Mixed Marriages : Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period

Table of contents :
Preface vii
Abbreviations ix
List of Contributors xiii
INTRODUCTION:
THE DISCOURSE ON INTERMARRIAGE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
Christian Frevel 1
DEEPENING THE WATER:
FIRST STEPS TO A DIACHRONIC APPROACH
ON INTERMARRIAGE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE
Christian Frevel and Benedikt J. Conczorowski 15
AN ETHNIC AFFAIR?
EZRA’S INTERMARRIAGE CRISIS AGAINST A CONTEXT
OF “SELF-ASCRIPTION” AND “ASCRIPTION OF OTHERS”
Katherine Southwood 46
THE QUESTION OF MIXED MARRIAGES
BETWEEN THE POLES OF DIASPORA AND HOMELAND:
OBSERVATIONS IN EZRA–NEHEMIAH
Ralf Rothenbusch 60
INTERMARRIAGE AND GROUP IDENTITY
IN THE EZRA TRADITION (EZRA 7–10 AND NEHEMIAH 8)
Juha Pakkala 78
ALL THE SAME AS EZRA? CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE TEXTS ON INTERMARRIAGE IN GENESIS,
DEUTERONOMY 7 AND EZRA
Benedikt J. Conczorowski 89
UNDERSTANDING THE MIXED MARRIAGES
OF EZRA–NEHEMIAH IN THE LIGHT OF TEMPLE-BUILDING
AND THE BOOK’S CONCEPT OF JERUSALEM
Jan Clauss 109
MIXED MARRIAGE IN TORAH NARRATIVES
Karen S. Winslow 132
FROM THE WELL IN MIDIAN TO THE BAAL OF PEOR:
DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TO MARRIAGE OF ISRAELITES
TO MIDIANITE WOMEN
Yonina Dor 150
“MARRIED INTO MOAB”: THE EXOGAMY PRACTICED
BY JUDAH AND HIS DESCENDANTS IN THE JUDAHITE LINEAGES
Gary N. Knoppers 170
THE QUESTION OF “MIXED MARRIAGES” (INTERMARRIAGE):
THE EXTRA-BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
Sebastian Grätz 192
MIXED MARRIAGES
AND THE HELLENISTIC RELIGIOUS REFORMS
Armin Lange 205
“SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE GENTILES”
(JUBILEES 22:16): INTERMARRIAGE IN THE BOOK OF JUBILEES
Christian Frevel 220
INTERMARRIAGE IN QUMRAN TEXTS:
THE LEGACY OF EZRA–NEHEMIAH
Hannah Harrington 251
MOSES’ CUSHITE MARRIAGE:
TORAH, ARTAPANUS, AND JOSEPHUS
Karen S. Winslow 280
FEMINIST- AND GENDER-CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES
ON THE BIBLICAL IDEOLOGY OF INTERMARRIAGE
Claudia V. Camp 303
Index of References 316
Index of Authors 333

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

547 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Gina Hens-Piazza, John Jarick, Andrew D. H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller, Yvonne Sherwood

ii

MIXED MARRIAGES

Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period

Edited by

Christian Frevel

Published by T & T Clark International A Continuum imprint 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038 The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX www.continuumbooks.com Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com © 2011 by Christian Frevel All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark International.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

eISBN: 978-0-567-19765-8 Typeset and copy-edited by Forthcoming Publications Ltd. (www forthpub.com) Printed and bound in the United States of America

CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations List of Contributors INTRODUCTION: THE DISCOURSE ON INTERMARRIAGE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Christian Frevel

vii ix xiii

1

DEEPENING THE WATER: FIRST STEPS TO A DIACHRONIC APPROACH ON INTERMARRIAGE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Christian Frevel and Benedikt J. Conczorowski

15

AN ETHNIC AFFAIR? EZRA’S INTERMARRIAGE CRISIS AGAINST A CONTEXT OF “SELF-ASCRIPTION” AND “ASCRIPTION OF OTHERS” Katherine Southwood

46

THE QUESTION OF MIXED MARRIAGES BETWEEN THE POLES OF DIASPORA AND HOMELAND: OBSERVATIONS IN EZRA–NEHEMIAH Ralf Rothenbusch

60

INTERMARRIAGE AND GROUP IDENTITY IN THE EZRA TRADITION (EZRA 7–10 AND NEHEMIAH 8) Juha Pakkala

78

ALL THE SAME AS EZRA? CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TEXTS ON INTERMARRIAGE IN GENESIS, DEUTERONOMY 7 AND EZRA Benedikt J. Conczorowski

89

UNDERSTANDING THE MIXED MARRIAGES OF EZRA–NEHEMIAH IN THE LIGHT OF TEMPLE-BUILDING AND THE BOOK’S CONCEPT OF JERUSALEM Jan Clauss

109

vi

Contents

MIXED MARRIAGE IN TORAH NARRATIVES Karen S. Winslow

132

FROM THE WELL IN MIDIAN TO THE BAAL OF PEOR: DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TO MARRIAGE OF ISRAELITES TO MIDIANITE WOMEN Yonina Dor

150

“MARRIED INTO MOAB”: THE EXOGAMY PRACTICED BY JUDAH AND HIS DESCENDANTS IN THE JUDAHITE LINEAGES Gary N. Knoppers

170

THE QUESTION OF “MIXED MARRIAGES” (INTERMARRIAGE): THE EXTRA-BIBLICAL EVIDENCE Sebastian Grätz

192

MIXED MARRIAGES AND THE HELLENISTIC RELIGIOUS REFORMS Armin Lange

205

“SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE GENTILES” (JUBILEES 22:16): INTERMARRIAGE IN THE BOOK OF JUBILEES Christian Frevel

220

INTERMARRIAGE IN QUMRAN TEXTS: THE LEGACY OF EZRA–NEHEMIAH Hannah Harrington

251

MOSES’ CUSHITE MARRIAGE: TORAH, ARTAPANUS, AND JOSEPHUS Karen S. Winslow

280

FEMINIST- AND GENDER-CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE BIBLICAL IDEOLOGY OF INTERMARRIAGE Claudia V. Camp

303

Index of References Index of Authors

316 333

PREFACE The present volume is the result of discussions on the topic of intermarriage during several international conferences since 2008. Its core consists of papers presented at the SBL International Meeting 2009 in Rome during two sessions on “Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Persian and Hellenistic Period,” a discussion which was continued by the SBL International Meeting in Tartu. Some additional papers have been included to round off the present anthology. I thank Claudia Camp for accepting this volume for the LHBOTS series. Continuum’s Katie Gallof supervised the process patiently and competently. Special thanks are dedicated to the DFG (German Research Foundation) which supports a research project on intermarriage at the Ruhr-University in Bochum. This volume presents results already arising from this project. I am particularly grateful to Benedikt Conczorowski, Bochum, who dealt expertly with the organization, correction and formatting of this volume, and who coordinated the assistance of Katharina Tautz, Florian Mundt, Katharina Pyschny, Alina Golisch, and Jan Clauss, Bochum. Jeffrey Rop, Pennsylvania, helped to revise the English of those studies written by non-native English speakers with caution and understanding. Many thanks to the whole team! The volume is intended to provide a forum for the diversity of scholarly approaches to improve progress in mixed marriage research. Hopefully the current debate on Persian and Hellenistic period Yehud will benefit from that, too. Christian Frevel Ruhr-University, Bochum

viii

ABBREVIATIONS AB AfO AJA AJSR AOAT ATD ATSAT BA BBB BDB BEATAJ BETL Bib BibInt BibOr BIOSCS BKAT BN BTB BWA(N)T BZABR BZAW CBC CBQMS CBR ConBOT CPJ DMOA DNP DSD EKKNT FAT

Anchor Bible Archiv für Orientforschung American Journal of Archaeology Association for Jewish Studies Review Alter Orient und Altes Testament Das Alte Testament Deutsch Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Biblical Archaeologist Bonner Biblische Beiträge Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1907 Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testament und des Antiken Judentums Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblica et Orientalia Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Biblical Theology Bulletin Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly: Monograph Series Catholic Biblical Review Conitecta Biblica Old Testament Series Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike. Edited by H. Cancik and H. Schneider. Stuttgart, 1996– Dead Sea Discoveries Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar Forschungen zum Alten Testament

x FRLANT GAT HAR HAT HBS Hen HKAT HSS HTR HvTSt ICC IRSHS JANES JAOS JBL JEA JES JFSR JNSL JQR JSHRZ JSJ JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSP JSPSup JSQ JTS KAT LBS LCBI LCL LHBOTS LSTS NAEHL NBL NCB NEchtB NICOT NovTSup NSK.AT NTOA OBO

Abbreviations Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Grundrisse zum Alten Testament Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders Biblische Studien Henoch Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Series Harvard Theological Review Hervormde teologiese studies International Critical Commentary International Review of Social History Supplements Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Jüdische Schriften zur Hellenistisch-Römischen Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series Jewish Studies Quarterly Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament The Library of Biblical Studies Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Library of Second Temple Studies The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Neues Bibellexikon New Century Bible Neue Echter Bibel New International Commentary on the Old Testament Novum Testamentum Supplements Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

Abbreviations OLZ Or OTE OTL OTMS OTP OTR OtSt QD RB REJ RevQ SBL SBLABS SBLDS SBLEJL SBLMS SBLSCS SBLSymS SBS SemeiaSt SHR SJLA SSN STDJ TAD TBC TCB Text THAT ThWAT TQ Transeu TSAJ UF VT VTSup WBC WdO WMANT WTJ WUNT ZABR ZAW

xi

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Orientalia Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Old Testament Monograph Series Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Old Testament Readings Oudtestamentische Studien Quaestiones disputatae Revue Biblique Revue des Études Juives Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Semeia Studies Studies in the History of Religion Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Studia semitica neerlandica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Porten, B., and A. Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Jerusalem, 1989–99 Torch Bible Commentaries The Century Bible Textus Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Theologische Quartalsschrift Transeuphratene Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Claudia V. Camp, Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, Texas Christian University Jan Clauss, Research Assistant, Ruhr-University Bochum Benedikt J. Conczorowski, Research Assistant, Ruhr-University Bochum Yonina Dor, Headmistress of the Bible Department, Oranim Academic College of Education Christian Frevel, Professor of Old Testament Studies, Ruhr-University Bochum Sebastian Grätz, Professor of Old Testament Studies, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Hannah Harrington, Professor of Old Testament Studies, Patten University, Oakland Gary N. Knoppers, Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Religious Studies, and Jewish Studies, Pennsylvania State University Armin Lange, Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Vienna Juha Pakkala, University Lecturer, University of Helsinki Ralf Rothenbusch, Dean of Studies, Academy Erbacher Hof, Mainz Katherine Southwood, Kennicott Junior Research Fellow of the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford Karen S. Winslow, Professor of Graduate Biblical Studies, Azusa Pacific University

xiv

INTRODUCTION: THE DISCOURSE ON INTERMARRIAGE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE* Christian Frevel

The topic “mixed marriage” has received much attention in recent publications on Hebrew Bible, History of Israel and Jewish Studies.1 While the topic had largely been neglected in scholarly discourse and research for most of the last century, interest has been overwhelming during the last two decades. The importance of endogamy, both as a literary feature and as a boundary marker, has been emphasized as critical to the structuring of Second Temple Judaism in the Persian and Hellenistic periods.2 There are several fields of research which amplified this tendency recently, of which three main areas are to be mentioned:

* This introduction, as well as the essays by Christian Frevel and Benedikt Conczorowski, includes results from a research project granted by the DFG (German Research Foundation): “Die Konstruktionen von Gruppenidentität durch religiös begründete Heiratsverbote. Literarhistorische, rechtshistorische und sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte der sog. ‘Mischehenfrage’ in der persischen Provinz Yehûd.” 1. A brief look at the bibliographical references appearing in the essays included in this volume supports this observation. 2. See, for example, the essays by Tamara C. Eskenazi and Eleanor P. Judd, “Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10,” as well as Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post Exilic Community,” both published in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 242–65, and 266–85, respectively. These studies contribute to the larger context of the debate surrounding the formation of Second Temple Judaism. For a most recent contribution to the discussion, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 63–71, 142–45.

2

Mixed Marriages

1. The growing interest in post-exilic pre-Hellenistic times in literary, archaeological and sociological respects.3 2. The growing interest on purity concepts as part of constructing “Israel” in Persian and Hellenistic times, which, as will be shown by the studies by Hannah Harrington, Armin Lange, Jan Clauss and Christian Frevel and Benedikt Conczorowski, is connected to the mixed marriage discourse in several Second Temple texts.4 3. Finally, the discussion on the constitution of a Judahite or Jehudite identity in Persian and Hellenistic times as one of the important presumptions of the formation of Early Judaism, where identity construction by separation, exclusion or segregation and the “making of the other” are at stake.5 3. Cf. Jon L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Berquist, Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period (SemeiaSt 50; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2007); Blenkinsopp, Judaism; Philip R. Davies, ed., Second Temple Studies 1: Persian Period (JSOTSup 117; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991); Eskenazi and Richards, eds., Second Temple Studies 2; John M. Halligan and Philip R. Davies eds., Second Temple Studies 3: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture (JSOTSup 340; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002); Lester L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Vol. 1, Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah (LSTS 47; London: T&T Clark International, 2004); Reinhard G. Kratz, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (FAT 42; Tübingen: Mohr, 2004); Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers and Rainer Albertz, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Forth Century B.C.E. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007); Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006); Yigal Levin, ed., A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neighbors in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods (LSTS 65; London: T&T Clark International, 2007); H. G. M. Williamson, Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography (FAT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 4. To mention some examples one may refer to the question whether aliens are impure as such, the focus on the “holy seed” in Ezra 9 and its connection with purity concepts, or the relevance of purity in the Qumran community. Cf., e.g., the following recent publications: Hannah Harrington, “Keeping Outsiders Out: Impurity at Qumran,” in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen (ed. F. García Martínez and M. Popovic; StTDJ 70; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 187–203; Christine Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identity: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Saul M. Olyan, “Purity Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community,” JSJ 35, no. 1 (2004), 1–16; Ian C. Werrett, Ritual Purity and the Dead Sea Scrolls (StTDJ 72; Leiden: Brill, 2007), and others. 5. See the above-mentioned publications on the history of Persian Period Judaism.

FREVEL Introduction

3

Within all these trains of thought, “mixed marriages” are of pivotal interest. The controversy about them is a poster child of identity construction in post-exilic times and is interwoven with external and internal conflicts.6 Nevertheless, besides some articles addressing the question explicitly, it often seems to be no more than a kind of “sidekick” to be dealt with casually in publications on the history of Second Temple Judaism. The present anthology tries to fill in that gap by focussing explicitly on biblical and extra-biblical discussions on intermarriage, its practice, ideology, prescription and description in biblical texts and related traditions, thus providing a forum for the diversity of recent approaches. This volume aims at putting forward the discussion on the roots, the development and the reception of the mixed marriages issue. In what follows I will offer an introduction to the relevant terminology, a heuristic systematization of the main lines of argument against mixed marriage in the Hebrew Bible, a round-up of the most significant questions related to the topic and an overview of the contributions collected in this volume. 1. Trapped between Anachronism and Precision: Terminological Remarks Some thoughts on terminology have to be laid out at the outset of these introductory remarks: First of all, it has to be pointed out that it is problematic to refer to all mixed relationships using the terms “mixed marriage” or “intermarriage.”7 Not every incident concerning mixed couples refers to a “legal” status of marriage. For example, Num 25 does not explicitly mention marriage, but rather refers to cultic issues by using sexualized language (vv. 1–3) and narrates a single incident in exemplary manner (v. 6). Both are linked with the mixed marriage issue. Thus, one could better speak of

6. See, e.g., Ralf Rothenbusch, „…abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin“. Ethnischreligiöse Identitäten im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (HBS; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2010). 7. Both terms are used synonymously here. Spickard notes that recently a distinction between “intermarriage” (= Jewish–Gentile) and “mixed marriage” (= exogamous marriages in general) has been made by some authors, yet this distinction does not really help to clarify the issue; see Paul R. Spickard, Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth Century America (Madison, Wis.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1991), 20–21. On marriage in Second Temple Judaism, see also Etan Levine, Marital Relations in Ancient Judaism (BZABR 10; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009).

4

Mixed Marriages

“mixed relationships” or “mixed couples” at some points of the debate for the sake of clarity. But where such “relationships” are rejected resp. prevented—as will be demonstrated below by means of a discussion of Num 25:6–188—their message is aimed in the same direction as the explicit mixed marriage texts. Thus, one has to accept those texts into the mixed marriage discourse.9 While the topic is accentuated as an important part of constructing identity in recent discussion, there is some fuzziness in terminology. In other words, “mixed marriage” is a container or umbrella term including several different aspects of marriage practices. First, the word pair “endogamy” and “exogamy” has to be mentioned. In Biblical Studies the term endogamy is often used either in a narrow sense, denoting marital relations within kinship or extended families (e.g. the family of Jacob), or in a comprehensive way, comprising marriages within a certain social group (e.g. the Israelites). Exogamy forms the corresponding counterpart in both cases. In sociological understanding, both terms are also quite unspecific, as the following definition may illustrate: Endogamy refers to in-group marriage, or a pattern of marriage in which the partners have a shared group affiliation. Its conceptual counterpoint is exogamy, or a pattern of marriage in which the partners are different in their group affiliation.10

Thus, the range of both terms relates to the specific context they are used in and the specific definition of the in-group.11 Furthermore, although both endogamy and exogamy seem to be the two sides of the same coin, one should be careful to define endogamy only as the positive formulation of marriage prohibitions. As a first step one should understand it as 8. See the co-authored essay by Frevel and Conczorowski in the present volume. 9. It should be noted that the avoidance of mixed marriages even before they become a reality is of great significance for the present discussion. 10. Nazli Kibria, “Endogamy,” in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (ed. George Ritzer; 11 vols.; Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 4:1404. For similar treatments, see Karl-Heinz Hillmann, Wörterbuch der Soziologie (5th ed.; Stuttgart: Kroener Alfred, 2007), 181, 209; Wolfgang J. Koschnick, Standardwörterbuch für die Sozialwissenschaften. Englisch–Deutsch (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Schäffer-Pöschel, 1984), 2:253; Charlotte Seymor-Smith, Macmillan Dictionary of Anthropology (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1987), 93; Joy Hendry: An Introduction to Social Anthropology (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999), 197. On endogamy as a phenomenon within minority groups, cf. Anthony Giddens, Sociology (5th ed.; Cambridge: Polity, 2006), 490. 11. Cf. Kibria, “Endogamy,” 4:1405.

FREVEL Introduction

5

a positive rule describing a group’s or subgroup’s idea of adequate marriage depending on its idea of self-identity.12 Anthropologists differentiate roughly between kin group endogamy (marriage within a specific range of family), alliance endogamy (marriage within a defined group, which can be specified, for example, as class or religious endogamy) and local endogamy (marriage within a certain geographical range, for instance, village endogamy).13 In the context of class14 endogamy/exogamy (marriage within or outside social strata or classes) the word pair isogamy/anisogamy is of

12. Seymour-Smith, Anthropology, 93; Cf. also Robert K. Merton, “Intermarriage and the Social Structure: Fact and Theory,” Psychiatry 9 (1941): 361–74. 13. Seymour-Smith, Anthropology, 93. For slightly different categories, cf. Thomas Hieke, “Endogamy in the Book of Tobit, Genesis, and Ezra–Nehemiah,” in The Book of Tobit: Text, Tradition, Theology; Papers of the First International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 20–21 May (ed. G. Xeravits; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 103–19 (103), with reference to Brian Schwimmer; see Schwimmer’s online introduction: http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/ anthropology/tutor/marriage/endogamy.html (cited 4 November 2010). He describes four categories: “village endogamy, class endogamy, caste endogamy, lineage endogamy.” All of them could be subsumed in the categories mentioned in our text. This holds true also for the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, which differentiates endogamy by “clan, lineage, village and social class”; see John Scott and Gordon Marshall, eds., Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 217. Regarding local endogamy, see the investigation of Adams and Kasakoff, providing a theory which connects demography and geography with the rate of endogamous marriages in a society: John W. Adams and Alice B. Kasakoff, “Factors Underlying Endogamous Group Size,” in Regional Analysis 2: Social Systems (ed. C. A. Smith; New York: Academic, 1976), 149–73. This essay has been adopted and further developed in an Old Testament Studies context by a detailed study of Gunnar Lehmann: “The United Monarchy in the Countryside: Jerusalem, Judah and the Shephelah During the Tenth Century B.C.E.,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. B. Killebrew; SBLSymS; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2003), 117–62. In his study, Lehmann seeks to explain settlement patterns, demography, social structure and conflicts in Syro-Palestine within the tenth–ninth century B.C.E. See further Gunnar Lehmann and Michael Niemann, “Klanstruktur und charismatische Herrschaft: Juda und Jerusalem 1200–900 v. Chr,” TQ 186 (2006): 134–59. Cf. also the contribution by Armin Lange to the present volume. 14. The term is understood in a wide range of meanings, including social status and caste systems. For an overview on class endogamy, cf. Marco H. D. van Leeuwen and Ineke Maas, “Endogamy and Social Class in History: An Overview,” in Marriage Choices and Class Boundaries: Social Endogamy in History (ed. M. H. D. van Leeuwen et al.; IRSH 50; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005),

6

Mixed Marriages

certain relevance for sociological research. Isogamy denotes marriage between spouses of equal social status while anisogamy aims at the opposite.15 Anisogamy itself can be differentiated by the terms “hypergamy,” when women marry men of an upper class, and “hypogamy,” when the brides belong to a higher class than the bridegrooms.16 Hypergamy is often found in caste systems17 or in patrilinear societies, while hypogamy has been observed, for example, in twentieth-century USA, for example, with Afro-American males marrying “up” into white families of a certain social status.18 These anisogamous forms of marriage are mostly irrelevant in discussions of the Hebrew Bible since the idea of marrying up (e.g. between “classes” of Golah-returnees and long-term inhabitants of Yehud in the Persian Period19) cannot be reconstructed without speculation. In contrast, the rationales for endogamy provided by the Hebrew Bible clearly hint at another direction with regards to the difference of in-group(s) and out-group(s). Thus, in the biblical context we struggle with forms of interethnic, intercultural or interreligious exogamy.20 Nevertheless, these terms are themselves imprecise since they imply definite entities of ethnos, culture or religion.21 Although for instance 1–23. Cf. also Lilyan A. Brudner and Douglas R. White, “Class, Property, and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked Histories,” Theory and Society 26 (1997): 161–208. 15. Cf. Seymor-Smith, Anthropology, 13, 154. 16. Cf. Koschnick, Standardwörterbuch, 472–73; Seymor-Smith, Anthropology, 13, 142–43, 154. The terms hypergamy and hypogamy do not necessarily denote an anisogamous marriage, as such practices also include the marriage of spouses from the same class, which would be an isogamous connubium. Especially in societies practicing hypergamy, sometimes a shift towards “isogamous circles” is observed. This can be considered a strategy whereby families stabilize their social status by marrying only on a level of equality; cf. Koschnick, Standardwörterbuch, 473. 17. With regards to endogamous marriages in caste systems, cf. Giddens, Sociology, 298. 18. Cf. Seymor-Smith, Anthropology, 142; Spickard, Mixed Blood, passim. 19. Cf. Smith-Christopher, Crisis. 20. See, for example, Smith-Christopher, Crisis, and the references given there. See further Spickard, Mixed Blood, and the overview by Hieke, Endogamy, 103–4. 21. Cf. Kibria, “Endogamy,” 4:1404–5, for example, relates the topic of mixed marriage explicitly to ethnogenesis. Thus it does not occur merely between exactly defined ethnic groups, but already in the process of their definition. In this context, cf. the treatment of our topic in Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 109–39 and 241–62. See also the essay by Katherine Southwood in the present

FREVEL Introduction

7

Deut 7:4 advises against mixed marriages with foreign women “for your son would be seduced from following me into serving other gods,” there is no distinct concept of “religion” in the background of this prohibition. Thus “interreligious” is a bit anachronistic. It is obvious that “culture” is much more aiming at a specific ethos than at relevant cultural differences or a different religious practice. By that, mixed marriage is becoming a moral and “defiling” issue and part of the strongly regulated sexuality of the members of a certain society (complementary to, but not identical with the incest taboos22). As a consequence, “cultural” endogamy probably would come closest to what is meant by a majority of Hebrew Bible texts. Yet, since categories such as “religious” or “cultural” cannot be avoided entirely if one aims at a systematization of the texts as well as at the definition of the kind of endogamy addressed by them, we may use these terms in a rather heuristic way. Finally, another definition of endogamy should not be forgotten: on the narrative level the patriarchal narratives (e.g. Gen 24; 26–28) and later the book of Tobit, too, argue for kin or lineage endogamy. Nevertheless, looking at the mixed marriage texts in the Hebrew Bible as a whole, this kind of marriage rule seems to represent only a small minority.23 One has to keep in mind the structural conditions of premodern societies which make it harder to marry exogamously, such as lack of infrastructure which promotes local endogamy or intensive social control by the clan.24 Thus, many forms of endogamy investigated in modern sociological or anthropological research are improbable in ancient Near Eastern societies and one should be careful not to be “trapped” by anachronism or mere speculation by applying modern sociological approaches too easily. Nevertheless, sociological approaches can also provide helpful analogies and a clarification of terminology for the study of mixed marriage in the Hebrew Bible.

volume. It is a quite common view in recent scholarly debate that “Jewishness,” or, to put it differently, Judahite identity, is in a process of formation during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, a factor which makes terms such as “religion” and “culture” quite fluid. 22. Within the Hebrew Bible especially Ezra 9 links both together by referring to Lev 18. See the co-authored essay by Christian Frevel and Benedikt Conczorowski in the present volume. 23. Regarding the patriarchal narratives, it is doubtful whether family endogamy can be identified as the main focus. Instead of this, the identity of Israel seems to be prevalent for the discourse of these texts. 24. Cf. Kibria, “Endogamy,” 4:1405.

8

Mixed Marriages

2. Between Difference, Mélange and Interdependence: Conceptual Remarks Having stated that a differentiation between intercultural, interethnic and interreligious seems to fail, there are certain differences in the rationale of the denial of mixed marriage in biblical and extra-biblical texts. Within several texts there is an intensive discussion of the subject with very different lines of impact: advocative, vindicative, permissive, conditional, restrictive or antagonistic. These approaches take juridic, narrative, prophetic or sapiential forms. Some texts address the topic explicitly, some more or less implicitly. In each and every case one has to ask which kind of positive self assessment is in the background or, to put it differently: Who is the “ingroup”? What are its defining characteristics and who is described as an “outsider”? And, as a consequence: Who is addressed by a certain text then and how is its position legitimized? Furthermore, the topic of reception is of great importance in several ways: (1) regarding reception and transformation of biblical tradition within the analyzed text, (2) regarding the inner- and extra-biblical reception of the analyzed text itself and its function within its literary context. Regarding the anti-exogamous argument, there are three main lines in biblical texts. Clearly identifiable, these lines are distinguishable not only by their rationales, but also by the way they are legitimized. To give just one example for each line: When Esau marries the Hittite women Judith and Basemath they “made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah” (‫ותהיין מרת רוח ליצחק ולרברקה‬, Gen 26:35). Thus Rebekah feels disgust and laments against Isaac in Gen 27:46: I am weary of my life because of the Hittite women (‫קצתי בחיי מפני בנות‬ ‫)חת‬. If Jacob marries one of the Hittite women such as these, one of the women of the land, what good will my life be to me?

There are no further hints to religious deviance, cultural differences or the like. The emotional bias seems to be sufficient to mark down the exogamous marriages. It is the authority of the ancestors of Israel which provides the foundation for the rationale. This argument can be found in Gen 24; 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9. Identity depends on belonging to the patriarchal family. The rejected wives are denoted as “Hittite” or “Canaanite.” But what makes them a problem for the community is not explicated further. They simply are the surrounding peoples who are not of Abrahamic descent (in contrast to the Aramaic and Ishmaelite branches of family; cf. Gen 28:1–5, 6–9).

FREVEL Introduction

9

To the contrary, Judg 3:5–6 emphasizes the religious imperilment of marital confederations with the Canaanites mentioned already in Exod 34:15–16 and Deut 7:2–4: So the people of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and they took their daughters to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons; and they served their gods (‫)ויעבדו את־אלהיהם‬.

According to this view, mixed marriage provokes failure of belief and the renunciation of YHWH and his claim for exclusive adoration. This idea is rooted in the Pentateuch (Exod 34:15–16; Deut 7:3). With the verses from the book of Judges, the references to the topic in Joshua’s speech at the end of his life (Josh 23:7, 12) as well as the narrative on Solomon’s foreign wives (1 Kgs 11:1–8), three important texts in the Deuteronomistic view on history represent this line of argument. All these three “historical” texts try to legitimize the rejection of exogamy by reference to the Pentateuch: Judg 3:5–6 cites from Deut 7:3 and also, since it is one-sided (only “taking women”), seems to be close to Exod 34:15–16. Joshua 23 refers to the divine commandments of the Torah, and it is striking that the topic is addressed at the end of the transition period between desert and land represented by the authoritative figure of Joshua. Even 1 Kgs 11 refers to commandments given to Israel (1 Kgs 11:2), although not citing it explicitly. Thus, the rejection of mixed marriage is understood as a significant part of the worship of YHWH. The Canaanite or foreign (cf. the implementation in 1 Kgs 11) women are dangerous because of their religious otherness, an otherness which would endanger Israel’s faith. The five texts mentioned provide a framework that is quite complex diachronically as well as synchronically. A third pattern of rejection occurs in Ezra 9–10 where the reproach claims for (genealogical) purity. In Ezra 9:1–2 Ezra is informed that the people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves (‫ )לא־נבדלו‬from the peoples of the lands with their abominations (‫)כתועבתיהם‬. For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands (‫)והתערבו זרע הקדש בעמי הארצות‬.

This pattern will also be of great significance in extra-biblical literature such Jubilees, 4QMMT and the Levi literature (e.g. the Testament of Levi). It applies priestly terminology to the topic, combines it with further tradition from the Pentateuch (Deuteronomistic laws, patriarchal narratives) and thus constructs an exclusive ideal of the community as holy and pure. The centrality of the sanctuary cannot be underestimated in this context. This paradigm also gives witness to the significance of

10

Mixed Marriages

Torah exegesis as well as a growing priestly authority in the developing Second Temple Judaism. Thus, three lines of argument have here been identified in what has been, necessarily, the briefest of surveys: an emotional one focusing on endogamy found in the patriarchal narratives, a religious rationale focusing on monolatry and religious identity which might be labeled “Deuteronomistic,” and a cultic line focusing on purity and genealogy. Although in any case Israel as an “in-group” is separated from an “outgroup,” the self-assessment of the community and the evaluation of identity markers differ. Thus, it can be observed that the identity of the Israelite resp. Yehudite community is by no means static, but rather dynamic and developing within the frame of biblical and especially Pentateuchal tradition. A closer look, as provided in this volume, will raise questions regarding the three lines’ literary relation, which at several points seems to be quite obvious, and of course has to include further positions which maybe are not represented so prominently (e.g. possible counter texts). In recent discussions about mixed marriage differences such as those demonstrated by our examples have been mentioned, but until now there has not been systematic research on this subject. Methodologically, in this volume we opt for a multi-perspective approach. Why a diachronic approach on mixed marriages texts is as necessary as a synchronic study of the intertextual web of references may be shown by a brief consideration of some crucial questions that have arisen in the recent debate. a. Regarding a Synchronic Analysis of Mixed Marriage Is there a discourse of different opinions traceable in biblical and extrabiblical tradition, and is there an outcome, a result or a main line at the end? How is the endogamous narrative tradition in Gen 26–28 or Gen 24 to be related with Ezra 9–10, or with the prohibition in legal texts like Exod 34 and Deut 7 and others? If there were positive statements such as the book of Ruth, or positive sanctioned examples such as Keturah, the second wife of Abraham, Joseph’s wife Asenath, among others—what makes the restrictive position dominant in the end? Were there views that included the possibility of proselytism or conversion of the foreign wives? (Or, to be more specific, without the required seven-year abstinence from cultic affairs set out in the Temple Scroll’s version of Deut 21:10–14 in 11Q19 63:14–15?)

