

Collins John J. and Daniel C. Harlow. eds., The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Colson, F. H. and G. H. Whitaker. trans. and eds., Philo: Complete Works. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929–1953. Davies, W. D. and L. Finkelstein. The Cambridge History of Judaism. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984–2006. Douglas, J. D. and M. C. Tenney. New International Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1987. Durand, Jean-Marie. ed., Archives Épistolaires de Mari I/1. Archives royales de Mari transcrite et traduite 26/1. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations, 1988. Epstein, I. The Babylonian Talmud. 6 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1961. Fabry, Heinz-Josef and Ulrich Dahmen. eds., Theologisches Wärterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. Vol 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011. Feldman, Louis H. Judean Antiquities 1–4. Vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Edited by Steve Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Freedman, David Noel. ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. García Martínez, Florentino. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 1994. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–1998. García Martínez, Florentino, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar and Adam van der Woude. Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 11 (11Q2–18, 11Q20–30). DJD 23. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews: Bible Times and Characters from the Exodus to the Death of Moses. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909. Harrington, Daniel J. trans. and ed., The Hebrew Fragments of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum preserved in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel. Pseudepigrapha Series 3.  Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 3. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974. Hatch, E. and H. A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. 4 vols. Chico, Calif. Scholars Press, 1983–2003. Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Biblico, 1991. Kautzsch, E. ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1910. Klein, Michael. The Fragmentary Targums of the Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources. 2 vols. Analecta biblica 76. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Edited by Henry Stuart Jones. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Lisowsky, Gerhard. Konkordanz zum Hebräischen Altes Testament. Edited by Hans Peter Rüger. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie. A Greek – English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992 and 1996. Maher, Michael. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus Translated, with Introduction and Notes. Aramaic Bible 2. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1994. McAuliffe, Jane Dammen. ed., Encyclopedia of the Qur’an. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. McIvor, J. Stanley. The Targum of Chronicles: Translated, with Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. Aramaic Bible 19. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1994. McNamara, Martin and Robert Hayward. Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus. Translated with Apparatus, Introduction and Notes. Aramaic Bible 2. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1994.

Bibliography

297

Meyers, Carol L., Toni Craven and Ross S. Kraemer. eds., Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. Mras, Karl. ed., Eusebius Werke. Achter Band: Die Praeparatio Evangelica. Erster Teil Einleitung, die Bücher I bis X. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982. Muraoka, Takamitsu. A Greek – English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Neusner, Jacob. ed., The Tosefta. 6 vols. New York: Ktav, 1977–86. —. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1991. Parpola, Simo. Letters from Assyrian Scholars. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/1. Neu­ kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Parry, Donal W. and Emanuel Tov. eds., Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Perrot, Charles and Pierre-Maurice. In collaboration with Daniel J. Harrington. Les Antiquités Bibliques 1–2: Introduction Littéraire, Commentaire et Index. Sources Chrétiennes 229–230. Paris: Cerf, 1976. Puech, Émile. Textes hébreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579) Qumrân Grotte 4.XVIII. DJD 25. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. —. Qumrân Grotte 4.  XXII: Textes araméens, première partie: 4Q529–549. DJD 31.  Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson. Anti-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983. Schiffman, Lawrence H. and James C. VanderKam. eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Skolnik, Fred. ed., Encyclopedia Judaica. 2nd ed. 26 vols. New York: Macmillan, 2007. Snell, B., R. Kannicht and S. Radt. eds., Tragicorum graecorum fragmenta. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Stählin, Otto. ed., Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata 1–4. Die griechische christliche Schrift­ steller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte 52. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960. Tov, Emanuel. The Texts from the Judean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Series. DJD 39. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. —. ed., Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library CD-ROM. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Ulrich, Eugene and Frank Moore Cross. Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis-Numbers. DJD 12. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. VanderKam, James C. ed., The Book of Jubilees. A Critical Text. Corpus Scriptorim Christianorum Orientalium 510. Scriptores Aethiopici 87. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Vermes, Géza. An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls. 4th rev. ed. London: SCM Press, 1999. Young, Serenity. ed., Encyclopedia of Women and World Religion. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan Reference, 1999.

3. General Bibliography Ackerman, Susan. “Why Is Miriam Also among the Prophets? (And Is Zipporah among the Priests?).” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 47–80. Ackroyd, Peter R. The Chronicler in His Age. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Adlam, Carol. “Ethics of Difference: Bakhtin’s Early Writings and Feminist Theories.” Pages 152–159 in Face to Face: Bakhtin in Russia and the West. Edited by Carol Adlam et al. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Rev. and enl. ed. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

298

Bibliography

—. “Hannah’s Psalm: Text, Composition, and Redaction.” Pages 354–376 in Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2008. —. “Corruption or Correction? Textual Development in the MT of 1 Samuel 1.” Pages 1–17 in Florilegium Complutense: Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle. Edited by Andrés Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 157. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Albright, William F. From the Stone Age to Christianity. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1940. —. The Archeology of Palestine. 3rd ed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Pelican Book, 1960. —. “Jethro, Hobab and Reuel in Early Hebrew Tradition.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 1–11. —. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. London: Athlone Press, 1968. Alexander, Philip S. “Jewish Aramaic Translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.” Pages 243–249 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M. J. Mulder. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. —. “Retelling the Old Testament.” Pages 99–121 in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Allen, Graham. Intertextuality. New Critical Idiom. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2000. Amir, Yehoshua. Die hellenistische Gestalt des Judentums bei Philon von Alexandrien. Neu­ kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. Amir, Yehoshua and Maren Niehoff. “Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria).” Pages 63–64 in Vol 16 of Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed. 26 vols. Detroit: Macmillan, 2006–2007. Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman. Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 24E. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Angel, Joseph L. Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 86. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Archer, Leonie J. Her price is beyond Rubies: The Jewish Women in Graeco-Roman Palestine. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Artemov, Nikita. “Belief in Family Reunion in the Afterlife in the Ancient Near East and ­Mediterranean.” Pages 27–42 in La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien: réalités, symbolismes, et images. Proceedings of the 55th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Paris 6–9 July 2009. Edited by Lionel Marti. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993. Attridge, Harold W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. Missoula, Mon.: Scholars Press, 1976. Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1983. Baden, Joel S.  and Candida R. Moss. “The Origin and Interpretation of sāra’at in Leviticus 13–14.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011): 643–662. Baentsch, Bruno. Exodus – Leviticus: übersetzt und erklärt. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900. —. Numeri: übersetzt und erklärt. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1903.

Bibliography

299

Baer, Richard A. Jr. Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Bailey, James L. “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Matriarchs.” Pages 154–179 in Josephus, Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. Bakhtin, Mikhail. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Edited by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Translated by Vern McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999. —. Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics. Edited by Caryl Emerson. Translated by R. W. Rotsel. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1999. —. The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. University of Texas Press Slavic Studies 1. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. Bakhtin, Mikhail and Valentin Volosinov, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated by Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Studies in Language. New York: Seminar Press, 1973. Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan 323 BCE– 117 CE. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1996. Barthélemy, Dominique. “Notes en marge de publication récentes sur les manuscrits de la secte de Qumrân.” Revue biblique 59 (1952): 187–218. Batto, Bernard F. Studies on Woman at Mari. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Becker, Joachim. 1 Chronik. Neue Echter Bibel 18. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1986. Begg, Christopher T. “1994: A Significant Anniversary in the History of Deuteronomy Research.” Pages 1–12 in Studies in Deuteronomy. Edited by F. García Martínez, A. Hillhorst, J. T. A. G.M. van Ruiten and A. S. van der Woude. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 52. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Bellis, Alice Ogden. “Feminist Biblical Scholarship”. Pages 24–32 in Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and in the New Testament. Edited by Carol L. Meyers, Toni Craven and Ross S. Kraemer. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. Ben-Dov, Jonathan. “Writing as Oracle and as Law.” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 223–239. Ben Zvi, Ehud. Micah. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 21B. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. Bernstein, Moshe J. “Women and Children in the Legal and Liturgical Texts from Qumran.” Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 191–211. —. “Rewritten Bible: A Generic Category Which has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005): 169–196. Berthelot, Katell. “Early Jewish Literature Written in Greek.” Pages 181–199 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2010. Bertholet, Alfred. Deuteronomium. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1899. Bickerman, E. J. “The Jewish Historian Demetrius.” Pages 72–84 in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 12.3. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Billings, Thomas H. The Platonism of Philo Judaeus. Ancient Philosophy Editions, Commen­ taries, Critical Works 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1919. Bird, Phyllis A. “Images of Women in the Old Testament.” Pages 68–85 in Religion and Sexism: Images of Women in the Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by Rosemary Radford Ruether. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974. —. “The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus.” Pages 397–419 in Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by P. D. Hanson, P. D. Miller and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

300

Bibliography

—. Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. —. “The End of the Male Cult Prostitute: A Literary-Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew Qades-Qedesim.” Pages 37–80 in Congress Volume Cambridge 1995. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 66. Leiden, Brill, 1997. Birnbaum, Ellen. The Place of Judaism in Philo’s Thought: Israel, Jews and Proselytes. Brown Judaic Studies 290. Studia Philonica Monographs 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. —. “Philo’s Relevance for the Study of Jews and Judaism in Antiquity.” Pages 200–225 in Reading Philo: A Handbook on Philo to Alexandria. Edited by Torrey Seland. Grand Rapids, Mich. and Cambridge: Eedmans, 2014. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus.” Journal of Jewish Studies 25 (1975): 239–262. —. Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995 —. Judaism: The First Phase. The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Blum, Erhard. Die Komposition der Väterheschichte Pentateuch. Wissenschaftliche ­Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984. —. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Boccacini, Gabriele. Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. —. “Enochians, Urban Essenes, Qumranites: Three Social Groups, One Intellectual Movement.” Pages 301–327 in Early Enoch Literature. Edited by John J. Collins and Gabriele Boccaccini. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 121. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Bohmbach, Karla G. “Names and Naming in the Biblical World.” Pages 33–40 in Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women of the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books and the New Testament. Edited by Carol L. Meyers, Toni Craven and Ross S. Kraemer. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. Boling, Robert G. Judges: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Anchor Bible 6. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1975. Borowski, Oded. Daily Life in Biblical Times. Society of Biblical Literature Archeology and Biblical Studies 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2003. Bowen, Nancy R. “The Daughters of Your People: Female Prophets in Ezekiel 13:17–23.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 417–33. Bowley, James E. “Moses in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Living in the Shadow of God’s Anointed.” Pages 159–181 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2005. Brandist, Craig. The Bakhtin Circle: Philosophy, Culture and Politics. Sterling, Va.: Pluto Press, 2002. Bray, Jason S. Sacred Dan: Religious Tradition and Cultic Practice in Judges 17–18. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 449. London and New York: T & T Clark, 2006. Braulik, Georg. Deuteronomium II: 16:18–34:12. Neue Echter Bibel 28.  Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992. Braun, Martin. Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. Frankfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike 6. Frankfurt: Klosterman, 1934. Braun, Roddy L. 1 Chronicles. Word Biblical Commentary 14. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1986.

Bibliography

301

Bréhier, Émile. Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie. Paris: Picard, 1925. Brenner, Athalya. The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in Biblical Narrative. The Biblical Seminar 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. —. ed. Feminist Companion to the Bible. 19 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, now Continuum, 1993—2003. —. “Are We Amused? Small and Big Differences in Josephus Re-Presentations of Biblical Female Figures in the Jewish Antiquities 1–8.” Pages 90–106 in Are We Amused? Humour about Women in the Biblical Worlds. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 383. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Brenner, Martin L. The Song of the Sea Ex 15:1–21. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 195. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991. Brooke, George J. “Power to the Powerless — a Long-Lost Song of Miriam.” Biblical Archeology Review 20 (1994): 62–65. —. “Rewritten Bible.” Pages 771–781 in Vol 2 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. —. “4Q158: Reworked Pentateucha or Reworked Pentateuch A?” Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (2001): 219–241. —. “The Rewritten Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible.” Pages 31–40 in The Bible as a Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Discoveries. Edited by E. D. Herbert and E. Tov. The Scriptorium Center for Christian Antiquities. London: The British Library, 2002. —. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Brooten, Bernadette. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue. Brown Judaic Studies 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982. —. “Early Christian Women and Their Cultural Context: Issues of Method in Historical Reconstruction.” Pages 65–91 in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications 10.  Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Brown, Cheryl A. No Longer Be Silent: First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women. Studies in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities and Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities. Gender and the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992. Budd, Philip J. Numbers. Word Biblical Commentaries 5. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1984. Buis, Pierre. “Qadesh, un lieu maudit?” Vetus Testamentum 24 (1974): 268–285. Burns, Rita J. Has the Lord Indeed Spoken only through Moses? A Study of the Biblical Portrait of Miriam. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 84. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Calabi, Francesca. Filone di Alessandria. Roma: Carocci, 2013. Camp, Claudia V. Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. —. “The Problem with Sisters: Anthropological Perspectives on Priestly Kinship Ideology in Numbers.” Pages 121–129 in Embroidered Garments: Priests and Gender in Biblical Israel. Edited by Deborah W. Rooke. Hebrew Bible Monographs 25. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009. Caqout, André. “Cantique de la mer et miracle de la mer.” Pages 67–85 in La protohistoire d’Israël: De l’exode à la monarchie. Edited by E.-M. Laperrousaz. Paris: Cerf, 1990. Carmichael, Calum M. The Laws of Deuteronomy. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1974. Carr, David M. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996. —. Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Castelli, Elizabeth. “Virginity and Its Meaning for Women’s Sexuality in Early Christianity.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 2 (1986): 61–88.

302

Bibliography

—. “I Will Make Mary Male: Pieties of the Body and Gender: Transformation of Christian Women in Late Antiquity.” Pages 29–39 in Body Guards: The Cultural politics of Gender Ambiguity. Edited by Julia Epstein and Kristina Straub. New York: Routledge, 1991. Charles, R. H.  The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Bible of Jubilees. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895. —. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902. Childs, Brevard S. “A Tradition-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition.” Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970): 406–418. —. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976. Claassens, Juliana M. “Biblical Theology as Dialogue: Continuing the Conversation of Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Theology.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): 127–144. Clark, Katerina and Michael Holquist. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984. Clarke, E. G. The Wisdom of Solomon. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Clements, R. E. Deuteronomy. New Interpreter’s Bible 2. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1998. Clifford, Richard J. “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971): 221–227. Coats, George W. Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness. Traditions of the Old Testament. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1968. —. “The Song of the Sea.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 1–17. —. “The Wilderness Itinerary.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972): 135–52. Cohn, Leopold. “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria.” Jewish Quarterly Review [Original Series] 10 (1898): 277–332. Cohen, Shaye J. D. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as  a Historian. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8. Leiden: Brill, 1979. —. “From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage.” Hebrew Annual Review 7 (1983): 23–39. —. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 2nd ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Introduction.” Pages 1–10 in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications 10. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Collins, John. J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. With an Essay “The Influence of Daniel on New Testament” by Adela Yarbro Collins. Hermeneia: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. —. “Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 104–162 in Families in Ancient Israel. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins and Carol Meyers. The Family, Religion, and Culture Series. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1997. —. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. —. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. —. “Reinventing Exodus: Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt.” Pages 52–62 in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Edited by Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow and Rodney A. Werline. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000. Conway, Colleen M. “Philo of Alexandria and Divine Relativity.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 34 (2003): 471–491. Cooper, Alan. “The ‘Euphemism’ in Numbers 12:12: A Study in the History of Interpretation.” Journal of Jewish Studies 32 (1981): 53–64.

Bibliography

303

Cooper, Alan M. and Bernard R. Goldstein. “At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical Narrative.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 201–215. Crawford, Sidnie White. “Three Fragments from Qumran Cave 4 and their Relationship to the Temple Scroll?” Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 259–273. —. “Miriam.” Pages 566–567 in Vol 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. —. “Not According to Rule: Women, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran.” Pages 127–150 in Emanuel: Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffman and Weston W. Fields, with the assistance of E. Ben-David. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 94. Leiden: Brill, 2003. —. “Mothers, Sisters, and Elders: Titles for Women in Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian Communities.” Pages 177–191 in The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity. Papers from an International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001. Edited by James R. Davila. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 46. Leiden: Brill, 2003. —. “Traditions about Miriam in the Qumran Scrolls.” Studies in Jewish Civilization 14 (2003): 33–44. —. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Crawford, Sidnie White and Christopher A. Hoffman. “A Note on 4Q365, Frg 23 and Nehemiah 10:33–36.” Revue de Qumrân 23 (2009): 429–30. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. —. “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 4–18. —. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Cross, Frank Moore and David Noel Freedman. “The Song of Miriam.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955): 237–250. Crüsemann, Frank. Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel. Wissenschafliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 32. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. Cryer, Frederick H. Divination in Israel and its Ancient Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 142. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Dahmen, Ulrich. Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien. Bonner biblische Beiträge 110. Bodenheim: Philo, 1996. Davenport, Gene L. The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees. Studia post-biblica 20. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Davies, Jon. Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. Religion in the First Christian Centuries. London: Routledge, 1999. Delcor, Mathias. “Jewish Greek Literature of the Greek Period.” Pages 385–408 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 3: The Early Roman Period. Edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Denis, Albert-Marie. Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca. Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. —. Introduction aux pseudépigraphes grecs d’Ancien testament. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 1. Leiden: Brill, 1970. DesCamps, Mary Therese “Why Are These Women Here? An Examination of the sociologivcal Setting of Pseudo-Philo through Comparative Reading.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepi­grapha 16 (1997): 53–80.

