Miriam's Image in Patristic and Rabbinic Interpretation

Miriam’s Image in Patristic and Rabbinic Interpretation

Agnethe SIQUANS Universität Wien

I. INTRODUCTION: THE BIBLICAL MIRIAM AND HER LATER IMAGE

Miriam is one of the most frequently mentioned women in the Hebrew female prophet”) and“) נבאיה Bible. First, in Exod 15,20-21 she is called “Aaron’s sister”. She is portrayed as singing, dancing and drumming and a short song of hers is quoted. Numbers 12 is a longer yet critical text about Miriam in which the issue is also prophecy. Miriam, together with Aaron, criticises Moses and is consequently punished with leprosy (whereas Aaron is not). Moses prays for her and she is healed. During her exclusion from the camp, the Israelites do not move on but wait for her. The mention of Miriam in Deut 24,9 is a warning and commemorates the incident of Numbers 12. Num 20,1 reports Miriam’s death and burial at Kadesh. Furthermore, she appears in two genealogies as the sister of Moses and Aaron – in Num 26,59 and 1 Chr 5,29. In the prophetical book of Micah (Mic 6,4), she is referred to as a leader of the Exodus on an equal level with her brothers. Moreover, since antiquity, most interpreters have identified Moses’ anonymous sister in Exod 2,4 with Miriam as no other sister is known. These seven or eight short texts provide rather sparse information about Miriam’s life and her character1. Later interpreters combined these scattered texts, originating from different sources and times, to draw a portrait of Miriam2. However, sometimes they just interpret one

1. For Miriam in biblical texts cf., e.g. the contributions by P. TRIBLE, J.G. JANZEN, F. VAN DIJK-HEMMES, C. MEYERS, N. GRAETZ, and A. BACH, in A. BRENNER (ed.), A Femi- nist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (Feminist Companion to the Bible, 6), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994, Part III: Miriam: On Being a Sister, pp. 166-254; R. BURNS, Has the Lord Indeed Spoken Only through Moses? A Study of the Biblical Portrait of Miriam, Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1987; I. FISCHER, Gotteskünderinnen: Zu einer geschlechterfairen Deutung des Phänomens der Prophetie und der Prophetinnen in der Hebräischen Bibel, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2002, pp. 64-94. See also K. BUTTING, Prophe- tinnen gefragt: Die Bedeutung der Prophetinnen im Kanon aus Tora und Prophetie (Erev-Rav-Hefte Biblisch-feministische Texte, 3), Wittingen, Erev-Rav, 2001, pp. 36-77. 2. For rabbinic and patristic interpretations cf. D. STEINMETZ, A Portrait of Miriam in Rabbinic Midrash, in Prooftexts 8 (1988) 35-65; L.L. BRONNER, Biblical Prophetesses through Rabbinic Lenses, in Judaism 40 (1990) 171-183; A. SIQUANS, Die alttestament- lichen Prophetinnen in der patristischen Rezeption: Texte – Kontexte – Hermeneutik (Herders Biblische Studien, 65), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2011, pp. 48-179; EAD., “She 522 A. SIQUANS of the texts and stress its particular focus. Sometimes, interpreters add further information about Miriam which is not found in the biblical texts. As Hanna Tervanotko3 has demonstrated, there was an elaborate pre - rabbinic oral and written Jewish tradition about Miriam. Although Miriam is mentioned quite often, she is a marginal biblical character compared to Moses and Aaron. Nevertheless, patristic and rabbinic biblical interpretations do not neglect her and attribute important features to her. As the sister of Moses and Aaron and as a prophet, she is a prominent and esteemed figure. In this article, I present patristic interpretations of the biblical Miriam alongside rabbinic interpretations that often deal with the same topics. They occur, however, in different religious-cultural contexts and thus with different hermeneutical presuppositions and from different, sometimes even opposing, perspectives. The ancient writers’ interpretations of Miriam as female prophet, as a virgin or mother, as a critic of her brother Moses and her relation to Moses’ Cushite wife will be discussed.

II. MIRIAM’S MANIFOLD IMAGES

1. Miriam the Female Prophet In accordance with Exod 15,20, Miriam is listed in patristic writings among the biblical prophets, together with other women, most frequently Deborah and Huldah as well as New Testament women. Miriam’s char- acterisation as a female prophet is an important feature in patristic texts4. Jerome, for instance, identifies Miriam in his Ep. 78,35 as the representa- tion of prophecy, Aaron of priesthood and Moses of the Law5. Although Miriam’s prophetic activity is greatly appreciated, it is at the same time restricted. In his commentary on 1 Cor 14,34-35, Origen mentions Miriam’s song as an example whereby a woman acted according to the prohibition of public speaking by women by Paul in 1 Cor 14,34-35. The Pauline letters are authoritative texts for the church fathers and affect their view on women’s activities in the community. Paul (or a later inter- polator) does not permit women to speak in an assembly (ἐκκλησία), and that means in the presence of men who are not members of their family. Thus, the church fathers’ stance toward female prophecy is somewhat