FREVEL Introduction

11

b. Regarding a Diachronic Analysis of Mixed Marriage Has the concept of matrimonial politics and practice undergone a significant development from clan-based endogamy (perhaps to be noticed in the ideal described by Gen 27:46–28:9) to a radical segregation of society with a stopover in only religious demarcation, or was it all the same before and since Ezra? How are the concepts of moral, ritual, genealogical and physical purity and the issue of mixed marriage interrelated diachronically? Are they combined not before Hellenistic times in post-biblical traditions, or is the same concept of defilement attested in biblical texts? Is the early post-exilic society really the starting point of the mixed marriage topic, or was the trouble of amalgamation with “the nations” a much later phenomenon, one arising when the identity of post-exilic Israel had already been constituted? If so, had there been prohibitions and rejections of mixed marriages before? If a diachronic development can be established, we might naturally ask: Why and exactly when does the paradigm of rejection change from fear of apostasy in Exod 34, Deut 7 and 1 Kgs 11 to the “holy seed” in Ezra 9 or the purity issue in Jubilees, where any sexual relation to nonIsraelites is defiling as such? c. From a Socio-Historical Perspective Who were the foreign wives who were divorced in Ezra? Were they part of the nations, part of the golah or part of the “people(s) of the land,” that is, segments not fully integrated into post-exilic society? And, of course, who is Israel resp. the group of golah-Yehudim, then? The mixed marriage issue is without doubt a gender issue in several respects. What is the literary and social background for the gender-biased evaluation of women in intermarriage context? It is mostly foreign women, not men, who are said to be dangerous (Num 25:2, 6; 1 Kgs 11:3, 33; Ezra 9:2 etc.). Yet, on the other hand, women are also explicitly shown as pious examples in potential counter-narratives (cf. Ruth or Zipporah). Thus, the question of women’s social status in post-exilic Yehud has to be raised. Furthermore: How is the social and economic situation in Persian and Hellenistic Period Yehud related to the topic in general? Is the question of inheritance law an issue here, since Num 27 and 36 seem to connect marital policy with it? Possibly some of the treaties from Elephantine could hint in the same direction.25

25. Cf. the contribution by Sebastian Grätz to the present volume.

12

Mixed Marriages

The wide range of issues mentioned here outlines the necessity of an approach affording similar plurality. The complexity of the literary development and the remaining necessity for further discussions become obvious if one takes a closer look to the Ezra–Nehemiah discourse on intermarriage. Thus Ezra–Nehemiah will serve as a “point of departure” for several of the investigations provided in this anthology. 3. A Multi-Perspective Approach: Overview of the Essays Finally, a brief overview on the present volume will be given. Essentially, the present volume is the result of the discussion started during a panel on mixed marriage at the SBL International Meeting 2009 in Rome.26 Most of the papers delivered in Rome are included in this anthology, with supplementary essays added to broaden the debate’s perspective. As has been shown, the discourse on mixed marriage texts in Ezra– Nehemiah is significant, for it is here that the final point of biblical discussion is reached here. Ezra–Nehemiah provides a kind of base for the investigation of the wide range of biblical material, as well as an example of the application of Pentateuchal law in later times. Thus, several of the essays presented here deal with those texts offering different perspectives which help to enlighten the topic from different angles. The essay by Christian Frevel and Benedikt Conczorowski, “Deepening the Water: First Steps to a Diachronic Approach on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible,” tries to shed light at the complexity within the diachronic development of the anti-mixed marriage rationale by investigating Ezra– Nehemiah and Num 25 in particular. Katherine Southwood’s essay, “An Ethnic Affair? Ezra’s Intermarriage Crisis against a Context of SelfAscription and Ascription of Others,” focuses on the functional aspects of the mixed marriage debate within society. Ralf Rothenbusch (“The Question of Mixed Marriages between the Poles of Diaspora and Homeland: Observations in Ezra–Nehemiah”) offers an investigation of the repercussions of Diaspora experience on post-exilic community, while Juha Pakkala (“Intermarriage and Group Identity in Ezra–Nehemiah”) correlates the texts from the composition of “Ezra–Nehemiah” with a diachronic perspective. To clarify how Ezra 9–10 develops the position of the Pentateuch, the essay by Benedikt Conczorowski (“All the Same as Ezra? Conceptual Differences between the Texts on Intermarriage in Genesis, Deuteronomy 7 and Ezra”) compares the positions of the patriarchal texts (Gen 24; 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9), of Deut 7:3 and of Gen 34 26. This was followed by a panel on the same topic at the SBL International Meeting 2010 in Tartu.

FREVEL Introduction

13

with the mixed marriage narrative found in the Ezra story. Certain lines of argument with a prohibitive stance are identified and their progression within the Pentateuch and beyond is outlined in that study. Complementary to that, the essay by Jan Clauss focuses on the conceptual cohesion and correlation of three perspectives: temple, (holy) city and mixed marriages in the Ezra–Nehemiah composition (“Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah in the Light of Temple-Building and the Book’s Concept of Jerusalem”). The Pentateuchal discussion mentioned above is the center of attention in Karen Winslow’s contribution, “Mixed Marriage in the Torah Narratives.” The related question of the depiction of Midianite women in the Pentateuch is outlined by Yonina Dor (“From Jethro’s Tent to Ba‘al Pe‘or: Different Attitudes to Intercourse of Israelites with Midianite Women”). Gary Knoppers illuminates mixed marriages in the book of Chronicles (“Married into Moab: The Practice of Exogamy by the Descendants of Judah in the Judahite Lineages”), a work which provides further support for the acceptance exogamy and which raises questions regarding the Chronistic position towards it. Focusing on Elephantine, Sebastian Grätz (“The Question of ‘Mixed Marriages’: The Extrabiblical Evidence”) supplements the biblical debate with an investigation of the topic’s significance outside those texts. Armin Lange’s essay, “Mixed Marriages and the Hellenistic Religious Reforms,” by including further apocryphal material from Second Temple Period Judaism, highlights a plurality of voices that is not limited to the biblical perspectives. This is further corroborated by the study of Christian Frevel, who considers the reception of the story of Dinah in the book of Jubilees and the development of the scriptural substantiation of the absolute rejection of intermarriage in early Hellenistic Judaism in Jerusalem (“Separate Yourself from the Gentiles” [Jubilees 22:16]: Mixed Marriages in the Book of Jubilees”). Hannah Harrington takes Ezra–Nehemiah as her point of departure for analyzing “Intermarriage in Qumran Texts: The Legacy of Ezra– Nehemiah.” Harrington thus expands the focus to a further field of Second Temple Judaism and reception of the biblical rationale. The repository of an interesting voice in the chorus of the discussion on exogamy, namely, the texts regarding Moses’ foreign wives, will be investigated in an additional study by Karen Winslow (“Moses’ Cushite Wife: Tora, Artapanus and Josephus”). Claudia Camp’s essay (“Feminist- and Gender-Critical Perspectives on the Biblical Ideology of Intermarriage”) deals with the topic within the context of a gender resp. feministic approach, highlighting the fact

14

Mixed Marriages

that it is mostly about women who are said to be the “dangerous” partner in a mixed couple. In sum, Ezra–Nehemiah will serve as an Archimedean point to the anthology, bringing into focus past and future developments in the attitude(s) towards mixed marriages. Thus a diachronically as well as synchronically differentiated notion of the topic is the objective. From that point, there are several approaches which, in a variety of ways, attempt to shed light on this highly differentiated subject. As has been shown above, there are a number of critical issues regarding mixed marriages which have to be included for the formation of an overall picture. Most of these will be addressed within the following essays, all of which aim to develop and clarify recent scholarly debate in that field. Appendix: A List of Hebrew Bible Texts Potentially Related to the Topic of Mixed Marriage Genesis:

Exodus: Leviticus: Numbers: Deuteronomy: Joshua: Judges: Ruth: 2 Samuel: 1 Kings: Ezra: Nehemiah: 1 Chronicles: Esther: Psalms: Proverbs: Isaiah: Jeremiah: Ezekiel Hosea: Malachi:

6:1–2; 16:1–16; 19:30–38; 20:1–18; 21:9–21; 24:1–67; 25:1–6; 26:10, 34–35; 27:46–28:9; 29:19; 34:1–31; 36:2–12; 38:1–30; 41:45–52 (cf. 48:3–6); 46:10 2:1, 21–22; 4:18–25; 6:15–20; 18:1–3; 34:15–16 21:7, 9, 13–15; 24:10–23 12:1; 25:1–18; 31:9–18; 36:1–13 7:1–6; 21:10–14; 23:2–9; 25:5–10 23:7, 12–13 3:5–6; 8:31; 12:9; 14–16 1–4 11–12 11:1–8; 14:21; 16:31 2:59–62; 6:21; 9–10 6:17–19; 7:61–65; 9:2; 10:31; 13:1–3, 23–30 2:1–55 2:5–20 106:28–36 2:1–22; 5:1–23; 6:20–35; 7:1–27 2:6 29:6–7 16:3; 44:22 5:7 2:10–16

DEEPENING THE WATER: FIRST STEPS TO A DIACHRONIC APPROACH ON INTERMARRIAGE IN THE HEBREW BIBLE* Christian Frevel and Benedikt J. Conczorowski

Looking at the complexity and plurality of the mixed marriage topic in the Hebrew Bible,1 the question occurs whether a literary development of the rejection of exogamy can be traced within biblical tradition. Already, such a development is corroborated by the observation of inner-biblical reception and creative application of tradition, a topic that will be discussed below. Furthermore, the differences between the several positions also ask for a closer look to be taken at related synchronic connections. This essay will explore aspects of systematization regarding the rejection of mixed marriages, highlighting various diachronic and synchronic features. Our point of departure is the significant difference in the rationales rejecting intermarriage, rationales which may be systematized in three patterns roughly outlined as moral, religious and cultic.2 Some of the patriarchal narratives can be mentioned as examples for the morally based rejection of foreign brides (cf. Gen 26:35 and 27:46). In contrast, several texts labeled as “Deuteronomistic” refer to the danger of apostasy provoked by the exchange of daughters or by the religious influence of foreign women (Exod 34:15–16; Deut 7:3; Josh 23:7, 12; Judg 3:5–6; 1 Kgs 11:1–8). Different to both is the third pattern, which argues with cultic categories like holiness, purity, and so on. This rationale is present, for example, regarding the marriage rules for the high * This essay presents insights resulting from a research project funded by the DFG (German Research Foundation): “Die Konstruktionen von Gruppenidentität durch religiös begründete Heiratsverbote. Literarhistorische, rechtshistorische und sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte der sog. ‘Mischehenfrage’ in der persischen Provinz Yehûd.” 1. For an overview on the texts in the Hebrew Bible, see the Appendix to the Introduction. 2. A brief overview of these three lines of argument is provided in the Introduction to the present volume.

16

Mixed Marriages

priest, as a special case (Lev 21:14), the priests in general (Ezek 44:22) or even in context of the notion of Israel as “holy seed” (Ezra 9:2). A brief survey gives the impression of a more or less clear-cut development, with a cultic argument replacing the fear of apostasy from “Deuteronomistic” to “Priestly” traditions. The latter seems to have prevailed in the Second Temple period. Nevertheless, the case is much more complicated. Texts like Num 25; Neh 13:23–29 and Ezra 9–10 provide both the anti-apostasy as well as the cult-related tradition. Especially Neh 13 and Num 25 display both patterns side-by-side.3 This observation raises the question of the texts’ relative diachrony and brings up the task of reconsidering the relationship between the particular patterns of rejection. The following investigation aims at a differentiated diachronic hypothesis regarding the change of patterns in the mentioned texts, which will also give an insight into a time of change of early Judahite self-perception. The focus on Neh 13, Ezra 9–10 and Num 25 reflects the above-mentioned problem, on the one hand, and the importance of the Ezra–Nehemiah composition in the mixed marriage debate, on the other one. We are aware of the fact that these exemplary texts are only the tip of the iceberg, and much work has still to be done. 1. Paramount Complexity— The Exemplary Case of Ezra–Nehemiah In the history of research, the texts within the Ezra–Nehemiah composition are often said to be the focal point of mixed marriage tradition deriving from different sections of the Hebrew Bible. As a culmination of a wide range of traditions, it lends itself quite perfectly as a starting point for the investigation of the topic within the whole corpus of biblical and even extra-biblical texts. Consequently, the present study will give broad attention to this important composition, using it as one example for the development of the mixed-marriage discourse. Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13:23–29, part of the theologically defined account on the (re)construction of post-exilic community,4 represent the most extensive and sophisticated anti-exogamy texts in biblical writings.5 3. Num 25:1–5 could even be classified as part of the Deuteronomistic pattern. 4. On the composition Ezra–Nehemiah as a whole, cf. especially Tamara C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra–Nehemiah (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988), as well as Georg Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlussphänomen, Studien zur Entstehung der Theologie von 1/2 Chronik (BBB 93; Weinheim: Beltz Athäneum, 1995), passim. 5. Other texts in Ezra–Nehemiah also deal with the topic; cf. Ezra 2:61/Neh 7:63; Neh 6:18 and 10:31. The last-mentioned text is part of a larger account on the

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

17

Ezra–Nehemiah is generally regarded as one composition and the links between Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s accounts on the topic are quite obvious with reference to motives and terminology.6 But, in addition, there are also a number of differences in the two accounts—such as, for example, their contexts and rationales.7 Below, we will touch on some aspects of these issues with observations on the internal diachrony within Ezra– Nehemiah. We do not aim at a complete theory of understanding the Ezra–Nehemiah composition in the following remarks, but rather to give some hints to a still-debatable diachronic solution for the dense network of the mixed marriages issue in the composition. 2. Two Sides of the Same Coin— Mixed Marriages in Nehemiah 13 Cases of intermarriage are reported within the Nehemiah narrative’s frequent notices on conflicts between Nehemiah and certain enemies, of whom the two opponents most prominent are Sanballat (cf. Neh 2:10, 19; 3:33; 4:1; 6:1, 2, 5, 12, 14; 13:28) and Tobiah (cf. 2:10, 19; 3:35; 4:1; 6:1, 12, 14, 17, 19; 7:62; 13:4, 7, 8). Sanballat is referred to as “the Horonite” three times (2:10, 19; 13:28), but his name may point at Samaria,8 where governors of this name are attested.9 Tobiah is called an “Ammonite” or an “Ammonite servant” (Neh 2:10, 19; 3:35) three times.10 It does not matter whether these designations of origin are post-exilic community committing itself to the rules of the Torah in Neh 10, explicated in a list of rules in 10:31–40. This observation underlines the importance of the prohibition of mixed marriages as one part in the larger context of what constitutes the community’s identity according to the biblical view. 6. Cf. Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 222–24; Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 244–57. 7. For the recent debate on the composition’s unity, cf. Mark J. Boda and Paul L. Redditt eds., Unity and Disunity in Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric and Reader (Hebrew Bible Monographs 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008). 8. Cf. Lester Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Vol. 1, Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah (LSTS 47; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 156–59. 9. Cf. also him addressing “his brothers” and the ‫ חיל שמרון‬in Neh 3:34, pointing at an affiliation with Samaria. 10. It is possible that those mentioned in Neh 7:62–63 represent migrants from Transjordan (cf. “Barzillai the Gileadite” in Neh 7:63), perhaps hinting at Tobiah’s geographical background, although, admittedly, the link between Tobiah here and in the Nehemiah narrative cannot be proved definitively. For an overview on the

18

Mixed Marriages

historically correct or merely typological for the surrounding neighbors of Yehud. What is important is that both Sanballat and Tobiah are denoted as foreign, but nevertheless engaged in Yehud’s provincial politics and are also said to have close contacts with the high priest’s family (cf. Neh 13:4–9, 28–29). That observation clearly indicates that not everyone shared the exclusive definition of Judahite identity which is put forward by the author of the Nehemiah Memoir. However, from the point of view of the Nehemiah narrative their struggle for political and perhaps cultic influence is considered to be illegitimate. They are frequently referred to as outsiders, enemies of the Judean people as well as opponents of Nehemiah’s politics. In their attempts to strengthen their bonds with Jerusalem the role of marriages seems to be of great significance. This is evident in the fact that such relationships are regarded as critical by Nehemiah. Nehemiah 6:17–19 deals with the marital ties of Tobiah.11 The short section follows the quite laconic note on the completion of Nehemiah’s wall building project (cf. Neh 6:15) with “our enemies” being concerned by his success. Then Neh 6:17–19 narrates the relationship between Tobiah and the nobles of Yehud. Nehemiah 6:19 concludes with a note that Tobiah had sent letters to frighten Nehemiah. In context of the aforementioned negative picture of his enemy drawn by Nehemiah, 6:17–18 depicts the communication between the nobles of Yehud and Tobiah, their oaths to him as well as the marital ties noticed in 6:18 in a quite negative light, although Nehemiah does not take action immediately. Nehemiah 6:17–19—directly after the completion of the wall—thus focuses the reader on the fact that the danger by the enemies is not neutralized simply by closing a physical boundary (i.e. the wall of the city), but that Yehud would need to defend itself from foreign resp. outsider activities within the midst of its community as well. The marriage between Tobiah and a daughter of a certain Shechaniah, son of Arach, as well as the marriage of Tobiah’s son Johanan to a daughter of Meshullam, son of Berechiah (Neh 6:18), has to be seen, implicitly, as a critical notion. The passage is affected by the biased description of Tobiah before and particularly by the negative influence he gains through marital ties (cf. Neh 6:19).

discussion, cf., e.g., Gary Knoppers, “Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within?,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (ed. O. Lipschits et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 305–31; Siegfried Mittmann, “Tobia, Sanballat und die persische Provinz Juda,” JNSL 26, no. 2 (2000): 1–50. 11. On Neh 6:1–19, cf. Wright, Identity, 129–62; on 6:17–19, cf. esp. 153–59.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

19

Note also that Neh 13:4–9, where Tobiah is allowed to use a room within the temple, aims at a similar direction as Neh 6:19, though Nehemiah’s reaction is more severe there. The whole of Neh 13 deals with the problem of a dangerous influence from outside, one potentially destroying Judean identity. In that context, Tobiah and an important Judean official, the high priest Eliashib, promoting his position (with regards to the cult!), are criticized harshly. Tobiah’s accoutrements are even removed from the temple, and Nehemiah orders the purification of the rooms12 of the sanctuary (Neh 13:9). Although it is not explicitly mentioned, the use of a chamber in the temple indicates a particular relationship to the temple. It may be noted that Eliashib and Tobiah are even said to be ‫קרוב‬, a term which could denote closeness or even a relatedness13 (cf. Neh 13:4). This would multiply the implicit criticisms regarding Eliashib. Removing Tobiah’s effects is significant, and in the end aimed at Tobiah himself. To put it differently, Tobiah is forced away from the ideological center of Yehud because Nehemiah is unwilling to tolerate foreign influence in the sanctuary, neither by Tobias’s physical presence, nor by another mixed marriage—the marriage of Sanballat’s daughter to a member of the high priestly family, indirectly referred to by Neh 13:28. At the end of Neh 13 it is Sanballat, the other enemy mentioned above, who is said to have marital ties with Judean officials (13:28): it is a grandson of the high priest Eliashib who has married his daughter. The couple is expelled by Nehemiah (‫ )ואבריחה מעלי‬on the grounds that they “have defiled the priesthood and the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites” (‫על גאלי הכהנה וברית הכהנה והלוים‬, cf. 13:29). Incidentally, the high priest Eliashib is cast into a poor light once again (cf. 13:4, 7). The expulsion of Eliashib is a harsh reaction to an illicit marital relation in the high priestly family. Who will be the legitimate successor of Eliashib and Joiada in the appointment of the high priest is not said—all we are told is that it will be one of the sons in the high priestly line, maybe the eldest Jonathan or a younger one. It can be supposed that an implicit reference to Lev 21:14, expanding its original meaning to the whole offspring of the high priest, can be found here.14 Because the son 12. Plural according to the Masoretic text, which provides the lectio difficilior. The Lucianic recension, the Peshitta and the Vulgate read singular (“room”) here, but this rendering can be explained best as harmonization to the aforementioned singular form. 13. Cf. J. Kühlewein, ‫קרב‬, THAT 2:674–81. 14. Nevertheless, it is negligible whether or not the grandson is the eldest because there is always a possibility that he will become high priest if his elder

20

Mixed Marriages

from the high priestly family has not married a daughter from his own people he has done wrong. This is commented upon explicitly in the short prayer of Nehemiah in 13:29 (cf. also vv. 14, 22), which uses the noun ‫גאלה‬. ‫ גאל‬II is a purity term especially used to express the defilement of the priestly class (cf. Ezra 2:62; Neh 7:64; Lam 4:14; Mal 1:7, 1215). Nehemiah 13:29 refers to the priestly covenant (‫ )ברית הכהנה‬of Num 25:12–13 (cf. Mal 2:4–516) and thus combines the election of the priestly class with the demand for genealogical purity. This is emphasized again in the following unit, starting with the statement in Neh 13:30: “And/thus I cleansed them from everything foreign (‫וטהרתים‬ ‫)מכל־נכר‬.” In the first instance the phrase, which is linked syndetically, refers back to the priests and Levites in v. 29, mentioning duties of priests and Levites (‫)משמרת לכהנים וללוים‬. The cleansing of v. 30 may also include the chasing of Sanballat’s son-in-law in v. 28, who had defiled the priesthood (‫ )על גאלי הכהנה וברית הכהנה והלוים‬by the already-mentioned intermingling with foreigners in Neh 13:28–29. More generally, the phrase comprises the whole chapter, providing an interesting reference to Nehemiah’s commandment to clean the rooms of the temple in context of the incident with Tobias’s presence in the sanctuary.17 In both cases, Neh 6:18 and Neh 13:28–29, the verses lack explicit references to mixed marriage tradition and do not explicate exactly why the marriages are problematic. Yet in the second case, Neh 13:29 criticizes a “defilement of the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites” following the report of the marriage. Thus, mixed marriages implicitly are understood as defiling, at least with regards to cultic personnel and its special status. Such a marriage would constitute an illegitimate foreign presence in or near to the sanctuary, which is unacceptable according to brothers die. Thus Lev 21:14 covers all male descendents of the family of the high priest. 15. Cf. also the other references related to cultic defilement: Isa 59:3; 63:3; Zeph 3:1; Dan 1:8. 16. See Christian Frevel, “ ‘Mein Bund mit ihm war das Leben und der Friede.’ Priesterbund und Mischehenfrage,” in Für immer verbündet. Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel. Festschrift F.-L. Hossfeld (ed. C. Frevel and C. Dohmen; SBS 211; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2007), 85–94 (88–92). 17. On the ideology of Neh 13, cf. Rainer Albertz, “Purity Strategies and Political Interests in the Policy of Nehemiah,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeology and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever (ed. S. Gittin et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 199–206; Saul M. Olyan, “Purity Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community,” JSJ 35 (2004): 1–16.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

21

Neh 13 (like Tobias’s physical presence in the sanctuary or the presence of Tyrian traders in the holy city during the holy time of Shabbat, cf. Neh 13:15–22). The critics relate to the negative depiction of Tobiah and Sanballat as non-Judahite throughout the narrative. Both cases show that the two enemies, who, as already mentioned, are depicted as foreigners by Nehemiah, seem to have been legitimate partners for Judean officials in several ways. They certainly were not regarded as outsiders by everyone, as is clear from the observation of the close ties between them and the family of the high priest. Furthermore, the two short notes refer to the fact that a vivid debate on marital policy and foreign influence existed in post-exilic Yehud. Relationships to “outsiders” are a sign of dangerous foreign influence already in Neh 6:18, but the case is even more problematic in 13:28 (and in the analogous case of 13:4–9) where Nehemiah has to react immediately. The mixed marriages represent examples of influence by persons whom Nehemiah wants to exclude as non-Judahite. These relationships are neither reflected upon as such, nor are dangers like apostasy mentioned. Although Neh 6:18 uses ‫ לקח את־בת‬as a technical term to denote the marriage of Tobiah’s son, neither 6:18 nor 13:28 refer to the Deuteronomistic prohibition of mixed marriage which can be found especially in Deut 7:3–4. In fact, Neh 6:18—in contrast to the texts in Neh 13—lacks any direct reference to anti-exogamous texts or any alternative foundation based on cult or religion provided by biblical tradition. This is a quite striking observation, bearing in mind the negative role of an Ammonite18 and the reference to the temple (Neh 6:10–14) as well as to the god of Israel (Neh 6:14, 16) in the broader context. These references could give some hints that the problems Nehemiah has with Tobiah’s marital policy are not based in personal or profane political hostility, but are instead also religiously motivated. Both Neh 6:18 and 13:28 use the root ‫ חתן‬combined with ‫ל‬, which emphasizes the integrative aspect by kinship to the in-laws.19 Accordingly, integration into the community by marriage is opposed. In Neh 13 the community cannot be considered without its relation to the sanctuary. This notion seems to be absent in Neh 6:18, where the incompatibility of 18. For the negative notion of Ammonites, cf. Deut 23:4; Neh 13:1–3 and Ezra 9:1. 19. Cf. the verb ‫( חתן‬H-stem, “to be son in law”) with ‫ את‬in Gen 34:19; 1 Kgs 3:1; with ‫ ב‬in Deut 7:3; Josh 23:12; 1 Sam 18:21, 22, 23, 26, 27; Ezra 9:14; and with ‫ ל‬in 2 Chr 18:1.

22

Mixed Marriages

the excluded persons to the sanctuary as center of Judahite identity is not expressed in terms of purity, as is done in Neh 13:4–9 and 13:28–29. Both chapters criticize that not everyone excluded Tobiah and Sanballat as outsiders. Yet while the position of Neh 6 only implicitly refers to religious reasons, the attitude emphasized by Neh 13 explicitly cites cultic traditions. It is possible that the text’s statement is quite circular: (1) foreigners are to be excluded from the sanctuary, thus Tobiah and Sanballat have to be excluded; (2) Tobiah and Sanballat are excluded from the sanctuary, thus they are not Judahites, but foreigners. This circle cannot be broken since it probably combines two related intentions: the depreciation of Nehemiah’s enemies and a general proposition regarding marital policy. Whatever the case may be, the focus differs from Ezra 9–10 as well as from Neh 13:23–27, where a more detailed discourse can be found. One possible solution may be seen in a diachronic development of the mixed marriage issue. If one accepts that Neh 13, which is an addition to the whole composition, is not a literary unity, one could consider Neh 6:18 and Neh 13:28 as earlier than Neh 13:23–27 and Ezra 9–10. But this is by no means clear.20 This, a brief glance at 13:23–27 seems worthwhile, before the question of ch. 13 as a whole is addressed again. On the surface, the problem in Neh 13:23–27 is Nehemiah’s concern that the offspring arising from mixed marriages are unable to speak “Judahite” properly (cf. Neh 13:23–24). Looking at the history of language, it is not clear how sharp the differences between “Ashdodite” and “Judahite” were.21 What is “Judahite” is established by reference to biblical tradition: Nehemiah is presented as quoting Deut 7:3 (Neh 13:25) as well as recapitulating Solomon’s sin narrated by 1 Kgs 11:1–8 (Neh 13:26). Both (Deuteronomistic) anti-exogamy traditions imply a concern regarding religious deviance in the background of the rejection of the marriages criticized in Neh 13:23: especially the reference to 1 Kgs 11:1–8 seems to be a kind of key for understanding the incident. That narrative—which is quite close to being a midrash—expands the Torah’s 20. Cf., e.g., Steins, Chronik, 202. Steins prefers the priority of Ezra 9–10. 21. In the scholarly discussion on Neh 13:23–24 it often is referred to as a difference between Ashdodite, on the one hand, and Ammonite, Moabite and Judahite (Yehudite, cf. Neh 13:26) as Semitic dialects, on the other hand. Ashdodite is understood as being influenced by Greek or Phoenician (cf. the location of Ashdod in the coastal region). Nevertheless, such a differentiation lacks a secure material basis for the fifth/fourth century B.C.E. On this debate, cf. Johannes Thon, “Sprache und Identitätskonstruktion. Das literarische Interesse von Neh 13,23–27 und die Funktion dieses Textes im wissenschaftlichen Diskurs,” ZAW 121 (2009): 557–76 (568–69).

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

23

commandments on mixed marriage with the frequently listed Canaanite peoples (cf. Exod 34:11; Deut 7:1; Judg 3:5 etc.) to other groups (Egyptians [by the note on Pharaoh’s daughter], Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians22) and gives (or constructs) the warning against apostasy an additional “historical” setting (cf. the division of the kingdom as a consequence!).23 The rhetorical strategy of the Nehemiah speech in Neh 13:25–27 is rather sophisticated. The issue is introduced as very serious because it has caused Nehemiah’s affective and violent reaction. The importance is underlined by the assertive ‫שבע באלהים אם‬24 swearing the people to the commandment, which is phrased by taking up Deut 7:3. The following rhetorical question gives the example of Solomon, who is qualified as an internationally exceptional king on the one hand, but a sinner on the other hand. His sinfulness is caused by the foreign women (‫הנשים‬ ‫הנכריות‬, cf. 1 Kgs 11:1, 8). While the law is double sided (giving daughters to foreigners and marrying foreign daughters), the example of Solomon is only one sided, which fits well into the context of Neh 13:23. By receiving those traditions, Neh 13:23–27 argues against relationships to women of the neighboring Western province Ashdod.25 An influence from the “multicultural” coastal region would have been regarded as dangerous for the construction of identity promoted by the Nehemiah Memoir. The constructed linguistic argument against Ashdodite women constitutes a clearly defined Western border of the province, even though this cannot be assured by archaeological or textual evidence.26 It is a literary argument, probably without historical indication. Ashdod perhaps stands for internationalization, prosperity, and trading activities which may have fostered an economic orientation to the west in the so-called Persian Period II.27 Since Jezebel, the Phoenician princess married to Ahab (1 Kgs 16:31), represents Phoenician affluence and 22. Cf. Gary Knoppers, “Sex, Religion, and Politics: The Deuteronomist on Intermarriage,” HAR 14 (1994): 121–41. 23. This does not imply historicity, of course. 24. Cf. Gen 21:23; 24:3; 31:53; 1 Sam 30:15; 1 Kgs 1:17, 30; 2:23. 25. Cf. Neh 13:23, mentioning Ashdodite women at first, and Neh 13:24, which only refers to the Ashdodite language. 26. Cf. the recent discussions on the borders of Yehud in Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period (JSOTSup 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006); Yigal Levin, ed., A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neighbors in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods (LSTS 65; London: T&T Clark International, 2007). 27. See especially Carter, Emergence, as well as above-mentioned publications on post-exilic social history.