304

Bibliography

—. Metaphor and Ideology: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and Literary Methods through  a Cognitive Lens. Biblical Interpretation Series 97. Leiden: Brill, 2007. De Troyer, Kristin. “Septuagint and Gender Studies: The Very Beginning of  a Promising Liason.” Pages 326–434 in A Feminist Comparion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Strategies. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Diaz-Diocaretz, Myriam. “Bakhtin, Discourse, and Feminist Ethics.” Critical Studies 1 (1989): 121–139. Dijk-Hemmes, Fokkelien van. “Some Recent Views on the Presentation of the Song of Miriam.” Pages 200–206 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 6 [Second Series]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Dillman, August. Liber Jubilaeorum Aethiopice, ad duorum librorum manuscriptorum. Kiel and London: Van Maack, Williams & Norgate, 1859. —. Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1886. Dimant, Devorah. “The Qumran Manuscripts: Contents and Significance.” Pages 23–58 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. —. “The Composite Character of the Qumran Sectarian Literature as an Indication of its Date and Provenance.” Revue de Qumrân 22 (2006): 615–630. —. “The Qumran Aramaic Texts and the Qumran Community.” Pages 197–205 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and Eibert J. Tigchelaar. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. —. “The Vocabulary of the Qumran Sectarian Texts.” Pages 347–395 in Qumran und die Archäologie: Texte und Kontexte. Edited by Jörg Frey, Carsten Claußen and Nadine Kessler. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zu Neuen Testament 278. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Dirksen, Peter B. 1 Chronicles. Translated by Anthony P. Runia. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peteers, 2005. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. “Rethinking Historical Criticism.” Biblical Interpretation 7 (1999): 235–271. Dorival, Gilles. “Moïse est-il fruit d’un inceste?” Pages 97–208 in Interpreting Translation: Studies in the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 192. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005. Dozeman, Thomas B. Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2009. Dozeman, Thomas, Konrad Schmid and Baruch J. Schwartz. eds., The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Draisma, Spike, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel. Kampen: Kok, 1989. Drawnel, Henryk. An Aramaic Wisdom Text from Qumran: A New Interpretation of the Levi Document. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 86. Leiden: Brill, 2004. —. “Priestly Education in the Aramaic Levi Document (Visions of Levi) and Aramaic Astronomical Book (4Q208–211).” Revue de Qumrân 22 (2005–2006): 547–574. —. “The Literary Form and Didactic Content of the Admonitions (Testament) of Qahat.” Pages 55–74 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumrâniens en hommage à Émile Puech.

Bibliography

305

Edited by Florentino García Martínez, Annette Steudel and Eibert Tigchelaar. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006. —. “The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram and its Literary Characteristics.” Revue de Qumrân 96 (2010): 517–554. —. The Literary Characteristics of the Visions of Levi (so-called Aramaic Levi Document).” Journal of Ancient Judaism 1 (2010): 303–319. Duke, Robert R. The Social Location of the Visions of Amram: 4Q543–547. Studies in Biblical Literature 135. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Dupont-Sommer, André. “Le problème des influences étrangères sur la secte juive de ­Qoumrân.” Revue d’histoire et philosophie religieuses 35 (1955): 75–94. Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary 3. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987. Edelman, Diana. “Huldah the Prophet – of Yahweh or Asherah?” Pages 231–250 in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings. Edited by Athalya Brenner. A Feminist Companion to the Bible [First Series]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. “Mirjam, Debora und Judit −− eine Prophetinnentradition?” Pages 95–122 in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittman-Richert. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2008. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel; Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sach­ liches. Zweiter Band: Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1968. Ehrlich, Ernst Ludwig. Der Traum im Altem Testament. Beihäfte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1953. Ellenbogen, Maximilian. Foreign Words in the Old Testament: Their Origin and Etymology. London: Luzac & Company, 1962. Elm, Susanna. ‘Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford Classical Monographs. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Endres, John C. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Mono­graph Series 18.  Washington, D. C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa as a Philosopher’s Dream.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 30 (1999): 40–64. Erbele-Küster, Dorothea. Körper und Geschlecht: Studien zur Anthropologie von Leviticus 12 und 15. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 121. Neu­kir­ chen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008. Eshel, Esther. “4QDeutn — A Text That Has Undergone Harmonistic Editing.” Hebrew Union College Annual 63 (1992): 117–54. Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn. “Out from the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Postexilic Era.” Pages 252–271 in Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Feminist Companion to the Bible [First Series]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Repr. from Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 54 (1992): 25–43. Eskenazi, Tamara C. and Eleanore P. Judd. “Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10.” Pages 266–285 in Second Temple Studies. Vol 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. 2 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Ewald, Heinrich. Die Propheten des Alten Bundes. 2d ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1868. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “The ThWQ—Perspectives of the First International Symposium of the Advisory Board 2008.” Revue de Qumrân 93 (2009): 165–172. Falk, Daniel K. “Moses, Texts of.” Pages 577–581 in Vol 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H.  Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

306

Bibliography

—. The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Library of Second Temple Studies 63. London: T&T Clark, 2007. —. “Moses.” Pages 967–970 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2010. Feldman, Ariel. “The Sinai Revelation according to 4Q377 (Apocryphal Pentateuch B).” Dead Sea Discoveries 18 (2011): 155–172. Feldman, Louis H. “Prolegomenon.” Reissue to The Biblical Antiquities of Philo by M. R. James. New York: Ktav, 1971. —. “Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities.” Pages 59–80 in Josephus, the Bible and History. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. —. Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998. —. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 58. Leiden: Brill, 1998. —. Remember Amalek: Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the Bible According to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hebrew Union College, 2004. —. “The Levites in Josephus.” Henoch 28 (2006): 91–102. Finkelstein, Louis. “The Date of the Book of Jubilees.” Harvard Theological Review 36 (1943): 1–38. Fischer, Irmtraud. “The Authority of Miriam: A Feminist Rereading of Numbers 12 Prompted by Jewish Interpretation.” Pages 159–173 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus-Deuteronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. A Feminist Companion to the Bible [Second Series]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Translation of eadem, “Die Autorität Mirjams. Eine feministische Relektüre von Num 12 – angeregt durch das jüdische Lehrhaus.” Pages 23–38 in Anspruch und Widerspruch. FS Evi Krobath. Edited by M. Halmer et al. Klagenfurt: Mohorjeva Hermagoras, 2000. —. Gotteskünderinnen: Zu einer geschlechterfairen Deutung des Phänomens der Prophetie und der Prophetinnen in der Hebräischen Bibel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002. Fisk, Bruce Norman. Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Flannery-Dailey, Frances. Dreamers, Scribes, and Priests: Jewish Dreams in the Hellenistic and Roman Eras. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 90. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Fleming, Daniel E. “Prophets and Temple Personnel in the Mari archives.” Pages 44–64 in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 408. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Flesher, Paul V. M. “Exploring the Sources of the Synoptic Targums to the Pentateuch.” Pages 101–134 in Targum Studies: Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums. Edited by Paul V. M. Flesher. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Flesher, Paul V. M. and Bruce Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2011. Fornaro, P. La voce fuori scena. Saggio sull’Exagoge di Ezechiele con testo greco, note e traduzione. Torino: G. Giappichelli, 1982. Fox, M. V. Qohelet and his Contradictions. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 71. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Freedman, David Noel. “The Aaronic Benediction (Num 6:24–26).” Pages 35–47 in No Famine in the Land: Studies in honor of J. L. McKenzie. Edited by John W. Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod. Missoula, Mon.: Scholars Press, 1975. Freedman, D. N. and W. E. Willoughby. “‫ענן‬.” Pages 270–275 in Vol 6 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970–.

Bibliography

307

Freudenthal, Jacob. Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste jüdischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke. Hellenistische Studien 1–2. Breslau: Druck von Grass, Barth und Comp., 1874–75. Frey, Jörg. “Different Patters of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran library: Reflections on Their Background and History.” Pages 275–335 in Legal Texts and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995. Edited by Moshe Bernstein, Florentino García Martínez and John Kampen. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 23. Leiden: Brill, 1997. —. “On the Origins of the Genre of the Literary Testament: Farewell Discourses in the Qumran Library and their Relevance for the History of the Genre.” Pages 345–369 in Aramaica Qumranica: The Aix-en-Provence Colloquium on the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Daniel Stökl-Ben Ezra and Katell Berthelot. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 94. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Fritsch, Charles T. The Anti-Anthropomorphisms of the Greek Pentateuch. Princeton Oriental Texts 10. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943. Fuchs, Esther. Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 310. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Fuhs, Hans Ferdinand. “Qades  – Materialien zu den Wüstentraditionen Israels.” Biblische Notizen 9 (1979): 54–70. Fulton, Deirdre N. “Genealogies.” Page 662 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. Gafney, Wilda C. Daughters of Miriam: Women Prophets in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. García Bachmann, Mercedes. “Miriam, Primordial Political Figure in the Exodus.” Pages 329–374 in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament  – Torah. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer, Mercedes Navarro Puerto and Andrea Taschl-Erber. The Bible and Women: An Encyclopedia of Exegesis and Cultural History 1.1. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Translation of eadem, “Mirjam als politische Führungsfigur beim Exodus.” Pages 305–346 in Hebräische Bibel/Altes Testament  – Tora. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer, Mercedes Navarro Puerto and Andrea Taschl-Erber. Die Bibel une die Frauen 1.1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010. García Martínez, Florentino. “The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 333–349 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey and Armin Lange. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentums 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Geljon, Albert C. and David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On Cultivation. Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 4. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Genette, Gérard. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Translated by Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky. Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Geoghegan, Jeffrey C. The Time, Place and Purpose of the Deuteronomistic History: The Evidence of “Until This Day.” Brown Judaic Studies 347. Providence, R. I.: Brown University, 2006. Gerstenberger, Erhard S.  Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B. C. E. Translated by Siegfried S.  Schatzmann. Society of Biblical Literature Encyclopedia Series 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Gese, Hartmut. Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie. Beiträge zu evangelischen Theologie 64. München: Kaiser, 1974. Ginsberg, Harold L. “Review of J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1: A Commentary.” Texts and Studies 28 (1967): 574–77. Gnuse, Robert Karl. Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 36. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Goldman, Liora. “Dualism in the Visions of Amram.” Revue de Qumrân 95 (2010): 421–432. —. “The Burial of the Fathers in the Visions of Amram of Qumran.” Pages 231–250 in

308

Bibliography

Rewriting and Interpreting the Hebrew Bible: The Biblical Patriarchs in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Reinhard G. Kratz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 439. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013. Goldstein, Bernard R. “At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical Narrative.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 201–215. Goldstein, Elizabeth W. “Genealogy, Gynaecology and Gender: The Priestly Writer’s Portrait of a Woman.” Pages 74–88 in Embroidered Garments: Priests and Gender in Biblical Israel. Edited by Deborah Rooke. Hebrew Bible Monographs 25. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009. Goodenough, Erwin R. An Introduction to Philo Judeaeus. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell, 1962. Goulder, M. D. The Psalms of the Sons of Korah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Suplement Series 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1982. Graetz, Naomi. “Miriam: Guilty Or Not Guilty.” Judaism 40 (1991): 184–192 —. “Did Miriam Talk Too Much?” Pages 231–242 in A Feminist Companion from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. A Feminist Companion to the Bible [Second Series]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Gray, George Buchanan. Numbers: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965. Green, Barbara. Mikhail Bakhtin and Biblical Scholarship. Semeia Studies 38. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Greenfield, Jonas C., Michael E. Stone and Esther Eshel. The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 19. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Groß, Walter. Richter. Herder theologischer Kommentar zum Altes Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2009. Grossman, Maxine. “Reading for Gender in the Damascus Document.” Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 212–239. Gruber, Mayer, I. “Women’s Voices in the Book of Micah.” lectio difficilior 1 (2007). Gruen, Erich S. “Judaism in Diaspora.” Pages 77–96 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Gunneweg, Antonius H. J. Leviten und Priester: Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte des israelitisch-jüdischen Kultpersonals. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 89. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Hachlili, Rachel. Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 94. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Halpern-Amaru, Betsy. “Portraits of Biblical Women in Josephus’ Antiquities.” Journal of Jewish Studies 39 (1988): 143–170. —. “Portraits of Women in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities.” Pages 83–106 in ‘Women Like This’: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. —. The Empowerment of Women in the Book of Jubilees. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 60. Leiden: Brill, 1999. —. “Bilhah and Naphtali in Jubilees.” Dead Sea Discoveries 6 (1999): 1–10. —. “Burying the Fathers: Exegetical Strategies and Source Traditions in Jubilees 46.” Pages 135–152 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant and Ruth A. Clements. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005. —. “Protection from Birds in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 59–68 in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2) Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. Edited by Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Journal for the Study

Bibliography

309

of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 148. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Handy, Lowell K. “The Role of Huldah in Josiah’s Cult Reform.” Zeitschrift für die alttestament­ liche Wissenschaft 106 (1994): 40–53. Hanson, John. “Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity.” ANRW II. 23.2. (1987): 1395–1427. —. “Demetrius the Chronographer.” Pages 843–854 in Vol 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Haran, Menahem. Temple and Temple Service in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Harris, Jay. “Midrash Halakhah.” Pages 336–368 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period. Edited by Steven Kaatz. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Harkless, Necia Desiree. Nubian Pharaohs and Meroitic Kings: The Kingdom of Kush. Bloomington, Ind.: Author House, 2006. Harrington, Daniel J. “The Raz Nihyeh in a Qumran Wisdom Text (1Q26, 4Q415–518, 423).” Revue de Qumrân 17 (1996): 549–553. —. “Pseudo-Philo.” Pages 297–303 in Vol 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Hay, David M. “Things Philo Said and Did not Say About the Therapeutae.” Pages 673–683 in SBL Seminar Papers 1992. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Hayes, Christine E. “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources.” Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999): 3–36. —. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Heinemann, Isaak. Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung. Breslau: Marcus, 1932. Repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1962. Heinisch, Paul. Das Buch Exodus: übersetzt und erklärt. Die Heilige Scrift des Alten Testaments. Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934. —. Das Buch Numeri: übersetzt und erklärt. Die Heilige Scrift des Alten Testaments. Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936. Martin Hengel, “The Interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in the pre-Maccabean period.” Pages 167–228 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 3: The Early Roman Period. Edited by William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Hezser, Catherine. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Hieke, Thomas. “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis and Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 103–120 in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology. Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May, 2004. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and Józef Zsengellér. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 98. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hillers, Delbert R. Micah. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Himmelfarb, Martha. A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Holladay, Carl R. Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors: Historians. Pseudepigrapha Series 10.  Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 20.  4 vols. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. —. “Demetrius the Chronographer.” Pages 137–138 in Vol 2 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992.

310

Bibliography

Holzinger, Heinrich. Exodus erklärt. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 2. Tübingen: Mohr, 1900. —. Numeri. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 4. Tübingen: Mohr, 1903. Horst, Pieter W. van der. “Moses’ Throne Visions in Ezekiel the Dramatist.” Journal of Jewish Studies 34 (1983): 21–29. —. “The Interpretation of the Bible by the Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors.” Pages 519–546 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M. J. Mulder. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988. —. “Portraits of Biblical Women in Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 5 (1989): 29–46. —. “Tamar in Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical History.” Pages 300–305 in Feminist Companion to Genesis. Edited by Athalya Brenner. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 5 [First Series]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. —. “Moses’ Father Speaks Out.” Pages 491–498 in Flores Florentino Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and Eibert Tigchelaar. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Houtman, Alberdina and Harry Sysling. Alternative Targum Traditions: The Use of Variant Readings for the Study in Origin and History of Targum Jonathan. Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of the Scripture 9. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. Translated by Sierd Woudstra. 3 vols. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Kampen: Kok, 1996. Huffmon, Herbert B. “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets.” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 285–295. Hunt, Alice. Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Ilan, Tal. Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 44. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. —. Integrating Women into the Second Temple History. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001. —. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I Palestine 330 BCE – 200 CE. Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. —. “The Torah of the Jews of Ancient Rome.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 16 (2009): 363–395. —. “Women in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 123–146 in Oxford Handbook to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. —. “Huldah, the Deuteronomic Prophetess in the Books of Kings.” lectio difficilior 1 (2010). Illman, Karl-Johan. Old Testament Formulas About Death. Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation 48. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1979. Jacobson, Howard. The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. —. A Commentary of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation. 2 vols. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 31. Leiden: Brill, 1996. —. “4Q368 fg. 3.” Revue de Qumrân 21 (2003): 117–118. James, M. R. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo with Prologomenon by Louis H. Feldman. Library of Biblical Studies. New York: Ktav, 1971. Janzen, J. Gerald. “Song of Moses, Song of Miriam: Who Is Seconding Whom?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 211–220. Japhet, Sara. “The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.” Pages 298–314 in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991.