Dared to Reprove Her Father”: Miriam’s Image as a Female Prophet in Rabbinic Inter- pretation, in JAJ 6 (2015) 335-357. 3. H. TERVANOTKO, Denying Her Voice: The Figure of Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature (JAJSuppl, 23), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. 4. Cf. SIQUANS, Prophetinnen (n. 2), pp. 48-179. 5. Hieronymus, Epistula 78: Ad Fabiolam de mansionibus filiorum Israhel per Here- mum 35, in Epistulae LXXI–CXX, ed. I. HILBERG (CSEL, 55), Wien, Verlag der Öster- reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, ²1996, p. 76. MIRIAM’S IMAGE IN PATRISTIC AND RABBINIC INTERPRETATION 523 ambivalent. Although it is accepted that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit or by God as prophets, their female gender is seen as an obstacle to public prophetic speech. Their solution is to restrict Miriam’s prophetic speech at the Red Sea to women only. So do Origen and Theodoret of Cyrus6, for instance7. Certainly, their model was Philo’s description of two choirs, led by Moses and Miriam in his Life of Moses 1,180:

This great and marvellous work struck the Hebrews with amazement, and, finding themselves unexpectedly victorious in a bloodless conflict, and seeing their enemies, one and all, destroyed in a moment, they set up two choirs, one of men and one of women, on the beach, and sang hymns of thanksgiving to God. Over these choirs Moses and his sister presided, and led the hymns, the former for the men and the latter for the women8.

In De vita contemplativa 85‒87, Philo assumes that the two choirs join each other and form one mixed choir. Origen does not pick up this idea, but assumes two separate choirs. The biblical text in Exod 15,20 is not thus detailed, but it associates the singing of Miriam with the women. It does not make explicit whether men were present and listened to the women’s song or not. However, the situation of the rescued Israelites at the seashore suggests that the men were present and could hear Miriam’s song. The idea of separate choirs of (virgin) women, found in some Greek patristic writings, may originate from the existence of such choirs in Greek cult9. This separation helps to align Miriam’s prophetic appearance to Paul’s prohibition. Rabbinic texts also appreciate Miriam’s prophecy, but never in the context of Exodus 15. They locate her prophecy in her childhood: the young Miriam predicts Moses’ birth. This tradition reaches back to Pseudo-Philo’s Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (L.A.B.), dating probably to the first century CE. In this context, Miriam’s prophecy is – of course – of high importance. Yet it is transferred to her childhood as well as to a “typical female” issue: the birth of a child. The passage about Exod 1,8–2,9 in the Babylonian Talmud (Sotah 11a-13a)10 connects Exod 15,20 to Exod 2,4:

6. Cf. Theodoret, Commentary on Psalms 106/105,12. 7. Mekhilta Shirah 10 also assumes that Moses sang to the men and Miriam to the women. 8. Philo of Alexandria, De vita Mosis I,180; English text: F.H. COLSON (trans.), Philo: in Ten Volumes, vol. 6 (LCL, 289), London, Heinemann; Cambridge, MA, Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1935; reprint 1950, p. 369; cf. De vita Mosis I,256; De vita contemplativa 85-87; De agricultura 80-82. 9. Cf. E. REISCH, Chor, in PRE 3/2 (1899) cc. 2373-2403. 10. Cf. for this passage G. STEMBERGER, Midrasch in Babylonien: Am Beispiel von Sota 9b-14a, in Henoch 10 (1988) 183-203, and ID., Mose in der rabbinischen Tradition, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2016, pp. 17-48. 524 A. SIQUANS

And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took etc. (Exod 15,20) The “sister of Aaron” and not the sister of Moses! – R. Amram said in the name of Rab, and according to others it was R. Nahman who said in the name of Rab: It teaches that she prophesied while she yet was the sister of Aaron only [13a] and said: “My mother will bear a son who will be the saviour of Israel”. When Moses was born, the whole house was filled with light; and her father arose and kissed her upon her head, saying “My daughter, thy prophecy has been fulfilled”; but when they cast him into the river, her father arose and smacked her upon her head, saying: “Where, now, is thy prophecy!”. That is what is written: And his sister stood afar off to know what would be done to him – that would be the fate of her prophecy11 (b. Sotah 12b-13a).

Miriam is esteemed as a prophet, but her prophecy appears in another place than in the biblical account. One reason for this may be the problem of identifying her prophecy in Exod 15,20-21. Obviously, her song was not identified as prophetic12. Another reason may be an existing tradition about Miriam’s prophecy in L.A.B.13. However, the outcome of this change, and perhaps a deeper reason for it, is that Miriam is a prophet as only a child, not as an adult woman. This may have been viewed as inappropriate, and that her prophecy refers to Moses and to a family matter rather than to God’s deliverance to the people. Miriam’s prophecy is thus restricted to a private sphere and subordinated to her parents’ evaluation. Furthermore, in Shemot Rabbah 1,13, Miriam speaks to Pharaoh prophetically:

She lifted up her face against Pharaoh and turned up her nose against him, saying: “Woe unto this man when God comes to exact His retribution”. Whereupon Pharaoh became so angry that he sought to slay her. Shiphrah – because she smoothed over (meshapereth) her daughter’s words and pacified [the king] for her. For she said to him: “Do you take notice of her? She is only a child and knows nothing”14.

On the one hand, Miriam’s behaviour is justified towards Pharaoh by diminishing it to merely the words of a small child in the text. On the other hand, she is indirectly yet clearly criticised for her speech15.