24

Mixed Marriages

internationality, the Ashdodite women may also be understood as figurative in the same manner. The Hebrew language may also have a religious connotation, it being the language of Torah. This would explain the somewhat improper focus on language. The reluctance to adhere properly to the Torah would have been the implicit problem here—not so much the question of linguistic comprehension—since there is no evidence that the Ashdodite dialect would have been greatly different from the “Judahite.”28 Thus, the language argument itself has the air of being a fabricated construction, one that served to promote the idea of a distinct (and Torah-based) Judahite identity. Foreign women from a province connected to international trade routes would thus have been viewed as a danger to the development of an identity built on the Torah (cf. also Neh 13:15–22 where Tyrian traders endanger the Shabbat).29 If the reference to Moabite and Ammonite women in Neh 13:23 was secondary, as many commentators suggest, it would be well in line with the religiously based construction of Judahite identity. Close to Neh 13:1–3, it would tighten the relation to Torah legislation (e.g. Deut 23:4– 9).30 Nevertheless, the general direction of Neh 13:23–27 would not be changed by that. Ammonites and Ashdodites are already regarded as enemies in Neh 4:1, although a clear reference to Deut 23:4–9 is absent there (cf. especially the absence of Moabites!). If one regards the Moabite and Ammonite women as a later addition, the original problem would have been the western border primarily, which then was supplemented by a turn to the east and the use of Deut 23 in the context of mixed marriage legislation.31 28. See Ingo Kottsieper, “ ‘And they did not care to speak Yehudit’: On Linguistic Change in Judah during the Late Persian Era,” in Lipschits et al., eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., 95–124 (100–101). For features regarded typical of “Yehudite,” cf. also Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer. Samt Inschriften aus Palästina, dem Testament Levis aus der Kairoer Genisa, der Fastenrolle und den alten talmudischen Zitaten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 50–54. J. Thon recently argued for an understanding of Neh 13:23–27 in the context of the struggle for post-exilic identity. According to his view, the Aramaic-speaking golah that had developed Biblical Hebrew into a sacred language challenged those Judahites who went on speaking Hebrew dialects in everyday life, and who had mingled it with dialects resp. languages of the surrounding peoples. See Thon, Sprache. 29. Cf. Thon, Sprache, 571. 30. On the possible reception of Deut 23:4–9 in Qumran, cf. the essay by Hannah Harrington in the present volume. 31. On the commonly assumed secondary addition in 13:23–24, cf. Pakkala, Ezra, 219, where an allusion to 13:1–3 is assumed; see also Wright, Identity, 245. Gunneweg, too, sees the relation to 13:1–3; cf. Antonius H. Gunneweg, Nehemia

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

25

Besides all that, Neh 13:23–27, with its use of 1 Kgs 11, emphasizes the danger for religious identity. The term ‫( חטא‬H-stem “to cause to sin”) denotes the violation of YHWH’s claim to be Israel’s one and only God.32 Thereby Neh 13:26 is connected with the covenant-prohibition of Exod 23:31–32, which is dependant on Exod 34:15–16 and Deut 7:3– 5. The affectively articulated assertoric rejection by Nehemiah (cf. Neh 13:25, 27) shows the fragility of the connection between religious identity and the claim for endogamous marriage. The reference to the covenant paradigm is further substantiated by the relatively late phrase ‫ מעל באלהינו‬in Neh 13:27, which connects the rebuke with Deut 7 beyond the lexical level.33 The religious demarcation is used implicitly here to construct a clear border between Yehud and its surroundings. For the text, the necessity to shore up the boundaries is a given fact based on biblical tradition. In sum, there is a difference between the rationales of Neh 13:28–29, where the problem is situated in the high priestly family with a focus on the election of the priests, and 13:23–27, with its aim to establish religiously based boundaries aiming at the election and covenant of Israel as people by referring to Deut 7. Both paradigms, the religious and the cultic, are set side by side. They are linked by v. 30, which comprises the purification of the people and the proper organization of the cultic sphere. From a diachronic perspective it is probable that Neh 6:18 represents an earlier text since the marriages are cast in a clearly negative light, though without the use of biblical tradition and without any judgment which would be expected in the wake of Neh 13:23–27. It is possible that Neh 13:28–29, with its focus on the family of the high priest, already takes up a formulation coined by Neh 6:18 and uses the motif of mixed marriage for its critique of priestly misbehavior.34 While in Neh 6:18 the incident is not explicitly qualified as religious offense (but cf. the contrastive pattern in vv. 14, 16), Neh 13 shows great interest in religious (KAT 19/2; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1987), 172. A similar interpretation is offered by Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 362, who states: “Lack of conjunction before, ‘Ammonite and Moabite,’ together with the word order in the following verse…suggests a gloss.” 32. Cf. ‫( חטא‬H-stem) within the context of matrimony in Deut 24:4, where the second marriage with a formerly divorced women is coined as adultery. See further the sin of Jeroboam in 2 Kgs 14:16; 15:26, 30, 34; 16:2, etc. 33. Cf. Josh 22:16; 1 Chr 5:25; Ezra 10:2 (as well as the occurrence of the root in 9:3; 10:10). The last-mentioned references hint at a relation between Neh 13:23–27 and Ezra 9–10. 34. Cf. the more detailed treatment of the correct habit in the presence of the sanctuary in Neh 13.

26

Mixed Marriages

and cultic consequences of the intermarriage (cf. the incidents around temple 13:4–9, 10–14, 28, and Shabbat in 13:15–22, as well as the at least implicit fear of apostasy in 13:23–27). Comparing Neh 13:23–27 to 13:28–29, the situation is more complex and one has to be cautious to adhere to a linear diachronic development. On the one hand, we observed different clusters of reference in Neh 13:28–29, 30a (arguing within the paradigm of priestly purity) and 13:23–27 (arguing with religious deviance and the Deuteronomistic rejection of covenantal relations). At a first glance, the difference may indicate a process of literary growth from the “Deuteronomistic” to the “Priestly” pattern. On the other hand, Neh 13:23–27 shows a proximity to a Torah discourse which has already a midrashic tendency and which may be of late provenance. Thus the difference between Neh 13:23–27 and 28–29 seems to fade in diachronic respect and several options of diachronic development are arguable. A clear decision seems impossible and is dependant on the evaluation of the literary unity of Neh 13 as a composition. In terms if content, Neh 13:23–27 and 13:28–29 aim at different aspects of one problem: analogous to the sanctuary and the priests (also cf. 13:4–9), Israel as a people has to be defended from foreign influence. That point is clarified by reference to Deuteronomistic tradition, with its theology of election (cf. Deut 7:3 in its context Deut 7:1–6). The important question of purity is already in the background here, but the more or less additive use of tradition gives the impression that an overall concept of Israel as a “holy seed” is not yet developed. This step is taken by Ezra 9–10. 3. Conceptual Differences between Nehemiah 13 and Ezra 9–10 Despite several similarities, Ezra 9–10 constructs the argument against mixed marriage differently from Neh 13. The marriages to foreign wives defile Israel as a “holy seed” (cf. Ezra 9:2). While a genealogical concept of holiness resp. purity is put forward explicitly, the differences between the rationales for the election of the priests and the lay people fade with regard to the demand for endogamy—a clear contrast to Neh 13. Thus, the Ezra narrative in the “mixed marriages crisis” in Ezra 9–10 seems to build on the Nehemiah narrative and takes its consequences in a quite organic, but also creative, way. Ezra is not the opposite of Nehemiah here, but indeed Ezra 9–10 provides the culmination of the argument.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

27

Ezra 9:2, with its reference to the “offspring of the holiness / holy seed” (‫)זרע הקדש‬, can be identified as the Archimedean point for understanding the mixed marriage discourse in these two chapters: with Ezra 1–6 and probably the Nehemiah Memoir in mind, the central position of the sanctuary is emphasized and expanded to the post-exilic community as a people which has to be holy to dwell in the presence of the sanctuary. By taking up Deuteronomistic tradition35 and the theological view on history of the Ezra prayer (cf. Ezra 9:6–15), Ezra 9–10 shares the idea of Israel as elected people with Neh 13:23–27. Both understand the history of Israel as a warning that this state of election is fragile and endangered by unfaithfulness (see the example of Solomon in Neh 13). Yet this notion is integrated into a general concept by the author of the Ezra narrative: the community consists of the “offspring of the holiness,” which by no means could be allowed to intermingle (‫ )ערב‬with the “peoples of the land” who are devaluated strongly by referring to their “abominations” (‫)תועבה‬. The peoples of the land are constructed as impure (cf. Ezra 9:11: ‫ )נדה‬in opposition to Israel. Thus, Israel has to separate itself from their impurity36—otherwise its existence in the land would be endangered.37 Several terms and motifs link the narrative to Lev 1838 to underline the purity paradigm. The demand for purity addressed at the cultic personnel in Neh 13 is expanded to everyone belonging to the Israelite community denoted as “sons of the Golah,” The Deuteronomistic prohibition against intermarriage is thus explicated not by referring to the fear of apostasy, but by the overall conception of Israel as a holy people in the presence of “his holy place” (‫)מקום קדשו‬. The community’s holiness is defended by the opposition against exogamy. This is a question of survival, maybe with Lev 15:31 in the background, where the separation of people in a state of impurity is commanded, because otherwise they would “die through their uncleanness by defiling my Tabernacle which is among them” (Lev 15:31b). According to Ezra 9–10, the presence of foreign women would mean such an impurity being extended to Israel as a whole, which could not be tolerated. Consequently, Ezra 10 narrates a solution of the problem 35. Cf., e.g., Ezra 9:2, 12, which take up the prohibition of Deut 7:3, and Ezra 9:1, which takes up Deut 18:9 by means of the list of Gentiles and the phrase “according to their abominations.” 36. Note the frequent use of the priestly term ‫בדל‬, a classical verb used in the context of the division between pure and impure; cf. Lev 10:10. 37. Cf. Ezra’s previously mentioned theological view on Israel’s history, emphasized during his prayer in Ezra 9:6–15. 38. Cf. ‫ טמא‬and ‫תועבה‬, as well as the occurrence of Egyptians and Canaanites in Ezra 9:2, and the relation between peoples and the land, cf. Ezra 9:10–12.

28

Mixed Marriages

which leads to the divorce of the foreign women (cf. 10:17–44). As we saw, Nehemiah reacts in a similar way only with regards to the case of intermarriage in the high priestly family, where the couple is banned. Other intermarriages only are criticized by him. In Ezra 9–10 the “Deuteronomistic” and the “Priestly” patterns rejecting intermarriage are not only cited side-by-side, but put together under the paramount idea of an extended holiness. This development depends on a changed self-perception of the Israelite community. 4. Chicken or Egg? The Relation between Nehemiah 13 and Ezra 9–10 The discussion on the relationship between Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13:23–29 has not yet reached a consensus. A conclusion depends on the evaluation of the position and function of Neh 13 in the composition as a whole. One has to note first that there are obvious differences between Neh 13 and the wall-building account in Neh 1–6 regarding terminology and motifs, which would make an integration of ch. 13 into a Nehemiah memoir highly unlikely, but would rather hint at a later dating. But nevertheless, the unity of Neh 13 is disputed in scholarly research.39 We cannot discuss the chapter here in great detail, and will concentrate on especially some observations on Neh 13:1–3, which is a sort of test case for the chapter’s unity. Nehemiah 13:1–3 also shows striking similarity to formulations in Ezra 9–10.40 Thus, a unity of the whole chapter with Neh 13:1–3 and the mixed marriage narrative in Neh 13:23–29 could be regarded as evidence for one unified perspective on mixed marriages in Neh 13 and Ezra 9–10. However, if Neh 13:1–3 has to be regarded as a later addition to Neh 13, the similarities between Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13 would be editorial, and the conceptual parallelism should be assigned either to the authors of Ezra 9–10 or a later hand. On the one hand, there are obvious differences between Neh 13:1–3 and Neh 13:4–31. Nehemiah 13:1–3 portrays an action accomplished by the community (note the Niphal form in 13:1 and the third person plural in 13:3; Neh 13:4–31 turns back to the first person narrative with Nehemiah as narrator), while during the rest of the chapter Nehemiah is the actor in a very pronounced way (cf. 13:14, 22, 30–31). Verse 3 reports the separation from all foreign descent (‫ )ויבדלו כל־ערב‬due to the reading of the Torah. The relatedness to Nehemiah’s action in vv. 4–31, 39. Cf., for example, the recent analysis by Wright, Identity, 189–212 and 221– 69, as well as Steins, Chronik, 198–206. 40. Cf. Pakkala, Ezra, 213–16.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

29

and especially v. 30, is by no means clear. Nehemiah does not refer explicitly to Neh 13:1–3 resp. to Deut 23 during the following reforms. Additionally, it is quite surprising that even Neh 13:8–9 does not have recourse to Neh 13:3 when reporting the objections against Tobiah, “the Ammonite” (cf. 2:10; 3:35). The notion of the community as ‫ קהל‬used by 13:1–3, otherwise attested in Ezra 2:64/Neh 7:66; Ezra 10:1, 8, 12, 14; Neh 5:13; 8:2, 17, differs from the notion of the community found in the rest of ch. 13 where it is regarded as Judah/Judean (cf. Neh 13:12, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24). These arguments seem to corroborate the view that Neh 13:1–3 is to be considered as a late addition to an older text of Neh 13 beginning in v. 4, which may have been part of the Nehemiah memoir. On the other hand, there are strong indications against this assumption. While the temporal introduction ‫ ביום ההוא‬in 13:1 is in line with 12:43 and 12:44, the striking phrase ‫ לפני מזה‬in v. 4 is difficult to integrate into the context. It ranges the Tobiah account chronologically before Neh 13:1–3 or even relates it to Neh 12:44. But Neh 12:44 is a verse which is dependent on the late priestly traditions of rights and duties of priests and Levites, which may hardly be part of the oldest Nehemiah Memoir.41 Nehemiah 12:43 does not provide a reference point for Neh 13:4. Thus, if Neh 13:1–3 is regarded as addition, Neh 13:4 would lack a reasonable reference. Nehemiah 13:4 cannot be taken as a fitting continuation of the foregoing text. Finally, there are several ties between Neh 13:4–31 and Neh 12:44–47 regarding the Levites, the tithe and the purity conception. Both Neh 13:1–3 and Neh 13:4–31 refer extensively to the Torah, although in a slightly different manner. These arguments may corroborate the fact that Neh 13 was composed as a unity. Be that as it may, Neh 13:1–3, in the chapter’s final form, provides a key for Neh 13 showing all the reforms in light of the separation from the “mixed people”; in this respect it is similar to Ezra 9–10. Steins’ assumption that Neh 13:1–3 functions as Kopfstück introducing the following reforms42 at least fits the final text well. Nehemiah 13:4–31 thus could be a “midrash-like” text, explicating Neh 13:1–3, with its idea of a Torah-based, separated community by narrating several single reforms by Nehemiah, which are also Torah-based.43 Thus, despite some contentual tensions and fragmentary additions (e.g. in v. 24), Neh 13 may be considered as a unity which has to be dated to the late Persian period, a time when the Torah is already regarded as the centre of Judahite identity. 41. On this discussion cf. Steins, Chronik, 198–208. 42. Cf. ibid., 201–4. 43. Note that without Neh 13:1–3 the chapter would lack a beginning.

30

Mixed Marriages

The striking fact is that this relatively late text, which relates itself to the Torah in several respects, does not mingle the two rationales of mixed marriages. In contrast, the intermarriage issue of the people is related to the “Deuteronomistic” religious and covenantal line of thought and the issue of the priestly marital relations are connected with the purity and holiness paradigm. Both stand side-by-side in a supplementary or additive way, comprising the whole issue of intermarriage in the society of the Second Temple. Nevertheless, the question arises whether Neh 13 was added at a particular literary stage before the development of Ezra 9–10 or afterwards.44 A totally independent formation, for example, with an Ezra report on the one hand and Neh 13 as part of a more or less authentic Nehemiah memoir on the other one, seems to be impossible in the wake of the literary connections between both chapters. There are several similarities between Neh 13:23–29 and Ezra 9–10 which have to be noted first: 1. The use of ‫( ישב‬Hiphil) to denote (mixed) marriage (Ezra 10:2, 10, 14, 17, 18; Neh 13:23, 27). 2. Ezra and Nehemiah react with a certain violence (Ezra against himself: Ezra 9:3; Nehemiah against others: Neh 13:25). 3. In both cases, the people have to swear (‫שבע‬, cf. Ezra 10:5 and Neh 13:25). 4. Both denote the mixed marriages as ‫( מעל‬Ezra 9:2, 4, 6; 10:2, 6, 10; Neh 13:27). 5. Both seem to rely on Deut 7:3, with the same shift between the term ‫ נשא‬and ‫ לקח‬and the idea, that the audience had taken foreign wives for themselves (Ezra 9:12; Neh 13:25). 6. Both use the phrase ‫( נכריות נשים‬Ezra 10:2, 10, 14, 17, 18, 44; Neh 13:27). 7. Both regard mixed marriage as a sin against god (cf. Ezra 9:1, 6– 15; 10:2, 10, 19; Neh 13:27). 8. In both narratives priests are criticized for engaging in mixed marriages (Ezra 9:1; 10:18–22; Neh 13:28–29). This brief survey shows that a literary dependence is evident. The question is one of determining in which direction the influence occurred. As J. Pakkala notes, the use of ‫ נכריות נשים‬in Neh 13:27 could be dependent on the literary tradition, 1 Kgs 11:1–8, used here.45 Since Ezra 9–10 lacks 44. Several scholars argue for Neh 13:1–3 as a secondary addition; see Williamson, Ezra–Nehemiah, 380–81; Gunneweg, Esra, 163–64; Blenkinsopp, Ezra– Nehemiah, 350–52; Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah, 94; Wright, Identity, 492–95. 45. Cf. Pakkala, Ezra, 223 n. 40.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

31

this context, one might argue that it is probable that Ezra 9–10 took the phrase from Neh 13:23–29. That the use of the phrase in context of a mixed-marriage discourse is not so extraordinary, as Pakkala notes, is true enough. But, in fact, besides 1 Kgs 11:1–8, only Neh 13 and Ezra 9– 10 use it in an explicit mixed-marriage context. While Neh 13:26, 27 relates the ‫ נשים נכריות‬to Solomon, the use in Ezra 10:2, 10, 11, 14, 18, 44 lacks this reference. The significance of this difference may corroborate a postponement of Ezra 10. The integral role of swearing in Neh 13:23–29 is often used as an argument for the opposite direction since Ezra 10:5 is not of the same centrality for the narrative. Yet both occurrences differ significantly (e.g. regarding the verb form as well as the content of the pledge). Thus, this argument is not convincing. More secure ground is provided by an evaluation of the term ‫מעל‬, which is used in a much more elaborate way in the Ezra narrative.46 In Neh 13:27 one has to assume only that it means unfaithfulness against God according to Deuteronomistic ideology. The term is not at the centre of the argument. Ezra 9–10, on the other hand, explains at great length why mixed marriage is an “unfaithful act”: the “holy seed” is mixed up with foreigners (cf. Ezra 9:2). Thus, mixed marriages are an unfaithful act against Israel’s God. The “holy seed” rationale, which is combined with Deuteronomistic theology in Ezra 9–10, is a difference to Neh 13:23–29. Ezra 9–10 generally deals with the danger mixed marriages generate for the relation between Israel and its God in a much more differentiated way. Another point is the absence of purity terminology explicitly applied to the marriages of the people in Neh 13, as was noted above. Whereas Neh 13:23–29 seems to differentiate between priestly and lay mixed marriages, in Ezra 9–10 such marriages are always portrayed as an offense against the “holy seed.” Furthermore, Nehemiah does not offer a solution for intermarriage in “lay Israel.” According to Ezra’s prayer (cf. Ezra 9:6–15), such a position would endanger Israel’s existence in the land. Criticism regarding those marriages would not be enough there. In Neh 13:28–29 the priestly marriage is reported as a singularity, while Ezra 9–10 narrates it in a more detailed way, too (cf. the sacrifice in Ezra 10:18!). Besides all these observations, Ezra is drawn not only as leader of the Judahite community, but also as priest, which is an interesting idea in contrast to the critics aiming at the priesthood in Neh 13.47 46. Of course, the same holds true for the term ‫בדל‬, which is discussed below. 47. The reference to “the chamber of Jehohanan son of Eliashib” in Ezra 10:6 possibly hints in the same direction by figuring Ezra as priest, or at least insinuating

32

Mixed Marriages

All those observations speak in favor of a literary dependence of Ezra 9–10 from Neh 13:23–29. The similarities between Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13:1–3 (cf. the use of ‫ערב‬, ‫בדל‬, ‫קהל‬, concept of Torah) form the background of Ezra 9:1–2 (cf. the inclusion of Ammonites and Moabites into the list which otherwise consists of Canaanite peoples + Egyptians).48 Ezra 9–10 would then include motives found in Neh 13:1–3 into its introductory scene and applying the terms ‫ קהל‬and ‫ בדל‬to its treatment of the mixed marriage crisis. Ezra 9–10 would have taken up the mixed marriage texts on the final stage of Neh 13 relating Neh 13:1–3 and Neh 13:23–30 and developing it into a unified anti-exogamous position.49 The rejection of being mixed up with foreigners, explicated by several reforms in Neh 13, is generalized by the lengthy discourse of Ezra 9–10. The purity paradigm is brought into the fore. However, the covenantal rationale which is focused on religious practice does not really take a back seat, but is integrated and kept present. While Neh 13 combines the two lines in a supplementary way, in Ezra 9–10 aspects of religious deviance, covenant, monotheism, genealogy and purity are brought together in a complementary manner. The authors of Ezra 9–10 have created an integrative concept to reject intermarriage which is taken up in post-biblical tradition frequently. The highly sophisticated combination of biblical tradition in Ezra 9– 10 establishes a borderline between post-exilic community and everyone else, which simply cannot be crossed. Ezra 9–10 focuses on genealogy (cf. Ezra 9:2; 10:3, 18–44), as well as on a concept of golah-Israel as chosen people, developing the rationale found in Neh 13:1–3, 23–29 regarding the priestly caste, combining it with reference to the Deuteronomistic idea of election (cf., e.g., the links between Ezra 9:1–2 and 9:12 and Deut 7:1–6 or 18:9) and the argument of Lev 18. The tensions in Neh 13 listed above (cf. the concepts in 13:1–3, 23–27, 28–29) are resolved here. Perhaps one can understand the narrative as consequence, clarification and intensification of Neh 13, where the question of purity is addressed only with regards to the priests. Ezra 9–10 may thus fit well a closeness of Ezra to the Jerusalemite priesthood. Eliashib is an important person in Neh 13, but not in Ezra 9–10. Ezra 10:6 could be explained as a link between both narratives, drawing Ezra as a faithful priest against the backdrop of Eliashib, who does not play a role elsewhere in the Ezra narrative. 48. Cf. Pakkala, Ezra, 213–16. 49. The diachrony of Ezra 9–10 is not treated here at length due to restrictions of space, though the background thesis is, namely: Ezra 9 already represents the core of the narrative with an original solution of the crisis in Ezra 10, which later was developed by some minor additions.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

33

into a slightly developing concept of the composition Ezra–Nehemiah. Ezra 9–10 contemplates the positive characterization of post-exilic community on the negative background of the surrounding peoples, which are not concrete entities anymore, but an outside group. This group is stylized in a way comparable to the “Canaanites” of biblical tradition. The mixed marriage topic is totally integrated into a discourse on purity of the Jerusalem-centered post-exilic community, since this is closely identified with the sanctuary. In consequence, the demands regarding external boundaries have to be increased, what sharpens the difference between inside and outside community. But that differentiation goes right through the community, as Ezra 9–10 argues for a concept of identity which is focused on the returnees from the Babylonian golah (cf. the frequent occurrence of the golah in the book of Ezra and especially its role in Ezra 9–10). In this context one also can observe the importance of genealogy within the narrative (cf. Ezra 9:2’s reference to “holy seed” and Ezra 10:18–44’s reference to a genealogical list50), but that seems to be a kind of meta-history constructing identity rather than hardfact historiography (cf. the structuring role of lists for the whole composition in Ezra 2 and Neh 7). The whole narrative is coined by the topic of exogamy outside the golah-defined community which takes up and develops tradition creatively. The Babylonian golah here represents the “avant-garde,” the true Israel. Since the critiques in the core of Neh 13:23–29 concerning marriages with Ashdodite women have been seen in context of the economic rise in Persian Period II and in the wake of a significant role of Torah as document of identity, the mixed-marriage text in Neh 13 should be dated not earlier than to the first half of the fourth century B.C.E., as Sanballat could represent a certain Anti-Samaritan polemic.51 The reference to the priestly covenant of Num 25:13 in Neh 13:29, and the presumption of the priestly and Levitical order of Num 3–4; 8; 19 in Neh 13:30 form an obstacle for a date that is too early.52 The Torah, Jerusalem, the sanctuary and its personnel are now central points of reference for Judahite identity 50. In Neh 13:23–29 the genealogical argument is addressed regarding the high priestly family. 51. For a brief overview on the recent discussion about the so-called Samaritan Schism, cf. Christian Frevel, “Grundriss der Geschichte Israels,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. E. Zenger et al.; Studienbücher Theologie 1/1; 8th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 701–871 (821). 52. Regarding the other mixed marriage texts in Ezra–Nehemiah, I would suggest that Neh 6:18 could have predated Neh 13, while Neh 10:31 certainly belongs to the very end of the history of composition, with an idealized view on a community entirely devoted to the Torah by free will.

34

Mixed Marriages

under Persian administration (cf. Nehemiah’s role as a Persian official). Ezra 9–10 has to be dated later than Neh 13, maybe to the very end of the Persian Period when new challenges to Judahite identity emerged by the decline of the Achaemenid Empire.53 Yet the picture of Ezra as priest and the absence of a governor (‫ )פחה‬throughout the narrative, nearly substituted by Ezra’s authority, most likely points at early Hellenistic times, when the position of the priesthood endured but the governor lost his position.54 The question of separation by a prohibition of exogamy seems to have been virulent at this time—the community had to redefine its identity since it was now part of another domain. This is also indicated by the observation that it is especially Nehemiah’s mixed marriage reform combined with the separation text in Neh 13:1–3 which is taken up and expanded by Ezra 9–10. Out of all the reformative actions it is those related to the shoring up of communal boundaries and the provision of continuity that are of interest here. The position of Ezra 9–10 is exclusivist entirely, which can be observed elsewhere only in extra-biblical tradition (cf. Jubilees, the Aramaic Levi Document).55 The closeness of Ezra 9–10 to Jubilees, the Levi literature and even 4QMMT seems also to argue in favor of a late dating. At any rate, Ezra 9–10 is unique in its golah-centered position. Israelite identity is ensured by a common cultural memory of having been an elected remnant that has to be faithful—the polemic against mixed marriage is no longer in the context of an emerging Judahite ethnic identity, but turns inwards, demanding a common group identity for those who came from the Babylonian golah.56 Thus we can observe the emergence of a kind of religious orthodoxy in contrast to the construction of an ethnic identity which had been more important in earlier texts. In sum: As has been shown above, already within the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah one may find the topic of mixed marriage serving different functions and in different contexts. The mixed marriage texts in the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah cover a period of time from the late

53. Cf. Frevel, “Grundriss,” 830–31. 54. Cf. the authority Ezra has got according to the Artaxerxes rescript in Ezra 7:12–26 and the proposal of a Hellenistic dating by Sebastian Grätz, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes. Eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esra 7,12–26 (BZAW 337; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). 55. Cf. the essays by Armin Lange, Hannah Harrington and Christian Frevel in the present volume. 56. That a genealogical background from the golah was still traceable in that period is doubtful. Thus, Ezra 9–10 projects such a genealogical purity back to an earlier phase of the history of the Judahite community.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

35

Persian Period until early Hellenistic times and thus give an insight into the problems and discussions that arise during this time of change. The diachronic approach on texts which may seemingly represent a similar attitude regarding mixed marriages even shows significant differences in their concept. This observation may encourage looking at further texts diachronically as well. As has been demonstrated, Ezra–Nehemiah already relies on earlier biblical tradition.57 Thus, the question of the earlier development of this tradition has also to be raised. Within the discourse on intermarriage it is not all the same, but rather certain developments are recognizable. The whole “story” awaits further research, but a brief look at another text may suggest a direction. 5. Bridging the Gap between People and Priests Zealously— The Phinehas Story as a Second Test Case Looking at the issue of mixed marriage in Num 25, the Phinehas episode strengthens the view that mixed marriages are related to the sanctuary and afflicting the people as a whole. At the first glance, the covenantal relation is addressed only in the covenant of Levi in Num 25:12–13. It is a frequently made observation that Num 25:1–5 and Num 25:6–18 are strikingly different. While Num 25:1–5 focuses on apostasy with the Moabites, Num 25:6–18 take the intermarriage with a Midianite women as the paramount example. Both traditions are usually divided diachronically and attributed to non-priestly and priestly circles. The connection between both is often neglected and Num 25:6 considered as textual and conceptual paragraph (Neueinsatz).58 However, both passages are related in several respects. Both passages refer to sexual affairs in an implicit manner, Num 25:1 by ‫ זנה‬and Num 25:8 by the obscure ‫אל קבתה‬. They both make use of the covenantal pattern, although in a different way. Numbers 25:1–2 relates to Exod 34:15–16 while Num 25:12–13 relates to Num 18:19 or rather create a new covenant which is paradigmatic for the whole congregation. Both passages include the concept of the “wrath of God.” Both argue with the related concept of zeal; Num 25:11 explicitly and Num 25:3 more indirectly by taking up Exod 34:14. Already this rough comparison indicates that Num 25:6–18 is strongly related to Num 25:1–5. In light 57. On the ideological roots supporting the mixed marriage texts in Ezra– Nehemiah, cf. recently Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 142–45. Of special interest is his reference to Ezek 44:9, which can be related to what has been said above regarding foreign presence in Neh 13:4–9, 28–29. 58. This is noticeable already in the Codex Petropolitanus (cf. BHS).