Bibliography

311

—. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993. Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Jenson, Philip Peter. Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 496. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Jeremias, Jörg. Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 24.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Jobes, Karen H. and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000. Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Johnstone, William. “Pillar of Cloud and Fire.” Page 530 in Vol 4 of New International Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by J. D. Douglas and M. C. Tenney. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1987. Jonge, Marius de. “The Testament of Levi and ‘Aramaic Levi.’” Revue de Qumrân 13 (1988): 367–385. Kalimi, Isaac. “Die Abfassungszeit der Chronik – Forschungsstand und Perspektiven.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105 (1993): 223–233. Kamesar, Adam. “Philo, Grammatike and the Narrative Aggada.” Pages 216–242 in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by John C. Reeves and John Kampen. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 184. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. —. “Biblical Interpretation of Philo.” Pages 65–94 in idem, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Philo. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Katz, Peter. Philo’s Bible: The AberrantTtext of Bible Quotations in Some Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual History of the Greek Bible. Cambridge: University Press, 1950. Kaufman, Stephen A. “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and their Use in the Study of First Century CE Texts.” Pages 118–141 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical context. Edited by D. R. G. Beattie and M. J. McNamara. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Kawashima, Robert S.  “From Song to Story: The Genesis of Narrative in Judges 4 and 5.” Prooftexts 21 (2001): 151–178. Keil, Carl Friedrich. Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium. Biblischer Commentar über Die Bücher Mose’s. Leipzig: Dörffling und Franke, 1862. Kensky, Tikva Frymer. In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: Ballantine Books, 1992. Kent, R. G. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1953. Kessler, Rainer. “Miriam and the Prophecy of the Persian Period.” Pages 77–86 in A Feminist Companion to Prophets and Daniel. Edited by Athalya Brenner. A Feminist Companion to the Bible [Second Series]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Translation of idem, “Mirjam und die Prophetie der Perserzeit.” Pages 64–72 in Gott an den Rändern: sozialgeschichtliche Perspektiven auf die Bibel. FS Willy Schottroff. Edited by Ulrike Bail und Renate Jost. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1996. —. Micha. Herder theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 1999. Kisch, Guido. Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum. Publications in Medieval Studies 10. Notre Dame, Ind.: The University of Notre Dame, 1949. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Knierim, Rolf P. and George W. Coats. Numbers. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 4. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005.

312

Bibliography

Knoppers, Gary N. Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Salomon and the Dual Monarchies. 2 vols. Harvard Semitic Monographs 52–53. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–1994. —. 1 Chronicles 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 12. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 2004. Koch, K. “‫עמוד‬.” Pages 744–750 in Vol 5 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970–. Kornfeld, W. and H. Ringgren, “‫קדש‬.” Pages 521–533 in Vol 6 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970–. Koskenniemi, Erkki and Pekka Lindqvist. “Rewritten Bible, Rewritten Stories: Methodological Aspects.” Pages 11–39 in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered: Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland, August 24–26, 2006. Edited by Antti Laato and Jacques van Ruiten; Studies in the Rewritten Bible 1. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2008. Kraemer, Ross Shepard. “Monastic Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Egypt: Philo Judaeus on the Theurapeutrides.” Signs 14 (1989): 342–70. Kraft, Robert A. “Earliest Greek Versions (‘Old Greek’).” Pages 811–815 Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by K. Crim. Nashville, 1976. —. “Para-mania: Beside, Before, and Beyond Bible Studies.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 5–27. Kreuzer, Siegfried. “Die Exodustradition im Deuteronomium.” Pages 81–106 in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen. Edited by Timo Veijola. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 62. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Kristeva, Julia. Semeiotikè: Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil, 1969. Kselman, J. S. “A Note on Numbers XII 6–8.” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 500–504. Kugel, James L. “The Story of Dinah in the Testament of Levi.” Harvard Theological Review 85 (1992): 1–34. —. “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple Writings.” Harvard Theological Review 86 (1993): 1–64. —. “How Old is the Aramaic Levi Document?” Dead Sea Discoveries 14 (2007): 291–312. —. “On the Interpolations in the Book of Jubilees.” Revue de Qumrân 24 (2009): 215–272. Kugler, Robert A. From Patriarch to Priest: The Levi-Priestly Tradition from Aramaic Levi to Testament of Levi. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. —. “Testaments.” Pages 933–396 in Vol 2 of The Encyclopedia of The Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York, Oxford University Press, 2000. Kunin, Daniel. The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 185. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Kurtz, Donna C. and John Boardman. Greek Burial Customs. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971. Labahn, Antje. Licht und Heil. Levitischer Herrschaftsanspruch in der frühjüdischen Literatur aus der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 112. Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2010. Labahn, Antje and Ehud Ben Zvi. “Observations on Women in the Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9.” Biblica 84 (2003): 457–478. Laffey, Alice L. Wives, Harlots and Concubines: The Old Testament in Feminist Perspective. London: SPCK, 1990. Lamour, Denis. Flavius Josèphe. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000. Lanfranchi, Pierluigi. L’Exagoge d’Ezéchiel le Tragique: Introduction, texte, traduction et commentaire. Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphica 21. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Bibliography

313

Lange, Armin. “Wisdom and Predestination in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995): 340–354. —. Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 18. Leiden: Brill, 1995. —. Vom prophetischen Wort zur prophetischen Tradition: Studien zur Traditions- und Redak­ tionsgeschichte innerprophetischer Konflikte in der Hebräischen Bibel. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 34. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. —. “Kriterien essenischer Texte.” Pages 59–69 in Qumran kontrovers: Beiträge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer. Edited by Jörg Frey and Hartmut Stegemann. Einblicke 6.  Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2003. —. “From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library.” Pages 51–107 in One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives. Edited by C. Helmer and C. Landmesser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. —. “Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library and the Hebrew Bible.” Dead Sea Discoveries 13 (2006): 277–305. —. “Literary Prophecy and Oracle Collection: A Comparison between Judah and Greece in Persian Times.” Pages 248–275 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Michael Floyd and Robert D. Haak. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 427. New York & London: T & T Clark International, 2006. —. “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls.” Biblische Notizen 137 (2008): 17–39. —. Handbuch zu den Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Volume 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. —. “Oracle Collection and Canon: A Comparison between Judah and Greece in Persian Times.” Pages 9–47 in Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon. Edited by Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias. London: T&T Clark, 2009. —. “The Significance of the Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library for the Understanding of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 171–218 in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007. Edited by André Lemaire. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 133. Leiden: Brill, 2010. —. “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of GraecoRoman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature.” Pages 3–40 in In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature. Edited by Philip Alexander, Armin Lange and Renate Pillinger. Leiden: Brill, 2010. —. “The Covenant with the Levites (Jer 33:21) in the Proto-Masoretic Text of Jeremiah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 91–116 in ‘Go Out and Study the Land’ (Judges 18:2) Archaeological, Historical and Textual Studies in Honor of Hanan Eshel. Edited by Aren M. Maeir, Jodi Magness and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 148. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Lange, Armin and Ulrike Mittman Richert, “Annotated List of the Texts from the Judean Desert Classified by Genre and Content.” Pages 115–164 in The Texts from the Judean Desert: Indices and an Introduction to the Discoveries in the Judean Desert Series. Edited by Emanuel Tov. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan) 39. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. Laquer, Richard. Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus. Giessen: Münchowsche Verlagsbuch­ handlung, 1920. Lauha, Aarre. “Das Schilfmeermotiv im Alten Testament.” Pages 32–46 in Congress Volume Bonn. Suppments to Vetus Testamentum 9. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Le Déaut, R. “The Targumim.” Pages 563–590 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume 2:

314

Bibliography

The Hellenistic Age. Edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Lemaire, André. “L’expérience essénienne de Flavius Josèphe.” Pages 138–151 in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Paris 2001: Studies on the Antiquities of Josephus. Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 12. Münster: Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, 2002. Leuchter, Mark A. and Jeremy M. Hutton. eds., Levites and Priests in History and Tradition. Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Leveen, Adriane B. “Falling in the Wilderness: Death Reports in the Book of Numbers.” Prooftexts 22 (2002): 245–272. Levin, Christoph. Der Yahwist. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. —. “Source Criticism: The Miracle at the Sea.” Pages 39–61 in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen. Edited by Joel M. LeMon and Kent Harold Richards. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 54. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Levine, Amy-Jill. ed., ‘Women Like This’: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World. Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Early Jewish Literature 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993. —. Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 4. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Lewis, Theodore J. “Divine Images and Aniconism in Ancient Israel.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 118 (1998): 36–53. Limburg, J. “The Root ‫ ריב‬and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 291–304. Lindars, Barnabas. Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995. Lindblom, Johannes. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1974. Lipton, Diana. Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Loader, William. Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality. Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman Era. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. —. The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality. Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman Era. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. —. Philo, Josephus, and the Testaments on Sexuality: Attitudes towards Sexuality in the Writings of Philo and Josephus and in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Attitudes towards Sexuality in Judaism and Christianity in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman era. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. Löwisch, Ingeborg, “Gender and Ambiguity in the Genesis Genealogies: Tracing Absence and Subversion through the Lens of Derrida’s Archive Fever.” Pages 60–73 in Embroidered Garments: Priests and Gender in Biblical Israel. Edited by Deborah W. Rooke. Hebrew Bible Monographs 25. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009. Mach, Michael. “Demons.” Pages 189–192 in in Vol 1 of The Encyclopedia of The Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Lawrence H.  Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Machiela, Daniel A. “Once More, with Feeling: Rewritten Scripture in Ancient Judaism—A Review of Recent Developments.” Journal of Jewish Studies 61 (2010): 308–320. Magness, Jodi. The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Studies in the Dead Sea

Bibliography

315

Scrolls and Related Literature. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. Makiello, Phoebe. “Was Moses considered to be an angel by those at Qumran?” Pages 115–127 in Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions. Edited by Axel Graupner and Michael Wolter. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 372. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Malamat, Abraham. “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies.” Journal of American Oriental Society 88 (1968): 163–173. —. “Tribal Societies: Biblical Genealogies and African Lineage System.” Archives européennes de sociologie 14 (1973): 126–136. Manor, Dale W. “Kadesh-Barnea.” Pages 2–3 in Vol 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Marcos, Natalio Fernández. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Margaliot, Meshullam. “The Transgression of Moses and Aaron  – Num 20:1–13.” Jewish Quarterly Review 74 (1983): 196–228. Marguerat, Daniel and Adrian Curtis. eds., Intertextualités: La Bible en échos. Geneva: Éditions Labor et Fides, 2000. Marsman, Hennie J. Women in Ugarit and in Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East. Oudtestamentische Studiën 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Marti, Karl. Das Dodekapropheton. Kurzer Hand-Commentar 13.  Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904. Mason, Steve. “Was Josephus  a Pharisee? A Reexamination of Life 10–12.” Journal of Jewish Studies 40 (1989): 31–45. —. Josephus and the New Testament. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. —. Should Any Wish to Enquire Further (A. J. 1.25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’s Judean Antiquities/Life.” Pages 64–103 in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. Edited by Steve Mason. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Matthews, Victor H. A Brief History of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Mattila, Sharon Lea. “Wisdom, Sense Perception, and Philo’s Gender Gradient.” Harvard Theological Review 89 (1996): 103–129. Mayer-Schärtel, Bärbel. Das Frauenbild des Josephus: Eine sozialgeschichtliche und kulturanthropologische Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979. Mays, James Luther. Micah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1976. McKane, William. Micah: Introduction and Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. McNamara, Martin. Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Mendenhall, George E. “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26.” Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958): 52–66. Meyers, Carol L. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. —. “Miriam the Musician.” Pages 207–230 in A Feminist Companion From Exodus to Deute­ ronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Feminist Companion to the Bible [Second Series]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. —. Exodus. The New Cambridge Bible Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. —. “Miriam, Music, and Miracles.” Pages 27–48 in Mariam, the Magdalen, and the Mother. Edited by Deirdre J. Good. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2005.

316

Bibliography

Minette de Tillesse, Georges. “Sections tu et sections vous dans le Deutéronome.” Vetus Testamentum 12 (1962): 29–87. Milgrom, Jacob. “Magic, Monotheism and the Sin of Moses.” Pages 251–265 in The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Edited by Herbert B. Huffmon, Frank A. Spina and Alberto R. W. Green. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. —. Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text With the New JPS Translation. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. —. Leviticus 1–16. Anchor Bible 3. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1991. Milik, Józef T. “Recherches sur la version grecque du Livre des Jubilés.” Revue biblique 78 (1971): 545–557. —. “4QVisions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origène.” Revue biblique 79 (1972): 77–97. —. “Écrits préesséniens de Qumrân: d’Hénoch à Amram.” Pages 91–106 in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by M. Delcor. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 46. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike. Magnifikat und Benediktus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 90/2. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Moi, Toril. The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. Monger, Matthew Philip. “4Q216 and the State of Jubilees at Qumran.” Revue de Qumrân 26 (2014): 595–612. Morris, Pam. ed., The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov. Bristol: Edward Arnold, 1994. Mowinckel, Sigmund. Offersang og sangoffer: Salmediktningen i Bibelen. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & co, 1951. Murphy, Frederick J. Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 77. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Nam, Roger. “How to Rewrite Torah: The Case of Proto-Sectarian Ideology in the Reworked Pentateuch.” Revue de Qumrân 90 (2007): 153–165. Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Newsom, Carol A. “‘Sectually Explicit’ Literature from Qumran.” Pages 167–87 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by William Propp, Baruch Halpern and David Noel Freedman. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Newsom, Carol A. and Sharon H.  Ringe. eds., The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Nickelsburg, George W. E. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” Pages 89–156 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Michael Stone. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2.2. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984. Nihan, Christophe. “Un prophète comme Moïse (Deutéronome 18,15): Genèse et relectures d’une construction Deutéronomiste.” Pages 43–76 in La construction de la figure de Moïse −− The construction of the Figure of Moses. Edited by Thomas Römer. Supplements to Transeuphratène 13. Paris: Gabalda, 2007. Nikiprowetzky, Valentin. “Rébecca, vertu de constance et constance de vertu chez Philon d’Alexandrie.” Semitica 26 (1976): 109–136. Repr. in idem, Études philoniennes. Paris: Cerf, 1996, 145–169. Nissinen, Martti. References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources. State Archive of Assyria Studies 7. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998. —. “What is Prophecy? An Ancient Near Eastern Perspective.” Pages 17–37 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in Ancient Near East. Edited by John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 378. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004.

Bibliography

317

—. “Transmitting Divine Mysteries: The Prophetic Role of Wisdom Teachers in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 513–534 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo. Edited by Anssi Voitila and Jutta Jokiranta. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 126. Leiden: Brill, 2008. —. “Reflections on Historical-Criticism.” Pages 479–505 in Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen. Edited by Joel M. Lemon and Kent Harold Richards. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 56. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. —. “The Dubious Image of Prophecy.” Pages 26–41 in Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jonathan Stökl and Corrine L. Carvalho. Society of Biblical literature Ancient Israel and its Literature 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013. Nodet, Étienne. Le Pentateuque de Flavius Josèphe. Paris: Cerf, 1996. Nordheim, Eckhard von. Die Lehre der Alten: I Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 13. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. —. Numbers: A Commentary. Translated by James D. Martin. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. —. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by B. W. Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1972. —. The Chronicler’s History. Translated by H. G. M. Williamson. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 50. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Nowack, Wilhelm. Die Kleine Propheten. 2nd ed. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Nurmela, Risto. The Levites: Their Emergence as  a Second-Class Priesthood. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 193. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. O’Brien, Julia M. Priest and Levite in Malachi. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 121. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. O’Connor Mary. “Horror, Authors, and Heroes: Gendered Subjects and Objects in Bakhtin and Kristeva.” Critical Studies 3–4 (1993): 242–258. Olson, Denis T. The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. Brown Judaic Studies 71. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985. Oppenheim, A. Leo. The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956. Osiek, Carolyn. “The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives.” Pages 93–105 in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications 10. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Ottoson, M. “‫חלום‬.” Pages 991–998 in Vol 3 of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970–. Otwell, John H. And Sarah Laughed: The Status of Women in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Pakkala, Juha. “The Date of the Oldest Edition of Deuteronomy.” Zeitschrift für die alttestament­ liche Wissenschaft 121 (2009): 388–401. Pardes, Ilana. Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992. Perkins, Larry. “‘Glory’ in the Greek Exodus: Lexical Choice in Translation and Its Reflection in Secondary Translations.” Pages 87–102 in Translation is Required: The Septuagint in Retro­

318

Bibliography

spect and Prospect. Edited by Robert J. V. Hiebert. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 56. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2010. Perlitt, Lothar. “Mose als Prophet.” Evangelische Theologie 31 (1971): 588–608. Repr. in idem, Deuteronomium-Studien. Pages 1–19. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. “Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon – Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?” Pages 285–306 in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honor of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hillhorst, Émile Puech and Eibert Tigchelaar. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Petersen, David L. “Defining Prophecy and Prophetic Literature.” Pages 33–44 in Prophecy in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives. Edited by Martti Nissinen. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 13. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Peursen, Wido van. “Who Was Standing on the Mountain? The Portrait of Moses in 4Q377.” Pages 99–113 in Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions. Edited by Axel Graupner and Michael Wolter. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 372. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Phillips, Gary A. ed., Post-structuralist Criticism of the Bible: Text/History/Discourse. Semeia Studies 51. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Plummer, Reinhard. “The Samaritans and their Pentateuch.” Pages 237–269 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Porton, Gary G. “Defining Midrash.” Pages 55–92 in The Study of Ancient Judaism I: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur. Edited by Jacob Neusner. New York: Ktav, 1981. Propp William H. C. Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 2A. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1998. —. “The Rod of Aaron and the Sin of Moses.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 19–26. Puech, Émile. “Fragments d’un apocryphe de Lévi et le personage eschatologique. 4QTestLévic-d (?) et 4QAJa.” Pages 449–501 in Vol 2 of The Madrid Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Leiden: Brill, 1993. —. “Le fragment 2 de 4Q377, Pentateuch Apocryphe B: L’exaltation de Moïse.” Revue de Qumrân 21 (2004): 469–475. Pury, Albert de. “The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Pentateuch.” Pages 50–72 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Pury, Albert de and Thomas Römer. “Le Pentateuque en question: Les Origines et la com­ position des cinq premières livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches résentes.” Monde de Bible 19 (1991): 9–80. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1962. —. Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament I. Edited by Rudolf Smend. 4th ed. Theologische Bücherei 8. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. Rahmani, Levi Yizhaq. “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs, Part Three.” Biblical Archeologist 45 (1982): 43–53. Rajak, Tessa. “Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature.” Journal of Jewish Studies 29 (1978): 111–122. —. Josephus: The Historian and His Society. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co, 1983.

