hanna tervanotko denying her voice: the figure of miriam in...

V

JAJ

Sup

23

Terv

anot

ko

Den

ying

Her

Voi

ce:

The

Figu

re o

f M

iria

m in

Anc

ient

Jew

ish

Lite

ratu

re Hanna Tervanotko

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

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.2 History of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.2.1 Biblical Female Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211.2.2 The Figure of Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1.3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281.3.1 Historical-Critical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281.3.2 Literary-Theoretical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1.3.2.1 Intertextuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311.3.2.2 Bakhtin’s Concept of Dialogism . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1.3.3 Feminist Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381.4 Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2. Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.1 Miriam’s Song: Exodus 15:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.1.2 Text Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.1.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482.1.4 Stylistic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502.1.5 Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502.1.6 Female Prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2.1.6.1 Female Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . 542.1.7 Miriam in Exodus 15:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582.1.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2.2 Miriam in Laws: Deuteronomy 24:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.2.2 Text Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.2.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632.2.4 Literary and Redaction Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652.2.5 Miriam in Deuteronomy 24:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662.2.6 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672.2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68


6 Contents

2.3 Miriam’s Revolt and Punishment: Numbers 12:1–15 . . . . . . . . . 682.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682.3.2 Text Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692.3.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722.3.4 Stylistic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 782.3.5 Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792.3.6 Miriam in Numbers 12:1–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832.3.7 Redaction Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852.3.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882.3.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

2.4 Miriam’s Death and Burial: Numbers 20:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902.4.2 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 922.4.3 Death and Burial of Female Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942.4.4 Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 962.4.5 Miriam in Numbers 20:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982.4.6 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982.4.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

2.5 Miriam in the Lists I: Numbers 26:59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002.5.2 Women in Numbers 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1022.5.3 Literary Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1042.5.4 Miriam in Numbers 26:59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1052.5.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1072.5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

2.6 Miriam’s Leadership: Micah 6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1092.6.2 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1112.6.3 Miriam in Micah 6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1122.6.4 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1142.6.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

2.7 Miriam in the Texts through the Persian Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

3. Rereading of Miriam in the Hellenistic Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1193.1 Texts from Judea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

3.1.1 Miriam in Lists II: 1 Chronicles 5:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203.1.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1203.1.1.2 Women in 1 Chronicles 1–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1213.1.1.3 Text Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1223.1.1.4 Miriam in 1 Chronicles 5:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1243.1.1.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 1253.1.1.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125


7Contents

3.1.2 Miriam as the Daughter of Amram: The Visions of Amram a,c,d,e,g 1263.1.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1263.1.2.2 Women in the Visions of Amram . . . . . . . . . . . . 1303.1.2.3 Miriam’s Marriage (4Q543 1 6 = 4Q545 1 I, 5–6) . . 1313.1.2.4 Miriam’s Mystery (4Q546 12 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . 1353.1.2.5 Miriam’s Birth (4Q547 9 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1393.1.2.6 Miriam in the Family Genealogy (4Q549 2 8) . . . . 1423.1.2.7 Miriam in the Visions of Amram . . . . . . . . . . . . 1443.1.2.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 1453.1.2.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

3.1.3 The Extended Song of Miriam: The Reworked Pentateuchc (4Q365 6a II + 6c, 1–7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1473.1.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1473.1.3.2 The Extended Song of Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1493.1.3.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1503.1.3.4 Victory Songs Attributed to Women . . . . . . . . . . 1513.1.3.5 Other Versions of the Song of Miriam . . . . . . . . . 1543.1.3.6 The Relationship between the Songs of Miriam in the

Reworked Pentateuchc and the Pentateuch Targumim 1563.1.3.7 Miriam in the Reworked Pentateuchc . . . . . . . . . . 1593.1.3.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 1613.1.3.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

3.1.4 Miriam and the Infant Moses I: Jubilees 47:4 . . . . . . . . . . 1623.1.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1623.1.4.2 Women in Jubilees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1643.1.4.3 Analysis of Jubilees 47:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1663.1.4.4 Miriam in Jubilees 47:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1683.1.4.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 1703.1.4.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