36

Mixed Marriages

of the argumentation on different rationales rejecting mixed marriages, which were elaborated above, this becomes strikingly significant. While Num 25:1–5 seems to resort to the “Deuteronomistic” pattern of religious imperilment, Num 25:6–18 is aligned with the “Priestly” paradigm of defilement by mixed marriages. Both texts are diachronically disunified and have a complicated literary development. Num 25:16–18 is linked to Num 31 and probably a later addition. Numbers 25:13 is a repetition or variation of v. 12, and the genealogical note on Cozbi and Simri may be disputed as secondary also.59 Some aspects of the disunity of Num 25:1–5 will be mentioned below. But this aspect shall not be at the centre of interest in the following argument. Furthermore, the question has to be raised: How does the composition of Numbers 25:1– 18 relate to the concepts of Neh 13 and Ezra 9–10? In contrast to Neh 13, the defilement afflicts not only the sanctuary or the priestly caste, but rather the whole community. On the other hand Neh 13:29 obviously refers to Num 25:13.60 We cannot discuss the complexity of Num 25 here at length, but the diachronic development before the elaborated concept of Ezra–Nehemiah can be illuminated briefly here. With respect to the cultic charging of the issue of mixed marriage which was gradually put forward in Nehemiah–Ezra, it is first of all striking that role and function of the priests is connected with intermarriage affairs within the people of Israel. Like Ezra, Phinehas is priest. But while the priesthood of Ezra is not at the centre of interest, in contrast to his competence regarding the Torah, the priesthood of Phinehas is of paramount importance. He is member of the Aaronide lineage acting as legitimate successor of Eleazar. Thus, we may consider Num 25 as a second example for the aboveidentified development towards a more and more significant role of the cult, priests and priestly terminology for the mixed marriage discourse. Numbers 25 functions as foundation myth of priestly authority regarding the topic. The narrative in Num 25 is the only one within the Pentateuch and outside the patriarchal narratives rejecting exogamous relationships. The story is often alluded to and, behind Gen 34, is a central text in extrabiblical reception in early Hellenistic times. With regard to diachrony, the important question arises whether a prepriestly rejection of mixed marriages can be found in the narrative. The 59. For an overview on the discussion regarding the development of Num 25 in general and vv. 12 and 13 in particular, cf. Horst Seebass, Numeri 22,2–36,13 (BK.AT IV/3; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007), 115–32. 60. Cf. Frevel, Bund, 85–94.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

37

Phinehas episode in Num 25:6–18 doubtlessly is a “priestly” text arguing with the paradigm of purity. Nevertheless, however, the aspect of religious apostasy is implicitly invoked in the zeal motif. Both with regards to argumentation as well as theology and geography, the sanctuary is at the center of attention here. Zimri, first anonymized as ‫( איש מבני ישראל‬v. 6), brings Cozbi, likewise much less anonymized as “the Midianite” (‫)את־המדינית‬, among the community while the people of Israel is weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (subsequent to the first part of the narrative as noted above). Although it is not said explicitly that the event took place in the sanctuary (the term ‫ קבה‬is not specified further), the reaction of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, colors the situation with a cultic tint. One gets the impression that the sanctuary and the camp are not separated strictly, a fact which resembles the Ezra composition conceptually.61 Anything affecting the community has consequences for the sanctuary and the other way round. This observation is quite neatly in line with the implicit direction of Neh 13:23–29 as well as the explicit argument of Ezra 9–10, although it is explicated there in a much more elaborate way. From the point of view of Num 25:6–18, the sanctuary is defiled by exogamous relationships. Phinehas represents the substitutional activity of priestly circles in this debate. He acts for the demand of genealogical purity in a violent way exaggerating the necessity to avoid any mixture. The narrative builds on Lev 21, expanding the danger of mixed marriages on the community of Israel as a whole.62 The society’s welfare thus depends on ethnic-genealogical purity. The priestly episode has cultic connotations, but does not give an explicit reason for its position regarding the participation of the Midianite woman in the cultic community.63 Thus, Num 25:6–18 gives an ambivalent impression by comparing it with Neh 13 and Ezra 9–10. On the one hand, the genealogical aspect, the strong relatedness to the sanctuary and the expansion of the purity demand on the whole congregation argues in favor of closeness to Ezra 9–10. On the other hand, the dependence of Neh 13:29 to Num 25:18 strongly hints at a priority of Num 25 to Neh 13. Like Neh 13, Num 25 argues with exemplary cases which do not comprise the engagement of the whole community but which afflict the covenantal relationship of the whole congregation. But Neh 13 has a midrash-like character which may also point at a later formation. 61. See the essay by Jan Clauss in the present volume. 62. Note that Neh 13:28–29 only expands Lev 21 with regards to the priests. 63. Neh 13, in contrast, provides reasons for the subsequent rejection of foreign presence, as does Ezra 9–10.

38

Mixed Marriages

The reasoning of the priestly authority regarding mixed marriages is in line with both compositions. Ezra acts as a priest explicitly, but Nehemiah argues against the priestly class, which, in his view, has failed not only by permitting mixed marriages, but all the more by engaging in intermarriage relationships. In sum, it remains quite difficult to integrate the composition of Num 25 conceptually, but it seems probable that Num 25 formulates an ideal of the priestly role in the Israelite community which is in the background of Nehemiah’s critics. Ezra’s priestly role differs in that he combines the authority of a priest and a scribe.64 The ideal of the Ezra narrative is that of the priest who implements and interprets the Torah. The priest almost acts as a Torah exegete here. This picture, again, is more elaborate than the spontaneous zeal of Phinehas. In Ezra 9–10 a priest fulfills what Nehemiah had wanted Eliashib to do by reference to the Phinean ideal. The priest Ezra does not rely on a layman like Nehemiah who fights for the fulfillment of the Torah, but does it on his own as the accepted authority within the community. Thus, Phinehas can be seen at the beginning of the debate on the priestly role in context of the rejection of intermarriage. Regarding the patterns of rejection, it is significant that the Phinehas account is attached to the Moabite episode in Num 25:1–5, based on a fragmentary Yehowistic text in Num 25:1a*, 3, 5,65 which had focused only on the violation of monolatry and had not yet mentioned the question of mixed marriage explicitly. In late exilic or rather early post-exilic times a rejection oriented at Exod 34:15–16 (rather than Deut 7:3–4) is attached in vv. 1b, 2, 4 in a quite Deuteronomistic manner. Exogamous marriages with Moabite women are rejected here by the Deuteronomistic paradigm of religious deviance, a feature which can also be found in 64. Ezra 7:10 praises Ezra’s Torah competence, and generally, as Ezra 7 and Neh 8 narrate, he is the one (re-)establishing the Torah in Yehud. Although acting in a priestly role in Ezra 9–10 (cf. Ezra 10:10, 16, where he is called “priest,” as well as his closeness to the temple), the problem that the mixed marriages were a violation of the Torah is at the centre of attention. This is corroborated by the complex discourse based on the combination of Pentateuchal tradition. In contrast, there is no direct reference to Ezra’s authority as a priest as a legitimization for his actions against the marriages. Although of Aaronide descent (cf. 7:1–5), Ezra is at no point said to be a high priest. He reacts in an emotional way, but by no means “zealously” like Phinehas and he is also a lone figure, but is the leader to whom the community appeals (Ezra 9:1), the figure whom the Israelites follow deliberately (Ezra 10:16– 17). Thus, the pictures of Phinehas and Ezra are clearly distinct. 65. For a justification of this view, see Ludwig Schmidt, Das 4. Buch Mose: Numeri 10,11–36,13 (ATD 7/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 146–49.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

39

1 Kgs 11:1–8 and 16:31–32. Marriages with Moabites are said to be “interreligious,” endangering the orthodoxy of worshipping YHWH alone. By taking up the sexualized language (‫ )זנה‬from Exod 34:15–16, the relationship with foreigners is abhorred with regard to a certain ethos. Ideas of sexual-cultic customs are not in the background. Instead, there is a xenophobic pattern of rejection which constructs the foreign as sexually deviant and potentially dangerous. Supposing the unity of ethos and religious practice, a relationship with Moabite women is a “syncretistic” danger which has to be eliminated violently. The Phinehas narrative is added to that radical solution. Here a mixed marriage is seen as defilement of the sanctuary (cf. Lev 20:1–5).66 By that the episode of Num 25:1–5 is clearly interpreted as related to intermarriages. From the final text one cannot escape this interpretation. Thus, it is obvious that a purity-based pattern was added to the Deuteronomistic “religious” pattern. Both patterns are not combined and integrated into one concept as in Ezra 9–10, but juxtaposed as in Neh 13. But while the juxtaposition in Neh 13 was regarded as integral to the composition, it is editorial in Num 25. Thus we can consider different strategies in handling the distinct patterns of rejection in both texts. In sum: the Redaktionsgeschichte of Num 25 shows a paradigmatic development regarding the rejection of mixed marriage culminating in a concept quite similar to Neh 13, where the role of the sanctuary is further emphasized and included into a complex framework of biblical references. Similar to the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah, a direction towards a more and more explicit and elaborated rejection was also observed in Num 25. In the beginning of the development of Num 25 there is an implicit rejection of mixed marriages, here under the paradigm of apostasy which has parallels in other texts, for example, in the so-called Deuteronomistic History. The development goes further regarding those relationships as a danger for the community, combining the question of purity and the role of the priests with the topic. Mixed marriages turn into a crucial danger when the society’s core is constituted by the sanctuary. This idea is in the background of Neh 13:28–29 also. The significance of the defense of community combined with the defense of the sanctuary’s purity is made explicit in Ezra 9–10, a text dating from a later stage where a changed self-perception of Israel has to be observed.

66. This idea will be developed further in receptive texts like Jub. 30, as is shown in the contribution of Christian Frevel to the present volume.

40

Mixed Marriages

The literary debate on mixed marriages becomes very dense in the Persian period and also later in the Hellenistic period, with several different voices being heard from an expanding resource of texts. The religious threat is first complemented, then integrated and, finally, beyond Ezra– Nehemiah, replaced by the purity paradigm. The more serious the issue becomes in the texts, the more it is directed inwards as a pillar of understanding Early Judaism, related to its common cultural memory. 6. Formatting “Early Judaism” by Marriage Policy? A Suggestion on Some General Lines of Literary Development in the Biblical Mixed Marriage Texts The different texts in Ezra–Nehemiah and the diverse layers of Num 25 are two examples of the diversity of mixed marriage texts throughout biblical tradition. One can observe a tendency not only to supplement the topic with a cultic note, but to regroup mixed marriage tradition around the sanctuary as the center of identity, beginning in the late Persian period and coming to its full extension in Hellenistic times. Additionally, the debate seems to turn inwards in later times, perhaps leading into the segregation of sectarian groups, which is suggested by the mixed marriage texts found in Qumran literature (cf. especially 4QMMT), for example. When the relation between people and sanctuary becomes crucial, it cannot be without any impact on the perception of marital policy. Apostasy is no longer the main focus anymore since it is not considered important for the question of culture or language. The danger of religious deviance seems to have been an issue at the beginning of the mixed marriage tradition, but seems to have fallen away in later times. It is the fear of making impossible the relationship between God and his people by impurity which becomes significant. Judahite identity cannot be conceptualized without temple and cult anymore. Ezra–Nehemiah as well as the final text of Num 25 seem to represent the turning points in this respect. This turning point has to be defined as a step-by-step development rather than a sudden change since, as we noted, slight alterations between the texts can be observed. As has been demonstrated above, Num 25 and Neh 13 set both rationales against exogamy side-by-side, tending slightly towards the purity paradigm. Ezra 9–10 also refers to Deuteronomistic tradition, but there it is not one argument besides another, but one totally integrated into the paradigm of the holy seed. The priestly authority is emphasized by all three texts. From a socio-historical point of view, priestly control is expanded: the priests are described as watchers and defenders of the right marital policy by the idealization of Phinehas’ role in Neh 25:6–19, which takes up and reinterprets an older

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

41

text rejecting mixed marriage. Nehemiah’s description of the importance to adjust priestly misbehavior or the, at least partly, priestly function and authority ascribed to Ezra clearly also hint at that direction. Thus, the priests shall defend Israel’s identity. The decision about who is to by included in, and who is to be excluded from, the post-exilic community has to be made by the priestly authorities according to that view (cf. Ezra 2:63; Neh 2:65 or the frequent use of the priestly term ‫ בדל‬in Ezra 9–10). Nehemiah (and also, implicitly, Ezra) criticizes their failure in this respect. Nevertheless, in Ezra 9–10 the discourse does not focus on the priestly role regarding the prevention of exogamy, their responsibilities and mistakes, but on Ezra as a priest and scribe, as one idealized person who takes the lead of a communal action. What is the position of the analyzed examples within the intermarriage discourse in general? A problem emerges when systematizing mixed marriage texts in the Hebrew Bible, namely, the development of criteria by which to recognize which texts are relevant, as not every text is as explicit as Ezra 9–10. Within several texts there is an intensive protohalakhic discussion of the subject with very different lines of impact: advocative, vindicative, permissive, conditional, restrictive or antagonistic. There are several patterns of substantiation that can be used in the rejection of mixed couples: religious jeopardy, ethic deficiencies, economic reasons (by inheriting land), impurity of outsiders, and so on. This very multi-faceted discussion—beginning in exilic texts and increasing markedly in post-exilic literature—is followed up by such extra-biblical pre-Hellenistic texts as Jubilees, the Enochic literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, the Temple Scroll and others. In these texts the issue of mixed marriages is strongly linked to the purity discourse, too, and the restrictive priestly attitude from legal texts is applied to all Israel—a trend already beginning in late biblical texts, as has been shown above. The prohibition of marriages with foreigners becomes an important part of constructing identity of Israel building on the paradigm of withdrawal and separation from the nations. The generation of the dichotomy of “self” and “alien” resp. the “other” is based fundamentally on marriage practice here. Social boundaries are constructed by marriage rules. Thus the topic is becoming important in the formation of “Judaism” already in pre-Hellenistic times. Roughly summing up biblical texts related to our topic, some of which have been cited above as precedents of Num 25 and as tradition functionalized and developed in Ezra–Nehemiah, an initial division between a priestly and a non-priestly rationale for the rejection of mixed marriage can be made:

42

Mixed Marriages

The priestly texts are represented by the patriarchal narratives of the Priestly Code (cf., e.g., Gen 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9 and, later but in line, Gen 24), which prefer family endogamy within Abrahamitic descent, as well as by texts from the Holiness Code (cf. Lev 21:7, 14), which are focused on the marital policy with regards to priests.67 These priestly texts lack any reference to the danger of religious deviance. Within the non-priestly texts, a “Deuteronomistic line” represented by several narratives in the history books has its legal foundation also in the Pentateuch (cf. Deut 7:3; Exod 34:15–16). That “Deuteronomistic line” can similarly be identified within the historical books (cf. Josh 23:7, 12; Judg 3:5–6; 1 Kgs 11:1–8; 16:31 and maybe even Isa 2:6). On three occasions, at important points of Israel’s theological view on its history, the violation of the prohibition of mixed marriages is criticized. This cluster of texts is connected by terminology as well as literary motives and linked with the commandments in Exod 34:15–16/Deut 7:3. The starting point of the Deuteronomistic position may be found in 1 Kgs 11:1–8* and 1 Kgs 16:31 with the rejection of foreign empresses. The basic texts regarding Solomon’s foreign wives, as well as the critical view on Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel, contain an implicit rejection of marriages with foreign women by combining notices of exogamous relationships of kings with apostasy. In 1 Kgs 11:1–8 that implicit statement is expanded by reference to an explicit warning against foreign women which can also be found in Josh 23:12 and probably includes the ideology of Exod 34:15–16. Deuteronomy 7:3 seems to combine these three texts, establishing a legal foundation, while Judg 3:5–6 clearly refers to its formulation.68 Thus a diachronic development can also be observed within the Deuteronomistic line of rejection of mixed marriage, one deriving from a religiously motivated aversion against the foreign empress, moving on to a warning against mixing with foreign people and, further still, to a prohibition which understands mixed marriages as dangerous for the theologically defined (a “holy people,” cf. Deut 7:6!) entity “Israel” as a whole. This motif slowly develops into a kind of framework for the history of Israel, which sees the application of this concept to 1 Kgs 11, the juridical foundation in Deut 7, the presence in Josh 23, and its integration into the introduction of the narratives on the judges.69 67. Lev 21:14 provides marriage restrictions only for the high priest which are expanded to all the priests in Ezek 44:22. 68. Regarding these texts, cf. Knoppers, Sex, Religion, and Politics. 69. On the other hand, Judg 14–16, with the exogamous marriages of Samson, is an example for the Hebrew Bible’s polyphony, since those relationships are not

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

43

The priestly position is diachronically later than the early rationale based on apostasy, but probably earlier than the completely developed Deuteronomistic framework in the history books. Its preference for endogamy within a family-structured community is motivated by a mix of ethics and culture and does not seem to represent a sharp opposition between Israel and all the other people (cf. the non-critical notion of some branches of the Abrahamic family as “Aramean,” as well as Esau’s third marriage to an Ishmaelite woman; cf. Gen 28:6–9).70 Numbers 25:1–5 is quite close to the Deuteronomistic notion: the Moabite women lead Israel into apostasy! This position is combined with the priestly text on Phineas. Thus, the third line of argument against mixed marriage takes up the Deuteronomistic position, as can also be observed in Neh 13:23–27, but adds a priestly focus. One step further, both perspectives are brought into one concept. Deuteronomy 7:6 already denotes Israel as a holy people. This idea is upgraded by the centrality of the temple for the post-exilic community, a notion which is put forward by the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah. The whole community is holy and strongly related to the sanctuary (Ezra 9:2: “holy seed”!). As in the case of the priests, this holiness has to be protected. The presence of foreign wives is denoted as a source of impurity and thus Israel as a holy entity has to separate itself. In sum, priestly categories are applied to a Deuteronomistic ideology of election, while the fear of apostasy loses its importance. Concurrently, the reference to a common Abrahamic descent is superimposed by the self-definition as “sons of the golah.” As can be observed in Neh 13 and Ezra 9–10, the described change is a gradual process. Nevertheless, the chorus of biblical positions remains polyphonic. The Pentateuch even includes positive examples of pious foreign women, such as Asenath and Zipporah, as well as the apparent divine sanctioning of Moses’ taking a Cushite wife. Numbers 12:1 at least seems to represent a reference to a mixed marriage discourse.71 Other texts, including evaluated according to the aforementioned framework. There is simply no reference to support the view that the Philistines serve a paradigmatic role for coastal internationality, as we saw in Neh 13, for example. 70. Cf. the essay by Benedikt Conczorowski in the present volume. 71. Cf. Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZABR 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 289–90. It is possible that an older tradition on the Midianite woman Zipporah raised questions on the background of a prohibition such as that found in Deut 7:3, questions that are responded to in Num 12:1. The story on Joseph and Asenath (Gen 41:45–52) lacks direct references to criticisms of mixed marriage, but at least Gen 48, with Jacob blessing the offspring of that

44

Mixed Marriages

Mal 2, feature in the debate in later Persian and in Hellenistic times, using patriarchal traditions of Gen 34 as well as priestly motifs known from Num 25 for its polemics against intermarriage.72 Further texts for and against exogamy, such as Ruth, 1 Chr 2 and Proverbs, would have to be integrated within a diachronic framework to provide as complete a picture as possible on the topic. A certain degree of creativity in putting forward the debate also can be observed in such extra-biblical texts as Tobit, Jubilees and the Aramaic Levi Document, and even in several texts from Qumran (4QMMT, the Temple Scroll, the Genesis Apocryphon). These texts follow the advancement described with regard to Ezra–Nehemiah in several ways. As the analysis provided here has tried to demonstrate by means of significant examples, the development of the prohibition of intermarriage was a process making use of complex intertextual relations. It was not an abrupt change of paradigms. Nehemiah 13 and Ezra 9–10 are the culmination of the biblical anti-exogamy argument. These texts, at a glance, provide a concise snapshot of the development. The topic of mixed marriage is of importance not only at a certain stage of literary development, but in fact represents a development in itself. It has its significance in several layers and times. These different layers first develop independently, with their own aims and rationales, but in later texts often are combined, inheriting a new meaning. They even serve as tools allowing the community to clarify its boundaries (and by that its identity), as well as to promote certain power structures in Judahite society (cf. the role of the priests). As we observed above, one of the landmarks of development is the intensifying shift from merely endogamous aspects to the religious aspect of monolatric exclusivism to genealogical, cultic and “ethnical” aspects. This shift was amplified with recourse to the purity paradigm and with a “democratization” of requirements of the priestly caste to the people of “all Israel.” While the earliest anti-exogamy texts focus on certain narrative tradition or on the commitment to YHWH as the one and only God for Israel, in later times the role of Torah exegesis as well as of the sanctuary is at the centre of attention also emphasizing priestly authority. Probably this was the answer to questions emerging during the Hellenistic period, with its political and religious challenges. relationship, thereby integrating them into his family (and thus Israel!), seems to reflect on the question of how to cope with children born into mixed marriages (cf. Ezra 10:3, 44; Isa 2:6). 72. Mal 2 seems to be close to the third line of argument presented by Ezra– Nehemiah; cf. esp. Mal 2:11 with the idea of the defilement of the sanctuary.

FREVEL AND CONCZOROWSKI Deepening the Water

45

The shift described here is in agreement with the development of early Judaism, as has been shown in the scholarly debate on the purity texts. The positions concerning mixed marriage in biblical and extra-biblical literature represent a debate and development which provides interesting insights into the process of the formation of Judaism (and maybe “Judaisms”) during Second Temple period, covering a wide range of texts and times. Tracing down this development as well as the differences in the positions of the discourse in detail will still be an issue for future research, one which certainly will be fruitful for the understanding of early Judaism.

AN ETHNIC AFFAIR? EZRA’S INTERMARRIAGE CRISIS AGAINST A CONTEXT OF “SELF-ASCRIPTION” AND “ASCRIPTION OF OTHERS” Katherine Southwood

This essay examines the categories used within Ezra 9–10 against the dynamics of ethnic labelling in order to draw attention to the significance of those writing the literature—those who, through narrating categories textually, retain the power to establish and to perpetuate self-designations and classifications of Others. The present study is divided into two sections; initially, the relationship between ethnicity and labelling will be surveyed. Subsequently, the insights provided within this initial section will be applied to some of the labels specified in Ezra 9–10 and their significance for discerning the impact of ethnicity in Ezra determined. Since there is not space to consider every label in detail, special attention will be given to the labels and titles thorough which the intermarriage crisis is introduced. Although ethnicity is difficult to define critically,1 one method used by scholars to come to terms with the concept is through exploring the significance of ethnic labelling. As Allport argues, categorization is a process used by humans to group the universe into intelligible segments; however, “once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgement.”2 Thus, new experiences are able to be redacted into familiar categories and perception is facilitated. Similarly, ethnic classifications 1. The noun ἐθνος (ethnos) has, from an early period, had a broad range of meanings, and has evolved in uneven and variable ways; see Elizabeth Tonkin, Maryon McDonald and Malcolm Chapman, History and Ethnicity (ASA Monographs 27; London: Routledge, 1989), 11–17. To complicate matters further, the popular term has a loose colloquial application and, even within scholarship, there is a lack of definitional continuity. The expression “ethnic group” is often used synonymously with other terms within its semantic field, such as “kinship,” “race,” “minority” and “nationalism,” and the criteria for detecting an ethnic group is explained in different ways by those participating in and those analysing such groups; see Marcus Banks, Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions (London: Routledge, 1996), 10. 2. Gordon W. Allport, Pattern and Growth in Personality (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961), 20.

SOUTHWOOD An Ethnic Affair?

47

are social products related to the requirements of the classifiers which “order the social world” and “create standardized cognitive maps over categories of relevant others.”3 Barth, whose seminal contribution to the topic also emphasized the significance of boundaries for sustaining an enduring sense of the “idea” of the group, used this approach. Symbolic boundaries persist despite varying levels of permeability through time. Barth insisted that ethnicity evolves at the boarders of ethnic groups through interactions which dichotomize group members and outsiders.4 These boundaries are characterized by internal and external differentiation mechanisms such as categorization, or, as Barth puts it, “self-ascription” and “ascription of others.” Thus, Barth’s emphasis on transactions occurring at the boundaries advocates a relational and processual approach to ethnicity.5 Ethnicity, therefore, in its most immediate sense is a matter of classification; it is the separating out and pulling together of the population into a series of categories defined in terms of “we” and “they.”6 Although Barth was important for opening the debate regarding how to think critically about ethnicity, his perspectives concerning boundaries have endured criticism. Such criticism is, in itself, useful for refining our understanding of the significance of ethnic boundaries, as expressed through labels, or “ascriptions.” Cohen was critical of Barth’s circular logic concerning categorization: agents only act as members of ethnic categories because they identify themselves and are identified by others as belonging to those categories. There are further problems associated with this logic; ascriptions of Others may not be accepted, and selfascriptions may not gain wide recognition. In addition, agents may not be aware of the existence, or significance, of such categories for maintaining ethnicity.7 Finally, on account of Barth’s interpretation of ethnic boundaries as an “imperative,” Cohen accuses Barth of being a “primordialist,” that is, to put it crudely, attributing ethnicity to ties of blood, or considering it to be a fundamental, indefinable aspect of populations.8 3. Thomas H. Eriksen, Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives (Anthropology, Culture and Society; London: Pluto, 1993), 60. 4. Fredrik Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1969), 14. 5. Eriksen, Ethnicity, 38. 6. Arnold L. Epstein, Ethos and Identity: Three Studies in Ethnicity (London: Tavistock, 1978). 7. Abner P. Cohen, “The Lesson of Ethnicity,” in Urban Ethnicity (ed. A. P. Cohen; ASA Monographs 12; London: Tavistock, 1974), ix–xxiv. 8. Primordialists attribute ethnicity to ties of religion, blood, race, language, region and custom and consider it to be a fundamental, indefinable aspect of

48

Mixed Marriages

Another difficulty with Barth’s notion of ethnic boundaries and the use of labels is the approach’s rigidity in conceiving of the boundary as a “thin line” which is static and incapable of expansion or contraction. Given this observation, Leach’s and Douglas’s approaches to boundaries

populations. For example, Bromley argues for a stable core of ethnicity, the “ethnikos,” which manifests itself in differing economic and political situations as an “ethnosocial organism,” and is resilient enough to persist through a variety of social forms; see Yulian Bromley, “Ethnos and Endogamy,” Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology 13, no. 1 (1974): 55–69 (61). The ethnikos is defined as a “historically formed community of people characterized by common…cultural features… distinctive psychological traits, and the consciousness of their unity” (ibid., 66). More radical, “essentialist” and “kinship” varieties of primordialism are found in the works of scholars such as Geertz, Schils or Van den Berghe. Van den Berghe’s and Geertz’s arguments depict ethnicity from a sociobiological perspective. Van den Berghe argues that ethnicity is a basic biological tendency which is an extension of the idiom of kinship; see Pierre L. van den Berghe, The Ethnic Phenomenon (New York: Elsevier, 1981). Similarly, Geertz follows Shils by emphasizing the importance of ethnicity as an ontological feature which draws upon cultural “givens” such as congruities of blood, speech and custom to which people attach a “primordial quality,” at once overpowering and ineffable; see Clifford Geertz, “The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States,” in Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa (ed. C. Geertz; New York: Free Press, 1963), 105–57; cf. Edward Shils, “Primordial, Personal, Sacred, and Civil Ties,” British Journal of Sociology 8 (1957): 130–45. However, as Banks notes, primordialism is something of a “straw man” in the refutations it receives, since few authors would endorse primordialism in these extreme terms; see Marcus Banks, Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions (London: Routledge, 1996), 47. The primordialist approach to ethnicity is criticized as a defunct methodology through which to describe and analyse ethnicity. For example, Grosby argues that if primordial means “from the beginning,” “a priori, ineffable and coercive,” then its emphasis is affective and out of context in relation to most modern ethnic phenomena; see Steven Grosby, “The Verdict of History: The Inexpungable Tie of Primordiality—A Response to Geller and Coughlan,” Ethics and Racial Studies 17 (1994): 164–71. Similarly, rational choice theory, which emphasizes the capacity of human beings to decide which choices are of maximum utility, rallies against communities being thought of as automatic, homogenous populations who act in terms of predestined “givens”; see Michael Banton, “The Actor’s Model of Ethnic Relations,” in Ethnicity (ed. J. Hutchinson and A. D. Smith; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 98–106. As Bell’s argument illustrates, “ethnicity…is best understood not as primordial phenomenon…but as a strategic choice by individuals who, in other circumstances, would choose other group memberships as a means of gaining some power and privilege”; see David Bell, “Ethnicity and Social Change,” in Ethnicity: Theory and Experience (ed. N. Glazer and D. P. Moynihan; London: Harvard University Press, 1975), 160–71 (171).

SOUTHWOOD An Ethnic Affair?

49

and ascriptions appear more advantageous.9 Leach conceives of categories as “verbal symbols” which “distinguish one class of things from another,” symbols which, by so doing, create “artificial boundaries in a field which is ‘naturally’ continuous.”10 Rather than being limiting boarders, boundaries, as signified by categories, are ambiguous in implication and a source of conflict. As such, the boundaries imposed upon reality by categories often become the source of conflict and anxiety since “there is always some uncertainty about just where the edge of category A turns into the edge of category not-A.”11 Similarly, Douglas recognized a new problem arising as a consequence of such categories existing: ethnic anomalies.12 Where strict binary divisions between in-groups and out-groups can be represented as categories, there will, inevitably, be those whose existence poses a challenge to such categories. Since cherished categories are seldom dispensed with, there is no space for people who are “neither–nor” or “both–and.” Consequently, such misfits are liable to be paraded as deviants in an effort to sure up boundaries. Typical examples of “anomalous” ethnic categories are couples participating in intermarriage and their offspring.13 The existence of anomalies does not lead necessarily to the revision of categories, but instead leads to a volatile “betwixt and between” zone.14 Since ethnic anomalies create doubts for gate-keeping through their existence between two dominant ethnic margins, the boundary zone becomes transformed into the focal nexus of ethnic differentiation. The discourse on ethnic labels is extended in relation to more instrumental questions, such as power relations between groups.15 A prominent 9. Cf. Edmund Leach, “The Symbolic Ordering of a Man-Made World: Boundaries of Social Space and Time,” in Culture and Communication: The Logic by Which Symbols are Connected: An Introduction to the Use of Structuralist Analysis in Social Anthropology (ed. E. Leach; Themes in the Social Sciences; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 33–36; Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (London: Cresset, 1970). 10. Leach, “Ordering,” 33. 11. Ibid., 35. 12. Cf. Douglas, Symbols. 13. Eriksen, Ethnicity, 62. 14. Cf. Douglas, Symbols, and Victor Turner, “ ‘Betwixt and between’: The Liminal Period in Rites des Passage,” in The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (ed. V. Turner; New York: Cornell University Press, 1967), 93–111. 15. Instrumentalists define ethnicity as a tool for the pursuit of material interests and power by competing cultural groups who use identity as a social and political resource; see J. Hutchinson and A. D. Smith, “Introduction,” in Hutchinson and

50

Mixed Marriages

exponent of this approach is Jenkins, who underlines the importance of categorization in the social construction of ethnicity.16 Jenkins introduces an analytical distinction between traditional Barthian externally and internally located processes of ascription. When relations are consensual ascription may be little more than the validation of the internal self-definitions chosen by other groups. However, during situations of “conflictual” relations, there is the imposition, by one set of actors upon another, of a putative name and characterization.17 Effectively, a group is rooted in processes of internal definition, while a category is externally defined and is a product of power imbalances. Jenkins’s argument illustrates the importance not only of appreciating the self-reflective nature of categories, but also the broader contextual considerations and implications such categories have. Decisive questions will therefore be who is constructing the categories and, through this, defining the boundaries between groups, who is resisting such imposed identities, and what corollaries are associated with certain groups being forced into particular ethnic categories?