Bibliography

319

—. Translation & Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Rapp, Ursula. Mirjam: Eine feministisch-rhetorische Lektüre der Mirjamtexte in der hebräischen Bi­bel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 317. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Reed, Annette Yoshiko. “The Modern Invention of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.” The Journal of Theological Studies 60 (2009): 1–34. Reed, Walter L. Dialogues of the Word: the Bible as Literature According to Bakhtin. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Reinmuth, Eckart. Pseudo-Philo und Lukas: Studien zum Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum und seiner Bedeutung für die Interpretation des lukanische Doppelwerks. Wissenschafliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Regev, Eyal. “Cherchez les femmes: Were the yahad Celibates?” Dead Sea Discoveries 15 (2008): 253–284. Riaud, Jean. “Thérapeutes d’Alexandrie dans la tradition et dans la rechérche critique jusq’aux découvertes de Qumran.” ANRW II. 20.2 (1987): 1189–1295. Robbins, Vernon K. “Historical, Rhetorical, Literary, Linguistic, Cultural and Artistic Inter­ textuality: A Response.” Semeia 80 (1999): 291–303 Robertson, R. G. “Ezekiel the Tragedian.” Pages 803–819 in Vol 2 of Old Testament Pseud­ epigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Robinson, Bernard P. “The Jealousy of Miriam: A Note on Num 12.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 101 (1989): 428–432. Römer, Thomas Christian. “Nombres 11–12 et la question d’une rédaction déuteronomique dans le Pentateuque.” Pages 481–498 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 133. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. —. “L’école deutéronomiste et la formation de la Bible hébraïque.” Pages 179–193 in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Thomas Römer. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 147. Leuven: University Press, 2001. —. “The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research.” Pages 9–28 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2006. —. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. 2nd ed. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Römer, Thomas and Albert de Pury. “Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues.” Pages 24–141 in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Edited by Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer and Jean-Daniel Macchi. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Translation of Israel construit son histoire. L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Le monde de la Bible 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996. Rönsch, Hermann. Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis. Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag, 1874. Rose, Martin. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 67. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981. —. 5. Mose 12–25: Einführung und Gesetze. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 5.1. Zürich: Theolo­ gischer Verlag, 1994. Royse, James R. “The Works of Philo.” Pages 32–64 in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Ruiten, Jacques van. “Between Jacob’s Death and Moses’ Birth: The Intertextual Relationship between Genesis 50:15-Exodus 1:14 and Jubilees 46:1–16.” Pages 467–489 in Flores Florentino

320

Bibliography

Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech and Eibert Tigchelaar. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timeus of Plato. Philosophia Antiqua 44. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Runnalls, Donna. “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 14 (1983): 135–56. Rüterswörden, Udo. Das Buch Deuteronomium. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar. Altes Testament 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2006. Satlow, Michael L. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Sawyer, John F. A. “A Note on the Etymology of tsāra’at.” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976): 241–245. Schäfer, Peter. Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997. Schaller, Berndt. “Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Ps.-Philonischen Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum im Mittelalter.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 10 (1979): 64–73. Schaper, Joachim. Priester und Leviten im achämenideschen Juda: Studien zur Kult- und Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. —. “Levites.” Pages 885–887 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Scharbert, Josef. Exodus. Die Neue Echter Bibel 24. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Laws Pertaining Women in the Temple Scroll.” Pages 210–228 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research. Edited by Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 10. Leiden: Brill 1992. —. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994. —. “Prohibited Marriages in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 113–125 in Rabbinic Perspectives: Rabbinic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 7–9 January, 2003. Edited by Steven D. Fraade, Aharon Shemesh and Ruth A. Clements. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 62. Leiden: Brill, 2006. —. “The Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll.” Pages 99–115 in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees. Edited by Gabriele Boccaccini and Giovanni Ibba. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. —. Qumran and Jerusalem: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. —. “Early Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism.” Pages 279–290 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Schmidt, Ludwig. Das vierte Buch Mose – Numeri, 10,11 – 36,13. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 7.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Schuller, Eileen, M. “Women of the Exodus in Biblical Retellings of the Second Temple Period.” Pages 178–194 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Edited by Peggy L. Day. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989. —. “Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 115–132 in Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects. Edited by M. O. Wise, N. Golb, J. J. Collins, D. Pardee. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994.

Bibliography

321

—. “Evidence for Women in the Community of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 262–285 in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. Edited by J. S. Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson. London: Routledge, 1996. —. “Women at Qumran.” Pages 117–144 in Vol 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Critical Assessment.  Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999. −−. “Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Research in the Past Decade and Future Directions.” Pages 571–588 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6–8, 2008). Edited by Adolfo D. Roitman, Lawrence H.  Schiffman and Shani Tzoref. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 93. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Schunk, Klaus-Dietrich. Nehemia. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 23.2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Revised and edited by Géza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Martin Goodman. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–1987. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. “The Will to Choose or to Reject: Continuing Our Critical Work.” Pages 125–236 in From Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Letty M. Russell. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985. —. “Remembering the Past in Creating the Future: Historical-Critical Scholarship and Feminist Biblical Interpretation.” Pages 43–64 in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. Society of Biblical Literature Centennial Publications 10. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Schwartz, Daniel R. “Philo, His Family, and His Times.” Pages 9–31 in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Schwartz, Seth. Josephus and Judean Politics. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 18. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Schweitzer, Steven James. Reading Utopia in Chronicles. Library of Hebrew Bible 442. Old Testament Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Seebass, Horst. Numeri. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 4.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. Seeligman, I. L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah – A Discussion of Its Problems. Leiden: Brill, 1948. Seeman, Chris and Adam Kolman Marshak. “Jewish History from Alexander to Hadrian.” Pages 25–56 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Segal, Michael. “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” Pages 391–399 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000. —. Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 117. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Segert, Stanislav. “Die Sprachenfragen in der Qumrangemeinschaft.” Pages 315–339 in Qumran Probleme: Vortröge des Leipziger Symposions über Qumran Probleme vom 9. Bis 14. Oktober 1961. Edited by H. Bardtke. Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1963. —. “Sprachliche Bemerkungen zu einigen aramäische texten von Qumran.” Archiv Orientální 33 (1965): 190–206. Shutt, R. J. “Letter of Aristeas.” Pages 7–11 in Vol 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1985.

322

Bibliography

Siegel, Jonathan P. “The Employment of Paleo-Hebrew Characters for the Divine Name at Qumran.” Hebrew Union College Annual 42 (1971): 159–171. Sievers, Joseph “Josephus and the Afterlife.” Pages 20–34 in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. Edited by Steve Mason. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Simon, M. Les sects juives au temps de Jésus. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1960. Siquans, Agnethe. Die alttestamentlichen Prophetinnen in der patristischen Rezeption: Texte  – Kontexte – Hermeneutik. Herders biblische Studien 65. Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 2011. Sly, Dorothy. Philo’s Perception of Women. Brown Judaic Studies 209. Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1990. Smallwood, E. Mary. Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Smith, Mark S.  “The Levitical Redaction of the Psalter.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 258–63. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judean Community.” Pages 243–265 in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple Community of the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Sollamo, Raija. “The Letter of Aristeas and the Origin of the LXX.” Pages 329–342 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Oslo, 1998. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 51. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001. Sparks, James T. The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9. Academia Biblica 28. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2008. Sperling, S. David. “Miriam, Aaron and Moses: Sibling Rivalry.” Hebrew Union College Annual 70 (2000): 39–55. Stackert, Jeffrey “The Cultic Status of the Levites in the Temple Scroll: Between History and Hermeneutics.” Pages 199–214 in Levites and Priests in History and Tradition. Edited by Mark A. Leuchter and Jeremy M. Hutton. Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Stade, Bernhard. “Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1881): 161–172. Stagg. Evelyn and Frank Stagg. Women in the World of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. The Woman’s Bible. 2 vols. New York: European Publishing Company, 1895 and 1898. Starcky, Jean. “Le travail d’èdition des fragments manuscrits de Qumrân (communication de J. Starcky).” Revue biblique 63 (1956): 49–67. Stallman, Robert C. “Levi and the Levites in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 10 (1992): 169–183. Stegemann, Hartmut. “Religionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in den Qumrantexten.” Pages 195–217 in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by M. Delcor. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 46. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1978. —. “The Origins of the Temple Scroll.” Pages 235–256 in Congress Volume, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Steinmetz, Devora. “A Portrait of Miriam in Rabbinic Midrash.” Prooftexts 8 (1988): 37–61. Stemberger, Günter. Midrasch: Vom Umgang der Rabbinen mit der Bibel. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1989. —. Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch. 8th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992. —. Der Talmud. Einführung, Texte, Erläuterungen. 4th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2008. Sterling, Gregory E. “The Invisible Presence: Josephus’ Retelling of Ruth.” Pages 104–171 in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. Edited by Steve Mason. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Bibliography

323

Strugnell, John. “Notes on the Text and Metre of Ezekiel the Tragedian’s Exagoge.” Harvard Theological Review 60 (1967): 449–457. —. “More on Wives and Marriage in the Dead Sea Scrolls: (4Q416 2 ii 21 [Cf. 1 Tess 4:4] and 4QMMT B.” Revue de Qumrân 17 (1996): 547–557. Stowasser, Barbara Freyer. “Mary.” Pages 288–295 in Vol 3 of Encyclopedia of the Qur’an. 6 vols. Edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe. Leiden: Brill, 2001–2006. Stökl, Jonathan. “Female Prophets in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 47–61 in Prophets and Prophecy: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. London: T&T Clark, 2010. —. Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: A Philological and Sociological Comparison. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 56. Leiden, Brill, 2012. Stone, Michael. “The Genealogy of Bilhah.” Dead Sea Discoveries 3 (1996): 20–36. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 143–162 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Sturdy, John. Numbers: A Commentary. Cambridge Bible Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Swete, Henry Barclay. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1914. Taylor, Joan E. “Virgin Mothers: Philo on the Women Therapeutae.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12 (2001): 37–63. —. “The Women Priests of Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa: Reconstructing the Therapeutae.” Pages 102–122 in On the Cutting Edge: The Study of Women in Biblical Worlds. Essays in honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Edited by Jane Schaberg, Alice Bach and Esther Fuchs. London: Continuum, 2003. —. “Philo of Alexandria on the Essenes: A Case Study of the Use of Classical Sources in Discussions of the Qumran-Essene Hypothesis.” Studia philonica 19 (2007): 1–28. Taylor, Joan E. and Philip R. Davies. “The So-Called Therapeutae of De Vita Contemplativa.” Harvard Theological Review 91 (1998): 3–24. Tervanotko, Hanna. “The Hope of the Enemy has Perished”: The Figure of Miriam in the Qumran Library.” Pages 156–175 in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday. Edited by Armin Lange, Matthias Weigold and József Zsengellér. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 230. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. —. “Miriam’s Mistake: Numbers 12 Renarrated in Demetrius the Chronographer, 4Q377 ­(Apocryphal Pentateuch B), Legum Allegoriae and the Pentateuch Targumim.” Pages 131–150 in Embroidered Garments: Priests and Gender in Biblical Israel. Edited by Deborah W. Rooke. Hebrew Bible Monographs 25. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009. —. “Miriam Misbehaving? The Figure of Miriam in 4Q377 in Light of Ancient Jewish Literature.” Pages 309–323 in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures. Edited by Armin Lange, Emmanuel Tov, Matthias Weigold and Bennie H. Reynolds III. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 140/1. Leiden: Brill, 2010. —. “You Shall See: Rebekah’s Farewell Address in 4Q364 II, 1–6.” Pages 413–426 in The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Nóra Dávid, Armin Lange, Kristin De Troyer and Shani Tzoref. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten une Neuen Testaments 239. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. −−.“‫’ אם‬em.” Pages 201–204 in Theologisches Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten. Vol. 1. Edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry and Ulrich Dahmen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011. —. “Speaking in Dreams: The Figure of Miriam and Prophecy.” Pages 147–168 in Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the

324

Bibliography

Ancient Near East. Edited by Jonathan Stökl and Corrine L. Carvalho. Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and its Literature 15. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature 2013. —. “Trilogy of Testaments: Testament of Qahat vs. the Aramaic Levi Document and the Visions of Amram.” Pages 41–59 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures Edited by Eibert Tigchelaar. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 270. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. —. “Obey me like your mother (L. A. B. 33:1) Deborah’s Leadership in Light of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 33.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 24 (2015): 301–323. —. “Members of Levite Family and Ideal Marriages in Aramaic Levi Document, Visions of Amram, and Jubilees.” Revue de Qumrân 106 (2015): 155–176. —. “Unreliability and Gender? Untrusted Female Prophets in Ancient Greek and Jewish Texts.” Journal of Ancient Judaism, forthcoming. Testuz, Michel. Les idées religieuses du Livre des Jubilés. Paris: Librarie Minard, 1960. Thackeray, Henry St. John. Josephus: The Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1929. Thomas, Samuel. “‘Riddled’ with Guilt: The Mysteries of Transgression, and Sealed Vision, and the Art of Interpretation in 4Q300 and Related Texts.” Dead Sea Discoveries 15 (2008): 155–171. —. The “Mysteries” of Qumran: Mystery, Secrecy, and Esotericism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 25.  Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2009. Tigay, Jeffrey H.  “An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 329–342. —. Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text With the New JPS Translation. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1996. Tigchelaar, Eibert “Aramaic Texts from Qumran and the Authoritativeness of Hebrew Scriptures: Preliminary Observations.” Pages 155–171 in Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism. Edited by Mladen Popović. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. —. “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures.” Pages 1–18 in Old Testament Pseud­ epigrapha and the Scriptures. Edited by Eibert Tigchelaar. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 270. Leuven: Peeters, 2014. —. “The Qumran Jubilees Manuscripts as Evidence for the Literary Growth of the Book.” Revue de Qumrân 26 (2014): 579–594. Trible, Phyllis. “Bringing Miriam Out of the Shadows.” Bible Review 5 (1989): 14–25. —. Subversive Justice: Tracing the Miriamic Traditions.” Pages 99–109 in Justice and the Holy: Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson. Edited by Douglas A. Knight and Peter J. Paris. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. —. “Eve and Miriam: From the Margins to the Center.” Pages 15–24 in Feminist Approaches to the Bible. Edited by H. Shanks. Washington D. C.: Biblical Archeological Society, 1995. Tov, Emanuel. “The Textual Status of 4Q364–367.” Pages 43–82 in Vol 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992. —. “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch.” Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998): 334–354. —. “Different Editions of the Song of Hannah.” Pages 149–170 in Tehillah le-Moshe, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg. Edited by Mordechai Cogan, Barry L. Eichler, Jeffrey H. Tigay. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Repr. in Tov, The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Bibliography