11. English translation: A. COHEN (ed.), Sotah, in I. EPSTEIN (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nashim 3: Nedarim, Nazir, Sotah, London, Soncino Press, 1936, p. 65. The same tradition can be found in b. Meg. 14a. For a discussion of b. Sotah 11b-13b with regard to Miriam’s image, cf. SIQUANS, “She Dared” (n. 2), pp. 15-20. 12. This question also bothers modern commentators, cf., for instance, BURNS, Has the Lord (n. 1), pp. 41-79; BUTTING, Prophetinnen (n. 2), pp. 43-44; FISCHER, Gottes- künderinnen (n. 1), pp. 53-60; TERVANOTKO, Denying Her Voice (n. 3), pp. 52-60 – with different solutions. 13. Cf. TERVANOTKO, Denying Her Voice (n. 3), pp. 254-258. 14. S.M. LEHRMAN (transl.), Exodus, in H. FREEDMAN (ed.), Midrash Rabbah, vol. 4, London, Soncino, 1961, p. 17. 15. For more details and the broader context cf. SIQUANS, “She Dared” (n. 2), pp. 20-24. MIRIAM’S IMAGE IN PATRISTIC AND RABBINIC INTERPRETATION 525

In both Christian and Jewish traditions, prophecy – particularly biblical prophecy – is charismatic and highly valued. Miriam’s prophecy is no exception, but it is restricted in one way or the other by the interpreters. The conditions of women’s prophecy are defined by commonly accepted notions about women’s place in society and especially in public16. Women, including prophets and women as famous as Miriam, are not supposed to speak publicly.

2. Miriam as a Virgin and Mother a) Miriam the Virgin Virginity is an omnipresent topic in patristic writings. An anonymous Dialogue with the Jews from the sixth century has a particular chapter about virginity and mentions Miriam as an outstanding example. The nar- rator speaks through Moses:

I also know Miriam, my sister, who was a virgin then and struck the timbrel as a symbol of virginity, by the mortification of the members showing in advance the mystery of the holy virgin [i.e. Mary]: She taught us by her blameless virginity to sing the victory song, to the destruction of the opposing destructing power, and say: “Let us sing to the Lord, for he is gloriously glorified” (Exod 15,21 LXX)17.

In this text, the topics of virginity and chastity, namely the mortification of the members of the fleshly body (cf. Col 3,5), Miriam as a type of Mary and her song as a Christian victory song are combined. Miriam’s timbrel is interpreted as a symbol of chastity because it is made from skin which is completely dry; dryness, of course, impedes fertility18. Miriam and her timbrel were thus interpreted in terms of chastity and virginity19. Gregory of Nyssa’s On Virginity 19,1-20 is the most elaborate example of this kind of interpretation. He explains the reasoning behind this idea and provides a glimpse into the presuppositions which enable such an interpretation:

16. For the question of the specifics of female prophecy in early Christianity cf. A. SIQUANS, What’s the Difference? Female Prophets in Early Christian Writings, in G. PRÜLLER-JAGENTEUFEL – S. BONG – R. PERINTFALVI (eds.), Towards Just Gender Rela- tions (Religion and Transformation in Contemporary European Society, 13), Göttingen, V&R unipress, 2019, 283-288. 17. Dialogus V,193-200: Dialogus cum Iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti, ed. J. DECLERCK (CCSG, 30), Turnhout, Brepols, 1994, p. 39; trans. A.S. 18. In Mekhilta Shirah 10, the timbrels are understood as material timbrels which the Israelites had prepared in advance, because they expected their deliverance by YHWH. 19. Cf., e.g., Origen, Hom. Exod. VI,1; Ambrose, Exhortatio virginitatis 5,47; Augustine, Sermo CCCLXIII; Jerome, Tractatus de Psalmo LXVII 174-179; Gregory of Nyssa, De virginitate XIX; John of Damascus, Homiliae in dormitionem Sanctae Virginis Mariae II,16. 526 A. SIQUANS

But besides other things the action of Miriam the prophetess also gives rise to these surmisings of ours. Directly the sea was crossed she took in her hand a dry and sounding timbrel and conducted the women’s dance. By this timbrel (p. 365) the story may mean to imply virginity, as first perfected by Miriam; whom indeed I would believe to be a type of Mary the mother of God. Just as the timbrel emits a loud sound because it is devoid of all mois- ture and reduced to the highest degree of dryness, so has virginity a clear and ringing report amongst men because it repels from itself the vital sap of merely physical life. Thus, Miriam’s timbrel being a dead thing, and virginity being a deadening of the bodily passions, it is perhaps not very far removed from the bounds of probability that Miriam was a virgin. However, we can but guess and surmise, we cannot clearly prove, that this was so, and that Miriam the prophetess led a dance of virgins, even though many of the learned have affirmed distinctly that she was unmarried, from the fact that the history makes no mention either of her marriage or of her being a mother; and surely she would have been named and known, not as ‘the sister of Aaron’, but from her husband, if she had had one; since the head of the woman is not the brother but the husband20.

From the character of Miriam’s timbrel, which is dry and makes a good sound, he concludes that Miriam was – in all likelihood – a virgin, because virginity shows the same characteristics: it is dry (i.e. a barren body), and sounds good (i.e. has a positive and far-reaching effect). Gregory finds further hints of Miriam’s virginity in the biblical text. When he states that “history” does not mention a husband or children of Miriam’s, he speaks of the historical or literal reading of the biblical text which indeed does not tell us anything about Miriam’s husband or descendants. To Christian authors, this provides the possibility of finding an example of virginity within the Old Testament – a favourite issue of early Christian writers. There is a tradition that closely connects prophecy with celibacy. Epiphanius, for instance, states that prophets as well as high priests live ascetically because of their spiritual ministry21. However, some Christian authors know that there are Jewish traditions around Miriam’s husband and children, most probably from Josephus22.