Smith, eds., Ethnicity, 3–14 (8). Thus, according to Banks (Ethnicity, 9), ethnicity is a socially constructed idea arising from the ability of individuals “to ‘cut and mix’ from a variety of ethnic heritages and cultures to forge their own individual or group identities.” Cohen represents an extreme form of this approach, claiming that Hausa traders in Nigeria manipulate identity in order that their control over the trading of cattle and kola nuts can be maintained over long distances; see Abner P. Cohen, Custom and Politics in Urban Africa: A Study of Hausa Migrants in Yoruba Towns (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969). Such approaches have been criticized for failing to consider what constitutes the factors enabling ethnic groups to define themselves in relation to other ethnic groups and maintain their ethnic identity in the face of social and political developments; see Eriksen, Ethnicity, 55. Furthermore, instrumentalism defines interest in materialistic terms and has been criticized for failing to take seriously the participants’ sense of the permanence of their ethnies, and therefore underplaying the affective dimensions of ethnic groups; see Banks, Ethnicity, 9. Instrumentalism is often linked to constructivist approaches, which claim that national and ethnic identities are produced by recent historical forces despite representing themselves as “ancient”; see Ernest Gellner, Nationalism (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1997), and Nations and Nationalism: New Perspectives on the Past (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983). This opposition manifests itself beyond merely the theoretical level. The primordialist / instrumentalist distinction is often replicated in emic / etic approaches to ethnic identity; whereas the primordialist view of ethnicity is more likely to be held by members of an ethnic group, the instrumental perspective is more frequently that of outsiders, such as anthropologists. 16. Cf. Richard Jenkins, “Rethinking ‘Ethnicity’: Identity Categorization and Power,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 17, no. 2 (1994): 197–223. 17. Cf. Jenkins, “Rethinking.”

SOUTHWOOD An Ethnic Affair?

51

In such circumstances, who, or what, determines the preservation of ethnic classifications? Eriksen introduces two further sets of distinctions between different processes of categorization which also sharpen our analytical sensitivity: When…principles of inclusion and exclusion allow for differences of degree, we may call them analogic. They do not encourage the formation of unambiguous clear-cut boundaries. When, on the contrary, systems of classification operate on an unambiguous inclusion / exclusion basis where all outsiders are regarded as “more or less the same” they may be spoken of as digital.18

However, whether “analogical” or “digital” categorization is occurring, or whether, as Jenkins states, internal or external mechanisms of classification are being utilized, such categories do not emerge from nowhere. Rather, as Eriksen illustrates, the formation of new ethnic categories follows one of two general patterns. Either, existing identifications are extended, or “fission” occurs, that is, a reduction in the size of the group with presumed shared ancestry.19 To summarize, ethnic designations create a sense of bounded order by introducing distinctions between certain groups and relevant Others. Once groups are associated with particular categories, the category itself proceeds and predetermines interpretations of their identity. Within such cognitive frameworks, ethnic anomalies serve to exemplify the significance of categories, and of ethnicity, through becoming the focus of attention and source of conflict. Such anomalies compel groups to make decisions about either boundary contraction (by their exclusion) or expansion (by their inclusion) since their anomalous existence threatens categories altogether. Finally, examining who has the power to classify ethnically whom provides a vital clue for determining which groups retain power to define where boundaries should lie and for recognizing where the central social tensions lie within a society. An obvious starting point for applying this research to Ezra’s intermarriage crisis is with regard to the archaized categories which introduce the narrative. We are informed that: The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, [doing] according to their abominations, [even] of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. (Ezra 9:1)

18. Cf. Eriksen, Ethnicity, 67. 19. Cf. ibid.

52

Mixed Marriages

The list of peoples, which resembles other Pentateuchal lists of Israel’s pre-conquest, archetypical enemies, is anachronistic (e.g. Gen 15:19–21; Exod 3:8, 17; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 20:17; Judg 3:5).20 Of the nations enumerated, only the Ammonites, Moabites and Egyptians were still in existence during the postexilic period. The “Ammonites and Moabites” appear to be drawn from Deut 23:3, as those who “shall not enter the congregation” (cf. Ezra 10:1, 8, 12, 14) and whose peace and welfare is not to be sought “forever” (Deut 23:6; Ezra 9:12; cf. Neh 13:1–3, 23– 27).21 Of the various explanations concerning the purpose of this list, however, Lemche’s suggestion that the list serves a more symbolic purpose wherein the Canaanite nations function as retrospective representations of the people encountered in the land by those returning from the Babylonian exile is particularly tantalizing.22 In light of the research concerning ethnic labelling a rethinking of the significance of these fundamental categories is necessary. Initially, by accusing Israel of not separating from the various groups of peoples, the narrative immediately sets the perimeters for discussion and interpretation of these groups as those who are not legitimate candidates with which to form unions. The text therefore brings the ethnic boundary to the forefront of the narrative by presenting a binaristic world of those internal to the ethnos and all “Others” outside this boundary who are ascribed titles which resemble the nation’s traditional rivals. Thus, dormant ethnic boundaries between “ancient” Israel and its archaic enemies are re-invoked to symbolically dichotomize between the golah

20. Tan convincingly illustrates the interrelationship between the lists in Ezra 9:1; Neh 13:1 and 1 Kgs 11:1; Exod 34:11; Deut 7:1; 23:4–9 through presenting the data in the form of a table; see Nany Nam Hoon Tan, The “Foreignness” of the Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1–9: A Study of the Origin and Development of a Biblical Motif (BZAW 381; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 57. 21. 1 Esd 8:66 (MT Ezra 9:1) reads “Edomites” καί ’Ιδοθμαίων (hypothetically, the Hebrew would be ‫וֹמי‬ ִ ‫ ) ֲאד‬instead of “Amorites” ‫ ֱאמ ִֹרי‬, implying the typical scribal errors of daleth–resh orthographic confusion and metathesis (cf. Mal 1:4–5). However, one should hesitate before emending the MT since, as Talshir notes, 1 Esdras is preoccupied with the Edomites (1 Esd 4:45, 50); cf. Zipora Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary (SBLSCS 50; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2001), 441; cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; London: SCM, 1988); John R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup 77; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989). 22. Cf. Niels Peter Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites (JSOTSup 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 84. The text itself indicates that these people are not “Canaanites,” but are like them, as the prepositions in Ezra 9:1 ‫ כתועבתיהם לכנעני‬suggest.

SOUTHWOOD An Ethnic Affair?

53

and the “people of the land.”23 The impact of this division is heightened in light of Eriksen’s observation that new categories do not emerge from nowhere but may be either analogic or digital.24 By redacting ancient titles into the narrative’s setting, Ezra 9–10 creates a cognitive map through which the “foreign women” from the “people of the land” are to be perceived by those self-ascribing the title the “Holy Seed” (Ezra 9:2). Furthermore, Eriksen’s description of “digital” classification—where ethnic groups regard outsiders as homogenous and highlight the unambiguous inclusion / exclusion character of the ethnic boundary—provides a useful way of understanding the dynamics of Ezra’s selection of a mixture of archaized and derogatory terminology. There is no possibility for conversion; one is simply within or without the Israelite ethnos. Finally, it is important to appreciate the significance of the foreign women and people of the lands’ silence throughout the episode.25 According to Jenkins’s criteria for assessing power relations, Ezra 9–10 presents a situation of “conflictual” dynamics since those responsible for the text retain the social power to impose the names and characterization upon the groups whom it is necessary to “separate” ‫ בדל‬from.26 As Cohen argued, ascriptions of Others may not always be accepted. Nevertheless, such enforced categories are preserved in this instance not only by those advocating such perspectives on a social level, but also through the power of textualizing these categories.27 Such textualization allows for not only the transmission and dissemination of certain cognitive maps,

23. Post-exilic references to the people of the land generally tend to be pejorative; see Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, “‫—עם הארץ‬A Semantic Revolution,” ZAW 95 (1983): 437–40; Aharon Oppenheimer, The >Am Ha-aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 83–84; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, Tex.: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 131; Solomon Zeitlin, “The Am Ha-aretz,” Jewish Quarterly Review 23 (1932): 45–61. 24. Cf. Eriksen, Ethnicity. 25. Ironically, if any group of people qualifies for the ascription “foreign” it is not those who are currently living in the post-exilic Yehud, but those who have been outside the land, that is, the “children of the exile.” 26. Cf. Jenkins, “Rethinking.” 27. Philip F. Esler, “Ezra–Nehemiah as a Narrative of (Re-Invented) Israelite Identity,” BibInt 11, no. 3–4 (2003): 413–26; David M. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Stuart Weeks, “Biblical Literature and the Emergence of Ancient Jewish Nationalism,” BibInt 10, no. 2 (2002): 144–57; Anthony D. Smith, “Ethnic Election and National Destiny: Some Religious Origins of Nationalist Ideas,” Nations and Nationalism 5, no. 3 (1999): 331–55.

54

Mixed Marriages

but also has a snowballing effect through influence of later texts.28 As such, Ezra’s technique of introducing the intermarriage crisis using labels which distance the people of the land by setting them up as Israel’s enemies is an extremely effective way of demarcating and consolidating ethnic boundaries by creating criteria for evaluation of “Others” for later generations of readers. Immediately after these ethnic boundaries are established, the text provides greater clarification of the groups involved. Those who are associated with Israel’s archaic enemies are the “people of the land” with whom the “foreign women” are identified, and those internal to Israelite ethnos, designated as the “Holy Seed,” are juxtaposed to this group: For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the Holy Seed (‫ )זרע הקדש‬have mingled themselves (‫ )התערב‬with the people of the lands (‫)עמי הארצות‬. (Ezra 9:2)

The title “Holy Seed” is a particularly powerful self-ascription. The title’s position within the sentence implies a diametric opposition between the communities specified, and the ascription itself also emphasizes the boundaries of the ethnos. Jenkins’s proposition regarding the relationship between ascription and power is just as relevant to this title as it was to the designations of nations, as formerly recognized. Rather than being “categorized,” as the “people of the lands” and “foreign women” are by the external definition of those responsible for the text, the group’s internal definition is propounded to audiences. Furthermore, this unequal power relationship is developed through the huge level of groupidentification within the text (Israel, Children of the Exile, Remnant) which starkly contrasts to the homogenized picture of those outside the boundaries. Eriksen’s observation regarding the formation of new ethnic categories through “fission,” which presumes a reduction in the size of the group with presumed shared ancestry, is also relevant with respect to the title.29 As Japhet has argued,30 those who may legitimately participate

28. Cf. Christine Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31; London: University of California Press, 1999); Sara Japhet, “The Concept of the ‘Remnant’ in the Restoration Period,” in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments: Festschrift für Erich Zenger (ed. F. L. Hossfeld and L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger; HBS 44; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2004), 14–31. 29. Cf. Eriksen, Ethnicity. 30. Cf. Japhet, Concept.

SOUTHWOOD An Ethnic Affair?

55

as part of Israel, that is, the Holy Seed community, are restricted to those who have returned from the exile, the Remnant. Most significantly, the title allows us to discern the mechanisms through which the intermarriage crisis may have arisen with respect to Douglas’s and Leach’s descriptions of the ethnic anomaly, or the anxietyprovoking “betwixt and between” zone which threatens the established, bounded ordering of identity. The label emphasizes the notion of Israel as a holy nation (Exod 19:6; Lev 19:2),31 which forms the motivation for avoiding intermarriage, and indeed any alliance with the Canaanite nations. In Deut 7, the hyperbolic ‫ חרם‬language underscores this: You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, nor shall you take his daughter to your son… For you are a people, holy to Yahweh your God: Yahweh, your God has chosen you to be a treasured people… (Deut 7:3, 6; cf. Ezra 9:2, 14)

Through being turned away by other nations to serve “other gods,” Israel would compromise its “holy” status (Deut 7:4–5). In its use of the title the “Holy Seed,” Ezra appears to have fused this interpretation of holiness with the notion of holiness found in P, where it designates that which is restricted to Yahweh and regulation of communication and worship with Yahweh through the cult. The result is that those claiming to participate in Israel must regulate their personal lives according to the restrictions placed upon priests.32 Thus, Milgrom’s description of Ezra’s portrayal of Israel as a sanctum is fitting.33 The (emic-level) implication inherent in such a self-definition is that those who are not within the boundaries—that is, the “foreign” “people of the land” group—of the “holy” community are impure, and a source of chaos and disorder. Therefore, it would be potentially lethal to mix the spheres. Given this perspective, the quality of holiness operates according to the logic of ethnic intermixing, where the “volatile zone between the boundaries,” as previously discussed, becomes all-important. As such, not only are those who are considered to be inherently external to the holiness boundary excluded, but also those who choose to compromise their holy status. This interpretation of the “holy” component to the title “the Holy Seed” becomes explicit in light of the description of “foreign women” along with the “people of the land” using terms associated with cultic 31. Cf. Smith, “Election.” 32. As we shall see, the marriage restrictions applied to the community in Ezra 9–10 appear to be the regulations designed for priestly marriage. 33. Cf. Jacob Milgrom, “The Concept of Ma>al in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 96, no. 2 (1976): 236–47.

56

Mixed Marriages

purity.34 Just as the priests are “set apart” (‫בדל‬, Ezra 8:24) as “holy to Yahweh” (‫קדש ליהוה‬, Ezra 8:28), so too the crisis is caused in Ezra 9–10 by the “Holy Seed” not setting themselves apart (‫)בדל‬, that is, by making unions with foreign women (Ezra 9:1). Those who do not, therefore “separate themselves” (‫הבדלו‬, Ezra 10:11, 16) from the “foreign women of the people of the land” must “be separated from the congregation” (‫יבדל מקהל‬, Ezra 10:8; cf. Ezra 6:21; Neh 9:2; 10:28; 13:13). Effectively, Ezra transforms the language of holiness by applying it to ethnicity. The term is used in an exclusionary, polemical sense, and it is through this that ethnicity is communicated in the guise of ritualized religious regulation. What appears to be attested within the text is what Leach described as the anxiety which occurs concerning the uncertainty regarding where “the edge of category A turning into the edge of category not-A.”35 By intermarrying, cherished categories which have been applied to communities in Ezra, that is, the Holy and the abominable, or unclean, have been challenged, and through this a new, anomalous, zone between the categories consisting of supposedly “foreign” women,36 their children, 34. Saul M. Olyan, “Purity Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 35, no. 1 (2004): 1–17. 35. Leach, “Ordering,” 35. 36. The extent to which the so-called foreign women are genuinely ethnically different is one of the central issues at stake. A number of theories exist concerning the women’s provenance. Eskenazi and Judd discuss a number of possibilities, such as foreigners who had moved into the land following the exile, and foreigners who had journeyed with the return community to Yehud; see Tamara C. Eskenazi and Eleanor P. Judd, “Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 266–85. However, Smith-Christopher is surely right to be suspicious of the text’s lines of debate regarding the issue of ethnicity, arguing that unlike in Nehemiah, in Ezra we are dealing the an intra-Jewish debate, where “…some of these ‘mixed’ marriages—particularly in Ezra—were probably not ‘mixed’ at all in any truly racial / ethnic sense of the term, and may well have represented marriages between Jews who were not a part of the exilic-formed ‘Sons of the Golah,’ with those who were”; see Daniel L. SmithChristopher, “Between Ezra and Isaiah: Exclusion, Transformation and Inclusion of the ‘Foreigner’ in Post-Exilic Biblical Theology,” in Ethnicity and the Bible (ed. M. G. Brett; Biblical Interpretation Series 19; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 117–44 (123), and “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judean Community,” in Eskenazi and Richards, eds., Second Temple Studies 2, 243–65 (257). Regardless of their actual ethnicity, it is clear that the “foreign” women within the “people of the land” group are being interpreted as foreigners by the golah. One reason for this may be, as I argue in my Ethnicity and the Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10: An Anthropological Approach (OTMS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming), the effects of

SOUTHWOOD An Ethnic Affair?

57

and those who had married such women, has been created. In order to defuse this tension and sure up the boundaries, those who have intermarried must either “be separated from” the ethnos or separate themselves from their foreign wives. Therefore, the intermarriage crisis acts as a veil for a debate concerning ethnic differentiation. The impact of the title is strengthened in consideration of the explicitly biological collective metaphor “seed” (‫)זרע‬, which also restricts the boundaries demarcating participation. The title is primordial, pivoting on an emic assumption of the fixed, non-transferable qualities of community membership which are bestowed only through continuity with the exilic past.37 The noun “seed” has a broad semantic range and can be used to indicate agricultural seeds, descent, a nation, sperm, or the beginning of an idea. Thus, the title “Holy Seed” retains the potential for a range of meanings. Those responsible for the text are clearly aware of, and willing to re-apply, the fluidity of the metaphor “the Holy Seed” to ethnicity. In Ezra, the title is not only imbued with notions of commonality or, as Hayes puts it, “genealogical purity,” but is also used as a particularly rural image. Effectively, the semantic range of the noun ‫ זרע‬is exploited in terms of its potential to define the boundaries of who constitutes the ethnos through reapplying agricultural injunctions against the mixing of different species of seeds within the Holiness Code to the community (Lev 19:19). The two Hiphil verbs that are used to refer to the apparently illegitimate unions highlight this effectively. Just as, according to Leviticus, diverse seeds must not be sown together (cf. Lev 13:48, 49, 51, 52, 53, functional autonomy that are associated with return migration communities. In this case, it is, ironically, the fact that the opposing group’s ethnicity is close rather than distant to that of the golah community which transforms them into “proximate others” who constitute the deepest threat to ethnicity. As Cohen remarks, “…the finer the differences between people, the stronger is the commitment people have to them”; see Abner P. Cohen, The Symbolic Construction of Community Key Ideas (Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 1985), 110. 37. Debates concerning the validation of property claims and the debate concerning who could legitimately declare themselves part of “true Israel” appear to have endured since the exile. For example, Ezekiel mentions a ‫כתב בית ישראל‬ (“record of the house of Israel”) which equates the removal of names from the book with the removal of rights to return (Ezek 13:9). In turn, we find condemnation of claims to land made by those who had not been exiled (Jer 23; Ezek 11:14–21). However, it is uncertain whether we can verifiably link such lists in Ezra to supposed documents from prophetic texts; cf. Kenton L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 50.

58

Mixed Marriages

56, 57, 58, 59; 19:19; 22:9–11), the “Holy Seed” must not intermingle (‫התערב‬, Ezra 9:2; Ps 106:35) or intermarry (‫התחתן‬, Ezra 9:14) but must maintain unsullied ancestries for legitimate participation in the ethnos. The fertile metaphor is germinated throughout the text by the repeated emphasis of the religious impediments against such marriages. Intermarriages between Israel and other nations are represented through the text as the major source of the sin that accumulated against Israel, eventually causing of the Babylonian exile. As Tan states, this is why Ezra’s prayer warns that “if they continue to allow these impurities to remain among them, and to contaminate their holiness through the mixed marriages, Yahweh will indeed annihilate Israel completely (Ezra 9:13–14).”38 Thus, any intermarriage between the “Holy Seed” and “foreign women” could be fatal for the community. The volatile “betwixt and between” zone results in utter destruction. Effectively, therefore, the title allows the divisions of ritual regulation to be translated into the social sphere, and through this, provides a powerful validation of endogamy.39 This interpretation of the title becomes increasingly persuasive in light of the text’s conversion of priestly marriage requirements concerning transmission of holiness through descent into regulations for the entire community.40 Therefore, the metaphoric complexities of the title enable texts to be twisted exegetically into a pseudo-legal argument, drawn from the Holiness Code, against making unions with foreign women.41 To sum up, when refracted through the analytical prism of ethnicity, Ezra’s intermarriage crisis provides some striking insights into the possible power structures within post-exilic Yehud, and enables us to gain a better understanding of why the text offers no opportunities for conversion. Maintaining strict boundaries, as signified through categories which are self-ascribed and ascribed to Others, appears to have been a priority for those responsible for the text, perhaps signifying their perceptions of 38. Tan, Foreignness, 49. 39. Cf. Hannah Harrington, The Purity Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), 112–13. 40. In the Holiness Code, and in Ezekiel, the priest’s sexual purity must be guarded “so that he does not profane his seed” (‫ ;)לא יחלל זרעו‬wives may be chosen only “from the seed of the house of Israel” (‫מזרע בית ישראל‬, Lev 21:7, 14–15; 22:13; Ezek 44:22; cf. Mal 2:15). As in Ezra, these priestly guidelines for marriage insist that where the priesthood is profaned, trespass (‫ )עון‬and guilt (‫ )אשמה‬must be borne, and somehow atoned for (Ezra 9:6–7, 13; 10:10, 19; Lev 22:16). 41. Cf. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 132, as well as Bob Becking, “Continuity and Community: The Belief System in the Book of Ezra,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 256–75 (270).

SOUTHWOOD An Ethnic Affair?

59

“threat” to ethnicity. However, to read against the grain, the fact that there is an intermarriage crisis attested at all indicates that not everyone within the community of returned exiles would have retained such stringent interpretations of Israel’s ethnic boundaries. Nevertheless, through preserving such beliefs about ethnic heritage textually, Ezra’s description of an intermarriage crisis provides a means of crystallizing and disseminating such ethnic perspectives. The text itself, therefore, acts as a foundation for ethnic identity in later Judaism.

THE QUESTION OF MIXED MARRIAGES BETWEEN THE POLES OF DIASPORA AND HOMELAND: OBSERVATIONS IN EZRA–NEHEMIAH* Ralf Rothenbusch

In the following study I want to propose some observations built upon my understanding of the significance of mixed marriages in Ezra–Nehemiah, a book that is dominated by the perspective of the Babylonian Diaspora and presents all the positive and important developments in post-exilic Judah as being achievements accomplished by this community. From here I would like to investigate the same subject in some other post-exilic texts, ones which I think reflect alternative views of groups in the homeland. It is, of course, a certain simplification to speak of the Diaspora on one side and of the homeland on the other. Clearly, there are different perspectives represented in each of the two communities, especially in later times in Judah when there was a process of amalgamation between Judahite identities from the Diaspora and the homeland.1 Nevertheless, I assume that one can detect different perspectives and conceptions in these texts mainly because of the different social situations from which they emerged.2

* I wish to thank C. Lortie M.A. for his kind help with the formulation of this English article. 1. Cf. Ralf Rothenbusch, “Die Auseinandersetzung um die Identität Israels im Esra- und Nehemiabuch,” in Die Identität Israels: Entwicklungen und Kontroversen in alttestamentlicher Zeit (ed. H. Irsigler; HBS 56; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2009), 111–44 (126–36). 2. I would like to underline here that it is not to be expected or even considered possible that endogamy and the prohibition of mixed marriages is total. After John W. Adams and Alice B. Kasakoff, “Factors Underlying Endogamous Group Size,” in Population and Social Organization (ed. M. Nag; World Anthropology 66; The Hague: Mouton, 1975), 147–74 (151), the highest possible rate of endogamy in groups of about 10,000 persons is between 70 and 90%.

ROTHENBUSCH The Question of Mixed Marriages

61

The Mixed Marriages in Ezra–Nehemiah as a Concern of the Diaspora From the second half of the fifth century B.C.E. one can observe the formation of a Judean or early Jewish identity in Judah, one which is essentially connected with an encounter of the identities that developed in the Diaspora and in the homeland.3 Two observances play a major role in this process: the observation of the Sabbath and the avoidance of mixed marriages. Sociologically, these observations have different functions and cannot simply be equated with one another. The Sabbath is a ritual “identity marker” that articulates the membership of the ethnic group and allows them to experience it.4 On the other hand, the prohibition of mixed marriages serves to constitute group endogamy, which is of high importance for the survival of a group in the minority situation of the Diaspora, though much less for the majority-population in the homeland.5 This is why there was a much more open attitude there in this

3. Cf. Rothenbusch, “Auseinandersetzung,” and Rothenbusch, “…abgesondert zur Tora Gottes hin”. Ethnisch/religiöse Identitäten im Esra/Nehemiabuch (HBS 62; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, forthcoming). 4. Since Fredrik Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1969), ethnicity is no longer defined by essential facts but by “ethnic boundaries,” through which groups develop, via interaction with similar groups in a process of in- and exclusion, an ethnic identity. Important is the construction and existence of collective boundaries which have to be articulated; cf. Erwin Orywal and Katharina Hackstein, “Ethnizität. Die Konstruktion ethnischer Wirklichkeiten,” in Handbuch der Ethnologie (ed. T. Schweizer; Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1993), 593–609 (600–601). Cf. Katharina Hackstein, Ethnizität und Situation. Gara¡ — eine vorderorientalische Kleinstadt (BTAVO B 94; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1989), 1–2: “Symbole der ethnischen Abgrenzung dienen somit zur Markierung von ethnischen Grenzen, haben zusätzlich emotiven Charakter und strukturieren Kommunikation innerhalb und zwischen ethnischen Gruppen.” In this respect rituals play an important role; cf. Anthony P. Cohen, The Symbolic Construction of Community (London: Ellis Horwood & Tavistock, 1985), 50: “People participate in rituals for all sorts of reasons. But, whatever their motivations or ostensible purposes, it would seem that much ritual also has this capacity to heighten consciousness. It should not be surprising, therefore, to find ritual occupying a prominent place in the repertoire of symbolic devices through which community boundaries are affirmed and reinforced.” Cohen (p. 13) goes on to state: “This consciousness of community is, then, encapsulated in perception of its boundaries, boundaries which are themselves largely constituted by people in interaction.” 5. Rainer Albertz, “Ethnische und kultische Konzepte in der Politik Nehemias,” in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des

62

Mixed Marriages

respect. This difference could also be the reason why the Sabbath observance was received much more broadly in the homeland than the prohibition of mixed marriages (cf., e.g., Exod 31:12–17; 35:1–3; Isa 56:1–8). In his critique of mixed marriages, Nehemiah, a Judean from the Diaspora, addresses a practice which was, at least among the elite of Judean society, more or less common. In many cases, for example the marriage of Tobiah with the daughter of the Judean Shechaniah (Neh 6:18), what Nehemiah took as an unlawful mixed marriage was not seen as such in Judean society.6 In my view, Nehemiah is in this case acting as an ethnic leader whose aim is to enforce a Judean identity formed by the Babylonian Diaspora, one which was different from the identity which had developed in the Judean homeland. For him, his action against mixed marriages is about building an ethnic identity distinct from other people groups.7 Therefore, the first reason he gives for his intervention is cultural: the mixed marriages with women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab result in half of their children speaking only the language of their

Alten, Ersten Testaments. FS Erich Zenger (ed. F.-L. Hossfeld and L. SchwienhorstSchönberger; HBS 44; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2004), 13–32 (23–26), stresses the importance of the minority experience in the Diaspora for the behavior and activity of Nehemiah, especially in his second stay. 6. Albertz, “Konzepte,” 19–21 (p. 21: “Die Mehrheit der Aristokraten [scil.: of Judah] wollte definitiv kein isoliertes Juda”). 7. On the whole, cf. Rothenbusch, “Auseinandersetzung,” 112–20; similarly, Albertz, “Konzepte,” 23–26. Cf. also Michele Galizia, “Die Entstehung und Entwicklung von Mittelklasse, Beamten und Ethnizität in Rejang-Lebong, südliches Sumatra,” IAF 27 (1996): 241–67 (243): “Ethnic leaders benutzen Sprache, Religion, Rituale, Arbeitsorganisation, alltägliche Verhaltensweisen als culture markers zur Definition einer Wir-Gruppe und zur Abgrenzung gegenüber Fremden. Diese culture markers vermitteln das Gefühl, eine eigenständige, besondere Kultur zu besitzen. Eine solcherart erreichte vertikale Integration vermittelt allen, vor allem auch armen und machtlosen Mitgliedern der Gemeinschaft, ein Gefühl des Dazugehörens und der Grösse, schweisst sie zu einer Einheit zusammen und ermöglicht sowohl gezielte Manipulation, wie auch eine schlagkräftige Solidarität zur Verteidigung ökonomischer Nischen.” An interesting biblical example is described by Karel van der Toorn, “Ritual Resistance and Self-Assertion: The Rechabites in Early Israelite Religion,” in Pluralism and Identity: Studies in Ritual Behaviour (ed. J. Platvoet and K. van der Toorn; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 229–59, with the activity of the Rechabite Jonadab (cf. Jer 35:6, 8). During the religious and political tensions in the time of Ahab he ritualized an older way of life, adapted to the original circumstances of their life, and achieved a strengthening of the ethnic identity of his group.

ROTHENBUSCH The Question of Mixed Marriages

63

foreign mothers, rather than Judean (Neh 13:23–24).8 Language plays a role here as an important element of ethnic identity.9 Such an attitude is plausible in the face of modern Diaspora research and to be expected. The peculiarity of ethnic groups in a Diaspora situation is their relation to the homeland,10 and constitutive for a Diaspora is the permanent identification with the real or fictive homeland its cultural and religious traditions, which are often linked with a clear segregation from the traditions of the country and the society in which this group now lives.11 Yet the maintenance of their own identity is usually not an immutable continuity, but in fact a process of social and religious 8. Cf. Albertz, “Konzepte,” 24–25. Christiane Karrer, Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologisch-politischen Vorstellungen im Esra-NehemiaBuch (BZAW 308; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 154–61, sees the question of mixed marriages in Neh 13:23–29 also under the aspect of ethnic identity and stresses the importance of the loss of language in this context. Karrer’s position is similar to the earlier one of Wilhelm Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia samt 3.Esra (HAT I/20; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949), 209, who observes that “hier Nehemia ein Bewußtsein davon [verrät], wie wichtig die Erhaltung der Sprache für die Erhaltung von Volkstum und Religion ist.” 9. E. Orywal and K. Hackstein, Ethnische Gruppen des Vorderen Orients: Quellen und Kommentare zur Übersichtskarte A VIII 13 des „Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients“ (BTAVO B/91; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1991), 13: “Der Begriff primordial bezieht sich auf die Vorstellung, daß die Mitglieder ethnischer Gruppen durch die in frühester Kindheit erworbenen Merkmale der Abstammung, Sprache und Religion sowie der Geburt an einem bestimmten Ort eng verbunden sind. Der Begriff der situativen Ethnizität hingegen modifiziert diesen deterministischen Ansatz und besagt, daß der Rekurs auf ethnische Gemeinsamkeiten von der sozialen Situation abhängig ist, in der sich die Mitglieder der Gruppe zum Zeitpunkt ihrer ethnischen Standortbestimmung befinden…beide Aspekte lassen sich bei allen ethnischen Gruppen finden.” Cf. also Orywal and Hackstein, “Ethnizität,” 594–96. 10. Cf. Astrid Wonneberger, I’m Proud to be Irish: The Construction of Ethnic Identities in the Irish Diaspora in the USA (Herodot 4; Hamburg: Kovač, 2001), 24–25: “Obviously, the crucial difference to other ethnic groups is the (real and / or imaginary) relationship towards a country of origin. In this sense, diaspora can be regarded as a special form of ethnic group, since it shares with it all other characteristics.” 11. Cf., e.g., Martin Baumann, “Conceptualizing Diaspora: The Preservation of Religious Identity in Foreign Parts, Exemplified by Hindu Communities Outside India,” Temenos 31 (1995): 19–35 (22); Martin Baumann, “Diaspora: Genealogies of Semantics and Transcultural Comparison,” Numen 47 (2000): 313–37 (326– 27); Steven Vertovec, “Religion and Diaspora,” in New Approaches to the Study of Religion. Vol. 2, Textual, Comparative, Sociological and Cognitive Approaches (ed. P. Antes et al.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 275–82; Ruth Mayer, Diaspora: Eine kritische Begriffsbestimmung (Cultural Studies 14; Bielefeld: Transcript, 2005), 8–14.