325

—. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001. —. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. —. “The Many Forms of the Hebrew Scripture: Reflections in Light of the LXX and 4Q Reworked Pentateuch.” Pages 11–28 in From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday. Edited by Armin Lange, Matthias Weigold and József Zsengellér. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 230. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Ulrich, Eugene C. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew Scriptural Texts.” Pages 105–133 in Vol 1 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Princeton Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Hebrew Bible and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 3 vols. N. Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL Press, 2000. —. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Biblical Text.” Pages 51–59 in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with the Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000. —. “The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus.” Pages 85–108 in Congress Volume Basel 2001. Edited by André Lemaire. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 92. Leiden: Brill, 2002. VanderKam, James C. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Harvard Seminitic Monographs 14. Missoula, Monn.: Scholars Press, 1977. —. The Book of Jubilees. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 511. Scriptores Aethiopici 88. 2 vols. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. —. “The Origins and Purpose of the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 3–24 in Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by Matthias Albani, Jörg Frey and Armin Lange. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. —. The Book of Jubilees. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. —. “Jubilees 46:6–47:1 and 4QVisions of Amram.” Dead Sea Discoveries 17 (2010): 141–158. —. “Calendars.” Pages 814–820 in Vol 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. VanderKam, James C. and Peter Flint. eds., The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Harper San Francisco, 2002. Van Seters, John. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Zürich: Theolo­ gischer Verlag, 1992. —. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Veijola, Timo. Das 5.  Buch Mose Deuteronomium: Kapitel 1,1  – 16,17. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 8.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. —. “Du sollst daran denken, dass du Sklave gewesen bist im Lande Ägypten: Zur literarischen Stellung und theologischen Bedeutung einer Kernaussage des Deuteronomiums.” Pages 48–68 in idem, Leben nach der Weisung: Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten Testament. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 224. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Vermes, Géza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Studia post-biblica 4. Leiden: Brill, 1964. —. An Introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls. 4th rev. ed. London: SCM Press, 1999. Vermes, Géza and Martin Goodman. eds., The Essenes according to the Classical Sources. Oxford Centre Textbooks 1. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Vervenne, Marc. “The ‘P’ Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The ‘Sea’ Narrative (Ex 13,17–13,31) as Test Case.” Pages 67–90 in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic

326

Bibliography

Studies. Edited by C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 94. Leuven: Peeters, 1990. Villalba i Varneda, Pere. The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 19. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Visscher, Fernand de. Le droit des tombeaux romains. Milan: Giuffré editore, 1963. Voitila, Anssi. “The Translator of the Greek Numbers.” Pages 109–121 in IX Congress of the International Organization for the Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. de Vries, Simon J. “The Origin of the Murmuring Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968): 51–58. Wacholder, Ben Zion. “Biblical Chronology in the Hellenistic World Chronicles.” Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 451–81. —. “A Qumranic Polemic Against a Divergent Reading of Exodus 6:20.” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 16–17 (1984–85): 225–228 Wacker, Marie-Theres. “Mirjam: Kritischer Mut einer Prophetin.” Pages 44–52 in Zwischen Ohnmacht und Befreiung: Biblische Frauengestalten. Edited by Karin Walter. Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1988. —. “Methods of Feminist Exegesis.” Pages 63–82 in Feminist Interpretation: The Bible in Women’s Perspective. Edited by Luise Schottroff, Silvia Schroerer and Marie-Theres Wacker. Translated by Martin and Barbara Rumscheidt. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. Walsh, Jerome T. “From Egypt to Moab: A Source Critical Analysis of the Wilderness Itinerary.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977): 20–33. Walter, N. “Jüdisch-hellenistische Literature vor Philon von Alexandrien.” ANRW II.20.1 (1987): 67–120. Wanke, Günther. Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestament­ liche Wissenschaft 97. Berlin: Topelmann, 1966. Wassen, Cecilia Women in the Damascus Document. Academia Biblica 21.  Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2005. Watson, Francis. ed., The Open Text: New Directions for Biblical Studies? London: SCM Press, 1993. Webb, Geoff R. Mark at the Threshold: Applying Bakhtinian Categories to Markan Characterisation. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Wegner, Judith Romney. “Philo’s Portrayal of Women: Hebraic or Hellenic?” Pages 41–66 in ‘Women Like This’: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1972. Weippert, Manfred. “Prophetie im Alten Orient.” Neues Bibel Lexikon 3 (2001): 196–200. Weitzman, Steven. Song and Story in Biblical Narrative: The History of a Literary Convention in Ancient Israel. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1997. Wellhausen, Julius. Prologomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies. Edinburgh: A&C Black, 1885. Welten, Peter. Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. Werman, Cana. “Jubilees 30: Building  a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage.” Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997): 1–22. —. “Levi and Levites in the Second Temple Period.” Dead Sea Discoveries 4 (1997): 211–225. Werrett, Ian C. Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 72. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Bibliography

327

Wette, Wilhelm Martin L. de. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 2 vols. Halle: Schimmelpfennig. 1806–1807. Wevers, John William. “The LXX Translator of Deuteronomy.” Pages 57–89 in IX Congress of the International Organization for the Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 45. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. White, Sidnie. “4Q364 & 365: A Preliminary Report.” Pages 217–228 in Vol 1 of The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. 2 vols. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Whybray, R. N. Ecclesiastes. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Williamson, H. G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982. —. “Prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 65–80 61 in Prophets and Prophecy: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Wilson, Robert R. “The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975): 169–189. —. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. Yale Near Eastern Researches 7. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977. —. “Early Israelite Prophecy.” Interpretation 32 (1978): 3–16. —. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. —. “Genealogy.” Page 931 in Vol 2 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Winslow, Karen. Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives: Exogamist Marriage and Ethnic Identity. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity. Lewiston, N. Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005. −−. “For Moses had Indeed Married a Cushite Woman: The LORD’s Prophet Married Well.” lectio difficilior 1 (2011). Winston, David. “The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha and Qumran: A Review of the Evidence.” History of Religions 5 (1966): 183–216. —. The Ancestral Philosophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Gregory E. Sterling. Brown Judaic Studies 331. Studia philonica 4. Providence, R. I.: Brown University Press, 2001. Wintermute, O. S. “Jubilees.” Pages 43–44 in Vol 2 of Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Wolde, Ellen van. “Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives.” Biblical Interpretation 5 (1997): 1–28. Wolff, Hans Walter. Micah: A Commentary. Translated by Gary Stansell. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990. Wolfson, H. A. Philo. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947. Wright III, Benjamin G. “The Letter of Aristeas and the Question of Septuagint Origins Redux.” Journal of Ancient Judaism 2 (2011): 304–326. Yadin, Yigael. The Message of the Scrolls. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957. Zahn, Molly M. “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Categories.” Pages 93–120 in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting the Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Hanne von Weissenberg, Juha Pakkala and Marko Marttila. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 419. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. —. Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 95. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

328

Bibliography

Zenger, Erich. “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus XV 1–21.” Pages 452–483 in Congress Volume Vienna 1980. Edited by John A. Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. —. “Zur redaktionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Korachpsalmen.” Pages 175–198 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Edited by Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger. Herder biblische Studien 1. Bodenheim: Herder Verlag, 1994. Zeron, A. “Erwägunngen zu Pseudo-Philo’s Quellen und Zeit.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 11 (1980): 38–52.

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible/Old Testament/Septuagint Genesis 2:1–3:1 237 2:2–3 157 2:12 237 2:13 73 3 238 3:8–19 237 3:16 122–123 4:22 48 5:3–32 101 8:13 93 8:22 157 10:1–32 101 10:5–7 73 11:11–32 101 14:7 93 15:1 75 15:12 75 16:5–6 265 16:7–12 76 16:14 93 17:16 123 18:9–15 58 20:1 93 20:12 103 23:1–20 94 24 48 24:30 48 24:59–60 48 25:1–3 214 25:2 73 25:9 94 25:20 48 25:23 76 28:9 48 28:12–13 75 28:24–26 104 29:13 48 29:27 135 31:27 49 32:30 85 33:7 69 34:1–31 165

34:13 48 34:14 48 34:27 48 34:31 48 35:19–20 94–95 35:29 94 36 101 36:3 48 36:22 48 38  252, 271 41:16 75 41:30 157 42:30 222 46:8–25 100 46:8–27 101 46:17  48, 106 47:29–30 94 48:7 94 49:29–32 94 50:13 94 Exodus 1  145, 220, 222 1–2 220–221 1–15  218, 222 1:15–20 221 1:22 167 2  49, 101, 128, 145, 167–169, 171–172, 176, 189, 191, 207, 221–226, 233, 254, 257, 266–269, 276, 279–282, 286–287 2:1  103, 107, 128, 130, 188–189, 221–222 2:2 267 2:2–3 267 2:3  167, 222 2:4  48–49, 141, 167, 172, 191, 221, 225–226, 233, 247, 267, 288–289 2:4–8 170 2:5 267 2:7  48–49, 191 2:9 223 2:18 72 2:18–22 214

330

Index of Ancient Sources

2:21 72 3:1 214 4:6 64 4:26 72 6  211, 288 6:14–25  101, 195–196, 206–207, 210 6:14–27 100–101 6:15  195, 206 6:16–25 120 6:18  132, 141 6:20  103, 128, 181, 189, 191, 195–196, 205–211, 224, 227, 272, 288 6:21 183 6:22 142 6:23  49, 195 6:25 195 7:7 140–141 12:2 93 13:4 93 13:14 111 13:22 75 14  45–46, 52, 60 14–15 255 14:1–18 43 14:12–21 149 14:19 75 14:19–31  43, 45–46, 51 14:21 43 14:27–28  43, 52 14:29 51 14:30 51 14:31 51–52 15  44, 191, 199, 233, 236, 241, 243–244, 246, 249, 259, 282 15:1  44, 47, 150–151, 156–157, 198, 242 15:1–18 45 15:1–19  44–45, 52, 150–152, 155–156, 158, 161, 288 15:1–21 160 15:2 156 15:7 150 15:7–8 176 15:10 150 15:13 45 15:17 45 15:14–15 45 15:16–20 149 15:19–21 51 15:20  25, 46–53, 58–59, 80, 89, 108, 113, 115–116, 149, 152, 154, 198, 206, 236, 242, 275, 286

15:21  44–45, 47–48, 50–52, 59, 149, 154, 156–157, 197–199 15:20–21  19, 43–53, 58–60, 68, 84, 88–89, 98, 106, 114–115, 144, 149, 151–152, 154–155, 159, 161, 176–177, 188, 193, 196–199, 206, 208–209, 211, 224, 241, 246, 275, 277, 285–286 15:22  149, 158 15:23–16:1 151 16:13–15 256 16:30 157 16:31 256 16:35 256 17 271 17–18 87 17:8–16  269, 275 17:10 270–271 17:12 270–271 18:2 83 18:23 73 19:1 93 20:2 111 22:23 122 23:12 157 23:15 93 28–29 182 28:4 182 29:10 74 29:30 74 29:44 74 30:16 74 30:26 74 31:2 270 31:7 74 31:17 157 32:1–35 87 32:12 176 32:18 197 32:19 198 32:28–29 184 33:7 74 33:9–10 75 33:11 85 34:18 93 34:21 157 35:30 270 36:1–2 270 37:1 270 38:22 270 40:2 94 40:17 94

Index of Ancient Sources Leviticus 1:1 74 3 75 4 75 6 75 8 75 13–14  64–65, 67, 76, 82, 177–178, 243 13:1 65 13:4  76, 177 13:5 177 13:11 177 13:21 177 13:26  76, 177 13:31 177 13:33 177 13:47 203 13:47–59 64 13:50 177 13:54 177 13:59 203 14:2 77 14:38 177 14:44 203 14:46 177 14:55 203 15:8 77 18:12 207 18:12–14 132 20:19  103, 132, 207 21:14–15 104 23:5 94 23:32 157 24:2 158 25:2 157 26:34 157 26:35 157 Numbers 1 104 1:2–3 175 2:17 74 3 104 3:2 120 3:3 182 3:6 183 3:6–10 183 3:8 74 3:10 182 3:14–34 105 3:17–20 120 3:17–39 100

331

3:19  132, 141 3:25 74 3:27 141 4:3–33 183 4:5 182 4:15 182 4:25 74 4:30 74 5:2 64 7:89 74 8:15 74 8:24 74 9:1 94 10:12 68 11  75, 81, 90 11–12 75 11:14–17 75 11:16 74 11:16–17 75 11:24–25 75 11:24–30 75 11:25 75 11:34 95 11:35 68 12  66, 72, 76–81, 83–90, 113, 115–116, 133, 144, 172–173, 175, 178–180, 191, 203, 209, 214–217, 224–226, 237, 238–241, 243, 245–248, 258–259, 261, 277, 279, 282–283, 286–287, 292 12:1  68–69, 72, 74, 76, 79–80, 82–83, 86, 88, 179, 215, 239–240, 247, 286 12:1–2  69, 80, 85–87, 180, 247 12:1–8 82 12:1–15  19, 68–69, 78–79, 81, 83, 98–99, 106, 113, 115–116, 176, 178, 188, 193, 201, 206, 275, 285–286 12:2  79–82, 84, 86, 89, 179, 285 12:2–9  82, 84–86 12:4  69, 74, 79–81, 84, 86, 202 12:4–8 82 12:5  75, 80–81 12:6  70, 72, 75, 79, 89, 202 12:6–8  76, 79, 81, 84, 87, 89, 116, 144, 285 12:7–8 81 12:8  69, 71, 203 12:9  79, 81, 177 12:9–15 82 12:10  64, 76, 80, 203 12:10–11 82 12:10–15  80, 82, 85–88 12:11  79, 83

332

Index of Ancient Sources

12:11–12 82 12:12  71–72, 77, 79, 84, 237–238 12:13  72, 76, 79, 238, 243 12:14  76–77, 79, 84, 177, 238 12:15  76–77, 86, 177 12:16  68–69, 98 13:9 175 13:20 93 13:21  92, 204 13:26 96 14:4 85 14:14 75 14:24 90 16  84, 187 16:22 72 17:8 74 17:23 74 18:4 74 19:4 74 20 90 20:1  19, 90–99, 115–116, 118, 176, 188, 204, 211, 257, 273–274, 282, 285–286 20:1–2 257 20:1–13 96 20:2 257 20:2–13 90 20:3–5  90, 92 20:7–11 256–257 20:12  90, 92 20:14 93 20:16 93 20:22 93 20:22–29  90, 92 20:24 91 20:26–28 91 20:28 91 21:16–17 257 21:17  156, 197 24:4 72 24:16 72 24:23 72 25 90 25:4 176 25:10–13 184 26  102, 105–108, 120–122 26:1–2 104 26:1–4 104–105 26:1–63 104 26:4 105 26:5–65 100 26:9–10 105

26:19 105 26:33  102, 105–106, 125 26:44–46 107 26:46  102, 105–106, 125 26:51 105 26:53–56 105 26:57–58  105, 183 26:57–60  105, 107–108 26:57–62 105 26:58–59 122 26:59  19, 48, 100, 102–103, 105–109, 116, 118, 120, 123, 125, 130, 168, 170, 176, 180–182, 189, 191, 195, 205–208, 272, 286 26:59–62 270 26:60–61 104 26:61 105 26:63 104 27:14  92–93, 204 27:18–23 91 28:14 93 28:16 94 32:8 93 32:14 176 33:11 94 33:36  92–93, 204 33:37 93 33:38  94, 205, 272–273 34:3 204 34:3–4 92 34:4  93, 204 Deuteronomy 1:2 93 1:19 93 1:24 222 1:46 93 2:4 63 2:14 93 4:8 200 4:9 63 4:15 63 4:23 63 4:36–40 66 4:44 200 5:4 85 5:6 111 6:12  63, 111 7:1–6 74 7:7–11 66 7:8 111

Index of Ancient Sources 8:11 63 8:14 111 9:1 66 9:3–6 66 9:23 93 11:16 63 12–26 66 12:13 63 12:19 63 12:30 63 13:10 111 13:18 176 15:5 62 15:9 63 16:1 94 17:9 64 17:11 200 17:18 64 17:18–19 200 18:1 64 21:5 64 21:10–14  134, 179 21:10–17 67 21:34 95 22:13–29 67 23:1 67 23:5  62, 66 23:10 63 23:15–25:19 61 23:19–25:4 61 24  61, 67 24:1–5  61, 67 24:5–25:4 61 24:6 61 24:7 61 24:8  61–64, 66–67, 114, 200 24:8–9  19, 61–63, 65–68, 88–89, 111, 116–117, 177, 179–180, 200, 286 24:8–25:3 61 24:9  62–63, 65–66, 68, 88, 98, 114–115, 176, 200 24:10–13 61 24:14–15 61 25:5–10 67 25:8–10 77 25:9 78 25:17  62, 66 27:1 200 27:8 200 27:26 200 28:58 200

28:61 200 29:20 200 30:10 200 31:9 64 31:12 200 31:15 75 31:21 157 31:24 200 31:26 200 32 110 32:46 200 32:50–51 91 32:51  92–93, 204 33:8 175 33:10  183–184, 186 34:5 91 34:6 95 34:10 85 Joshua 2:1 222 2:2 222 4:19 94 5:13 255 12–19 100 14:6 93 14:7 93 15:1  92, 204 15:3  92–93, 204 18:1 75 19:51 75 21:11–13 90 24:5 112 24:17 111 Judges 4 54 4:4 54–55 4:4–5 54 4–5  51, 252, 265 5  47, 54 5:1–30 59 5:2–31  50, 151, 153 5:5 152 5:7 153 6:8 111 9:27 198 11:16 93 11:17 93 11:34  46, 49, 152, 198 13:8 112