20. P. SCHAFF (ed.), Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises (NPNF, 2/5), New York, 1893; Reprint: Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1988, p. 677. 21. Epiphanius, Panarion 78,16; cf. Hieronymus, Ep. 130,4 to Demetrias. 22. M. Aubineau, the editor of Gregory’s tractacte in the Sources chrétiennes series, mentions the Syrians Ephrem and Ishodad as Christian authors who know about Miriam’s husband and children: cf. M. AUBINEAU, Grégoire de Nysse: Traité de la Virginité (SC, 119), Paris, Cerf, 1966, p. 489, n. 4. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities III,6,1 (105) mentions “Bezalel, child of Hur of the tribe of Judah, a son of Mariamme, the sister of the leader”. Thus, both Miriam’s husband and her son are identified by name in Josephus’ Antiquities. MIRIAM’S IMAGE IN PATRISTIC AND RABBINIC INTERPRETATION 527 b) Miriam as a Type of the Church and of Mary In patristic writings, almost every woman of the Old Testament who is depicted as a positive character by the biblical text is interpreted as a type of the church. So is Miriam, and her song is an important issue in this typology. One telling example is a text about Exodus by Zeno who was bishop of Verona from 360 to 380. After a short summary of the Exodus event, he presents a spiritual interpretation:

Maria, who beats the timbrel with the women, was the type of the church (typus ecclesiae). She sings with all the churches, whom she has born, the hymn, beats the true timbrel of the breast and leads the Christian people not into the desert, but into heaven23.

Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, and John of Damascus also interpret Miriam as a type of the church and her song as a Christian hymn of praise or gratitude24. As Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 interpreted the crossing of the Red Sea as a reference to baptism, in this case baptism into Moses, Christian interpreters also read Miriam’s song as a victory song of the newly baptised. So does, for example, Amphilochius of Iconium (ca. 340/345–398/404) in his homily De recens baptizatis:

Now he/she has fled the sad countenance of the devilish winter and adopted the cheerfulness of the heavenly meadow: Now he/she ran away from the grief over the dead, for the light of the resurrection has come. Let us all together sing the new song, for the new and blessed song is fitting to the new πολιτεία. Let us sing the new song, for behold, Adam was renewed, for the old sin has disappeared, behold, all has become new (2 Cor 5,17). Let us sing the new song, for behold, Adam has been renewed and Eve brought back to the heavens, for the devil was dried up in fire. We will use that song of Miriam, Moses’ sister, for it is fitting to us now, like formerly to them. Also, the choir of those holy ones shall be with us and shall speak what then at the Red Sea they had let sound: “Let us sing to the Lord, for he is gloriously glorified” (Exod 15,21 LXX)25.

The newly baptised are admonished to sing the song, which Miriam and the women sang after crossing the sea. The interpretation presupposes that this event is a type of Christian baptism. Thus, the song is particularly fitting to the recently baptised Christians.

23. Zeno of Verona, Tractatus II,54 De Exodo 1: In die Paschae; transl. A.S. 24. Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Micah 6,4; Ambrose of Milan, De vir- ginibus 1,3,12; John of Damascus, Homiliae in dormitionem Sanctae Virginis Mariae 3,2 (parallel Miriam – Mary – Church). 25. Amphilochius of Iconium, De recens baptizatis, oratio VII,44-56; transl. A.S. 528 A. SIQUANS

However, Miriam is not only a type of the church, but has a particular connection to Mary the mother of Jesus in some texts as well26. This typology has its origin in the name both characters share in Greek and Latin: Maria. A second point of comparison is both women’s virginity. And, of course, Mary of Nazareth and the church are closely interconnected, as is manifest, for example, in John of Damascus’s homily on Mary’s Dormi- tion which associates Miriam, Mary, the mother of God, and the church27. c) Miriam as a Midwife and a Mother of Kings The Rabbis and the editors of the rabbinic writings react to the missing mention of Miriam’s husband and children in the Hebrew Scriptures in a completely different way. As has already been shown above, with regards to Miriam’s prophecy, rabbinic texts display a focus on procreation and family in connection with Miriam28. Josephus mentions Hur (cf. Exod 17,10 et al.) as Miriam’s husband and Bezalel (cf. Exod 31,2 et al.) as her son29. In the exegetical passage in b. Sotah 11a-13a, particular emphasis is placed on the women’s contribu- tion to saving Hebrew male babies and to Moses’ birth30. This includes Miriam, of course. Miriam is one of the midwives in Egypt: she and her mother Jochebed are identified with Shiphrah and Puah, mentioned in Exod 1,15. A number of wordplays and associations with their names are used to describe their activities in saving the Hebrew new-borns’ lives.