64

Mixed Marriages

change. Because of the situational character of ethnicity, an ethnic identity cannot simply be transferred by migration into another social context. Obviously, although in the Diaspora the ethnic identity that was formed in the homeland has central importance, it is reformulated under new and different conditions.12 So, the reality of Diaspora-existence is shaped by a duality of continuity and change, and the identity is not something static but a dynamic process.13 Accordingly, after 150 years of distinct development, until the second half of the fifth century, there must have been social, cultural and religious differences between the homeland Judah and the Babylonian Diaspora.14 In Judah, with a majority of the population and the Jerusalem Temple being the cultic centre, there were totally different conditions than in highly developed urban Babylon, where the Judean population was a distinct minority. But the just-mentioned relation from the Diaspora to the homeland suggests that these developments did not happen in total isolation from one another. It has often been observed that Diaspora societies try to influence their motherland,15 being of the opinion that they maintain its traditions more faithfully, even if this is not the reality.16 Nehemiah’s behavior, as mentioned above, was probably motivated by the conviction that he, as part of the Babylonian Diaspora, represented the “true” Judean identity, which he intended to bring back to Judah. In this context one must also consider the activity of Ezra, who comes a few decades later from Babylonia to Judah.17 He, too, acts as a 12. Cf., e.g., Floya Anthias, “Evaluating ‘Diaspora’: Beyond Ethnicity?,” Sociology 32 (1998): 557–80 (568–70). 13. Baumann, “Conceptualizing Diaspora,” 27; cf. also Vertovec, “Religion and Diaspora,” 285–86. 14. Cf. Daniel L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), passim. 15. Cf. Ninian Smart, “The Importance of Diaspora,” in Gilgut (ed. S. Shaked et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 288–97 (289) (for the Sikh Diaspora in Great Britain and their influence in Punjab); Mayer, Diaspora, 18–19 (for the Indian Diaspora in the USA); Mayer, Diaspora, 146–47 (for the Chinese Diaspora in the USA); Wonneberger, Ethnic Identities, 120–23, 204–17 (for the Irish Diaspora in the USA); cf. also Robert Hettlage, “Diaspora: Umrisse zu einer soziologischen Theorie,” in Identität in der Fremde (ed. M. Dabag and K. Platt; Bochum: Universitätsverlag, 1993), 75–105 (87–88). 16. Cf. Smart, Diaspora, 291; Hettlage, Diaspora, 98–99; Sean McLoughlin, “Migration, Diaspora and Transnationalism: Transformations of Religion and Culture in Globalizing Age,” in The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion (ed. J. R. Hinnells; London: Routledge, 2005), 526–49 (531). 17. This dating of Ezra in my view is the best solution for the chronological problems in Ezra–Nehemiah, cf., e.g., Loring W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical

ROTHENBUSCH The Question of Mixed Marriages

65

representative of the Diaspora, also regarding the mixed marriage case, but more forcefully than Nehemiah. Ezra not simply criticizes mixed marriages—he insists that they be ended through divorce (Ezra 9–10).18 In this case, the practice of group-endogamy as “ethnic boundary” can be observed clearly, a boundary which, as will be seen below in more detail, excludes the “people of the lands.”19 The separation culminating in the divorce of mixed marriages strengthens the in-group’s cohesiveness. Thus, it is not only about separation, but also about inclusion into a certain group identity which is construed against the background of otherness. This happens under the influence of the Babylonian Diaspora, while its idea of separation obviously was still not implemented in the homeland.

Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; New York: Scribner’s, 1913; repr.: Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980), 12, 28–30, 303; Norman H. Snaith, “The Date of Ezra’s Arrival in Jerusalem,” ZAW 63 (1951): 53–66 (62–63); Henri Cazelles, “La Mission d’Esdras,” VT 4 (1954): 113–40 (116, 130); Kurt Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia (ATD 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 13–14, 212; Arvid S. Kapelrud, “Review of J. M. Myers, Ezra. Nehemiah. AB 14,” JBL 85 (1966): 252–54; V. Pavlovský, “Die Chronologie der Tätigkeit Esdras: Versuch einer neuen Lösung,” Bib 38 (1957): 275–305 (289–95); Kurt Galling, Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persisches Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964), 160–61; Harold H. Rowley, “The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (ed. H. H. Rowley; Budapest: Globus, 1948; repr. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 137–68 (153–59); John A. Emerton, “Did Ezra go to Jerusalem in 428 BC?,” JThS 17 (1966): 1–19; Ulrich Kellermann, “Erwägungen zum Problem der Esradatierung,” ZAW 80 (1968): 55–87 (64–65); Leonard H. Brockington, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (The Century Bible, New Series; London: Nelson, 1969), 29–32; Edward Lipiński, “Review of W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. 1,” BibOr 42 (1985): 160–68 (165); Leslie McFall, “Was Nehemiah Contemporary with Ezra in 458 BC?,” WTJ 53 (1991): 263–93 (264–65 with n. 4) (older literature); Sara Japhet, “Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra– Nehemiah,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 189–216 (206). 18. For the whole, cf. Rothenbusch, “Auseinandersetzung,” 120–24. 19. Though Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 154–61, stresses rightly the aspect of ethnicity in Nehemiah’s dealing with mixed marriages, in her treatment of the divorce of mixed marriages in Ezra 9–10 this plays practically no role. She presents Ezra’s activity mainly under the aspect of a distinction between pure and impure in the context of a conception of holiness (cf. pp. 267–75, 277, 278–83). Karrer recognizes the close relation to the question of identity (p. 267), but does not distinguish enough between the religious argumentation and ethnic reasons for the rejection of mixed marriages.

66

Mixed Marriages

In what follows, then, the first topic I want to investigate in more detail is the treatment of mixed marriages in the Ezra Narrative as an expression of the Diaspora. The Treatment of the Mixed Marriages in the Ezra Narrative The Ezra Narrative (Ezra 7–10; Neh 8) is a literary text from the middle of the fourth century B.C.E., a work which was incorporated in the book of Ezra–Nehemiah.20 The text has a tripartite structure in which the mixed marriage divorce scene occupies the centre, but is not the climax of the story. It demonstrates paradigmatically how the non-Torahconforming life of the Judean homeland population is surmounted. The exposition (Ezra 7–8) introduces the scribe Ezra, who comes with royal sanction as an envoy of the Diaspora in order to implement the Torah, or the religious traditions developed in the Babylonian Diaspora, in Judah.21 The mixed marriage divorces of Ezra 9–10, then, serve as a prelude to the third and final part of the text, which is the real climax of the story. This is the (re)announcement of the Torah and the resultant realignment of life in Judah in Neh 8, which originally came immediately after Ezra 7–10.22

20. Cf. Rothenbusch, Identitäten. 21. Cf. Rothenbusch, “Auseinandersetzung,” 122–23. Gustav Hölscher, “Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia,” in Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, vol. 2 (ed. E. Kautzsch; 4th ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1923), 517, 542–43; Sigmund Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia (3 vols.; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1965), 124–36; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 145, rightly emphasize that the Torah of Ezra is no hitherto unknown law; see, similarly, Galling, Esra, 233; Heinrich Schneider, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments 4/2; Bonn: Hanstein, 1959), 133; Brockington, Ezra, 92, 164; Wilhelm T. in der Smitten, Esra: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (SSN 15; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1973), 125, 130; Franz C. Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982), 99; Stefan Stiegler, Die nachexilische JHWH-Gemeinde in Jerusalem: Ein Beitrag zu einer alttestamentlichen Ekklesiologie (BEATAJ 34; Frankfurt: Lang, 1994), 43; Thomas Willi, Juda–Jehud– Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12; Tübingen: Mohr, 1995), 109–10; Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 263–67, 276–77. In view of the older Torah tradition, this would undermine their claim. But the Torah has to be brought to the homeland from the Diaspora anew, which means in the form that it had developed while in exile (cf. Galling, Esra, 233: “Es wäre voreilig, daraus zu schließen, daß Esra dieses Gesetz verfaßt habe [so Ed. Meyer], vielmehr handelt es sich um die für die babylonische Diaspora um 400 v. Chr. maßgebende Tora”). 22. For discussion, cf. Rothenbusch, Identitäten.

ROTHENBUSCH The Question of Mixed Marriages

67

In my view, it is important to distinguish between the older story of mixed marriage divorce in Ezra 9–10, in which Ezra is not mentioned, and its reformulation with Ezra’s involvement in the Ezra Narrative.23 For the present discussion this is of minor importance. My concern here is the presentation and evaluation of mixed marriages in the final text of the Ezra Narrative. In these two chapters, mixed marriages are designated as misdemeanors on several occasions. The most important term for this is ‫מעל‬, used as a verb (10:2, 10) and as a noun (9:2, 4; 10:6), which is directly related to them. In addition to this we also find ‫( פשע‬10:13). Both terms express “infidelity,” targeted mostly against YHWH, but they can also refer to infidelity against people.24 This is connected with the ‫ אשמה‬of Israel (9:6–7, 13, 15; 10:10), as well as ‫( עון‬9:6–7) and ‫( חמעשים הרעים‬9:13) that led to the punishment of exile and slavery for Israel. Ezra’s complaint about the mixed marriages is thus embedded in a general admission of guilt, which strongly stresses the importance of mixed marriages from the perspective of the Ezra Narrative. Verses 10–14 in Ezra’s prayer of confession are of particular importance for the assessment of mixed marriage. These verses show a concentric structure. (See the diagram appearing overleaf.) In the center, marked with ‫עתה‬, stands the actual mixed marriages ban (C; v. 12a-b): “Your daughters shall you not give to their sons (as wives) and their daughters shall you not take for your sons (as wife).” This prohibition is placed within a rationale that links it with the land and its (former) inhabitants (B; vv. 11a [from ‫]הארץ‬, 12c-f). The specific prohibition on mixed marriages in C (v. 12a-b) actually interrupts the more general framing statements (B). It has, as in the Ezra Narrative as a whole, exemplary or paradigmatic significance for the possession of the land. The connection between the prohibition of mixed marriages and land ownership stated by the arrangement of the text is confirmed by the pronominal relations, since all of the third person masculine plural suffixes in vv. 11–12, also in the prohibition of mixed marriages, relate to the ‫ עמי הארצות‬mentioned in v. 11.

23. The older narrative comprises: Ezra 10:1 (from ‫)נקבצו‬, 2 (without ‫)לעזרא‬, 3 (without ‫)בעצת אדני והחרדים‬, 7–9, 12 (without ‫)כד ברך‬, 15, 16 (without ‫)עזרא הכהן‬, 17–18, 20–22, 25–43; Ezra Narrative: 9:1–10:1a (until ‫)האלהים‬, 2 (‫)לעזרא‬, 3 (‫)בעצת אדני והחרדים‬, 4–6, 10–12 (‫)כדברך‬, 16 (‫)עזרא הכהן‬, 19, 44. For details and discussion, cf. Rothenbusch, Identitäten. 24. For ‫מעל‬, cf. Helmer Ringgren, “ma‘al,” ThWAT 4:1038–42; for ‫פשע‬, cf. Horst Seebass, “pasa,” ThWAT 4:803–4.

68

Mixed Marriages ‫ ועתה‬10

AI

‫מה־נאמר אלהינו אחרי־זאת‬ ‫כי עזבנו מצותי‬ ‫ עבדיך ביד צוית אשר לאמר הנביאם‬11

AII

‫לרשתה באים הארץ אשר אתם‬ ‫הארצות עמי בנדת היא נדה ארץ‬ ‫בטמאתם׃ אל־פה מפה מלאוה אשר ועבתיהם‬ ‫ ועתה‬12 ‫לבניהם אל־תתנו בנותיכם‬ ‫לבניכם אל־תשאו ובנתיהם‬ ‫עד־עולם וטובתם שלמם ולא־תדרשו‬ ‫הארץ את־טוב ואכלתם תחזקו למען‬ ‫עד־עולם׃ לבניכם והורשתם‬

B

C

B′

‫ הגדלה ובאשמתנו הרעים במעשינו עלינו כל־הבא ואחרי‬13 ‫מעוננו למטה חשכת אלהינו אתה כי‬ ‫כזאת׃ פליטה לנו ונתתה‬

AI′

‫ מצותיך להפר הנשוב‬14 ‫האלה התעבות בעמי ולהתחתן‬ ‫ופליטה׃ שארית לאין עד־כלה תאנף־בנו הלוא‬

AII′

These ‫ עמי הארצות‬made the country, through their ‫נדה‬, to “a defiled country,” an ‫ארץ נדה‬, filled totally with their “abominations” (‫)תעבתיהם‬ and their “impurity” (‫)טמאתם‬.25 Since the possession of the country is in danger, the Israelites should not strive for the well-being (‫ שלם‬and ‫)טוב‬ of these nations. Instead, the Israelites should strive to keep the country for themselves and their offspring. One way to accomplish this would be the abolition of mixed marriage. These statements do not relate to the time of Ezra himself, but to the time after the Exodus when YHWH promised the land to Israel. They speak of “the country in which you go to take possession of it” (v. 11: ‫)הארץ אשר אתם באים לרשתה‬. The reason for this is the character of 9:11a–12, B and C, as a quotation from 25. Cf. Ezek 36:17. Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7– 10 and Neh 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 116, states: “Nevertheless, Ezra 9, Lev 18 and Ezek 36 share the idea that impure activity or substance is contagious in the way that it can contaminate other substances by physical contact” (cf. pp. 119–20). In my view, however, it is not so much a case of contagious impurity simply dominating, but rather a case of defilement coming about through behaving like other people; for a similar conception in Ezekiel, see Rothenbusch, “Das Ezechiel-Buch als Stimme der Diaspora,” in Studien zur Psalmen- und Prophetenliteratur (ed. C. Diller, K. Ólason, M. Mulzer and R. Rothenbusch; FS Hubert Irsigler; HBS 64; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2010), 251–77.

ROTHENBUSCH The Question of Mixed Marriages

69

the Torah (v. 11: ‫)אשר צוית ביד עבדיך הנביאם לאמר‬.26 If one considers the wider frame (AII; vv. 10b, 14a) it becomes clear that Israel has abandoned this commandment (Ezra 9:10; cf. 1 Kgs 18:18; 2 Kgs 17:16; 2 Chr 7:19), the prohibition of mixed marriages has been broken (Ezra 9:14; cf. Num 15:31). This now is directly related to the presence of Ezra and endangers the fresh start granted by YHWH to Judah. The “peoples of the countries” are present among the Israelites, and they have lined up with them and so created this situation.27 With a slightly different emphasis this picture is already presented in the discussion of the mixed marriages divorce in Ezra 9:1–2, in the report that was given to Ezra on the situation in Judah. It expresses already the evaluation of mixed marriages from the perspective of the author: The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves (‫ בדל‬Niphal) from the peoples of the lands (‫)עמי הארצות‬, according to their abominations (‫)כתועבתיהם‬, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites.28 26. The prohibition of mixed marriages in Ezra 9:11–12, which is explicitly introduced as a commandment of the Torah, cannot be found there exactly in this form. Verdicts that prohibit the marriage of Israelites with daughters of the peoples of the land, in which they enter, are freely combined; see especially Deut 7:2–4 and, in the background, Exod 34:15–16. 27. Surprising is the negative connotation of ‫ הארצות‬resp. ‫ עמי הארץ‬in view of the ‫ עם הארץ‬in pre-exilic times, the influential nobility in the countryside; cf. Antonius H. J. Gunneweg, Esra: Mit einer Zeittafel von Alfred Jepsen (KAT 19.1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1985), 80; Willi, Selbstverständnis, 11–17, so still in Hag 2:4 and Zech 7:5 (cf. pp. 15–17); Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 339, 341. Because these are quite different groups, a direct link between both is not plausible; cf. Aharon Oppenheimer, The ‘Am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (ALGHJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 10. 28. The list of peoples with whom the Israelites have mixed, which stems from Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic literature (cf. Deut 7), extended with the Ammonites, Moabites and Egyptians, of whom, following Deut 23:4–7, the first two cannot be integrated in the ‫ ;קהל‬cf. J. M. Myers, Ezra–Nehemiah (AB 14; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2000), 76; Peter R. Ackroyd, I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (TBC; London: SCM, 1973), 252; David J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), 119; Hugh G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 131; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1988), 175–76. Blenkinsopp shows the ideological character of the presentation; cf. C. Siegfried, Die Bücher der Chronik und Esra, Nehemia und Ester (HAT 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901), 62; Alfred Bertholet, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia (KHC 19; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1902), 39; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 86, 89; Schneider, Esra, 147–48; Ackroyd, Ezra, 252–53; Fensham, Ezra, 124–25; Clines, Ezra, 119;

70

Mixed Marriages

‫( בדל‬Hiphil and Niphal) in this context means the conscious separation from foreign people (Ezra 6:21; Neh 9:2; 10:29; 13:3), which includes the separation or non-separation in mixed marriages (Ezra 9:1; 10:11).29 On this fundamental statement, it follows in v. 2 that the mixed marriages are to be seen as a “mingling” (‫ ערב‬Hithpael) of the “holy seed” (‫ )זרע הקדש‬with the “peoples of the countries” (‫)עמי הארצות‬.30 So the term ‫בדל‬, “isolation,” is complementary to ‫ערב‬, “mingle,” in Ezra 9–10. This verb is used similarly only in Ps 106:35, where the mixing with the people and the learning of their works are mentioned.31 In Neh 13:3, a late continuation of the book of Ezra–Nehemiah (vv. 1–3),32 Nehemiah’s actions, including initiatives taken against mixed marriages, are presented as the exclusion of “mixed peoples” (‫ )ערב‬from Israel (‫ויבדילו‬ ‫)כל־ערב מישראל‬. At several places in the Old Testament one encounters ‫ ערב‬as a mixture of different peoples who live closely together. Jeremiah 25:20 and Ezek 30:5 refer to a mixture of peoples in Egypt and Jer 50:37 to the same situation in Babylon. It seems that experience in a multiethnic empire is reflected. Consistent with this notion is Ezra 10:11, with its call for divorce in the case of mixed marriages, expressed as: “Separate yourself (‫ בדל‬Niphal) from the peoples of the country (‫עמי‬ ‫)הארץ‬.” The issue in Ezra 9–10 is mixed marriage, but this has a much more fundamental importance: the separation from the “peoples of the Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 130–31; Joachim Becker, Esra, Nehemia (NEchtB 25; Würzburg: Echter, 1990), 52. 29. This decisive self-separation of the people is a specific meaning of ‫ בדל‬in Ezra–Nehemiah (Ezra 6:21; Neh 9:2; 10:29; 13:3). 30. Following Ackroyd, Ezra, 255, Ezra 9:10–12 puts “stress upon three words which speak of contamination by contact with the alien world of the nations: POLLUTIONS, ABOMINATIONS, UNCLEANNESS.” Similarly, Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 110, states: “There seems to be a development towards regarding the seed of the Israelites pure in contrast with that of the other nations, which is impure. Intermarriage would contaminate the pure seed.” In the background of the holy seed, Pakkala (pp. 109–10, 120–21) sees the reasoning in the following prayer of Ezra recurring on Deut 7:3 and 7:6, where is spoken of the “holy people”: ‫כי עם קדוש‬ ‫אתה ליהוה אלהיך‬. The change of the formulation is interesting. About the “holy seed” one can speak in analogy to priestly conceptions, which prohibit the physical mingling (‫ ערב‬Hithpael) of pure and impure things resp. demands their separation (‫ ;)בדל‬cf. also Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9– 10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of Post-Exilic Judean Community,” in Eskenazi and Richards, eds., Second Temple Studies 2, 243–65 (256). 31. Following H.-J. Fabry and H. Lamberty-Zielinski, “‫ערב‬,” ThWAT 6:356; Ps 106:35 is, like Ezra 9:2, related to mixed marriages of the post-exilic time. 32. Cf. Rothenbusch, Identitäten.

ROTHENBUSCH The Question of Mixed Marriages

71

countries,” which are understood as non-Israelites in Judah and its surroundings. These statements are to a large extent original in Ezra 9–10, and outside of Ezra–Nehemiah there are no direct parallels. This applies primarily to the statements on the “separation” from the “peoples of the countries” and the “mixing” of the “holy seed.” But the rationale for the prohibition of mixed marriages in Ezra 9:11a, 12c-f, B+B′, as a whole quite clearly points to the Deuteronomic / Deuteronomistic literature. This is the case already for v. 11a: “the country to which you go to take possession of it” (‫ )הארץ אשר אתם באים לרשתה‬corresponds with the combination of ‫ירש‬, ‫ בוא‬and ‫ ארץ‬to Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic statements (Deut 1:8; 4:1, 5; 6:18; 7:1; 8:1; 9:4, 5; 10:11; 11:8, 10, 29, 31; 12:29; 17:14; 23:21; 26:1; 30:5, 16; Josh 1:11; 18:3; 24:8; Judg 18:9). As in Ezra 9–10, the seizure or possession of the country is in several Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic texts connected with the observance of the commandments (e.g. Deut 4:1, 5; 6:1; 8:1; 11:8), at least implicitly (see Deut 28). In Deuteronomistic literature one also encounters the notion that the foreign peoples and their practices are a threat to Israel in its land, if Israel follows them instead of the commandments of God. This concept is already expressed in Exod 23:20–33 and Exod 34:11–16 and again in Deut 7 or Josh 23, which are probably dependent on the first two passages. Ezra 9:14 speaks of “relating oneself by marriage (‫ חתן‬Hithpael) with those peoples of the abominations” (‫)ולהתחתן בעמי התעבות האלה‬. This terminology evokes some negative examples: Gen 34:9 (the act of violence against Dinah by the inhabitants of Shechem); 1 Kgs 3:1 (Solomon as son in law of the Pharaoh); 2 Kgs 8:27 and 2 Chr 18:1 (the relation by marriage with the family of Ahab); Neh 6:18 (the mixed marriage with Tobiah); 13:28 (the mixed marriage with Sanballat). Besides the connection of David with Saul, ‫( חתן‬Hithpael) actually refers—from the perspective of the author—mostly to illegitimate marriages. But this terminology leads also to more general Deuteronomistic texts, which are relevant for the question of mixed marriages, especially the two just mentioned: Deut 7 and Josh 23. Deuteronomy 7:1–3 reads: When YHWH your God brings you into the land (‫ )הארץ‬where you are entering (‫ )אתה בא־שמה‬to possess it (‫)לרשתה‬, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when YHWH, your God, delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.

72

Mixed Marriages Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them (‫ ;)לא תתחתן בם‬you shall not give your daughters to their sons (‫)לא־תתן‬, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons (‫)לא־תקח‬.

Joshua 23:11–13 says expressly that the foreign people will become a trap, if Israel relates itself with them by marriage (‫)והתחתנתם‬, and that this will ultimately lead to the loss of the country. These traditio-historic relations can be observed in detail elsewhere. For instance, Deut 23:7 bans the Israelites from striving after the welfare of the foreign residents (‫)לא־תדרש שלמם וטבתם כל־ימיך לעולם‬, which corresponds almost literally to Ezra 9:12 (‫ולא־תדרשו שלמם וטובתם‬ ‫)עד־עולם‬. According to Deut 11:8, observance of the commandments is what constitutes the strength of the people (‫ )חזק‬and this strength is what allows them to take possession of the land. The same statement vice versa is found in Ezra 9:12c–f, namely, that the quest for the best interests of the peoples of the countries, what happens by mixed marriage, is what lets them be strong (‫ )חזק‬and in turn threatens Israel’s possession of the country. Similarly, this relation is true for ‫תועבה‬. In a series of Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic texts, Israel is prohibited from or accused of committing the same “abominations of the peoples YHWH drove away before the Israelites” (1 Kgs 14:24; 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:2 [‫ככל התועבת הגוים‬ ‫ ;]אשר הוריש יהוה מפני בני ישראל‬cf. also 2 Chr 28:3; 33:2; 36:14). I think it is obvious that this is the model for the use of ‫ תועבה‬in Ezra 9–10. A similar conception can be found in the book of Ezekiel, which is also related to the Babylonian Diaspora.33 The structure of Ezra 9:11–12, B+C+B′, in this form cannot be found in the Torah. It should be considered, from the perspective of the author, as the adequate interpretation of the mixed marriages ban from the context of Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic literature in the time and situation of Ezra.34 Whatever the original background for the earlier idea of a threatening presence of foreign peoples in the country may have been, from whose practices Israel must keep separated not to endanger his possession of the land, in Ezra 9–10 this is applied to the situation of postexilic Judah and related specifically to the mixed marriages, from the perspective of the Diaspora. Since, in this context, the normative texts of the Torah are of particular interest, I would like to examine the presentation of mixed marriages in 33. Cf. Rothenbusch, “Ezechiel-Buch.” 34. Ezra “taught, and the community accepted, an interpretation of the law according to its ‘spirit,’ as he understood it,” Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 160; cf. also Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 116–17.

ROTHENBUSCH The Question of Mixed Marriages

73

other post-exilic texts allegedly from the homeland. I will deal here with the Priestly commandments, which are found mainly in Leviticus. These texts, in my view, must be connected with the Jerusalem temple and his priesthood. The Question of Mixed Marriages in Post-exilic Texts from Judah Here I want to look not only at the attitude of the Priestly commandments on mixed marriages, but also to compare their conceptions with the position of the Ezra–Narrative, characterized above. To begin, both traditions appear to use the same terminology which, in the Ezra Narrative, evokes the impression that mere contact with the peoples of the countries results in contamination: ‫ נדה‬and ‫( טמאה‬Ezra 9:10; cf. Lev 5:3; 7:20–21; 14:19; 15:3, 25, 26, 30, 31 etc.). Ezra 9:11, where we find a reference to “defiled country” (‫)ארץ נדה‬ caused by the “uncleanness of the peoples of the countries” (‫בנדת עמי‬ ‫)הארצות‬, belongs to the relatively short list of cases where ‫ נדה‬is encountered as “impurity” in a broader sense. ‫ נדה‬in the Priestly commandments is mostly used as a technical term for the uncleanness of menstruating women (Lev 15:19–24, 33; see also Ezek 18:6; 22:10; 36:17), a state which is also polluting for men (15:24; 18:19; 20:18). This sense, by analogy, is transferred to the impurity imparted through blood flow outside of menstruation (15:25–27; 18:19) and to the situation immediately after childbirth (Lev 12:2 [‫]כימי נדת דותה תטמא‬, 5), or is found in the term “cleaning water” (‫ ;מי נדה‬Num 19:9, 10b–22; see also 31:23), which serves to eliminate the impurity of someone who has touched a corpse. Therefore, the term may denote quite different meanings.35 The same picture emerges for ‫טמאה‬. In the Priestly commandments, it covers the uncleanness of the Israelites and its consequences, which should be eliminated, not specifically the impurity of foreign peoples with whom the Israelites live (cf. Lev 15:31; 16:16, 19). There is no mention at all of the impurity of foreign peoples, who fill the country from one end to the other with their abominations. Contaminated are persons and things by the circumstances of everyday life, such as unclean animals, cadavers or corpses, the disease of leprosy, blood flow, and so 35. J. Milgrom and D. P. Wright, “niddah,” ThWAT 5:250–53, distinguish three meanings for ‫נדה‬: “1. Unreinheit im Zusammenhang mit der Menstruation, 2. Unreinheit generell, Abscheu, 3. Reinigung.” The second, more general meaning is relatively seldom, Ezra 9:11; Lam 1:17; Ezek 7:19. In the Priestly commandments one has mostly the first, more specific and ritual meaning.

74

Mixed Marriages

on. It is true that the Priestly commandments are warning about the behavior of foreign nations, with which Israel should not pollute itself, but YHWH has already expelled them from Israel, or the country itself has spit them out due to their uncleanness. They serve only as a warning and are not a current threat to Israel, which may be infected by the contact with them. As it says in the parenetic verses in Lev 18:24–30 (see also vv. 1–5; Lev 20:22–23): Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am YHWH your God.

The “peoples of the countries/the country,” who in Ezra–Nehemiah are such a large threat, are not even mentioned in the Priestly commandments in this way. Only in Lev 4:27; 20:2, 4 is ‫ עם־הארץ‬used value-free for the population of the country, and there it refers to the Israelites. Although one finds ‫( בדל‬Hiphil) in the Priestly commandments, in the sense of separation of Israel from the nations (Lev 20:24, 26), this is obviously meant as an act of election by YHWH already accomplished (cf. v. 26: ‫)להיות לי‬, probably by the liberation of Israel in the Exodus. In vv. 24–25 this justifies the call for Israel to “differentiate” (‫ בדל‬Hiphil) between the sacred and profane, clean and unclean (Lev 10:10; 11:47; 20:25; Ezek 22:26), in order not to contaminate itself with that which YHWH separated as unclean (‫ בדל‬Hiphil; v. 25). Even this, however, does not mean other peoples, but unclean animals, and so on. Thus, ‫ בדל‬has a totally different meaning from that found in Ezra 9–10. Particularly significant in this context is the attitude of the Priestly commandments about the strangers.36 In their view, the closeness to God is no longer determined by lineage, but rather by proper behavior 36. For a short overview of the scientific literature regarding the position of the stranger in the priestly text of the Torah, cf. Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26 (VTSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 55–58.

ROTHENBUSCH The Question of Mixed Marriages

75

regarding God’s holiness and the affiliation with his nation by individual observance of the commandments. This has important implications for the definition of God’s people. In this respect, there is a remarkable characteristic of the Priestly commandments: the far-reaching or, according to some,37 total equality of the ‫גר‬, the stranger, with the ‫אזרח‬, the Israelite.38 This is clearly expressed in Exod 12:49: “One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourns among you” (‫ ;תורה אחת יהיה לאזרח ולגר הגר בתוככם‬cf. also Lev 19:33–34; 24:22; Ezek 14:7; 47:22). This inclusion of the foreigner can be consistently observed in the Priestly commandments and is sometimes also extended to the civil law (cf. Lev 24:10–23). It is found in the Deuteronomic / Deuteronomistic literature primarily as a social type, which often falls under the classification of the personae miserae.39 That changes in the Priestly commandments.40 The emphasis here is not on the betterment of their social position, but on the opening of Israel’s identity on the basis of Torah observance for strangers. J. Joosten has pointed out that, particularly in the case of the Holiness Code, it shows no exclusionary attitude regarding strangers. He explicitly emphasizes that the absence of a prohibition on mixed marriages in the Holiness Code cannot be a coincidence.41 Only for the high priest is a ban on intermarriage 37. Christoph Bultmann, Der Fremde im antiken Juda: Eine Untersuchung zum sozialen Typenbegriff ‘ger’ und seinem Bedeutungswandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung (FRLANT 153; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 202; similar already Alfred Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden (Tübingen; J. C. B. Mohr, 1896), 167–76, and Christiana van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law (JSOTSup 107; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 163. 38. Cf. Bultmann, Der Fremde, 200–207. 39. Cf. ibid., 34–174. 40. Bultmann, ibid., 176, concludes regarding the Holiness Code and the sacral law: “Durch diesen Bestand läuft ein zweiter Strang von Belegen für die Bezeichnung ger, in dem das Wort nicht mehr einen sozialen Typus im judäischen Territorium bezeichnet, sondern einen von außerhalb Israels hinzukommenden Fremden, der unter gewissen gesetzlichen Bedingungen der Religionsgemeinschaft Israel, deren Glieder im jerusalemisch-judäischen Stammland wie in der Diaspora leben und in dieser Zeit nicht mehr eine territorial bestimmbare Einheit darstellen, zugehörig wird.” For the whole discussion, cf. Bultmann, Der Fremde, 175–96. Similarly, van Houten, Alien, 151–65 (151) states: “This involved a major shift in how the alien was defined—from a social definition to a cultic definition.” Nevertheless, the connotation of the stranger as in need of social help disappears not totally (Lev 19:9– 10, 33–34; 23:22), cf. Bultmann, Der Fremde, 176–79; van Houten, Alien, 121–24. 41. Joosten, Leviticus, 85–86, states: “Nowhere in H do we find the prohibition to marry non-Israelite women; in view of the great emphasis on this point in other law codes, and in view of the extensive marriage-laws in H, this is a significant omission.”