333

334 14:12 135 14:17 135 17:1–4 252 17:7–13 182 17:10 182 17:13 182 18:3–6 182 18:15–31 182 18:20 182 21:21 198 1 Samuel 1  209, 211 1:9 209 1:18 209 2 153 2:1 153 2:1–10 152 2:4 153 2:5 153 10:5  50, 59, 198 10:10 198 12:8 112 12:11 112 18:6  46, 49 18:7 197 21:11 197 25:32 112 29:5 197–198 2 Samuel 4 100 6:5 49 6:13 198 7:4–17 56 12:1–17 56 17:25 49 18:32 73 22:2–51 50 24:11–12 56 1 Kings 1:8 56 1:10 56 1:22–23 56 1:22–37 56 1:40 198 11:19 49 11:20 49

Index of Ancient Sources 2 Kings 3:13 56 5:7 64 7:3 64 22–23 67 22:14 58 22:14–17 54 23 56 Isaiah 1:2–20 110 5:12  49, 198 8:3 54 17:3 157 23:15 157 23:16 157 24:8 49 27:2 197 30:32 49 44:6 57 50:6 77 51:2 237 51:12 237 65:16 157 Jeremiah 3:7 48 9:23 57 13:23  73, 76 20:11 157 23 76 23:40 157 26:17–19 109 26:18 109–110 31:4  49, 152 32:4 85 33:14–26 184 33:18 183–184 33:20–21 184 33:22 184 34:3 85 34:13 111 35:15 112 38:7 73 38:10 73 50:5 157 Ezekiel 6:6 157 9:11 255 13:17–23 58

Index of Ancient Sources 30:18 157 33:28 157 44:6–16 183 Hosea Hos 4:1–3  110 Joel 2:28 54 Amos 9:7 73 Micah 1–3 109–110 1:1 109 2:12–13 109 4–7 109–110 6 111 6–7 110 6:1–5 110 6:1–8  110, 113 6:2 110 6:4  19, 109–118, 206–207, 285–286 6:5 111 Zephaniah 1:10 56 2:12 73 Malachi 2:1–9  183, 186 2:4 184 2:4–8 184 2:5 184 2:6 183–184 2:8 183 2:9 183 3:23 112 4:5 113 Psalms 8:3 157 9 157 9:19 157 18:7 152 31:13 157 42 183 44 183 45–49 183 46:3 152

46:10 157 50:20 69 63:4 156 65:8 156 68:26 152 78:1 69 81:3 49 84–85 183 87–88 183 89:10 156 89:45 157 117:1 156 119:119 157 145:4 156 146:7 197 147:12 156 149:3  49, 198 150:4  49, 198 105:26 112 Job 2:7 64 17:6 77 19:18 69 30:10 77 Proverbs 1:8 55 27:7 222 29:11 156 Canticles 7:1  152, 198 Qohelet 2:16 158 4:2 156 8:15 156 9:5 158 Lamentations 5:15 198 Esther 1:1 73 Daniel 1:48 136 2:19 136 2:23 156 2:35 157

335

336 4:31 156 4:34 156 5:11 157 5:14 157 5:27 157 6:5 157 6:23 157 6:24 157 8:15 255 10:4 255 Ezra 2 102 4:11 127 4:23 127 5:6 127 6:2 157 Nehemiah 6:14  54, 57, 69 7 102 11:9 56 13:28–30 184 13:29 184 1 Chronicles 1–9  48, 120–125 1:32  121, 214 1:39 121 1:50 121 2 271 2–9 100 2:4 122 2:16 121 2:18 121 2:19–20 270 2:19–21  270, 272 2:20 143 2:21 121 2:23 121 2:26 121 2:30 208 2:32 208 2:34 122 2:35 121 2:46 121 2:48 121 2:49 121 3:2 121 3:3 121 3:5 121

Index of Ancient Sources 3:9 121 3:19 121 4:3 121 4:5 121 4:9 121 4:18 121 4:18–19 121 4:19 121 4:27 122 5  124, 208 5:16 121 5:27–40 122 5:27–41  121, 123 5:27–6:66  121, 123 5:28 141 5:29  19, 48, 120, 122–125, 131, 191, 194–195, 206, 208, 270, 272, 286 6:1–81 121 6:2 183 6:3 208 6:18 183 6:38 183 7:4 121 7:14 121 7:15  121, 125 7:15–16 121 7:18 121 7:23 121 7:24 121 7:28–29 121 7:30  121, 125 7:32  106, 121 8:8–9 121 8:29 121 9:35 121 13:8 49 16:35 156 21:1 100 23:12 183 23:28–32 185 24:6 185 24:31 185 25:1–6 185 25:1–31 185 26:1 185 26:19 185 26:20–28 185 26:29–32 185 2 Chronicles 1:5 270

Index of Ancient Sources 2:19 269 12:3 73 26:20 64 34:12–13 185

34:22–28 54 35–36 120 36:22–23 120

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Ben Sira 7:24 78 42:9–11 78 47:8–10 120 Demetrius the Chronographer frags. 1–5  212 frag. 1  212 frag. 2  212, 215 frag. 3  19, 211–218, 224–227, 247, 287 frag. 4  212, 215 frag. 5  212 frag. 6  212 Exagoge 1–65 220 18  19, 221–223, 225–227, 267 18–26  217, 220 18–31 220–222 21 221 24–25 221 26 221 Jubilees 1:4–6 164 1:27 164 8:1 168 8:6–7 168 11:11–13 167 11:18–21 167 19:10 168 23:9–32 163 25:1–3  133, 179 25:7–11  133, 179 30:1–26 165 30:2 165 30:7–17  133, 179 31:12–17 187 32:22–26 186 33:18–20  133, 179 34:20  103, 170

35:6  58, 258 41 271 41:23 271 45:16 186 46:1–16 170 46:9–47:1 128 47  166, 169–170 47–50 166 47:1 166 47:1–8  166, 167, 170 47:1–9 170–171 47:3  167, 222 47:4  19, 162, 166–168, 170, 172, 223 47:7–8 268 47:8  168, 170 48:13–14 169 Judith 3:7 198 15:12 198 15:12–13 152 15:12–14 59 15:14 197 16:1–17 151 16:2 197 16:5–10 153 16:7 153 16:15 152 Letter of Aristeas 316 218 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 4:11 254 8:10 260 9  258–259, 282 9:3–6 254 9:5  252, 259 9:7 254 9:8 260 9:9  254, 259–260 9:9–10 254

337

338

Index of Ancient Sources

9:10  19, 254–256, 258, 260, 278 9:12  254, 259 9:14 255 9:15 260 10:7 256 18:2 260 19:7 251 20:7–8 257 20:8  19, 256, 258, 282 23:6 260 28:4 260 30–33 252 32:5 254 33:1 55 44–47 252

3 Maccabees 4:6 197 6:32 198

1 Maccabees 9:67 197

Wisdom of Salomon 2:2 158 2:4 158 4:19 158

4 Maccabees 8:4 198 13:8 198 18:23 198 Testament of Levi 2:6–12 137 8 137 Testament of Judah 12:6 271

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS VI, 13  77 CD (Cairo Damascus Document) I, 15  151 III, 9  151 V, 7–11  132 V, 19  151 VI, 20  151 VII, 18  151 IX, 4  151, 176 IX, 6  176 X, 9  176 XVI, 3–4  164 1QHa V, 10  150 VI, 23  150 VII, 16  151 VII, 19  150 VII, 21  150 VIII, 21  150 IX, 5  150 X, 23  150 X, 28  151 X, 35  150

XI, 34  150 XII, 9  150 XII, 22  150 XIII, 7  150 XIII, 20  150 XIV, 8  151 XIV, 12  157 XIV, 34  151 XV, 15  157 XV, 16  151 XV, 22  151 XV, 23  151 XV, 33  150 XVI, 9  151 XVI, 19  150 XVI, 32  157 XVI, 35  151 XVIII, 11  150 XVIII, 16  150 XVIII, 22  150 XVIII, 25  151 XIX, 12  151 XIX, 15  151 XIX, 29  150 XIX, 31  150 XX, 5  150

Index of Ancient Sources XXI, 13  157 XXII, 2  150, 157 XXVI, 1  151 XXVII, 2  151 XXVIII, 4  151 5 7  151 7 12  151 8 3  151 46 II, 2  151 1QM 1 8  151 X, 4  151 XI, 7  151 XIV, 4  151 XIV, 5  151 XVII, 6  151 1QpHab 1 II, 12  176 1QapGen V, 20  136 V, 25  136 V, 20–21  136 VI, 6–9  134 VI, 11–12  136 X, 20  157 XXII, 15.  136 ALD 4 137 5 186 6:1–5 134 6–10 186 11 137 11–12 143 11:1  103, 134 11:5–6 137 11:6 137 12:2–4 133 12:4 137 12:3 134 12:3–5 134 4Q23 (Lev-Numa) 12:8 71 4Q27 (Numb) 12:6 70 12:8 71

339

4Q88 (Psf )  IX, 6  157 4Q169 (pNah) 1–2 11  176 4Q196 (papToba) 17 II, 7  157 4Q213 (Leva ar) 1 5  137 4Q216 (Juba) V, 2  157 VII, 6  157 VII, 8  157 4Q251 (Halakha A) 17 3–5  132 4Q266 (Da) 17 1  157 4Q270 (De) 6 III, 18  176 4Q306 (Men of the People Who Err) 1 4  77 4Q365 (RPc) 6a II + 6c, 1–7  19, 147–152, 155–159 6a II + 6c, 2  150 6a II + 6c, 4  156, 157, 158 6a II + 6c, 5  150, 157 6a II + 6c, 7  150 23 148 4Q370 (AdmonFlood) 1 I, 4  150–151 1 I, 5  151 1 I, 8  151 4Q371 (Narrative and Poetic Compositiona) 6 2  151 4Q372 (Narrative and Poetic Compositionb) 1 1–16  153 1 16  151 1 17  151 1 29  151 3 4  157

340

Index of Ancient Sources

4Q375 (apocrMosesa) 1 I, 3  176 4Q377 (apocrPent.B) 1 I, 6  177 2 I, 3–10  175 2 I, 4–5  175 2 I, 6  175 2 I, 7  175 2 I, 8  176–177 2 I, 9  19, 172–173, 175–180 2 I, 10  172–173, 176–177 2 II, 2  176 2 II, 3  174, 177 2 II, 4  174 2 II, 5  173, 176–177 2 II, 10  176 2 II, 11  176 2 II, 12  176 4Q380 (Non-Canonical Psalms A) 1 II, 4  151 1 II, 6  151 4Q381 (Non-Canonical Psalms B) 15 4  151 4Q394 (MMT) 3–7 134 4Q404 (ShirShabb ) 1 3  151 e

4Q427 (H) 7 I, 18  150, 157 7 I, 19  151 7 I, 20  150 7 II, 5  157 7 II, 6  157 7 II, 7  150 7 II, 11  157 7 II, 12  150 8 I, 13  150 4Q428 (H) 53 2  150 4Q434 (Barkhi Nafshia)  1 I, 2  157

4Q504 (DibHama) 1–2 III, 11  176 1–2 V, 5  176 4Q524 (Tb) 15–22 3–4  132 4Q525 (Beatitudes) 2 II, 5  157 4Q542 (TQahat) 1 I, 4–7  134 1 I, 4  137 4Q543 (Visions of Amrama) 1 1  127, 142 1 4  142 1 5–7  131 1 6  19, 131, 140 4Q544 (Visions of Amramb) 1 1–9  170 1 3  141 1 5  130 1 6  140 1 7  130 1 8  130 1 10–11  137, 186 4Q545 (Visions of Amramc) 1 I, 1  142 1 I, 1–3  186 1 I, 4  142 1 I, 5  19, 131 1 I, 5–7  131 1 I, 8  142 1 II, 16  142 1 II, 19  142 3 2–4  137, 186 4 15–16  137, 186 4 15–17  278 4 15–19  136 4 16  136 11 1  142 4Q546 (Visions of Amramd) 1 4  131 8 2  142 9 2  137, 186 11 3  142 12 138

Index of Ancient Sources 12 3  142 12 4  19, 131, 135–136, 138, 140, 186, 279 14 138 14 1–5  138 14 5  137, 186 4Q547 (Visions of Amrame) 9 1–7  139 9 2  139 9 3  139 9 4  139 9 5  139 9 6  139 9 8  137, 139, 186 9 9  139–141 9 10  19, 131, 139–141

341

2 7  143 2 8  19, 131, 142 2 9  142 2 10  130, 142–143 11Q11 (apocrPs) IV, 4  151 IV, 5  176 3 2  151 11Q19 (Ta) II, 11–15  134 XX, 13  157 XXII 158 LV, 11  176 LXIII 10–15  134, 179 LXVI, 15–17  132

4Q549 (Visions of Amramg) 1 2  142 2 6  143

11Q20 (Tb) IV, 24  157

Philo of Alexandria De Abrahamo 100–101 231 De aeternitate mundi 7–16 230 De agricultura 80–81  19, 233, 241–244, 246 152 232 158 232 De cherubim 49–52 232 50 232 De vita contemplativa 1 234 2 234 68  232, 235 87  19, 233–235, 237, 241–242, 246 De congressueru ditionis gratia 74 229 De decalogo 102 232

De ebrietate 73 231 211 231 In Flaccum 89 232 De fuga et inventione 114 232 141 232 Hypothetica 11.1–18 234–235 De Iosepho 43 232 Legum allegoriae 1 237 1.31–32 231 1.74 237 1.75 238 1.76  19, 233, 237–238, 242, 246–247 2 237 2.64–65 238 2.66–67  19, 73, 233, 238–240, 242, 246–247

342

Index of Ancient Sources

2.67 239 3 237 3.100 240 3.103  19, 233, 240, 242, 246–247, 281

Quod omnis probus liber sit 74 234 75–91 234 92–93 234

Legatio ad Gaium 227 232

Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 2.3 232

De migratione Abrahami 31 232 206 232 224–225 232

Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1.24 231

De vita Mosis 1.12 232–233 1.12–16  266, 268 1.16–17 233 1.52–53 232 1.57 232 1.59 239 1.180 241 1.311 232 2. 7  232 2.236–238 232 2.242–243 232 2.256  233, 241 De mutatione nominum 53 232 194 232 196 232 De opificio mundi 69 231 143 231 151 231 165 231 De plantatione 129 232 De posteritate Caini 32 232 132–234 232 De praemiis et poenis 53 232 153 232 159 232

De sobrietate 13 241 De somniis 1.200 232 2.142 233 2.185 232 De specialibus legibus 1.101 232 1.105 232 1.107–108 232 1.110 232 1.112 232 1.129 232 2.24 232 2.30 232 2.56 232 2.125 232 3.25–26 232 3.29 239 3.65 232 3.80–81 232 4.178 232 4.223 232 De virtutibus 28 232 37 232 42 232 57 232 114 232

Index of Ancient Sources

Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 1.5 263 1.81 273 1.151 265 1.197–198 265 1.207 265 1.213 265 1.237 274 2.206 267 2.210 276 2.210–228 267 2.212–217  267, 277 2.216  267, 278 2.217 278 2.218 267 2.221  19, 266–268 2.226  266, 268 2.252–253 180 3.53–54 269 3.54  19, 266, 269–270, 272, 279, 281 3.105  19, 266, 270–271, 279, 281 4.78  19, 266, 272–274, 281 5.318–319 278

10.267–268 136 16.174 263 17.1–22 133 17.349–353 258 18.257 229 18.259 279 20.100 279 20.216–218 276 20.262–263 264 Bellum judaicum 2.114–116 258 2.147 77 3.352 262 Contra Apionem 1.54 262 1.206–207 258 Vita 10–12 262 198 262

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah Abot 5.6 257

15a 64 48a 198

Mishnah Niddah 5.6–8 131–132

Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anit 9a 256

Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 14a 225

Exodus Rabbah 1.12 271 1.13 83 1.17  269, 279 2.4  255, 260 48.3 272

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 7a 272 Babylonian Talmud, Shevu’ot 8a 64 Babylonian Talmud Sotah 1.9 247 11b-12a  143, 269, 279 12b  255, 260 13a 225

Mekilta on Exodus 16.35  256, 260 Sifre Devarim 338 244

343

344

Index of Ancient Sources

Sifre Numeri 78  269, 279 99  83, 215

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Exod 15:20–21  154 Exod 15:21  47–48 Num 12 :1–2  73 Num 20:2  260

Targum Neofiti 1 Exod 15:20–21  154 Num 12:1–2  73

Greek and Roman Sources Homer, Iliad 1.423 239 18.51 197 18.606 197 Odyssey 4.19 197 11.436–39 264

Tacitus, Historiae 5.2.2 239 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.23.155 218 1.141.8 212

Hymni Homerici 27:18 197

Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 9.27.19 180 9.28.2–3 218 9.29.1–3 212