And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives etc.31. Rab and Samuel [differ in their interpretation]; one said they were mother and daughter, and the other said they were daughter-in-law and mother-in-law. According to him who declared they were mother and daughter, they were Jochebed and Miriam; and according to him who declared they were daughter-in-law and mother-in-law, they were Jochebed and Elisheba. There is a teaching in agreement with him who said they were mother and daughter; for it has been taught: “Shiphrah” is Jochebed; and why was her name called Shiphrah? Because she straightened [meshappereth] the limbs of the babe. Another explanation of Shiphrah is that the Israelites were fruitful [sheparu] and multiplies in her days. “Puʽah” is Miriam; and why was her name called

26. Anonymus, Dialogus cum Iudaeis saeculi ut videtur sexti V,193-200; John of Damascus, Homiliae in dormitionem Sanctae Virginis Mariae 3,2; Ambrose, Exhoratio virginitatis 5; Ambrose, Epistula extra collectionem 15: Domino dilectissimo fratri Siricio 7,82-85; Chromatius of Aquileia, Tractatus III in Matthaeum 1,24-25; Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo 146,7. 27. John of Damascus, Homiliae in dormitionem Sanctae Virginis Mariae 3,2. 28. Cf. more detailed in SIQUANS, “She Dared” (n. 2). 29. Cf. Josephus, A.J. III,6,1 (105). 30. STEMBERGER, Midrasch (n. 10), p. 195, remarks that the larger passages in which women play a crucial part are inserted by the Talmud. Earlier sources do not contain these passages. 31. Exod 1,15 (King James Version). MIRIAM’S IMAGE IN PATRISTIC AND RABBINIC INTERPRETATION 529

Puah? Because she cried out [poʽah] to the child and brought it forth. Another explanation of Puʽah is that she used to cry out through the Holy Spirit and say, “My mother will bear a son who will be the savior of Israel”32.

Thus, from her early childhood – according to Shemot Rabbah 1,13, she was not older than five years-old; according to Pesiqta Rabbati 43,15 she was six – Miriam was busy with childbirth and caring for babies. Bavli Sotah 11b (and the following) presents Miriam as King David’s ances- -for the mid (בתים) ”tress. According to Exod 1,21, God made “houses wives. These houses are interpreted as offspring in rabbinic, patristic as well as modern interpretations. In the Talmud, Miriam is the origin of the “house of the monarchy” and thus also of David; Jochebed is the root of the priestly house. In this elaborate section, Miriam is associated with many other women and thus identified with them, especially women mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2 and 4, mostly unknown women, occurring only in one verse. They are connected to Miriam in b. Sotah 12a. Miriam’s husband in the Babylonian Talmud is Kaleb whom we first meet in Num- bers 13 and 14 side by side with Joshua33. In Bavli Sotah 11a-13a, Miriam is the opposite of a virgin: she is a midwife, a wife and mother of many. This passage can be seen as char- acteristic of the rabbinic tradition. The same motives appear in other rabbinic texts, such as the Midrash Tanchuma Wajjakhel 4 or Shemot Rabbah 1,15. In contrast to the church fathers, the rabbis’ ideal for women is marriage and motherhood. Whereas the church fathers promote asceticism and virginity, it is most natural for the rabbis that an adult woman is married and has children. These two ideals are reflected in the respective interpretations of Miriam’s family status. The Christian writers interpret the missing reference to Miriam’s husband and children as evi- dence of her virginity. The rabbis, however, present Miriam as the ideal woman – midwife, wife, and mother – and even as an ancestor of King David. The passage in the Talmud also contains a reference to Jochebed’s painless conception and birth (b. Sotah 12a): “R. Judah b. Zebina said: It [the verse Exod 2,2] compares the bearing of the child to its conception; as the conception was painless so was the bearing painless. Hence [it is learnt] that righteous women were not included in the decree upon Eve”34. According to Stemberger, Jochebed and the birth of Moses in this passage are compared to Mary and the birth of Jesus. It seems likely that this consideration is connected to Exod 1,19. This verse states that the Hebrew women have already borne their children when the midwife arrives. This

32. B. Sotah 11b: EPSTEIN, The Babylonian Talmud (n. 11), pp. 56-57. 33. Cf. also Shemot Rabbah 1,13-17, which elaborates the passage from the Talmud with further examples. 34. EPSTEIN, The Babylonian Talmud (n. 11), p. 61. 530 A. SIQUANS suggests an easy delivery. Yet Stemberger assumes that the Christian doctrine about Jesus’ birth was known to the rabbis and that this remark in the Talmud is directed against the Christian teaching35. In this context, the emphasis on Miriam’s marriage and her offspring may be a reaction to the Christian doctrine about Jesus’ birth as well. Although the tradition about Miriam’s husband and children is much older (as Josephus demonstrates), the specifics hint to an anti-Christian statement: Miriam is not the mother of somebody, but the ancestress of David. As Jesus is perceived as the son of David from the New Testament (cf. Matt 1,20; 9,27 and elsewhere), there is a close connection between the two traditions. David’s ancestress is no virgin. The Talmud, of course, does not continue David’s genealogy further: he himself is the objective of this passage. There is no messiah, son of David. The importance of David may be emphasised here as a counter narrative to the Christian claim of Jesus being the son of David, the messiah36.

3. Miriam Criticising Moses In Num 12,1, Miriam criticises Moses because of the Cushite woman and because of his exclusive claim to prophecy (על־אדות האשה הכשית) (v. 2): While they were at Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had indeed married a Cushite woman); and they said, “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?”. And the LORD heard it (Num 12,1-2 NRSV).

Moses is legitimated by God and the story ends with Miriam’s punishment by leprosy (or another skin disease), Moses’ prayer for her and God’s answer to it, Miriam’s exclusion from the camp, her healing and re-integration into the community. There are a number of questions concerning the first two verses of Numbers 12, which cannot be discussed here37. The reason for Miriam and Aaron’s critique and the reference to Moses’ Cushite wife are not clear at all. The connection of vv. 1 and 2 is often seen as secondary, as v. 1 deals with the Cushite woman and v. 2 with another topic (i.e. prophecy)38.