76

Mixed Marriages

pronounced in Lev 21:14. The high priest may marry, but only a virgin from his own people (‫)בתולה מעמיו יקח אשה‬. S. Japhet and others described a very similar picture for Chronicles. I would just like to quote her conclusion regarding the position of strangers and the mixed marriages: The book of Chronicles expresses a consistent attitude towards foreigners living in the land of Israel: no distinct, separate foreign population exists in the land. Everyone who lives there, whatever his origins, is part of the people of Israel. The foreigner joins the people in two ways. He or she may marry an Israelite, thereby becoming an integral part of a particular tribe and joining a genealogical tradition that relates ethnic developments within Israel. Second, the creation of the status of ‘ger’ grafts a new, now inseparable, element onto the people. The first method integrates members of foreign nations into the tribal framework that is fundamental to the people of Israel. The second enlarges that framework in order to incorporate new elements. Both communicate the ideal of “all Israel”— the people of Israel at its broadest, perfectly united as one people.42

This attitude in the mother country has already had a longer history in the post-exilic times. The fact that mixed marriages were not perceived as offensive in early post-exilic Judah43 is shown in the book of Ruth. The text deals with the situation in Palestine after the exile and it is hardly conceivable that it was written anywhere other than there. No polemic regarding the Moabite origin of Ruth is discernable.44 For this reason, the book is not necessarily to be read as a plea in favor of mixed marriages. However, it is clear that they were not rejected as such in Judah. The marriage of the Judean Machlon from Bethlehem to Ruth, the Moabite woman, is in no way criticized or its legality put into question. In sharp contrast to the demand for a divorce of mixed marriages in Ezra 9–10, it even claims the practice of the Levirate law for Ruth. The Judean Boaz fulfilled it and so Ruth was enrolled in the family tree of David (Ruth 4:13–22).45 42. Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (trans. A. Barber; 2d ed.; BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt: Lang, 1997), 351. 43. Cf. Christian Frevel, Das Buch Rut (NSK.AT 6; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992), 31–34; Klaus Koch, “Weltordnung und Reichsidee im Alten Iran,” in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich (ed. K. Koch and P. Frei; OBO 55; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 299; Friedrich Fechter, Die Familie in der Nachexilszeit (BZAW 264; Berlin: de Gruyter; 1998), 242–86. 44. Frevel, Rut, 38, calls the book Ruth, among other things, a “Buch gegen Ausländerfeindlichkeit und Fremdenangst.” 45. Presumably, the relation of the Ruth narrative with David is secondary; cf. ibid., 28–30.

ROTHENBUSCH The Question of Mixed Marriages

77

I do not wish to overemphasize these observations, but I do think it is obvious that there are clear differences to be resolved with respect to the issue of mixed marriage and its handling in post-exilic biblical tradition. Of course, this is often due to literary genre, but the social framework beyond the texts could be of great significance, too. On the one hand, texts from the Diaspora, Ezra–Nehemiah being a literary combination of several of these documents, display a fairly exclusive, negative stance against mixed marriage. Texts from the motherland, on the other hand, display an open, inclusive position. In my opinion, this could be attributed to differing social conditions present within the communities in which each document was composed. At the very least, I would like to propose a tendency in this direction.

INTERMARRIAGE AND GROUP IDENTITY IN THE EZRA TRADITION (EZRA 7–10 AND NEHEMIAH 8) Juha Pakkala

1. Introduction Intermarriage and group identity are central themes in the Ezra tradition (Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8). In this essay I will place particular emphasis on the development of these themes within this tradition. My approach is diachronic, the main focus being on the different editorial phases in the development of the composition. I will be asking: What does the text and its different literary stages tell us about intermarriage and group identity? To what themes are they connected and what may lie behind the connection? Can we identify any developments between the different textual stages of the Ezra tradition? Before proceeding, it is necessary to say a few words about the methodological approach taken here. Many scholars have used the text of Ezra–Nehemiah in its “final” form(s),1 but this would be problematic if the questions and approach are historical in nature.2 The main problem is that Ezra–Nehemiah, like most other texts of the Hebrew Bible, is the result of constant editing by successive scribes during the Second Temple period. The text contains many tensions, contradictions, thematic changes, even changes in language, which all imply that its redaction history is very complicated. A comparison between the Masoretic text and the Greek 1 Esdras provides an example of how profoundly some

1. By the final form(s), I am referring to the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek 2 Esdras (and to some extent also 1 Esdras). 2. Studies primarily based on the final text of Ezra–Nehemiah include: Tamara C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra–Nehemiah (SBLMS 36; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988); Michael W. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra–Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary and Theological Study (SBLDS 164; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2001).

PAKKALA Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Ezra Tradition

79

scribes revised and changed the text at a relatively late period.3 Even 2 Esdras, which is fairly close to the Masoretic text, shows that small expansions and changes also took place in this tradition and that they had considerable impact on the resulting text.4 It is reasonable to assume that processes similar to those about which we have clear evidence from the available versions also took place in the earlier literary stages that are not represented in the extant witnesses. It is fair to assume that changes in the earlier transmission of the text are potentially more radical than in the later stages because its status as an authoritative and eventually as a holy text gradually increased, which made changes more and more problematic. Although this may complicate the use of Ezra–Nehemiah as a historical source, the beginning of its critical use should be to acknowledge the complicated redaction history of the text and to distinguish its literary layers. The “final” text contains traces from different contexts and different periods, extending over centuries, which means that its use as such would at best give an impression about the latest editorial phase(s), but in many cases not even that, because the later editors left much of the older text untouched. In other words, sometimes even contradicting views are preserved side-by-side in the “final” text. Reading them together would not give an accurate view of any period. Although it is likely that Ezra–Nehemiah was not written by one author and cannot be regarded as a primary source from the fifth or fourth centuries B.C.E., as many scholars have traditionally assumed, still, it provides significant historical information about the concepts and historical background of the authors and editors behind the text. Instead of trying to determine something about the historicity of the events described in the text, our attention should be directed to the implicit and explicit views and conceptions of the different editors.5 In this respect,

3. On the question of whether 1 Esdras generally represents a later text than the Masoretic text, see the discussion and essays in Lisbeth S. Fried, ed., Was 1 Esdras First? (SBLSymS; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2011). For changes made in 1 Esdras, see my essay in that volume: “Why 1 Esdras Is Probably Not an Early Version of the Ezra– Nehemiah Tradition,” 93–107. 4. For further details on the editorial changes in the Ezra tradition, see Juha Pakkala, “The Disunity of Ezra–Nehemiah,” in The (Dis)unity of Ezra–Nehemia (ed. P. Reditt and M. Boda; Old Testament Monographs; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 200–215. 5. One should not completely reject the possibility that the events described in the text preserve some historical information, but one should first determine the editorial history of the text. Only then is it possible to determine what its source

80

Mixed Marriages

especially the changes between the different editors’ concepts are potentially fruitful for understanding developments of religious concepts in the Persian period and the Hellenistic period. Although the evidence is meager, it at least provides some glimpses of the development of ideas and concepts in the Second Temple period. Looking at the whole composition of Ezra–Nehemiah, the text contains three originally independent sources.6 These deal with different themes and contain several contradictions and other tensions. Their redaction histories are at least in part different and the transitions between the sections are awkward, although later editors have tried to harmonize some of the most evident contradictions. This means that the notions presented here primarily apply to the Ezra narrative, whereas the other parts of the composition may contain different conceptions about intermarriage and group identity. On the other hand, some of the latest additions to Ezra– Nehemiah are directly dependent on the Ezra narrative and thus carry on and develop its notions in other parts of the composition (e.g. in Neh 13:23–31). The main texts dealing with intermarriage and group identity can be found in Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13. It is probable that Ezra 10 is the oldest passage of the composition dealing with this theme, while all other texts dealing with the theme are dependent on this chapter and represent a further development. It is apparent that the problem with intermarriage was a theme already in the earliest editorial stage of the Ezra story, in the Ezra source. Ezra 9, an early expansion of the Ezra story, is directly dependent on Ezra 10, whereas Neh 13, one of the youngest texts of the entire Hebrew Bible, mainly contains very late material that builds on Ezra 9–10 and the “Nehemiah Memoir.” Nehemiah 13 can be seen as the fruit of the merger between the two originally independent compositions. In Neh 13:23–31 the main actor of the “Nehemiah Memoir” is pursuing religious purity, one of the main goals of the Ezra story, by attacking those who have married foreigners. Throughout the composition the problem with intermarriage is very closely tied to the Law. In the majority of cases, the connection had already been made explicit in the earliest literary phase and was continued in later editorial phases. The problem in the oldest editorial phase value is for the events it describes. For example, if one part of the text was written in the early fourth century B.C.E., close to the time that is described in the text, but was radically edited in the second century B.C.E., it is evident that the two textual stages would have to be separated before one could use the earlier stage as any kind of historical source for the events in the later fifth or early fourth century B.C.E. 6. For details, see Pakkala, “The Disunity of Ezra–Nehemiah,” 201–4.

PAKKALA Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Ezra Tradition

81

of the narrative is that the people have lived without the Law of Moses and, being unaware of a law that prohibited mixed marriages, had taken foreign wives. I will proceed by presenting only those literary phases that are relevant for the present theme. The editorial development of the composition is much more complicated than what becomes apparent from the following sections. Other scribal changes made to the Ezra narrative are short explanatory additions that do not provide a clear picture of the editor’s conceptions or are irrelevant for the present theme. Only the following editorial phases will be discussed here: the Ezra source, Ezra’s prayer, the golah editors and the Levitical editors. The Ezra source represents the oldest core of the narrative, whereas the others are substantial revisions of the older text. Ezra’s prayer is probably a single expansion in Ezra 9, whereas the golah and Levitical editors both represent a broader editorial group of several successive editors who revised other parts of the composition as well.7 They all provide enough evidence to form a view of their conceptions about intermarriage and group identity. 2. Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Ezra Source8 The close connection between intermarriage and the Law of Moses derives from the Ezra source. It describes the coming of Ezra the scribe from Babylon to Judah to reintroduce the Law of Moses and to teach it to the people. This is also the main purpose of his coming to Judah. He comes alone and the arrival of other exiles is not described in this text. It is only through later expansions that Ezra’s journey became an aliyah of a larger exilic group.9 After his arrival in Jerusalem (Ezra 7:8),10 Ezra reads the Law to the Israelites who had remained in the land and who had been completely ignorant of it (Neh 8). After the Law had been read, the people realized that they had broken the Law by taking foreign wives. As a result, Ezra is commissioned to dissolve the illegitimate marriages 7. For argumentation and details of the literary development of the composition, see Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Neh 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). The golah editors may have edited only Ezra 1–6; 7–10; Neh 8, whereas at least some of the latest Levitical editors were probably familiar with the “Nehemiah Memoir” as well. 8. The Ezra source may be found in Ezra 7:1*, 6a*, 8; Neh 8:1a* b, 2a, 3*, 9*, 10, 12a; Ezra 9:1a* (only ‫ ;)וככלות אלה‬10:1b*, 2a, 3a* (till ‫)מהם‬, 4, 10–14a, 16b–17. 9. Ezra’s journey from Babylon to Jerusalem became an aliyah as a result of the large expansions in Ezra 8, which are, however, not relevant for the present theme. 10. Note that his arrival in Jerusalem is reported already in Ezra 7:8, but because of several additions, his journey is described in detail in Ezra 8.

82

Mixed Marriages

(Ezra 10). The problem with intermarriage is taken as one serious example of what the consequences are if the Law is neglected, but it was not the main issue in the oldest text. Through repeated additions and relocations of parts of the text by later editors, intermarriage became more central and it partly buried the original emphasis on the idea of reintroducing the Law. Especially after the relocation of Neh 8 from its original location before Ezra (9–)10,11 one may easily receive the impression that the main purpose of Ezra’s coming to Jerusalem was to dissolve the mixed marriages. Disconnected from the main narrative, Neh 8 is presented as a separate episode that occurred after Nehemiah’s activity much later than Ezra 9–10. In the Ezra source, group identity is closely tied to the Law and Israel’s obedience to it. The Israelites are expected to follow the Law, which separates them from other nations, but those who had remained in the land were unaware of it and had therefore taken foreign wives. The author wanted to demonstrate that ignoring the Law would lead the Israelites into the sin of intermarriage with other nations, which has the potential to threaten Israel’s group identity and eventually its existence. Group identity and separation from the other is for this author essentially dependent on observing the Law, which lays down the precepts of Israel’s exclusive religion. One should not try to squeeze more out of this text than what is possible. The oldest text is relatively short and we do not know its exact historical background. It may have been written in the late fifth or early fourth century B.C.E., but since it is difficult to connect any event or feature in it to datable historical sources, considerable uncertainties remain. Nevertheless, one should note that it assumes that some Israelites had remained in the land and that they lived without the Law and had taken foreign wives. This does not say that this was necessarily the case, but at least the author believed so. The story suggests that the Law was introduced from the Exile in Babylon to the people who had remained in Jerusalem or Judah, which seems to imply that the development of the Law had taken place in the Exile and that the descendants of the Judeans and Israelites who had remained in the land had been left out of this process. Perhaps one may detect a further implication that group identity was particularly threatened in Judah and that the Law would be the factor that would keep the people separate.

11. For discussion on the original location of Neh 8, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 167–77. Because Ezra 9 is a later addition, Neh 8 was originally located immediately before Ezra 10.

PAKKALA Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Ezra Tradition

83

3. Ezra’s Prayer12 Most of Ezra 9 consists of Ezra’s prayer, which is a later addition to the original story. Similar prayers, or confessions, have been added to other parts of the Hebrew Bible as well.13 In this chapter Ezra prays and mourns because the Israelites had taken foreign wives. In many ways the prayer continues the motifs of the older text, but develops them further. Through the addition the problem with mixed marriage was raised to a more prominent role than it had had in the older text. The author connected the issue with Israel’s past and made Ezra mourn that the Israelites had again committed sins that were explicitly prohibited by the Law of Moses and that had led to the Exile (Ezra 9:13–15). Ezra’s prayer also anchors the sin more closely to specific laws. The author made direct links with the Pentateuch by quoting several verses from the Deuteronomy that all deal with Israel’s separation from the other nations living in the land (Deut 7:3; 11:8–10; 18:9–14; 23:7).14 Ezra 9:10–12 reads: 10

And now, our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken your commandments, 11 which you commanded by your servants the prophets, saying, “The land that you are entering to possess is a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations. They have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness. 12 Therefore, do not give your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, so that you may be strong and eat the good of the land and leave it for an inheritance to your children forever.”

Deuteronomistic influence is evident in the general use of language and concepts as well. For example, the author implies two choices for Israel: first, to keep the Law and separate itself from the other nations, or to ignore the Law and be destroyed. The strong Deuteronomistic influence is also seen in the way the author assumes the Exile to be a punishment for Israel’s behavior (v. 14) and in the concept that there is a remnant of

12. This redactional layer consists of Ezra 9:1a* (without ‫)וככלות אלה‬, 2a, 3, 5– 7, 10–13a, 14, 15b; 10:1a. The chapter also contains further additions. 13. See, e.g., 1 Kgs 8; Neh 1:5–11; 9:4–37 and Dan 9. 14. Since all the quoted sections are from Deuteronomy, this book seems to have had a special position for the author of Ezra 9. Note that he has rendered the quotations from Deuteronomy rather freely, combining and altering the quoted texts to suit his purposes in the book of Ezra. For discussion, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 108–21.

84

Mixed Marriages

Israelites only because of Yahweh’s grace (vv. 13–15).15 In other words, the author interpreted the older text through Deuteronomistic conceptions. Intermarriage and group identity were increasingly seen in the light of Deuteronomistic theology/ideology. In addition to emphasizing that the people had violated Yahweh’s commandments, the author evidently saw mixed marriages as an issue of purity. Intermarriage would mean that the holy seed mixes with something that was regarded as unclean or impure: ‫והתערבו זרע הקדש בעמי‬ ‫( הארצות‬Ezra 9:2). Israel was considered to be the holy seed which should be protected from becoming contaminated by the people of the land. This idea is a further development from the older text, the Ezra source, as well as from Deuteronomy, where intermarriage is first and foremost an issue of breaking the Law and thereby something that threatens group identity. This addition introduces terminology and thinking that became more typical in Priestly texts.16 Ezra’s prayer is largely an inner-biblical development, where Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic conceptions were used to interpret and develop the Ezra story. It does not reveal much about the author’s historical context because Deuteronomy influenced many other texts during the entire Second Temple period and beyond. Perhaps one could say that there is an increasing interest in mixed marriages, although the author of the oldest text already regarded it as one of the main threats to the integrity and identity of the Jewish community.

15. The vocabulary also implies considerable Deuteronomi(sti)c influence. For example, the author refers to the abominations of the other nations with the word ‫תועבה‬, which was probably taken from Deuteronomy, where it is commonly used in the same sense. 16. For example, instead of the more abstract ‫ עם‬or Israel of the older text (Ezra 10:1), the author of Ezra 9 preferred to use the more physical term ‫זרע‬. The author of Ezra 9 also used verbs such as ‫( ערב‬Hithpael) and ‫בדל‬, which similarly stress the threat of mixing things that do not belong together and the importance of their separation. According to Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Judaean Community,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 243–65 (256): “Ezra’s orientation reflects the priestly writer’s obsessions with ‘separations’…between the pure and impure.” Note that Smith-Christopher does not distinguish between the different authors and editors of the composition, and therefore speaks about Ezra’s orientation.

PAKKALA Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Ezra Tradition

85

4. The Golah Editors17 In the older text, the problem was that the Jews who had remained in the land had married people of the land. The golah editors took a very different stance. For them, the problem was that the returning exiles had married people of the land. In other words, in the Ezra source (and in Ezra’s prayer) there were two groups living in the land when Ezra arrived: the Israelites who had remained there and the non-Israelites. These groups had intermarried and that was the main problem. For the golah editors only non-Israelites were living in the land when the exiles returned, whereas the returning exiles were assumed to be the only Israelites there were. As a consequence, the whole setting is changed so that the problem with intermarriage becomes a problem between the returning exilic community and the people who were living in the land. The golah editors do not seem to be interested in whether or not they were Jews, or whether they defined themselves as Jews or something else, because for these editors only the returning exiles could be Jews. The change is seen in additions that emphasize the faithlessness of the exiles, for example, in Ezra 9:4:18 1

After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel (‫)העם ישראל‬, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands (WITH THEIR ABOMINATIONS, FROM THE CANAANITES, THE HITTITES, THE PERIZZITES, THE JEBUSITES, THE AMMONITES, THE MOABITES, THE EGYPTIANS, AND THE AMORITES). 2 For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons. Thus the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands (AND IN THIS FAITHLESSNESS THE OFFICIALS AND 3 LEADERS HAVE LED THE WAY).” When I heard this, I tore my garment and my mantle, and pulled hair from my head and beard, and sat appalled. 4 Then all who trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the faithlessness of the returned exiles (‫)מעל הגולה‬, gathered around me while I sat appalled until the evening sacrifice. 5 At the evening sacrifice I got up from my fasting, with my garments and my mantle torn, and fell on my knees, spread out my hands to the Lord my God.

17. The golah editors’ expansions may be found in Ezra 3:1–3, 6; 6:9–10*, 16– 17*, 19–22*; 7:17–18*; 8:35–36; Neh 8:13–17*, 18b; Ezra 9:4*; 10:3a (from ‫)בעצת‬, 6–9*, 15a, 16*. 18. Underlined texts represent the golah additions. Most other additions are written in small capitals, except the Levitical additions which are written in italics. In Ezra 9 the basic text derives from the author of Ezra’s prayer.

86

Mixed Marriages

A similar change in relation to the older text can be found, among other passages, in Ezra 10:6–9. In v. 6 Ezra mourns because of the faithlessness of the exiles, although the older text only refers to the Israelites (Ezra 10:1–8): 1

Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and throwing himself down before the temple of God, and a very great assembly of men, women, and children gathered to him out of Israel; (THE PEOPLE ALSO WEPT BITTERLY) 2 and Shecaniah son of Jehiel, of the descendants of Elam, addressed Ezra, saying, “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, (BUT EVEN NOW THERE IS HOPE FOR ISRAEL IN SPITE OF THIS) 3 but let us now make a covenant with our God to send away all these wives and their children…” 6 Then Ezra stood up from before the temple of God, and went to the chamber of Jehohanan son of Eliashib, where he spent the night. He did not eat bread or drink water, for he was mourning over the faithlessness of the exiles. 7 They made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the returned exiles that they should assemble at Jerusalem, 8 and that if any did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all their property should be forfeited, and they themselves banned from the congregation of the exiles.

In the older text, the leader of the Jews comes forward to tell Ezra that the Israelites have married foreigners, but the expansion in vv. 6–8 has a different perspective.19 The exiles have sinned and only they form the community. The difference is particularly evident when we compare the terminology in Ezra 9:1 and 10:1 of the older text with that of the golah additions in 10:6 and 8: ‫לא־נבדלו העם ישראל … מעמי הארצות‬ ‫נקבצו אליו מישראל קהל רב־מאד‬ ‫מתאבל על־מעל הגולה‬ ‫והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה‬

9:1 10:1 10:6 10:8

The problem with the mixed marriages was now seen in a different light than in the earlier textual stages because the self-understanding of what Israel was had changed. Group identity came to be defined through the Exile so that all the peoples of the land were impure and would threaten Israel as a separate group.

19. Note that the coming forward of Shecaniah to report to Ezra about this sin is peculiar, coming as it does after the officials (‫ )השרים‬have already reported the sin in Ezra 9:1 before the prayer. This is one of the indications that Ezra 9 is not part of the oldest text.

PAKKALA Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Ezra Tradition

87

The text does not tell us what had happened in the author’s historical context to justify the change in the self-understanding of Israel. We can only observe that a clear change inside the Ezra story had taken place. It is possible that the Jewish community increasingly identified itself with the exiles so that in the end the entire community of Jews was assumed to have been in the Exile, although this may not have been the case. 5. Levitical Editors20 Intermarriage ceased to be a central issue in the Levitical additions to the Ezra narrative. These editors do not seem to have made any substantial changes in issues concerning intermarriage or group identity, which suggests lack of immediate concern. The changes relate to the involvement of the priests and Levites in the events. They take part in leading the community when the mixed marriages are dissolved (Ezra 10:5), in opposing Ezra (10:15) as well as in having taken foreign wives (10:18).21 For example, in Ezra 10:4–10 the original text can be found in vv. 4 and 10, but later the golah editors augmented the text with their addition in vv. 6–9 (see above), followed in turn by a Levitical expansion in v. 5. The resulting text is very repetitive, with Ezra going to dissolve the mixed marriages three times (note especially the repetition of the main verb ‫)קום‬: “Take action (‫)קום‬, for it is your duty, and we are with you; be strong, and do it.” 4 Then Ezra stood up (‫ )ויקם‬and made the leading priests, the Levites, and all Israel swear that they would do as had been said. So they swore. 6 Then Ezra stood up (‫ )ויקם‬from before the temple of God… 10 Then Ezra (THE PRIEST)22 stood up (‫ )ויקם‬and said to them… 4

In addition to the idea that Israel should swear to do as Ezra tells them, the Levitical editor of v. 5 wanted to present the priests and Levites as leading the community in this action. The changes of the golah editors were much more extensive, as we have seen.

20. Levitical expansions may be found in Ezra 6:18; 7:7, 13* (reference to the Levites only), 24; Ezra 8:15b–20 (three successive Levitical editors), 24b, 29* (reference to the Levites only), 30, 33b; Neh 8:7a, 9a* (from ‫ נחמיה‬to ‫)את־עם‬, 11, 12b, 13 (reference to the priests and Levites only); Ezra 10:5, 15b, 18, 20–44; Neh 9–10 (several editors). 21. That some priests are explicitly mentioned as having committed the sin may be connected to some disputes between priestly families in the scribe’s own context. 22. First Esdras omits Ezra’s title and probably represents the original reading.

88

Mixed Marriages

Instead of drawing attention to intermarriage or group identity, the role and position of the priests and Levites inside the group itself, the Jewish community, had become the main concern. The Levitical additions are similar in other passages dealing with other themes as well. In most of them the presence or involvement of the priests and Levites in the events is merely added, whereas the rest of the text is left untouched. The implication is that the priests and Levites formed the backbone of the Jewish society. Interest in cultic issues is also evident in some Levitical expansions and especially in Ezra 8.23 We are in a context where the priests were gaining or had gained influence in society. Since the older texts did not correspond to the new situation, Levitical editors updated them accordingly. It appears that in the editors’ context external threat or the defense of group identity towards external influence was not regarded as a serious problem like the question of internal hierarchies. But one should not draw too extensive conclusions about society as a whole because these expansions were written by a small priestly elite whose viewpoint they represent. Nevertheless, the clear shift in interests implies that at least some change had taken place in the historical context of the authors when compared with the golah editors.24

23. In the oldest text Ezra was a scribe. As the result of some of the additions, however, his tasks were increasingly priestly, meaning that he was eventually made a priest. 24. The Levitical editors were probably active in the third century B.C.E., but possibly even later. For discussion and literature dealing with the issue of dating, see Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 244–75.

ALL THE SAME AS EZRA? CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TEXTS ON INTERMARRIAGE IN GENESIS, DEUTERONOMY 7 AND EZRA Benedikt J. Conczorowski

1. Introduction The question of mixed marriages is addressed in a variety of texts in the Hebrew Bible.1 These accounts generally take a prohibitive or deprecatory stance, which differs by degree depending on literary genre (juridical, narrative, or prophetical), explicitness in addressing the topic, and the specific rationale behind their rejection of mixed marriage.2 Any investigation into the Hebrew Bible’s position on this subject must therefore ask whether these variations are due merely to literary genre or whether they ultimately stem from different conceptions of marital policy. My analysis will demonstrate that there are indeed differing conceptions of legitimate marriage, and that the reason for this derives from different meta-narratives of the community’s identity. Such conceptual differences may also give some hints to illuminate the development of the rejection of mixed marriages in the Hebrew Bible and its reception diachronically. My analysis will examine several biblical texts which address the topic explicitly (e.g. giving or discussing advices/commandments regarding the subject). 1. Cf. the appendix to the Introduction of the present volume. 2. Of course, the Hebrew Bible also includes positive appreciation of mixed marriages, such as the narratives on Joseph’s wife Asenath (cf. Gen 41:37–57), Moses’ wives (cf. Exod 2:15–22; 4:18–26 and, although much debated, Num 12:1) or Ruth. These texts usually discuss the topic in an implicit way. In any case, the present study focuses on the deprecatory position. With regard to Moses’ wives, cf. the contributions by Karen Winslow and Yonina Dor to the present volume. The study by Gary Knoppers addresses positive notions of mixed marriages within Chronicles.

90

Mixed Marriages

According to my thesis there are two lines of rationale for a prohibitive stance which can be found in the Pentateuch: a diffuse moral and an explicit religious one. As Gen 34 and Ezra 9–10 (in other words one Pentateuchal and one extra-Pentateuchal text relying on a bundle of tradition) reveal, those two lines were regarded as insufficient in later times and thus were developed by groups with a specific notion of selfidentity and a strictly exclusionist attitude. Genesis 34 represents this development within the Pentateuch while Ezra 9–10 is an example “par excellence” for inner biblical exegesis of Pentateuchal law.3 First, I will briefly investigate the texts’ concepts concerning mixed marriages. Then, I will consider the question of a diachronic development in their treatment of the topic. 2. Analyzing the Texts 2.1. The Prohibition of Intermarriage by the Patriarchs The Priestly Writer and his successors emphasize family endogamy on a narrative level.4 Genesis 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9 are generally ascribed to the Priestly source and should be the starting point of our investigation, since Gen 24 certainly represents a later position.5 The two components from the Jacob cycle are clearly set apart from their context and could be connected easily into a fluent story.6 Genesis 3. Regarding the latter aspect, cf. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 114–23. 4. For an overview on marriage in Genesis, cf. Naomi Steinberg, “Alliance or Descent? The Function of Marriage in Genesis,” JSOT 51 (1991): 45–55, and Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress, 1993). 5. On Gen 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9, cf. Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1984), 263–70, and Horst Seebass, Genesis II.2: Vätergeschichte 2 (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 292–310. Cf. also the discussion in Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis. Vol. 2, Gen 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas, Tex.: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 203–4. Philippe Guillaume argues for the widely accepted attribution of Gen 26:34–35 and 27:46– 28:9 to the Priestly writer by reference to language; cf. Philippe Guillaume, “ ‘Beware of Foreskins’: The Priestly Writer as Matchmaker in Genesis 27,46–28,8,” in Jacob: Commentaire à plusieurs voix de– Ein mehrstimmiger Kommentar zu – A Plural Commentary of Gen 25–36. Mélanges offerts à Albert de Pury (ed. J.-D. Macchi and Th. Römer; Le Monde de la Bible 44; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2001), 69–78 (69–70). Regarding Gen 24, cf. the exemplary discussion by Blum, Vätergeschichte, 383–89. 6. The unity of Gen 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9 has been challenged recently by Weimar, who regards Gen 27:46 and 28:6–9 as secondary additions; see Peter

CONCZOROWSKI All the Same as Ezra?