Plato, Timaeus 90E 264

Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus 3.6 193

Aristotle, De Generatione animalium 775A 264

Author Index Abegg Jr., Martin.  203 Ackerman, Susan.  26–27, 76, 88, 117 Ackroyd, Peter R.  121 Adlam, Carol.  38 Aejmelaeus, Anneli.  194, 209–211 Albright, William F.  44, 51, 79, 101, 119, 181 Alexander, Philip S.  32, 154–155 Allen, Graham.  34, 36, 89 Amir, Yehoshua.  229, 231 Andersen, Francis I.  110, 112–114 Angel, Joseph L.  192 Archer, Leonie J.  95, 133, 273 Artemov, Nikita.  94 Ashley, Timothy R.  71, 84, 94, 96, 103 Attridge, Harold W.  263 Aune, David E.  56–57 Baden, Joel S.  63, 68, 77, 177 Baentsch, Bruno.  49–52, 69, 73, 78 Baer, Richard A. Jr.  230–232, 234, 236, 244 Bailey, James L.  265 Bakhtin, Mikhail.  19, 31, 34–39, 41, 101, 118, 285 Barclay, John M. G.  119, 194, 216, 220, 227, 239, 263 Barthélemy, Dominique.  162 Batto, Bernard F.  54 Becker, Joachim.  122 Begg, Christopher T.  62 Bellis, Alice Ogden.  22, 54 Ben-Dov, Jonathan.  56 Ben Zvi, Ehud.  109–110, 121 Bernstein, Moshe J.  24, 32, 148, 153 Berthelot, Katell.  119, 128 Bertholet, Alfred.  61 Beyer, Klaus.  131, 138 Bickerman, E. J.  212–213 Billings, Thomas H.  230 Bird, Phyllis A.  21–22, 24, 27, 93 Birnbaum, Ellen.  229, 234 Blenkinsopp, Joseph.  64, 181–182, 184–185, 262 Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth.  96 Blum, Erhard.  30

Boardman, John.  274 Boccaccini, Gabriele.  163 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice.  249–251, 253, 255 Bohmbach, Karla G.  48 Boling, Robert G.  55 Borowski, Oded.  133 Bowen, Nancy R.  58 Bowley, James E.  179 Brady, Monica.  172–178 Brandist, Craig.  35 Braulik, Georg.  61, 64, 66 Braun, Martin.  264 Braun, Roddy L.  123 Bray, Jason S.  182 Bréhier, Émile.  229 Brenner, Athalya.  23, 44, 53, 57, 264–265 Brenner, Martin L.  44 Brooke, Alan E.  194 Brooke, George J.  27, 33, 147–148, 151–153, 160, 173 Brooten, Bernadette.  38, 235 Brown, Cheryl A.  251–253, 263 Budd, Philip J.  68, 70, 78, 96, 97 Buis, Pierre.  92 Burns, Rita J.  24–25, 31, 45–46, 49, 53, 58–59, 62, 65–66, 69–70, 76, 78–80, 82, 84–85, 87–88, 90–92, 94, 97–100, 103, 105–106, 114, 117, 122, 124–125, 188, 197–198 Calabi, Francesca.  234 Camp, Claudia V.  26, 102, 107, 117 Caqout, André.  44 Carmichael, Calum M.  61, 88 Carr, David M.  29–30, 32, 43, 80, 82, 85, 87–88, 110–111, 114, 120–121 Castelli, Elizabeth.  232 Charles, R. H.  162, 164 Childs, Brevard S.  44, 46, 51 Chilton, Bruce.  19, 156 Claassens, Juliana M.  37 Clark, Katerina.  35 Clarke, E. G.  158 Clements, R. E.  61 Clifford, Richard J.  74

346

Author Index

Coats, George W.  44–45, 68–69, 78, 81–83, 86, 92, 96–97 Cohn, Leopold.  249–252, 255–256 Cohen, Shaye J. D.  104, 216, 262–263, 283 Collins, Adela Yarbro.  38, 275 Collins, John. J.  119, 133, 136, 193, 213, 215–216, 218, 220, 275 Colson, F. H.  230, 234, 237–238, 242 Conway, Colleen M.  231 Cooper, Alan M.  72, 74–75 Crawford, Sidnie White.  24, 27, 33, 127, 132, 142–143, 147–150, 155–159, 163, 192, 269, 271 Cross, Frank Moore.  30, 44, 46, 51, 73, 76, 79, 107 Crüsemann, Frank.  45 Cryer, Frederick H.  182 Curtis, Adrian.  32 Dahmen, Ulrich.  181, 188 Davenport, Gene L.  162–163 Davies, Jon.  274–275 Davies, Philip R.  235 Delcor, Mathias.  219 Denis, Albert-Marie.  162, 212–213 DesCamps, Mary Therese.  251–253 De Troyer, Kristin.  209 Diaz-Diocaretz, Myriam.  39 Dijk-Hemmes, Fokkelien van.  44 Dillman, August.  70–73, 78, 162 Dimant, Devorah.  127, 129–130 Dirksen, Peter B.  120–123 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.  37 Dorival, Gilles.  103 Dozeman, Thomas B.  29, 45, 50 Draisma, Spike.  32 Drawnel, Henryk.  127–128, 134–135, 137, 143, 146, 186 Duke, Robert R.  127–129, 131, 134, 138–139, 143, 146, 269, 271 Dupont-Sommer, André.  135 Durand, Jean-Marie.  54 Durham, John I.  45 Edelman, Diana.  57 Egger-Wenzel, Renate.  151 Ehrlich, Ernst Ludwig.  75, 79 Ellenbogen, Maximilian.  135 Elm, Susanna.  232 Endres, John C.  163, 166 Engberg-Pedersen, Troels.  234

Erbele-Küster, Dorothea.  64, 77 Eshel, Esther.  103, 132, 134, 146, 150, 168, 186, 206 Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn.  102, 107 Eynikel, Erik.  197, 203, 208, 222 Ewald, Heinrich.  109 Fabry, Heinz-Josef.  129 Falk, Daniel K.  147, 173–174, 226 Feldman, Ariel.  173, 175, 177–178 Feldman, Louis H.  239, 251, 259, 263–268, 270, 272–276, 278–279 Finkelstein, Louis.  163 Fischer, Irmtraud.  26, 45, 49, 51, 61, 69–70, 73, 80–81, 83, 85, 88, 90, 92, 99, 106, 117, 188 Fisk, Bruce Norman.  249, 251, 255 Flannery-Dailey, Frances.  255, 258, 272, 277, 292 Fleming, Daniel E.  54 Flesher, Paul V. M.  19, 156 Flint, Peter W.  72, 123, 202–205 Fornaro, P.  218 Fox, M. V.  158 Freedman, David Noel.  44, 46, 71, 75, 110, 112–114 Freudenthal, Jacob.  211–214, 216 Frey, Jörg.  128, 135 Fritsch, Charles T.  203 Fuchs, Esther.  26 Fuhs, Hans Ferdinand.  93 Fulton, Deirdre N.  121 Gafney, Wilda C.  26–27, 52, 55, 57, 60, 73, 76, 78, 83–84, 93, 113, 210 Gall, August Freiherr von.  71 García Bachmann, Mercedes.  26, 53, 63, 66–67, 69, 73, 77–78, 81, 85, 92, 99 García Martínez, Florentino.  33, 140, 142, 186 Geljon, Albert C.  242, 243–244, 246 Genette, Gérard.  34, 89 Gerstenberger, Erhard S.  29–30 Gese, Hartmut.  181 Ginsberg, Harold L.  33 Ginzberg, Louis.  140, 226, 247, 272 Gnuse, Robert Karl.  260, 277–279 Goldman, Liora.  127, 130 Goldstein, Bernard R.  74–75 Goldstein, Elizabeth W.  102 Goodenough, Erwin R.  229 Goulder, M. D.  183

Author Index

347

Graetz, Naomi.  41, 83 Gray, George Buchanan.  74, 94, 96, 102 Green, Barbara.  36–38 Greenfield, Jonas C.  103, 132, 134, 146, 168, 186 Groß, Walter.  55 Grossman, Maxine.  24 Gruber, Mayer, I.  110, 112 Gruen, Erich S.  119 Gunneweg, Antonius H. J.  181

Janzen, J. Gerald.  26 Japhet, Sara.  120–121, 123–124 Joüon, Paul.  69 Jellicoe, Sidney.  194, 218 Jenson, Philip Peter.  111–112 Jeremias, Jörg.  111, 113 Jobes, Karen H.  194 Johnson, Marshall D.  101, 121, 125 Johnstone, William.  75 Jonge, Marius de.  128

Hachlili, Rachel.  273, 275 Halpern-Amaru, Betsy.  129–130, 134, 163–170, 192, 221, 253, 263, 265, 275 Handy, Lowell K.  56–57 Hanson, John.  212, 214, 277 Haran, Menahem.  181 Harris, Jay.  244 Harkless, Necia Desiree.  73 Harrington, Daniel J.  135, 249–251, 254, 256 Hartman, Thomas C.  101 Hauspie, Katrin.  197, 203, 208, 222 Hay, David M.  235–236 Hayes, Christine E.  74, 166 Hayward, Robert.  155 Heinemann, Isaak.  229 Heinisch, Paul.  45, 51, 78–79, 98 Hengel, Martin.  216 Hezser, Catherine.  260 Hieke, Thomas.  133 Hillers, Delbert R.  110–111 Himmelfarb, Martha.  163 Hoffman, Christopher A.  148 Holladay, Carl R.  212–213, 218–220 Holquist, Michael.  19, 35 Holzinger, Heinrich.  46, 50–52, 82, 94, 96–97 Horst, Pieter W. van der.  137, 145, 213, 216, 218–220, 252–253 Houtman, Alberdina.  154–155 Houtman, Cornelis.  47, 49, 206 Huffmon, Herbert B.  110 Hunt, Alice.  181 Hutton, Jeremy M.  181

Kalimi, Isaac.  120 Kamesar, Adam.  213, 229, 237 Kannicht, R.  218 Katz, Peter.  230 Kaufman, Stephen A.  154 Kawashima, Robert S.  51 Keil, Carl Friedrich.  70, 73 Kensky, Tikva Frymer.  27 Kent, R. G.  135 Kessler, Rainer.  26, 85, 88, 110–111, 113, 117 Kisch, Guido.  249–251 Klein, Michael.  155 Klein, Ralph W.  120–121, 123 Knierim, Rolf P.  68, 78 Knoppers, Gary N.  57, 120, 123 Koch, K.  74 Kolman Marshak, Adam.  40 Kornfeld, W.  93 Koskenniemi, Erkki.  33 Kraemer, Ross Shepard.  234 Kraft, Robert A.  33, 194 Kreuzer, Siegfried.  66 Kristeva, Julia.  31, 35, 39 Kselman, J. S.  70, 79 Kugel, James L.  163, 166, 186–187, 190 Kugler, Robert A.  128, 166, 186, 188 Kunin, Daniel.  290 Kurtz, Donna C.  274

Ilan, Tal.  21–24, 57, 78, 105, 132–133, 197, 218, 251–252, 264, 267, 291, 293 Illman, Karl-Johan.  94 Jacobson, Howard.  173, 218–220, 222, 249, 251–255, 257 James, M. R.  249, 251, 257

Labahn, Antje.  121, 181, 191 Laffey, Alice L.  57 Lamour, Denis.  262 Lanfranchi, Pierluigi.  217–219 Lange, Armin.  33–34, 53, 60, 74, 80, 87, 129, 135, 147–148, 174, 179, 184, 191 Laquer, Richard.  262 Lauha, Aarre.  45 Le Déaut, R.  154 Lemaire, André.  262

348

Author Index

Leuchter, Mark A.  181 Leveen, Adriane B.  90, 98 Levin, Christoph.  30, 43 Levine, Baruch A.  68, 71–73, 78, 81, 88, 96–97, 102, 105, 204 Lewis, Theodore J.  75 Limburg, J.  110 Lindars, Barnabas.  55 Lindblom, Johannes.  53 Lindqvist, Pekka.  33 Lipton, Diana.  75 Loader, William.  130, 143, 164–167, 171, 264 Löwisch, Ingeborg.  100–102, 104, 106 Lust, Johan.  197, 203, 208, 222 Mach, Michael.  167 Machiela, Daniel A.  33 Magness, Jodi.  127 Maher, Michael.  154 Makiello, Phoebe.  173 Malamat, Abraham.  101, 106 Manor, Dale W.  93 Marcos, Natalio Fernández.  194 Margaliot, Meshullam.  91 Marguerat, Daniel.  32 Marsman, Hennie J.  53, 57, 93 Marti, Karl.  109 Mason, Steve.  262–263 Matthews, Victor H.  109 Mattila, Sharon Lea.  230, 232 Mayer-Schärtel, Bärbel.  263 Mayes, A. D. H.  61–62, 64–66 Mays, James Luther.  109–111, 113 McIvor, J. Stanley.  269, 271 McKane, William.  109–110, 114 McLean, Norman.  194 McNamara, Martin.  154–155 Mendenhall, George E.  101 Meyers, Carol L.  21, 23, 26–27, 49–50, 55, 115, 117 Minette de Tillesse, Georges.  62 Milgrom, Jacob.  64, 65, 77, 80, 91, 93–94, 104, 203 Milik, Józef T.  126–128, 162 Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike.  33, 151–152 Moi, Toril.  35 Monger, Matthew Philip.  163 Morris, Pam.  35 Moss, Candida R.  63, 68, 77, 177 Mowinckel, Sigmund.  183, 185

Mras, Karl.  212 Muraoka, Takamitsu.  197, 203, 208 Murphy, Frederick J.  249–251, 253, 255, 257, 260 Najman, Hindy.  32 Nam, Roger.  147 Nelson, Richard D.  61 Newsom, Carol A.  23, 129 Nickelsburg, George W. E.  163 Niehoff, Maren.  231 Nihan, Christophe.  87 Nikiprowetzky, Valentin.  231, 235 Nissinen, Martti.  37, 53–54, 57, 293 Nodet, Étienne.  263, 271, 274 Nordheim, Eckhard von.  128 Noth, Martin.  24–25, 30, 45, 49, 58–59, 68–69, 73, 78–79, 80–82, 84, 86–87, 96–98, 108, 120 Nowack, Wilhelm.  109 Nurmela, Risto.  181 O’Brien, Julia M.  183 O’Connor, Mary.  39 Olson, Denis T.  90 Oppenheim, A. Leo.  75 Osiek, Carolyn.  22 Ottoson, M.  75 Otwell, John H.  24 Pakkala, Juha.  67 Pardes, Ilana.  26, 38 Perkins, Larry.  195–196, 199 Perlitt, Lothar.  79, 85, 87 Perrot, Charles.  249–251, 253, 255 Petersen, Anders Klostergaard.  32 Petersen, David L.  53 Peursen, Wido van.  173 Phillips, Gary A.  32 Plummer, Reinhard.  147 Porton, Gary G.  250–251 Propp William H. C.  44–45, 47, 49, 51–52, 59, 87, 90–91, 96–97, 188–189, 206 Puech, Émile.  126–131, 136, 138–143, 146, 148, 170, 173, 175 Pury, Albert de.  30 Rad, Gerhard von.  181 Radt, S.  218 Rahmani, Levi Yizhaq.  273 Rajak, Tessa.  73, 194, 216–217, 262

Author Index Rapp, Ursula.  24–26, 31, 49, 51, 61, 66–71, 73, 76–78, 81–86, 88, 90–92, 96, 98, 99–100, 105–106, 110, 117, 122, 124, 188 Reed, Annette Yoshiko.  21 Reed, Walter L.  37 Reinmuth, Eckart.  255 Regev, Eyal.  24 Riaud, Jean.  235 Ringe, Sharon H.  23 Ringgren, Helmer.  93 Robbins, Vernon K.  32 Robertson, R. G.  218–219, 222 Robinson, Bernard P.  78 Römer, Thomas Christian.  30, 63, 67, 88 Rönsch, Hermann.  162 Rose, Martin.  30, 64–66 Royse, James R.  230, 233 Ruiten, Jacques van.  129, 170 Runia, David T.  229–230, 233, 242–244, 246 Runnalls, Donna.  73 Rüterswörden, Udo.  64 Satlow, Michael L.  104, 133, 135, 180, 275 Sawyer, John F. A.  63 Schäfer, Peter.  220 Schaller, Berndt.  250 Schaper, Joachim.  181–182, 185, 191 Scharbert, Josef.  50 Schiffman, Lawrence H.  19, 23, 132–134, 148, 179, 260 Schmid, Konrad.  29 Schmidt, Ludwig.  96 Schuller, Eileen M.  23, 153, 264 Schunk, Klaus-Dietrich.  184 Schürer, Emil.  229 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth.  38–39 Schwartz, Baruch J.  29 Schwartz, Daniel R.  229, 283 Schwartz, Seth.  263, 276 Schweitzer, Steven James.  120–121, 125 Seebass, Horst.  69, 71, 73, 78, 80, 82, 84 Seeligman, I. L.  194 Seeman, Chris.  40 Segal, Michael.  147, 163 Segert, Stanislav.  130 Shutt, R. J.  193 Siegel, Jonathan P.  174 Sievers, Joseph.  275 Silva, Moisés.  194 Simon, M.  234 Siquans, Agnethe.  41

