Miriam, Aaron and Moses: Sibling Rivalry
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHAPTER 17 Miriam, Aaron and Moses: Sibling Rivalry According to Numbers 26: 57–59, Miriam and Aaron are the siblings of Moses. In the pericope studied here (Num 11:35–12:16) Moses is challenged by Miriam and Aaron both with regard to his marital choice and to his superior prophetic status. The present article attempts to explicate some of the philological and thematic difficulties in the text. In the light of the archaeological data currently available, which demonstrate that none of the narrative of the Torah is historical, the study suggests that Num 11:35–12:16 is addressed to a Jewish audience of the Achaemenid Persian period; a period in which a written Torah, an innovation, was in competi- tion with oral prophecy, an older traditional form of divine revelation. By compos- ing a tale in which YHWH himself affirmed the superiority of his communications to Moses over his communications to other prophets, the author of the pericope was, in fact, claiming that Scripture, which contained the divine word in its clear- est form, was far more reliable than prophecy orally delivered. The Pentateuch portrays Moses (and God) as regularly beset by opposi- tion. This is especially true with regard to the Book of Numbers chapters 11–21, 25.1 In the pericope studied in this paper Moses is challenged by Miriam and Aaron, who, according to the earliest level of the tradition (Micah 6:4) are his co-leaders in the exodus from Egypt, and his siblings according to Num 26:57–59. The present study attempts to explicate some of the philological and thematic difficulties present in the text, and to clarify some of the theological and ideological concerns of its author, and of the ancient audience. Before pro- ceeding further I wish to clarify the general approach to the narratives of the Torah that will be taken in this study.2 It is no exaggeration to say that the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War (1967), and later the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, had a revolutionary effect on the direction of biblical studies. For the previous thirty to forty years much of 1 See G. Coats, Rebellion in the Wilderness (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968). Coats (261–264) deals with the pericope studied here in an appendix because he considers it not to be part of the murmuring tradition. 2 An earlier version of this article was presented on June 12, 2000 as a Hebrew lecture to a sym- posium sponsored by the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It is my pleasant duty to thank Dr. Israel Knohl and Professor Alexander Rofé for their invitation to the symposium, and the attendees for their extremely helpful comments. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004340879_0�8 Miriam, Aaron And Moses: Sibling Rivalry 211 biblical scholarship had been heavily influenced by the “biblical archaeology”3 school associated in the main with such American scholars as William Foxwell Albright,4 and his disciples G. Ernest Wright,5 John Bright,6 David Noel Freedman7 and Frank Cross.8 To a lesser extent we should include Ephraim Α. Speiser whose studies on the patriarchal period, and especially his commen- tary on Genesis,9 continue to influence contemporary scholarship.10 These scholars, to whose names we may add that of Benjamin Mazar11 (Maisler)12 3 For a more detailed treatment of the rise and subsequent decline of the “Biblical Archaeology” school see S. David Sperling, The Original Torah: The Political Intent of the Bible’s Writers (NewYork: New York University, 1998), 17–25 and the literature cited there. 4 For Albright’s vast bibliography see D. N. Freedman in The Bible and the Ancient Near East Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1965), 488–524; ErIsr 9 (1969) 1–5; D. N. Freedman, R. MacDonald and D. Matson, The Published Works of William Foxwell Albright: A Comprehensive Bibliography (Cambridge, Mass.: AASOR, 1975); See further, P. Machinist, “William Foxwell Albright: The Man and His Work,” in The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century. The William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference, eds. J. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 385–403; B. Long, Planting and Reaping Albright: Politics, Ideology and Interpreting the Bible (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1997). 5 See especially G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957). 6 J. Bright, A History of Israel (1st ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1958). Between the late 1950s and the late 1970s Bright’s History in its various editions was probably the most influential work of the school. The book was required reading in virtually any non- fundamentalist seminary or university course on the history of the biblical period. 7 Freedman, not himself an archaeologist, has regularly employed the models and dis- coveries of archaeology in his own work. See especially D. N. Freedman,“Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy,” JBL 96 (1977), 5–26. The essay is reprinted in D. N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 1–22; On Freedman’s method in general see the reviews of D. N. Freedman, Divine Commitment and Human Obligation. Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman (2 vols; [Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1997]) by R. E. Friedman in JQR 88 (1998), 259–261; S.David Sperling in HS 39 (1998), 7–13. 8 See e.g., F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1973). For Cross’s bibliography see Erlsr 26 (1999), xiii–xxiv. 9 E. A. Speiser, Genesis, (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964). 10 See e.g., G. Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1986); Ν. Sarna, Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989); idem, Exodus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991). 11 See S. Ahituv, ed., Benjamin Mazar, Biblical Israel: State and People (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982). 12 Mazar may be accounted a disciple of Albright..