35. Cf. STEMBERGER, Mose (n. 10), pp. 29-30. 36. The question of the relationship between David and Moses as the sons of Miriam and Jochebed in this context requires further examination (if such a relationship exists). 37. Cf. the exegetical commentaries to Numbers, e.g., B.A. LEVINE, Numbers 1–20 (Anchor Bible, 4A), New York, Doubleday, 1993, p. 328; G.B. GRAY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1965, pp. 120-123; H. SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1 (BKAT, 4/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2003, pp. 58-59; cf. also BUTTING, Prophetinnen (n. 2), pp. 52-55; differently FISCHER, Gotteskünderinnen (n. 1), pp. 69-70. 38. Cf. GRAY, Numbers (n. 37), p. 121; M. NOTH, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri (ATD, 7), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982, pp. 82-85. MIRIAM’S IMAGE IN PATRISTIC AND RABBINIC INTERPRETATION 531

Irmtraud Fischer assumes that Numbers 12 reflects a conflict between two groups in post-exilic Judah: one referring to the Torah and one relying on prophecy (together with a third, a cult-oriented group represented by Aaron)39. The rabbis and the church fathers had similar and perhaps also different questions as well and found their particular answers. Both traditions recognise a problem with Miriam’s presumptuous words and her arrogance toward Moses, the greatest of all prophets and man of God. Although Miriam (and Aaron) are held in high esteem, their opposi- tion to Moses is viewed quite critically by the ancient interpreters yet in different ways. Two features of the text of Numbers 12 led interpreters to gender specific discussions and answers. In v. 1 the verb is in the feminine singular: Thus, Miriam is the first to speak or the leader opposing their .ותדבר brother while Aaron is mentioned in second place. Miriam alone is punished as a consequence of their critique (v. 10). The biblical text does not tell us anything about Aaron’s punishment. This, of course, makes interpreters question the reasons. Theodoret of Cyrus deals with this problem in his Question 23 on Numbers40. His explanation is twofold: first, Miriam’s guilt is greater because she is a woman and second, Aaron as a high priest cannot be afflicted by leprosy because this would render him unclean.

Why is it that, though both Aaron and Miriam had reviled him, Miriam alone paid the penalty? First, because the woman’s trespass was greater. After all, both nature and the Law subject the female to the male. Second, Aaron had some measure of excuse, since he was both the elder and the one who had been honored with the office of high priest. In addition, since the leper was reckoned unclean by the Law, and Aaron was the root and foundation of the priests, God did not exact equal retribution from him to prevent the shame from passing to the whole race; instead he frightened and, at the same time, admonished him through his sister. In fact, her affliction so distressed Aaron that, on behalf of the woman who had received the punishment, he personally begged the man they had wronged to intercede for a remedy for this calamity. And Moses did not ignore him but immediately offered supplication. Then the loving (φιλάνθρωπος) Lord explained that he had chastised her, not as a judge, but as a father, saying, “If her father had spat in her face, would she not be covered in confusion? She is to be barred from the camp for seven days, and after that she will return”41. Respect was mingled with disrepute; the people did not move on until she was rid of her affliction42.

39. Cf. FISCHER, Gotteskünderinnen (n. 1), pp. 73-76. 40. Cf. SIQUANS, Prophetinnen (n. 2), pp. 119-122. 41. Num 13,16. 42. R.C. HILL (transl.), Theodoret of Cyrus: The Questions on the Octateuch, vol. 2 (The Library of Early Christianity, 2), Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2007, pp. 127-129. 532 A. SIQUANS

What concerns Theodoret in his interpretation is the fact that only Miriam is punished. His dual answer refers on the one hand to Miriam’s gender, and Aaron’s priestly status on the other. Nevertheless, Miriam’s guilt and punishment are mitigated by the fact that the people waited for her. Furthermore, Theodoret emphasises God’s philanthropy and peda- gogy. His critique is limited to Miriam’s particular guilt and punishment in this single case. Generally, he holds her (and Aaron) in high esteem. Most patristic texts which mention this episode use Miriam, alone or together with Aaron, as an example in the context of sin, repentance, prayer and reconciliation or of envy and jealousy. Often combined with typological interpretations, they take Moses as a type of Christ and/or Miriam and Aaron as representatives of the Synagogue and the Jews43. Rabbinic interpretations focus on Miriam’s words as well. From the feminine singular verb, they conclude that Miriam had started the prob- lematic conversation and Aaron had joined her. Sifre Zuta justifies Miri- Later, the text states .44(לשון הרע) ”am’s punishment with her “bad tongue that Aaron had also been punished but was immediately healed. That the Bible does not talk about Aaron’s punishment is explained by the fact that Miriam was the first to speak: she spoke before Aaron and was therefore punished. The most important point seems to be that she did not respect her brother Aaron’s primacy. The Sifre on Numbers has a similar explanation. The midrash explains that Miriam usually did not speak before Aaron, only in this particular situation, because she wanted to support Zippora. The midrash also holds Moses .(עצמה) ”that Miriam spoke to Aaron not in public, but “in private did not hear her words.

Now it is an argument a fortiori: if Miriam, who intended to speak against her brother not to his detriment but to his credit, and not to lessen procreation but to increase it, and who spoke only in private, yet she was punished, if someone intends to speak ill of his fellow and not in praise, to diminish and not to increase procreation, and speaks not in private but among others – how much the more so [will such a one be punished]!45.