349

Sly, Dorothy.  230–233, 235, 238–239, 241–242, 244–246, 248–249 Smallwood, E. Mary.  229, 243 Smith, Mark S.  55, 183 Smith-Christopher, Daniel L.  74 Snell, B.  218 Sollamo, Raija.  193 Sparks, James T.  120–121 Sperling, S. David.  71, 77, 87 Stackert, Jeffrey.  187 Stade, Bernhard.  109 Stagg. Evelyn.  263 Stagg, Frank.  263 Stählin, Otto.  212 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady.  22 Starcky, Jean.  126, 128, 142 Stallman, Robert C.  192 Stegemann, Hartmut.  148, 174 Steinmetz, Devora.  41, 257 Stemberger, Günter.  244, 250, 271–272 Sterling, Gregory E.  264, 278 Strugnell, John.  24, 219 Stowasser, Barbara Freyer.  197 Stökl, Jonathan.  54, 56–57 Stone, Michael.  103, 132, 134, 146, 165, 168, 186 Stuckenbruck, Loren T.  23 Sturdy, John.  97 Swete, Henry Barclay.  194 Sysling, Harry.  154–155, 213 Taylor, Joan E.  231, 234–235, 244 Tervanotko, Hanna.  55, 89, 94–95, 104, 108, 130–132, 134, 137, 146, 155, 159, 168, 171, 173, 178, 189, 192, 207, 214, 245, 252, 290–291 Testuz, Michel.  162 Thackeray, Henry St. John.  194, 262 Thomas, Samuel.  135–138 Tigay, Jeffrey H.  61, 63–64, 88, 150 Tigchelaar, Eibert.  21, 23, 140, 142, 163 Trible, Phyllis.  25, 84 Tov, Emanuel.  32–33, 39, 62, 72, 132, 147–150, 155–157, 173–174, 194, 209 Ulrich, Eugene C.  39, 72, 147–148, 203 VanderKam, James C.  103, 129, 133, 162–163, 167, 169–170, 172–178, 186, 205, 222 Van Seters, John.  30 Veijola, Timo.  62–63, 66–67

350 Vermes, Géza.  32, 173, 235 Vervenne, Marc.  43 Villalba i Varneda, Pere.  263 Visscher, Fernand de.  274 Voitila, Anssi.  204 Volosinov, Valentin.  35 Vries, Simon J. de.  81 Wacholder, Ben Zion.  196, 213 Wacker, Marie-Theres.  25, 38, 73 Walsh, Jerome T.  93, 97 Walter, N.  216 Wanke, Günther.  183 Wassen, Cecilia.  24, 38 Watson, Francis.  32 Webb, Geoff R.  35–36 Wegner, Judith Romney.  230, 233, 245 Weinfeld, Moshe.  63, 66 Weippert, Manfred.  53, 58 Weitzman, Steven.  152 Wellhausen, Julius.  30, 100, 181 Welten, Peter.  120 Werman, Cana.  166, 191

Author Index Werrett, Ian C.  134 Wette, Wilhelm Martin L. de.  32 Wevers, John William.  200 Whitaker, G. H.  230 White, Sidnie A. see, Crawford Whybray, R. N.  158 Williamson, H. G. M.  54–55, 57, 69, 120 Willoughby, W. E.  75 Wilson, Robert R.  39, 56, 87, 100–101, 104, 106–107, 124 Winslow, Karen.  73, 80, 83 Winston, David.  135, 231, 245 Wintermute, O. S.  163, 222 Wolde, Ellen van.  31, 37 Wolff, Hans Walter.  110–111, 114 Wolfson, H. A.  229 Wright III, Benjamin G.  193 Yadin, Yigael.  119, 132 Zahn, Molly M.  21, 34, 147–149 Zenger, Erich.  51, 183 Zeron, A.  251

Subject Index Abraham  58, 75, 94, 214–217, 224, 252, 254, 265 Aaronide priests  183, 185, 187 Alexandria  119, 193–194, 198–199, 213, 216–219, 223, 229, 235, 247 Amram  103, 105–107, 122–126, 128, 130–135, 137–145, 170–171, 186, 188–190, 195–196, 207–208, 254, 259–260, 267, 270–271, 276–277, 286–287 –– Amram’s dream; vision  131, 137–140, 277–279, 281 ancient Jewish literature  19–21, 23, 27, 38, 41, 74, 102, 119, 135, 151, 191, 207, 226–227, 232, 248, 255, 257, 261, 273, 285, 294 ANE (ancient Near East)  25–26, 54–55, 59–60, 101, 127 Aristotle  231, 264 Bezalel  240, 269–272, 276, 279 Cushite wife; woman  72–74, 76, 78–80, 83, 85–86, 133, 179, 247 daughter(s)  77–78, 102–107, 117, 121–122, 124–126, 131, 133–135, 140, 144, 152, 166, 168, 188–189, 191, 195, 198, 223, 239, 252, 259, 268, 271, 287 DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls)  19–20, 23–24, 28, 60, 77, 119, 127, 129, 133, 136, 144, 153, 157, 159, 162–164, 172, 174, 176, 178–180, 227 Deborah  47, 54–55, 58–59, 116, 151–153, 160, 252, 264–265, 292 Demetrius the Chronographer  19, 211, 212–218, 224–227, 247, 287 deuteronomistic (dtr)  62, 79, 87–88, 111, 114, 117, 286 dialogism  34–35, 37 Dinah  48, 165–166, 231–232 dream(s)  53, 58, 75–76, 81, 89, 136–137, 139–140, 234, 255–256, 258–261, 267, 277–279, 281, 292 Egypt; Egyptians  40, 43, 45–46, 49, 65, 68, 90, 93, 105, 111, 113–116, 119–120, 140, 142, 144–145, 152, 160, 190, 193, 198,

200, 205, 211, 216–221, 224–227, 229, 235, 246, 254, 261, 273, 287–288 endogamy  130, 134–135, 144, 164–165 Essenes  129–130, 234–235, 262 exemplary figure  235–236, 240–242, 246, 248, 258, 261, 282 Exodus (departure from Egypt)  51–52, 61, 65–66, 68, 84, 101, 111–112, 114–115, 134, 144, 160–161, 191, 212, 218–220, 224, 228, 258, 272, 285, 288–289 exogamy  107, 134, 179, 239 Ezekiel the Tragedian  217–223 feminist criticism; movement  22, 38–39 genealogy; genealogies  48, 100–104, 106–108, 120–126, 132, 142–146, 165, 169–170, 180–181, 183, 195–196, 205–207, 210, 212–217, 224, 270, 272, 276, 282, 286, 291 Greco-Roman  21, 40, 179–180, 219–220, 226, 239, 256, 258, 274, 292–294 Greek drama  198, 217–219, 224, 236 Greek philosophy  230, 232–233, 283 Hannah  152–153, 209–211, 231–232 harmonizing  62, 150, 155, 161, 198, 200, 206, 273–274, 280 Hellenistic  31, 40, 130, 132–133, 160, 172, 191, 194, 199, 208, 211–212, 216–220, 223, 249, 264–265, 280, 282–283, 288–289 Hellenistic era  31, 40, 47, 65, 108, 113, 117, 119, 130, 133, 160, 165, 174, 180–181, 183, 185–188, 190–193, 206, 209, 214, 219, 225, 227–228, 245, 247, 271, 275–276, 281, 286–287, 289, 290, 292–293 Huldah  54–58, 292 Hur  90, 142–143, 269–272, 274, 276 intermarriage  74, 78, 107, 130, 133–135, 165–166, 179–180, 214–216, 227, 239, 259 intertextuality  28, 31–34, 36, 39, 88–89, 118, 125, 129, 243, 260, 285 J-source  30, 93, 97 Jacob  48, 58, 94–95, 181, 186, 215

352

Subject Index

Jerusalem  40, 109, 121, 182–185, 227 Jochebed  102–107, 124, 130–134, 167–168, 170–171, 188–189, 196, 206–207, 222, 254–255, 259–260, 267, 276, 278 Josephus  19, 77, 96, 129, 133, 143, 180, 229, 251–252, 260, 262–283, 288 Judah  25, 57, 98, 111, 212, 271 Judahites  271–272, 274, 276–277, 280–282 Judea; Judean  40, 119–120, 164, 191–192, 209, 212, 225–227, 251–252, 261–262, 272, 282, 287–288 Judith  59, 151–153, 160 Kadesh  92–99, 117, 204, 274 kinship  39, 48–49, 58–60, 83–84, 87, 98–99, 101, 103–104, 108, 113–117, 121, 125, 165, 195, 254, 269, 276, 286, 291 Leah  94–95, 231, 245 Levi  102–103, 107, 121–122, 128, 134, 137, 145, 175, 180–181, 183–184, 186, 188–189, 287 Levi’s daughter  103, 107, 133, 188–189, 259 Levite(s)  39–40, 62, 64–65, 75, 82, 101–102, 104–105, 107–108, 116–118, 121, 123–126, 144, 146, 161, 170–172, 181–193, 205–207, 210, 226–227, 254, 260–261, 271, 276, 282, 287- 288, 291 Levite women  170, 193, 207, 290 Levitical family; house  41, 102, 104, 107–108, 116, 118, 121, 124–126, 130, 134–135, 138, 141–143, 145–146, 168, 170–171, 179–181, 188, 191, 195, 206, 258, 287 Levitical priests  64–65, 117, 182 Levitical texts; traditions  161, 187, 190, 192, 287, 290–291, 293 lineage(s)  96, 101–102, 104, 121, 123–126, 134, 138, 143, 146, 168, 192, 210, 260, 271–272, 279–280, 286 lists  48, 57, 87, 100–108, 111, 113, 118, 120–126, 143, 145, 175, 189–192, 195–196, 200, 206–207, 209–211, 217, 224, 270, 287–288, 290 LXX (Septuagint)  19, 21, 39–40, 47, 57, 62, 70–72, 103, 119, 121, 123, 136, 151, 180, 189, 191, 193–200, 202–214, 216–217, 219, 221–224, 227, 230, 233, 236, 238, 240, 242, 246, 252, 267, 270, 274, 277, 288 Machpelah  94–95, 128 Midianite  66, 72–73, 241

Miriam –– against Moses  49, 69, 80, 89, 238, 240, 247 –– Amram’s daughter  105–106, 124, 131, 135, 144, 191, 271, 287 –– ancestor mother  146, 171, 190–192, 210, 277 –– birth  139–141, 144 –– children  142–143, 271 –– death  90–92, 94–99, 115, 118, 205, 257, 273–275, 280, 282 –– Ephrath 269 –– leader  25, 39, 111–118, 160, 199, 209, 236, 242–245, 257–258, 261, 275, 280, 283, 285–286, 288–289 –– marriage  131–135, 138, 140, 142–146, 190–191, 269–270, 272, 279, 290–291 –– priestess  25, 124 –– female prophet; prophetess  24–26, 48, 50, 52–53, 58–60, 80, 89, 113, 115, 138, 144, 236, 275, 285, 292–293 –– punishment  68, 72, 76–78, 80–85, 87–89, 115, 178–180, 215, 217, 227, 237–238, 243, 247, 286–287 –– raz  136, 138, 144–146, 193, 259, 279, 292–293 –– shame  77–78, 84, 238, 240–241 –– sister of Moses and Aaron  48–49, 58, 80, 106, 113, 116, 124, 144–145, 160, 167, 189, 221, 223, 225–226, 272, 275, 287–288 –– well  257, 260 Moses –– infant  48, 166–170, 191, 217, 220–224, 267–268 –– marriage  72–74, 78–79, 83, 85, 88, 133, 179–180, 211–217, 239–240 –– prophecy  34, 76, 82, 84–85, 87, 116, 236, 285 mother(s)  55, 71–72, 84, 103–104, 108, 117–118, 121, 146, 165, 167–169, 171, 188, 190–192, 195, 210, 220–223, 229, 232, 245, 252, 255, 262, 266–269, 271, 277, 279–280, 289, 294 MT (Masoretic text)  23, 39–40, 46–47, 62, 70–71, 121, 147, 154–156, 195–200, 202–205, 207–211, 214, 216, 224, 227–228, 242, 267, 288 Noadiah  54, 57–58, 69, 292

Subject Index Pentateuch  29–31, 45, 58, 73–76, 87, 90, 92–95, 97, 101, 103, 107, 112, 114, 120, 132, 145, 147–150, 154, 157, 159, 164, 169, 173–178, 183, 187, 194, 206, 212–214, 216–217, 224, 227, 231, 243, 248, 259, 273, 275–276, 288 Pentateuchal  25, 29–30, 40, 58, 87–88, 90, 93–95, 99, 108, 114, 117, 120, 123–126, 128, 132, 145, 149, 151, 153, 157–159, 161, 164–165, 173, 176–180, 182, 184, 191, 213–214, 216–220, 233, 245, 256, 259, 263, 265–266, 273, 275, 277, 280–281, 287, 293 Persian era  30–31, 39, 43, 52, 60, 83, 88, 115–117, 133, 180, 185, 187, 191–192, 226, 228, 286, 292–293 Pharaoh  52, 155, 220, 222–223, 268 Pharaoh’s daughter; princess  168, 221, 268 Philo of Alexandria  19, 73, 129, 198–199, 213, 217, 229–252, 264, 268, 279–283, 288, 293 Plato; Platonic  230–231, 240, 264 priesthood  82, 104, 117, 128, 138–139, 146, 181–188, 192, 227, 262, 278–279, 293 Priestly source (P)  29, 60, 88, 93, 97, 102, 105, 107–108, 116, 189, 286, 289 priestly family  107, 124, 128, 143, 166, 271, 276, 287 priestly marriage  104, 134–135 prophecy  25, 52–54, 56–60, 67, 76, 80, 82, 84–85, 87, 109, 115–116, 179, 240, 255, 259, 290, 292–293 pseudepigrapha  20–21, 23–24 purification (from sin)  243–244 Qahat  132, 134, 137, 141, 145, 183 raz  135–138, 140, 144–146, 186, 193, 259, 279, 292–293 Rachel  94–95, 233 Rebekah  48, 76, 94–95, 165, 231, 246, 254, 258, 275 rewriting (s)  31–32, 36, 39, 170, 172, 191, 204, 213, 217, 223–224, 226, 240, 248–249, 259, 263, 277, 281–283, 285–287, 293 Roman  40–41, 119, 190–191, 229, 245, 276, 281–283, 288 Rome  229, 243, 252, 262 Sarah  58, 94–95, 231–232, 246, 265, 274–275 scriptures  33, 155, 194, 219, 229–230, 235, 242, 246, 248–249, 251–252, 255–257,

353

261, 263–265, 267, 271, 275–277, 280, 282–283, 288, 293 Sea of Reeds  43, 45–46, 49, 52, 58, 60, 160, 169, 197, 222, 236, 255 Second Temple era  19, 28, 133, 137, 153–154, 160–161, 163–164, 172, 179, 188, 227, 262, 285–286, 288, 290, 292 sense-perception  231, 238–243 Sinai  45, 68, 104, 134, 139, 164, 174, 178, 204, 274 spouse(s)  74, 118, 146, 165, 171, 189, 192, 206, 210, 231–232, 245, 280, 290–291 Song of Miriam  27, 43–46, 49, 51–52, 60, 147–161, 191, 198, 227, 288 Song of Sea  44–46, 51, 150, 152, 156–158, 160–161, 198, 288 SP (Samaritan Pentateuch)  39, 62, 71, 147, 149, 196, 199–200, 206 Tamar  165, 231–232, 245, 252, 259, 271 Targum; Targumim  19, 47, 71, 73, 113, 154–159, 161, 225, 260, 269 Therapeutae  234–236, 246 Torah  62, 67, 85, 112, 153, 200 tsara’at  63–68, 76–78, 85–86, 88–89, 177–179, 203, 209, 243 uncle-niece marriage  103–104, 132–133, 168 Uzziel  131–132, 140–145, 269 victory song(s)  50, 52, 54, 149, 151–153, 157–158, 160–161, 169–170, 177 virgin  104, 231–233, 235–238, 241–242, 244–245, 248 visionary  116, 136, 138, 144, 190, 257–259, 261, 279, 281, 285, 287, 292 vision(s)  53, 58, 76, 89, 131, 136–141, 144, 186, 255, 258–260, 278–281, 287, 292 Vorlage  39–40, 62, 70, 181, 191, 193, 195, 200, 202, 204, 206, 208–210, 224, 227, 288 wife; wives  48–49, 55, 58, 67, 72–74, 78, 80, 83, 85–86, 88, 94, 102, 117, 121–122, 130, 140, 164–165, 179, 195, 197, 206, 214–215, 217, 231, 238–241, 247, 254, 264, 267, 269, 272, 294 wilderness  68, 75, 81, 87–88, 90, 92–94, 96–99, 115–116, 176, 178, 180, 188, 204, 256, 270, 274, 282

354

Subject Index

wilderness period  74, 85, 87, 90, 92–93, 98, 115, 117, 144, 173, 191, 256, 258, 270, 282, 285, 287, 289 woman  41, 48, 55, 57, 72–74, 79, 95, 100, 103–105, 118, 122, 124, 133–134, 146, 165, 172, 179, 189, 197, 206, 214–215, 231–233, 237–239, 241, 245, 248, 252, 255, 268, 271–273, 283, 290

women’s leadership  25, 27, 39, 55, 57, 83, 98, 111–118, 199, 236, 242–245, 257–258, 261, 275, 283, 285–286, 288–289 Zipporah  72–74, 83, 90, 212–215, 217, 224, 231, 239, 245