3.1.5 Miriam’s Punishment Renarrated: The Apocryphon Pentateuch B (4Q377 2 I, 9) . . . . . . . . . . 1723.1.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1723.1.5.2 Fragment 2 of 4Q377 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1753.1.5.3 Vocabulary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1753.1.5.4 Miriam in the Apocryphon Pentateuch B . . . . . . . 1783.1.5.5 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . 1793.1.5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

3.1.6 Excursus: The Levites in the Second Temple Period . . . . . . 1803.1.6.1 The Texts through the Persian Era . . . . . . . . . . . 1803.1.6.2 The Texts of the Hellenistic Era . . . . . . . . . . . . 1853.1.6.3 Miriam as Levite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

3.1.7 Conclusions Regarding the Hellenistic Texts from Judea . . . 191


8 Contents

3.2 Texts from Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1933.2.1 The Interpretation of Miriam in the Septuagint . . . . . . . . 193

3.2.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1933.2.1.2 Exodus 6:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1953.2.1.3 Exodus 15:20–21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1963.2.1.4 Deuteronomy 24:8–9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003.2.1.5 Numbers 12:1–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2013.2.1.6 Numbers 20:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2043.2.1.7 Numbers 26:59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2053.2.1.8 Micah 6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2073.2.1.9 1 Chronicles 5:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2083.2.1.10 Miriam in the Septuagint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2083.2.1.11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

3.2.2 Miriam Referring to Moses’s Marriage: Demetrius the Chronographer, Fragment 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 2113.2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2113.2.2.2 Analysis of Fragment 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2133.2.2.3 Miriam in Demetrius the Chronographer . . . . . . . 2153.2.2.4 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . 2163.2.2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

3.2.3 Miriam and the Infant Moses II: Exagoge 18–26 . . . . . . . . 2173.2.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2173.2.3.2 Analysis of Exagoge 18–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2203.2.3.3 Miriam in Exagoge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2213.2.3.4 Relationship with Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2223.2.3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

3.2.4 Conclusions regarding the Hellenistic Texts from Egypt . . . 2243.3 Miriam in the Texts of the Hellenistic Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

4. Rereading of Miriam in the Roman Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2294.1 Miriam as Virgin and Woman: Philo of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . 229

4.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2294.1.2 Women in the Texts of Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2304.1.3 Texts Referring to Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2334.1.4 Miriam in Philo’s Historical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

4.1.4.1 De vita contemplativa 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2344.1.5 Miriam in Philo’s Allegorical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

4.1.5.1 Legum allegoriae 1.76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2374.1.5.2 Legum allegoriae 2.66–67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2384.1.5.3 Legum allegoriae 3.103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2404.1.5.4 De agricultura 80–81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

4.1.6 Philo’s Interpretation of Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244


9Contents

4.1.7 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2464.1.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

4.2 Miriam’s Vision and Water from the Well: Liber antiquitatum biblicarum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2494.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2494.2.2 Women in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum . . . . . . . . . . . 2524.2.3 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 9:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2544.2.4 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 20:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2564.2.5 Miriam in Liber antiquitatum biblicarum . . . . . . . . . . . . 2574.2.6 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2594.2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

4.3 Miriam as Supporter of Moses and Ancestor Mother: Flavius Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2624.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2624.3.2 Women in the Texts of Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2634.3.3 Antiquitates judaicae 2.221, 2.226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2664.3.4 Antiquitates judaicae 3.54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2694.3.5 Antiquitates judaicae 3.105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2704.3.6 Antiquitates judaicae 4.78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2724.3.7 Josephus’s Interpretation of Miriam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2754.3.8 Relationship with the Earlier Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2774.3.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

4.4 Miriam in the Texts of the Roman Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2855.1 Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2855.2 Role of Women in Ancient Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

5.2.1 Marriage Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2905.2.2 Women’s Prophecy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