43. Thus, for instance, Cyprian, Heptateuchos 271-317; Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra in Numeros; Procopius of Gaza, Commentary on Numbers; Ambrose, Apologia prophetae David I,4,5,17-18; John Chrysostom, Homilia VII. De poenitentia; Aphrahat, Demonstra- tions 9; for further examples, cf. SIQUANS, Prophetinnen (n. 2), pp. 102-151. 44. H.S. HOROVITZ (ed.), Siphre ad Numeros adjecto Siphre zutta: Cum variis lectioni- bus et adnotationibus, Leipzig, Fock, 1917; reprinted Jerusalem, Wahrmann Books, 1966, p. 274. 45. J. NEUSNER, The Components of the Rabbinic Documents: From the Whole to the Parts. XII: Sifré to Numbers, part 2 (South Florida Academic Commentary Series, 105), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1998, p. 63; HOROVITZ, Siphre (n. 44), p. 98. In this text, Miriam speaks to Aaron and not together with Aaron, as in Num 12,1. Immediately afterwards, the text discusses King Uzziah who was also struck by leprosy (cf. 1 Chr 26,19-21). As two people similarly punished with leprosy by God, Miriam and Uzziah are often mentioned together. MIRIAM’S IMAGE IN PATRISTIC AND RABBINIC INTERPRETATION 533

Like some patristic writers46, Sifre on Numbers sees the main problem about Miriam in speech. The midrash does not specifically refer to Miriam’s female gender, but generally criticises the denigration of others. Whereas some church fathers refer to the psychological motivations and intentions of Miriam and Aaron’s behaviour, such as envy or jealousy47, the Sifre on Numbers focuses on the bad behaviour itself. Although Miriam’s intentions were positive and she was quite reluctant in uttering her critique, resulting in minimal feelings of guilt, she was nevertheless punished. This punishment is the foundation for the midrash’s qal wa- homer (a minori ad maius) argument. The Sifre’s image of Miriam in the interpretation of Numbers 12 is comparatively positive. Devarim Rabbah 6,11 is a bit more critical and explains Miriam’s slanderous words through the general loquacity of women and thus introduces a gender-specific argument. Women’s speech was never evaluated in the same way as men’s speech, although slandering is always criticised, whether uttered by women or men.

4. Miriam and Moses’ Cushite Wife There is another issue in Numbers 12 that concerns the interpreters: In the Septuagint, this is translated .(האשה הכשית) Moses’ Cushite wife and thus interpreted as “the Ethiopian wife” (ἡ γυνὴ ἡ Αἰθιοπίς). Every positively depicted woman of the Old Testament was interpreted as a type of the church in patristic texts. Moreover, all positively depicted non-Israelite women were interpreted as a type of the church gathered from the gentiles. Moses’ foreign wife was interpreted thus as well. The Ethiopian woman is often connected to the black woman in Song 1,548. In contrast to her, Miriam is identified as the synagogue who has become leprous (i.e. white) and is expelled from the camp. She will, however, be called back and healed at the end of time49. Cyril of Alexandria’s elaborate interpretation in his Glaphyra in Numeros is a striking example of this typology50 and was handed down by the catena tradition, as we can see in Procopius of Gaza51. Cyril’s typological and allegorical interpretations are often pervaded by anti-Jewish invectives.

46. Cf., e.g., Basil of Caesarea, Rules 27; Gregory of Nyssa, Adversos eos qui castiga- tiones aegre ferunt. 47. Cf., e.g., 1 Clem 4,11; Aphrahat, Demonstrations 9; Jerome, Commentary on Galatians III,95-104. 48. “I am black and beautiful”; cf., e.g., Origen, Comm. Cant. II,1; Hom. Num. VI,4. 49. Cf., e.g., Origen, Hom. Num. VI,4,2; Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra in Numeros; Procopius of Gaza, Commentary on Numbers. 50. For a discussion of this interpretation, cf. SIQUANS, Prophetinnen (n. 2), pp. 104-115. There is no critical edition of Cyril’s Glaphyra. The text is only available in vol. 69 of the Patrologia Graeca. 51. Procopius of Gaza, Commentary on Numbers, combines Cyril and Theodoret’s interpretations. For Procopius cf. SIQUANS, Prophetinnen (n. 2), pp. 115-119. 534 A. SIQUANS

Moses is the type of Christ who marries non-Israelite women: Jethro’s daughter, a Midianite, and the Ethiopian woman mentioned in Num 12,1. Miriam, the synagogue, and Aaron, the Jewish priest, accuse Moses (i.e. Christ) of violating the divine law52. Cyril characterises them as arrogant, drunken and wrathful and accuses them of slander and madness. In this interpretation, Miriam’s image is clearly negative as she is identified with the synagogue in an anti-Jewish context. In rabbinic texts, Num 12,1 and the Cushite woman are interpreted in a completely different way. Sifre Zuta, Sifre on Numbers, and other texts emphasise that Miriam’s concern in her critique of Moses was to support her sister-in-law Zippora53. Zippora complained to Miriam that Moses abstained from procreation after the Sinai revelation54. Miriam, therefore, did not intend to criticise Moses but rather to promote procreation as com- manded in Gen 1,2855. That means that her critique was in some way legitimate and she is thus at least partially excused.

III. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Patristic and rabbinic interpreters present Miriam according to the biblical texts. Nevertheless, they harmonise her image with their own ideas about female prophecy and female behaviour in general. The Christian typological interpretation makes her a model of Christian virginity and Mary, the virgin par excellence. Her song in Exod 15,20-21 is adopted as a Christian hymn, sung on the occasion of baptism (cf. 1 Corinthians 10). Only rarely, in the context of Numbers 12, is Miriam the type of the synagogue. In interpretations of Numbers 12, Miriam is usually criticised yet at the same time highly valued. In this context, Miriam often occurs in lists about jealousy, sin and repentance. These conflicting interpretations show that in patristic exegesis, biblical texts about Miriam were not always treated together. Instead, every text was considered independently depending on the focus of the respective writings56.

52. Cf. also Jerome, Commentary on Zephaniah II,12-15. 53. This implies that the Cushite woman in Num 12,1 is identified as Zippora. Moses thus has only one wife, not two. 54. This is also presupposed by Christian authors who take the opportunity to praise Moses’ chastity: cf., for instance, Epiphanius, Panarion 78,16,1-2: “But prophets and high priests refrain from it [marriage] because their service is for a higher purpose. (2) After he became a prophet Moses had no more relations with his wife, she bore no more children, and he fathered no more. For he had adopted a way of life which afforded more leisure for his Master. How could he remain on Mount Sinai ‘for forty nights and forty days’ and still attend to his marriage? Or how could he ready for ministry to God in the wilderness for forty years, and find the leisure for priesthood. If he was married, how could be [sic] con- tinually expound the mysteries and converse with God”? F. WILLIAMS (transl.), The Panarion of Ephiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) (NHMS, 36), Leiden, Brill, 1994, pp. 612-613. 55. Cf. also Devarim Rabbah 6,11. 56. Commentaries on Exodus usually do not consider the events of Numbers 12: Ori- gen’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 14 quotes Miriam as a prophet only; Jerome interprets MIRIAM’S IMAGE IN PATRISTIC AND RABBINIC INTERPRETATION 535

Rabbinic interpretation also focuses on the biblical texts. However, the rabbis read various biblical texts about Miriam together as parts of one textual entity, further enriched by Aggadic traditions. Rabbinic texts also adapt their presentation of the biblical Miriam to their ideals of the Israelite woman, focusing on family, children and the procreation of the people. Thus, in rabbinic interpretation, a more complete image of Miriam arises which is handed down through the centuries. In Christianity, there is no specific Miriam tradition. In the modern era, she was often completely neglected in homilies, commentaries and the like. Only in the late twentieth century, feminist exegetes recovered her as an important female character of the Hebrew Bible57. Patristic and rabbinic texts about Miriam are rooted in the biblical texts. However, their interpretations are clearly defined by the respective socio- cultural and religious contexts of the interpreters and their communities. We thus have two differing traditions originating in the same biblical texts but taking different directions in later times; one paints a vivid picture of Miriam, the other largely neglects her. It was primarily feminist writers and commentators in the twentieth century, Christian and Jewish alike, who took the biblical Miriam and the various traditions as their starting point to paint a new picture of Miriam, informed by a new context58. However scarce, the biblical account preserved some information about Miriam’s activities as well as a few of her words and encouraged interpreters, ancient and modern, to deal with this inspiring biblical character.

Universität Wien Agnethe SIQUANS Katholisch-theologische Fakultät Institut für Bibelwissenschaft – Altes Testament Schenkenstraße 8-10 AT-1010 Wien Austria [email protected]

Miriam as the prophecy in ep. 78,35 and as the synagogue in his commentary on Zephaniah II,12-15; in the prologue to the commentary on Hosea he calls her the prophecy that serves the letter. His interpretations thus depend on the immediate context and the topic of his writings. 57. Cf. BRENNER, Feminist Companion (n. 1); BUTTING, Prophetinnen (n. 2); FISCHER, Gotteskünderinnen (n. 1) among many others. 58. A telling example is E. FRANKEL, The Five Books of Miriam: A Women’s Com- mentary on the Torah, New York, HarperCollins, 1998, p. 110, who lets the women of the Torah speak for themselves: “MIRIAM THE PROPHET DECLARES: Only a single verse of my Song at the Sea is recorded in the Torah, the faint echo of my brother’s song. ‘SING TO YHVH; FOR GOD HAS TRIUMPHED GLORIOUSLY; HORSE AND DRIVER GOD HAS HURLED INTO THE SEA’ (15:21). … Still, my song, though so much briefer, today stirs the hearts of Jewish women, inspiring them to create new songs, poems, stories, meditations, interpretive commentaries, and prayers”. 536 A. SIQUANS

ABSTRACT. — The article presents patristic interpretations of the biblical figure of Miriam alongside rabbinic interpretations. Miriam is depicted in manifold images: based on Exod 15,20f. she is portrayed as a female prophet. Christian writers interpret her as a virgin, and thus also as type of the church and of Mary. Rabbinic texts focus on Miriam as a midwife and a mother, even of kings – on the basis of Exodus 1–2. Patristic and rabbinic texts judge Miriam’s criticism of Moses in Numbers 12 negatively. In both traditions, also Miriam’s stance toward Moses’ Cushite wife is discussed. Patristic and rabbinic interpretations often deal with the same topics, yet they are situated in different religious-cultural contexts, presuppose different hermeneutical con- cepts and look at the biblical text and its characters from different, sometimes even opposing, perspectives.