5.3 Implications of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2951. Bibles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2952. Editions and Reference Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2953. 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 thor-oughly 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 insti-tutes 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 sup-port 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 Ylikar-jamaa. 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 2015Hanna 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 mundiAgr. De agriculturaALD Aramaic Levi DocumentA.J. Antiquitates judaicaeapocrPent. B Apocryphon Pentateuch BB. J. Bellum judaicumb.Meg. Babylonian Talmud, Megillahb.Sanh. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrinb.Šebu. Babylonian Talmud, Shevu’otb.Sotah Babylonian Talmud Sotahb.Ta’an. Babylonian Talmud, Ta’anitCant CanticlesCD Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus DocumentCher. De cherubimCongr. De congressu eruditionis gratiaContempl. De vita contemplativaC. Ap. Contra ApionemChr 1–2 ChroniclesD Deuteronomist sourceDan DanielDecal. De decalogoDeut DeuteronomyDSS Dead Sea ScrollsEsth EstherExod ExodusExod. Rab. Exodus RabbahEzek EzekielFlacc. In FlaccumFug. De fuga et inventioneGen GenesisH HodayotHist. HistoriaeHos HoseaHypoth. Hypothetica


14 Style and Abbreviations

Ios. De IosephoIsa IsaiahJ Jahwist sourceJdt JudithJer JeremiahJosh JoshuaJub. JubileesKgs 1–2 KingsKJV King James VersionL.A.B. Liber antiquitatum biblicarumLam LamentationsLeg. Legum allegoriae 1–3Legat. Legatio ad GaiumLet. Aris. Letter of AristeasLev Leviticus4QLev-Numa Leviticus-Numeria (4Q23)LXX SeptuagintM MilhamahMacc 1–4 MaccabeesMal MalachiMek. Exod. Mekilta on ExodusMic MicahMigr. De migratione Abrahamim.Ketub. Mishnah Ketubbotm.Naš. Mishnah Nashimm.Nidd. Mishnah NiddahMMT Miqsat Ma’aśê ha-TorahMos. De vita Mosis 1–2MT Masoretic TextMut. De mutatione nominumNeh NehemiahNRSV New Revised Standard VersionNum Numeri4QNumb Numerib (4Q27)Opif. De opificio mundiP Priestly source1QpHab Pesher HabakkukPlant. De plantationePost. De posteritate CainiPraep. ev. Praeparatio evangelicaPraem. De praemiis et poenisProb. Quod omnis probus liber sitProv ProverbsPs PsalmsQE Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum 1–2QG Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1–4Qoh Qohelet


15Style and Abbreviations

RP Reworked PentateuchS Serekh ha-Yahad (Manual of Discipline)Sam 1–2 SamuelSobr. De sobrietateSomn. De somniis 1–2SP Samaritan PentateuchSpec. De specialibus legibus 1–4Strom. StromataSyr. SyriacT Temple ScrollTanh. TanhumaTg. Neof. 1 Targum Neofiti 1Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan VA Visions of AmramVg. VulgateVirt. De virtutibusVL Vetus LatinaWis Wisdom of SalomonZeph Zephaniah

Secondary Sources

AB Anchor BibleABD Anchor Bible DictionaryALGHJ Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen JudentumsAGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristen-

tumsAnBib Analecta biblicaANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur

Roms im Spiegel der neueren ForschungArBib The Aramaic BibleARM Archives royales de MariArOr Archiv OrientálníATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen TestamentsATD Das Alte Testament DeutschBAR Biblical Archaeology ReviewBBB Bonner biblische BeiträgeBDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon

of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensiumBib BiblicaBibInt Biblical InterpretationBKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes TestamentBN Biblische NotizenBRev Bible Review



BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche WissenschaftCBC Cambridge Bible CommentaryCBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph SeriesCHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near EastCHJ Cambridge History of JudaismCRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum TestamentumCSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientaliumCSCT Columbia Studies in the Classical TraditionDJD Discoveries in the Judaean DesertDSD Dead Sea DiscoveriesDSSSE The Dead Sea Scrolls Study EditionDSSR The Dead Sea Scrolls ReaderEHAT Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten TestamentEncJud Encyclopaedia JudaicaEvT Evangelische TheologieFAT Forschungen zum Alten TestamentFOTL Forms of the Old Testament LiteratureFRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testa-

mentsGCS Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] JahrhunderteGKC Gesenius’ Hebrew GrammarHALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old TestamentHAR Hebrew Annual ReviewHKAT Handkommentar zum Alten TestamentHR History of ReligionsHRCS Hatch, E. and H. A. Redpath. Concordance to the Septuagint and Other

Greek Versions of the Old TestamentHSAT Die Heilige Schrift des Alten TestamentsHSM Harvard Semitic MonographsHTB Histoire du texte bibliqueHTR Harvard Theological ReviewHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualICC International Critical CommentaryIDBSup Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary VolumeInt InterpretationJAJ The Journal of Ancient JudaismJANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia UniversityJAOS Journal of the American Oriental SocietyJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJFSR Journal of Feminist Studies in ReligionJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJoüon Joüon, P. A. Grammar of Biblical HebrewJQR Jewish Quarterly ReviewJSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods


17Style and Abbreviations

JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: Supplement Series

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement SeriesJSP Journal for the Study of the PseudepigraphaJSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement SeriesJTS Journal of Theological StudiesKHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten TestamentLCL Loeb Classical LibraryLHB/OTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament StudiesLSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English LexiconNCB New Century Bible NEchtB Neue Echter BibelNETS New English Translation of the Septuagint NIB The New Interpreter’s BibleNICOT New International Commentary on the Old TestamentNIDB New International Dictionary of the BibleOBT Overtures to Biblical TheologyOTL Old Testament LibraryOTP Old Testament PseudepigraphaOTS Old Testament StudiesPVTG Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti GraeceRB Revue bibliqueRevQ Revue de QumrânRHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieusesSAAS State Archives of Assyria StudiesSBLABS Society of Biblical Literature Archeology and Biblical StudiesSBLAIL Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its LiteratureSBLCP Society of Biblical Literature Centennial PublicationsSBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesSBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its LiteratureSBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical StudySBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate StudiesSBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar PapersSBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium SeriesSBLTT Society of Biblical Literature Texts and TranslationsSC Sources chrétiennesSem SemiticaSemeiaSt Semeia StudiesSJLA Studies in Judaism in Late AntiquitySNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph SeriesSRB Studies in Rewritten BibleSTDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of JudahStPB Studia post-biblicaSVTP Studia in Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphicaTDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old TestamentText Textus



ThWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten TestamentTSAJ Texte und Studien zum antiken JudentumTS Theological StudiesVT Vetus TestamentumVTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum/Vetus Testamentum SupplementsWBC Word Biblical CommentaryWMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen TestamentWUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen TestamentZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche WissenschaftZBK AT 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


Introduction 20

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 common-place to maintain that these categories are problematic in many ways. They are broad and they do not describe the content of the texts accurately. Further-more, “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.”


Introduction 22

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 pos-sible, 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.



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. Stucken bruck, “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


Introduction 24

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-nis tisch-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.



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


Introduction 26

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 remark-able 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-organ-ized 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 poli-tische 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 Com-panion 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.



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).


Introduction 28

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 his-torical-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 com-parative 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 vocab-ulary 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.


Introduction 30

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 refer-ences 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 dis-cussed 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.


Introduction 32

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 histo-ries. 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 intro-duced 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 Para-textual 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 Discov-eries 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.


Introduction 34

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 theo-ries, 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 suc-cessfully 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 con-text 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 poststructural-ism), 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 inter-twined. 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 formal-ism (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.


hanna tervanotko denying her voice: the figure of miriam in...

Documents