91

26:34–35 suddenly turns to Esau’s marriages with a note on his age and on the disappointment of Isaac and Rebecca caused by Esau’s marriages. Genesis 27:1 then turns to Isaac’s advanced age and the story of Isaac accidentally blessing Jacob instead of Esau. The marriages of Esau seem to be of no relevance for the following narrative until Gen 27:46 where Rebecca addresses Isaac, complaining about Esau’s Hittite wives. Regarding the plot of the Jacob narrative, the account of Gen 27:46–28:9 gives an alternative reason for Jacob’s escape to Laban which differs from 27:1–45. Jacob is not on the run here, but he is looking for an appropriate wife according to his father’s advice. It has to be added that Gen 28:6–9 also gives information about Esau’s reaction on his parents’ attitude. Thus the narrative represents more than Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift (FAT 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 237 n. 45. Weimar builds upon the analysis by Thomas Nauerth, Untersuchungen zur Komposition der Jakobserzählungen: Auf der Suche nach der Endgestalt des Genesisbuches (BEAT 27; Frankfurt: Lang, 1997), 28–29. Nauerth’s argument is entirely content-related: In his view Gen 27:46 is inconsistent with regard to Gen 26:34–35 since the latter mentions objections of both Rebecca and Isaac, whereas Gen 27:46 reports only Rebecca’s disgust. On the other hand, he notes that, in contrast to Gen 28:7, Gen 28:8 refers only to Isaac’s commandment in Gen 28:1. Since he evaluates the beginnings of Gen 28:6 and 28:8 (‫ )וירא עשו‬as repetitive, Nauerth suggests a literary development: according to his view Gen 27:46 and 28:6– 7 represent the editorial attempt to combine 28:1–5, 8–9 with 27:1–45. Gen 28:6–7 would then have been added in view of Esau’s enmity against Jacob. Nevertheless, his assumption, although based on a detailed observation of the narrative, is not conclusive: in Gen 27:46 and 28:1 Rebecca and Isaac act together perfectly and there is neither a contradiction nor a repetition of Gen 26:34–35. Gen 27:46 reports an initiative of Rebecca which is connected to the rejection of Esau’s wives, but brings up the question of Jacob’s future marriage. Isaac then gives advice which relates to the generalized consequence from Rebecca’s note. The reference in Gen 28:8 to Isaac’s commandment in 28:1 is no problem either. Esau responds to his father’s commandment. That Gen 28:7 refers to the position of both parents causes no discrepancy. Esau first observes that Jacob acts in accordance with his parents (28:6–7) and in consequence realizes that his father rejects Canaanite women explicitly by giving a commandment on marital policy. The repetition of ‫ עשו וירא‬can be explained as illustrating Esau’s learning process described by the narrative. The change of Hittite (Gen 27:46) to Canaanite women (Gen 28:1) can also be explained without literary-critical difficulty as a generalization of Isaac’s commandment deriving from the depreciation of concrete women (namely, Esau’s first and second wives, Judith and Basemath). Gen 28:6–7 does not express any enmity on Esau’s part against Jacob, referring to the story in ch. 27. Since the contentual observations are not sufficient for a diachronic approach, and because there are no grammatical or terminological hints at editorial activity, the whole account of Gen 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9 is treated as a unity here.

92

Mixed Marriages

just a secondary justification for Jacob going to Aram, but a kind of paradigm on the correct marriage consisting of two cases exemplified by the different brothers. After 28:9 the topic is again absent, and is not even mentioned when Jacob later marries Leah and Rahel although these marriages are of that kind his parents wanted for him. The narrative account on Esau’s and Jacob’s marital policy begins with Esau’s marriages with two Hittite women. Like Isaac in Gen 25:20 (also commonly assigned to the Priestly source)7 he is “forty years old” then. But Isaac had married the daughter (and sister) of an Aramean from outside the land (cf. the double occurrence of “Aramean” as well as the location “Paddan-Aram” in Gen 25:20), while Esau’s wives are Hittite and, one has to suppose, living in the Promised Land. In each case the women are specified by their father’s name alongside an ethnonym: Bethuel, “the Aramean” (cf. Gen 25:20); Beeri and Elon, both called “the Hittite” (cf. Gen 26:34). In Gen 25 Isaac’s marriage is commented upon neither in a positive nor in a negative way. The last option would only be possible if one would regard Rebecca’s infertility (Gen 25:21) as such a comment, but this motif occurs frequently in the patriarchal narrative (and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible),8 there is no hint of a link to the mixed marriage topic and the problem is resolved immediately. Thus, one can dismiss it for our purpose. In contrast, Esau’s marriage gains a clearly negative comment, which is not about the marriage itself, but about the Hittite wives who become ‫ מרת רוח‬for Isaac and Rebecca. The phrase only occurs here, but the term ‫ מרה‬indicates bitterness as well as strong opposition in several contexts (cf. Israel in the wilderness: Exod 15:23 or Num 20:10, 24).9 Thus we find a first indication of a negative emotional attitude toward the (foreign) wives, which in consequence devalues the marriages, too, with the same term used to describe Israel’s stubbornness in the wilderness. Nevertheless, an explicit rationale for this position is not given.10 7. Cf. Blum, Komposition, 447–50; Seebass, Vätergeschichte, 271; Wenham, Genesis, 173; J. Alberto Soggin, Das Buch Genesis: Kommentar (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997), 341. 8. Cf. Gen 16 and 29–30 and, outside the patriarchal narratives, Judg 13 and 1 Sam 1. 9. Cf. L. Schwienhorst, “‫מרה‬,” ThWAT 5:6–11. 10. Despite the fact that the text shares the technical term ‫ לקח‬with Deut 7:3 a literary dependence cannot be stated since the verb is quite a common term for marriage in the Hebrew Bible and the formulations in both texts differ also: for example, in Genesis the married person is denoted as ‫אשה‬, whereas Deut 7:3 has ‫בת‬. Although the Hittite origin of Esau’s wives would be a kind of contact point to

CONCZOROWSKI All the Same as Ezra?

93

After the break by the story in Gen 27:1–45, the topic of marriage once again is discussed, starting with Gen 27:46 as already noted above. Now it is Rebecca, using the verb ‫קוץ‬, expressing her deep disappointment about the marital relationships of her first-born. Isaac’s reaction is not reported here, but his subsequent advice is well in line with Rebecca’s intention. The word ‫קוץ‬, used to denote Rebecca’s position, means “to loathe, to abhor,” again a strongly negative term, as can be exemplified by reference to Lev 20:23, where it is God who is said to “abhor” (‫ )ואקץ בם‬the customs of the peoples of the land.11 In Exod 1:12 and Num 22:3 the root is used to express rejection and even fear of enemies (Egypt, Moab) regarding Israel.12 The analogies may clarify Rebecca’s position: the wives of Esau are totally different from the patriarchal family in her opinion and that is why they are totally unacceptable. This observation fits with Gen 28:8 where Esau realizes that for his father his Hittite wives are ‫“( רע‬evil”). Rebecca and Isaac show a total rejection of Esau’s Hittite brides, which is the foundation of the concrete commandment in Gen 28:1–2 to avoid exogamy with Canaanite women and to marry endogamously (within family). The terminology used here points at a moral-based depreciation of the women and their origin which in the end even is understood by Esau. His marriages with Hittite women are an occasion to emphasize a general rejection of the “daughters of the land” or, more precisely, all those not related to the in-group consisting of those persons of Abrahamitic descent. They are said to be morally unacceptable. On that background, the alternative of a correct, “endogamous” marriage even seems to shine brighter. What makes the in-group (“Israel”) different from the “Canaanite” out-group is the reference to Abraham’s family, emphasized not only by narrating a family history beginning with Abraham, which includes Isaac and his sons, but also within the “marriage narrative” of Gen 27:46–28:9 by referring to the blessing of Abraham.13 This blessing is explicitly the list of seven Canaanite peoples in Deut 7:1, establishing a literary connection to this single ethnonym would be only weak evidence. A reference to the rationale of Deut 7:3 cannot be found in Gen 26–28 either. 11. See Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3A; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), 1759– 60. Cf. Wenham, Genesis, 213, who also points at Num 21:5. 12. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1760, sees a distinction between these verses and Gen 27:46. 13. Albert de Pury, “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des origines d’Israël,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 78–96.

94

Mixed Marriages

promised to Jacob (cf. 28:4). The commandment (“Do not take a woman from the daughters of Canaan”) is directed at Jacob, who is required to marry into his mother’s family, explicitly specified as the same Aramean(!) family his father had already married into. Esau does not receive any further commandment for he is not the one gaining the blessings of Abraham, but although he had already married on his own in Gen 26:34, he later tries to conform to Isaac’s ideal on his own, too. His solution is to marry an Ishmaelite daughter. It is quite notable that Esau’s third marriage is neither commented on in a positive nor in a negative light, but is shown as his idea of acting according to his parents’ ideals (cf. Gen 28:6–8). The absence of any negative comment on the Ishmaelite wife and the explicit reference to Abraham contrasts with the depiction of his Hittite wives. Although not explicitly valued in a positive way, this explicit mention of a kind of “learning process” of Esau (cf. Gen 28:6–8 with two uses of ‫ראה‬, before Esau’s consequences are narrated in 28:9) indicates that another positive example of endogamy that strengthens the narrative’s statement is given here.14 Thus, in the narrative of the marriages of Esau and Jacob, an in-group with a common narrative of descent from Abraham is confronted with an out-group which is devalued in strongly negative moral terms.15 The consequence of the moral-based rejection of the out-group is an urgent advice for endogamy directed at Jacob, taken up by Esau and indirectly addressed to the text’s reader. As has been mentioned, it is not only Hittite16 wives who are unacceptable (cf. Gen 26:34). They seem to be representative of a larger group14. Cf. Guillaume, “Beware,” 71, 76. 15. Guillaume, ibid., 76, suggests that the narrative advises the Edomites to marry “their own southern cousins.” Thus, “they make room for the Aramaic wives and descendants of the returnees.” According to his view the Priestly writer can be understood as a “politician,” intending to argue in favor of marriages within the Aramaic-speaking group of golah returnees and contra any intermingling with other inhabitants of Palestine. Nevertheless, it is quite important to note that what is emphasized concerning Esau’s third wife is her Abrahamitic descent. Esau is at no point prohibited from marrying an Aramaic woman, but is pictured as learning from his “mistake.” On the other hand, his marriages to Canaanite women provoke massive objections by his parents (cf. 26:34–35; 27:46), who see him as a potential role model for Jacob. An understanding of the narrative as an invitation or as advice to Edomites recommending a certain marriage policy their patriarch Esau had obeyed, seems a bit far-fetched. Esau’s behavior depends on the rejection of Canaanite women and is not motivated by separate logic specific to him. 16. In the case of Esau, the narrative describes concrete marriages to concrete women, so naturally they have to belong to a concrete group, which is denoted as Hittite.

CONCZOROWSKI All the Same as Ezra?

95

ing, as Gen 27:46 expands that group to the daughters of the land, which aims at “Canaanites” in general (cf. 28:1, 6, 8). It is not possible to localize Hittites or Canaanites as concrete groups, let alone in the time of the Priestly writer.17 It is likely that the surrounding population in Syro-Palestine is meant. The picture drawn by the narrative shows a group with the self-perception of being blessed by its god aiming at clearly defined boundaries regarding surrounding people. Belonging to that community is constituted by the common narrative of descent. It is not based on a certain location. The brides even have to be obtained abroad. A similar argument has been made by de Pury, who sees our text speaking in favor of marrying women from an “Abrahamitic circle” based on Gen 17, although his idea that the text of Gen 28 has an ideal of marriage only with circumcised peoples is not made explicit because of the text’s silence on that subject.18 Nevertheless, it is possible that an Abrahamitic identity could have been marked by specific shared cultural characteristics, such as circumcision. It is noteworthy that a violation of the ideal stated by Isaac in Gen 28:1–2 (with his first two marriages) characterizes the son who will lose his right as the first-born and will no longer be the carrier of God’s promise.19 Although Isaac’s commandment is addressed exclusively to Jacob, Esau’s subsequent following of it seems wholly appropriate, serving as a kind of supplementary example. In sum, Gen 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9 argue in the context of family history for the rejection of marriages with people of non-Abrahamitic descent. The Aramean family is seen in a positive light in the context of marriage policy (despite Laban’s ambivalent behavior) and the Ishmaelite branch is at least not depicted in a negative way. This constitutes a 17. For an overview on the dating of the so-called Priestergrundschrift, cf. Christian Frevel, Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift (HBS 23; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2000), 282–87; see also Erich Zenger, “Das priester(schrift)liche Werk (P),” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. E. Zenger et al.; 7th ed.; Kohlhammer Studienbücher 1/1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 156–75. 18. For the role of Gen 17 and the Jacob Cycle within the Priestly Code as well as the Pentateuch, cf. Albert de Pury, “The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Formation of the Pentateuch,” in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2006), 51–72. See also Guillaume, “Beware,” passim. 19. In any event, this is not to be understood as a kind of punishment. It is analogous to Jacob’s case: he does not “earn” the blessing by having a better marriage policy.

96

Mixed Marriages

clear contrast to the Hittite women, so there does not appear to be an ethnic distinction—rather, it is an ethical one. For the author, this was probably connected to a common West-Semitic culture, shared by Yehudites as well as Arameans and even Edomite and Arabic groups, which could be included into the genealogy of Abraham. Genesis 24 continues the idea of 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9. The text is commonly regarded as post-P due to linguistic and editorial considerations.20 The relatively long, closed narrative combines the mentioned texts from the Priestly Writer with the older narrative of the well scene (cf. Gen 29:1–13 and Exod 2:15–21).21 The so-called betrothal journey narrative22 in Gen 24 is part of the realization of a marriage commandment given by Abraham to his servant (cf. Gen 24:3–4). This commandment shows significant similarities with Isaac’s commandment to Jacob in Gen 28; in fact, its formulation is almost parallel. The difference between “daughters of Canaan“ and “daughters of the Canaanite” is of no great importance (as the singular form in the case of Esau’s wives certainly stems from Rebecca talking about the “daughters of Chet” in Gen 27:46). The same can be said with regard to “for my son” due to the fact that it is Abraham’s servant and not Isaac himself who must go on the journey. It is important that Abraham talks about the people in whose midst he is dwelling (cf. 24:3: ‫)אשר אנכי יושב בקרבו‬. Again, the surrounding people do not form an acceptable “pool” from which to find a spouse for the son (cf. 27:46: “daughters of the land”), meaning that a journey to Aram is necessary.23 Again, the bride has to be found in the house of Bethuel, explicitly seen as kindred to Abraham (cf. 24:4), whereas Gen 28:1–2 had emphasized the relation to Rebecca, the mother, instead of 20. For discussion, see Alexander Rofé, “An Inquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. FS R. Rendtorff (ed. E. Blum et al.; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 27–39; on some critical issues regarding language-based dating, cf. Gary A. Rendsburg, “Some False Leads in the Identification of Late Biblical Hebrew Texts: The Cases of Genesis 24 and 1 Samuel 2:27–36.” JBL 121, no. 1 (2002): 23–46. Although Rendsburg raises serious questions regarding the use of so-called Aramaisms for the dating of texts, his assumptions do not imply an earlier date for Gen 24. Cf. also Soggin, Genesis, 330. 21. Cf. Wenham, Genesis, 139–40; Seebass, Vätergeschichte, 251–52; Soggin, Genesis, 329. 22. Cf. Rofé, “Inquiry.” 23. Both texts use different words to mark the location (“Paddan-Aram” and “Aram-Naharim”). But they do not point at different places as both refer to journeys to the same family’s place of habitation.

CONCZOROWSKI All the Same as Ezra?

97

the father. The narrative emphasizes that the son should not leave the land, which is an important difference from the story of Jacob’s search for a bride. For Gen 24 endogamy is important, too, though it should not entail emigration. On the other hand, the narrative subtly tries to demonstrate that the organizing of an endogamous marriage is supported by God, who is seen to be behind the servant’s success (cf. Gen 24:7, 12– 14, 34–48). Failure does not seem to be a realistic option in the narrative, which charts a kind of ideal procedure for finding the ideal bride. The patriarch’s endogamy-related commandment is supported by God implicitly and gains even more importance through its repetition in the cases of Isaac and Jacob. Interestingly, there is no explicit devaluation of the Canaanites in Gen 24, such as we find in Gen 26:35 and 28:8. Women from the surrounding population simply do not seem to be an option. On the other hand, the in-group also seems to be comprised of those of Abrahamitic descent here, since the patriarch is the one to give the endogamy commandment and since the bride’s descent is defined in relation to him. Thus, the meta-narrative is the same as in Gen 26– 28, though it does not really take into account “Abrahamitic relatives” outside of a Yehudite as well as a Mesopotamian golah-community.24 Additionally, the emphatic commandment not to leave the land is a new focus and maybe a real historical problem within a community of golah returnees, where probably not everyone was successfully settling into the new homeland. To summarize in a preliminary fashion: the patriarchal texts reject marriages with peoples who are not related to the in-group claiming to be of Abrahamitic descent. Outsiders, not sharing the narrative of common descent, are not acceptable for marriages according to that position. They are disqualified on moral grounds in the Esau–Jacob narrative (Gen 26– 28). Genesis 24 is silent regarding such a disqualification and simply takes the exclusion for granted. Group identity is bound to a common narrative of descent, which seems to include a common self-perception of culture and ethics. An ethnic distinction between Yehudite identity and others seems not yet to be in the background, for Arameans or Arabs are possible partners at least in Gen 26–28.25 It is possible that an ideal of taking a bride from the Diaspora is in the background (especially in Gen 24, where the focus is on the Aramean family alone), but a radical 24. Gen 24:10 is the only place where the term “Aram” appears as ‫ארם נהרים‬. The family of Bethuel is not explicitly denoted as Aramean here. This represents a significant contrast to Gen 28:1–9. 25. Since Gen 24 is silent with regard to that aspect, it probably represents a slight development concentrating on a Yehudite community.

98

Mixed Marriages

exclusivism cannot be found here. Furthermore, a construction based merely on a common narrative of descent is potentially inclusive, as it could integrate other peoples as branches of a family tree representing a common culture. Other biblical texts take steps toward a more distinct and exclusivist position. 2.2. Deuteronomy 7:3–4 Another expression of the rejection of intermarriage can be found in the so-called Deuteronomistic texts.26 For the purposes of the present discussion, the legislation of Deuteronomy is chosen as representative of this concept. Deuteronomy 7:3–427 is a juridical text which, in contrast to the patriarchal narratives, emphasizes the danger of apostasy as a consequence of marriages with Canaanite women. This is, to be sure, typical of a “Deuteronomistic” line of argument rejecting interreligious marriages (cf. Josh 23:7–13; Judg 3:5–6; 1 Kgs 11:1–13: all of which are to be understood as key texts for the “Deuteronomistic” hermeneutics of Israelite history).28 Deuteronomy 7:3 initially formulates its prohibition generally, with “you shall not intermarry (‫ )חתן‬with them,” which is then elaborated by the statement “not giving your daughters to their sons and not taking their daughters for your sons” (‫)בתך לא־תתן לבנו ובתו לא־תקח לבנך‬. Deuteronomy 7:4 gives the reason—namely, the danger of worshipping other gods (‫)ועבדו אלהים אחרים‬. The in-group, which has to be protected, is not defined by descent here, but it is rooted in its relationship to its god and its election (cf. 26. For an overview, see Gary Knoppers, “Sex, Religion, and Politics: The Deuteronomist on Intermarriage,” HAR 14 (1994): 121–41. 27. The two verses have to be understood in the context of Deut 7:1–6, as the prohibition of mixed marriages as part of the broader discourse on Israel’s holiness and consequences arising from entering the Promised Land. Cf. Timo Veijola, Das fünfte Buch Mose (Deuteronomium): Kapitel 1,1–16,17 (ATD 8/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 195–203; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 56; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 362–69. 28. See Knoppers, “Sex”; cf. also Titus Reinmuth, Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditionsgeschichtlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts Nehemias (OBO 183; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 309–10. Even within the Deuteronomistic line, a literary development is worth considering. Deut 7:3 could, then, be understood best as a generalization of Exod 34:15–16; Josh 23:7–12 and 1 Kgs 11:1–8.

CONCZOROWSKI All the Same as Ezra?

99

Israel as “holy people” in Deut 7:6). Mixed marriages would endanger that identity, since foreign wives would worship foreign gods, and so an intermarried Israelite could be “turned away” (‫סור‬, cf. Deut 7:4) from YHWH, the source of holiness for Israel and thus its center of identity as a “holy people.” The foreign wives are Canaanite women, as indicated by the sevennation-list in Deut 7:1. As in the patriarchal narratives already mentioned, those wives are not acceptable.29 Yet Deut 7:3 has a broader perspective, since the question of a possible exchange of daughters is brought into focus. The issue is not only about taking spouses, but also about giving them. The contact between and even intermingling of the groups, which would be the consequence of intermarriage, would bring about the danger of apostasy. The exclusive worship of YHWH as the only god of Israel defines Israelite identity. Marriages crossing religious boundaries would, then, have a strongly negative impact for both the individual and the (holy) community. The in-group is clearly defined by religion, just as the “Other” is rejected on the basis of religion also—not by a more general moral devaluation. The outside group is nevertheless presented in a negative way, since apostasy would be a catastrophe: a threat to Israel’s existence in the land. Of course, the rationale for an endogamous marriage for Abraham’s and Isaac’s sons was rooted in religious tradition, too. But the religious argument is more concrete in Deut 7: being part of the in-group means to participate in its special status here, which derives from the extraordinary relation of YHWH to his people. This participation is fragile and must be defended against the danger of loosening the commitment to YHWH. Deuteronomy 7:3–4 warns that intermingling with Canaanites30 endangers Israel’s religion by leading to a commitment to other gods, which would not be tolerable for Israel’s God (cf. the motif of divine jealousy, for example, in Exod 34:14—immediately before dealing with the question of mixed marriage!—or Deut 6:15; 32:16–21). The protection of the Yahwistic “denomination” is the core of Israel’s identity. Losing religion by intermarriage would be the loss of Israel’s differentia specifica. 29. While marriage again is expressed by the common formulation ‫ לקח אשה‬, “taking a wife,” a literary dependence cannot be stated from the quite slight similarity to the patriarchal texts of Deut 7. 30. 1 Kgs 11:1–13 expands the list of forbidden peoples to include nonCanaanites.

100

Mixed Marriages

2.3. Genesis 34 Genesis 34 and Ezra 9–10 are two loci classici for the discussion of mixed marriage, ones understood to represent a later stage of development within biblical discussion. Both texts use and interpret earlier biblical positions within their own argumentation. Based on a wide range of Pentateuchal tradition, especially Deut 7:3–4, both deal with the possibility (or impossibility) of marriage alliances with outsiders. In a quite rigorous way all those marriages are prohibited. Genesis 34 is integrated into the Jacob cycle only in a loose way and thus can easily be distinguished from its context as a separate unit.31 In its final form, Gen 34 combines the topic of mixed marriage in a context of family history with a kind of discourse on legislation.32 Due to space limitations, only the most significant aspects of the final text of Gen 34 as an important voice in post-exilic mixed marriage debate will be addressed (in conversation with other mixed marriage traditions when necessary). The initial passage narrating the case of Dinah and Shechem at first calls the reader’s attention to the problem of a foreign man willing to marry a daughter from Jacob’s clan.33 The direction of that relationship would be inverted compared to the other patriarchal narratives: it is the daughter, not the son, who would intermarry (cf. Gen 24; 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9). But the relationship forged by Shechem is qualified as polluting (‫ )טמא‬her (cf. Gen 34:5, 13, 27, certainly with cultic connotations, too34) from the start—or, to put it differently, as an act which is an “outrage done in Israel” (‫ )נבלה עשה בישראל‬which should have been avoided (cf. 34:7; for the use of ‫נבלה‬, see, e.g., Deut 22:21 and Josh 7:2435). Thus what Shechem did is understood as degrading Dinah, which is an intolerable situation for her clan. The option to legalize the 31. See Blum, Komposition, 210–23; Seebass, Vätergeschichte, 420. 32. Cf. section 4 of Christian Frevel’s essay in the present volume. 33. The discussion on the rape of Dinah is left out of the present study since I intend to focus on the measures taken by Shechem and Hamor to “legalize” the crime, which is of interest for the mixed marriage topic. For the debate on rape in Gen 34, cf. the exemplary studies by Yael Shemesh, “Rape is Rape is Rape: The Story of Dinah and Shechem (Genesis 34),” ZAW 119, no. 1 (2007): 2–21; Frank M. Yamada, “Dealing with Rape (in) Narrative (Genesis 34): Ethics of the Other and a Text in Conflict,” in The Meanings We Choose: Hermeneutical Ethics, Indeterminacy and the Conflict of Interpretations (ed. C. Cosgrove; JSOTSup 411; BTC 5; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 149–65; Ellen van Wolde, “The Dinah Story: Rape or Worse?,” OTE 15, no. 1 (2002): 225–39. 34. F. Maass, “‫טמא‬,” THAT 1:664–67. 35. J. Marböck, “‫נבלה‬,” ThWAT 5:171–85.

CONCZOROWSKI All the Same as Ezra?

101

relationship by an agreement according to Exod 22:15–16/Deut 22:28– 29 (cf. Gen 34:12 with the root ‫ )מהר‬is therefore absolutely impossible. Nevertheless, Gen 34 does not stay on the level of a family narrative. With the general proposal by Hamor to intermarry (cf. Gen 34:9) another dimension appears: the issue arises whether it was possible to avoid a total prohibition of intermarriage with those not belonging to the descendents of Jacob. In Gen 34 this question is no point of contention. This observation may be strengthened by the formulation of the intermarriage proposal, which is close to Deut 7:3–4 and thus seems to be a kind of perversion of Pentateuchal law. Hamor wants Jacob’s clan to do something which is marked as explicitly prohibited in the Torah. Furthermore, the Shechemites are also named “Hivites” (cf. 34:2), a people mentioned in the seven-nation list of Deut 7:1. Additionally, Gen 34:23 implicitly devalues the proposal as greedy: the Shechemites seek only to take possession of the property of Jacob’s clan.36 The speech in Gen 34:10 offering land of the Shechemites to Jacob and his sons is contradicted by their internal discussion, which earns them a mirrored punishment at the end of the narrative (cf. Gen 34:27–29). On the other hand, the topic of circumcision, with outsiders willing to accept this identity marker and to assimilate into Israel as a possible solution legitimating intermarriage, is not a real proposal by the sons of Jacob; rather, it is a trap motivated by revenge (Gen 34:13–17). Indeed, circumcision of foreigners is shown to be no real alternative—since the Shechemites would only submit to circumcision on the basis of the hidden agenda of gaining possession of Jacob’s property, the whole dialogue seems to be built on a foundation of dishonesty.37 It is possible that the discussion of circumcision in Gen 34 aims at eliminating the possibility of a kind of “conversion.” From the point of view of the final text of Gen 34, there is no possibility of legitimating mixed marriages—not even by conversion or analogous actions. The only possible exception would be marriage to nonIsraelite virgins according to Num 31, which is taken up by Gen 34 (Gen 34:25–29). In this intertextual reference to a narrative in which the Midianites are slaughtered (cf. Num 31:7, 9) we also find a connection to Num 25. Additionally, this passage uses the root ‫( זנה‬cf. Gen 34:31 and Num 25:1) in relation to the forbidden relationships with foreign women that were the motivation of another violent act of revenge. The final texts 36. Note that what Shechem did to Dinah already was an act of violence showing the inhabitants of Shechem in a negative light. 37. Thus, a possible interpretation of Deut 21:10–14 to open up the prohibition of Deut 7:3–4 for “converts” is neglected.

102

Mixed Marriages

of Num 25 and Gen 34 thus build up a framework radicalizing the Pentateuch’s position contra mixed marriage by adoption and development of older tradition.38 Furthermore, Gen 34 implies a negative position with regard to inhabitants of Samaria by reference to Shechem.39 Inhabitants of the northern region are ironically excluded from an in-group constituting its own identity by a common narrative of descent with Jacob, actually the northern patriarch, at its centre.40 Thus, Gen 34 could have functioned implicitly as an anti-Samaritan story concentrating on a Yehudite community as the in-group, by claiming the “northern” patriarch.41 On the one hand, intermarriage would pollute and socially degrade an Israelite woman. But it is also prohibited for an Israelite man to marry a foreign wife. Genesis 34 thus supplements the discourse on intermarriage in the Pentateuch, not only by taking up the legislation and the context of patriarchal history, but also by being connected to the example of Num 25 where such relationships are devalued, too (with reference to apostasy!). Interestingly enough, in the citation of Deut 7:3–4 the question of apostasy is not taken up. The whole text of Gen 34 stays silent about that topic. It is a generalized and unavoidable moral devaluation of “the others” which seems to be the motivation of the militant action taken by Simeon and Levi. That moral devaluation cannot even be changed by the assimilation of the “foreign” group because their stated intentions are later revealed to be a ruse. The final text of Gen 34 draws attention to and then strongly rejects all possible proposals to avoid the prohibition of intercultural marriages which could arise from inclusive interpretation of Pentateuchal texts (such as Gen 28:6–9; 41:37–57; the notes on Moses’ wife Zipporah in Exod 2 and 4 or Deut 21:10–14).42 Intermingling with foreigners is

38. Cf. Helena Zlotnick-Sivan, “The Rape of Cozbi (Numbers xxv),” VT 51, no. 1 (2001): 69–80. 39. Cf. Alexander Rofé, “Defilement of Virgins in Biblical Law and the Case of Dinah,” Bib 86 (2005): 369–75 (373–74). 40. Note also the pejorative identification of the “Shechemites” with the “Hivites” (Gen 34:2). The Hivites belong to the “peoples in the midst of whom” the family of the patriarchs already dealt in the narratives about Abraham and Isaac. This observation points at an exclusion of the Samaritans from (the family of) Israel. 41. For a discussion of problems deriving from this notion, for example regarding the unaltered rendering by Codex Samaritanus, cf. Rofé, “Defilement,” 374. 42. A rendering of Deut 21:10–14 with rules expressed much more strictly than those found in the Pentateuch occurs in the Temple Scroll from the Qumran caves

CONCZOROWSKI All the Same as Ezra?

103

prohibited for Israel, which is defined from a Yehudite perspective as excluding Samaria. It is even said to be polluting. It seems that Gen 34 intends, on the one hand, to put an end on Pentateuchal discussion. Its exclusivist position, on the other hand, provided a starting point for several extra-biblical texts arguing for a radical rejection of intermarriage.43 2.4. Ezra 9–10 In the Hebrew Bible, the text dealing with the subject of mixed marriages in the most elaborated way is certainly Ezra 9–10. Accordingly, the text has garnered most of the attention in discussions of the topic, and could be seen as a kind of “culmination” of tradition referring to a prohibition of intermarriage with foreigners or people denoted as foreign.44 Within the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah, the narrative is part of the sections centering on Ezra’s ministry in Yehud (Ezra 7–10; Neh 8).

(11Q19–21; 4Q365a; 4Q524). The Temple Scroll makes it practically impossible to marry a woman captured in war. The tendency to radicalize Pentateuchal law on intermarriage seems to live on even in later times. 43. Cf. Jubilees, as well as the Levi literature (i.e. Aramaic Levi; Testament of Levi). Already the Septuagint develops Gen 34; cf. Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 117–19. An apocryphal example for a more inclusive solution opposing a radical rejection is the story of Joseph and Aseneth, which takes another Genesis narrative as point of departure. 44. Cf. Tamara C. Eskenazi and Eleanor P. Judd, “Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 242–65, and, in the same volume, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, “The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study of the Sociology of the Post-Exilic Community,” 266–85; Christine Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 27–33; David Janzen, “Scholars, Witches, Ideologues, and What the Text Said: Ezra 9–10 and Its Interpretation,” in Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period (ed. J. L. Berquist; SBLSemeiaSt 50; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 49–69; Armin Lange, “ ‘Eure Töchter gebt nicht ihren Söhnen und ihre Töchter nehmt nicht für eure Söhne’ (Esra 9,12). Die Frage der Mischehen im Buch Esra / Nehemia im Licht der Textfunde von Qumran,” in Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie. Festschrift für Bernd Janowski zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. M. Bauks et al.; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008), 295–311. Ina WilliPlein, “Problems of Intermarriage in Postexilic Times,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis and Its Language (ed. M. BarAsher et al.; Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2007), 177–89; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 63–71, 142–45.

104

Mixed Marriages

Introduced in Ezra 9:1, the topic is presented in a unified manner, starting with a complaint about the situation which caused Ezra’s mourning and praying, and ending with the reported measures taken to solve the “problem” in Ezra 10.45 After Ezra 10:44, the so-called Nehemiah Memoir begins with Ezra being absent during the following chapters. The narrative of Ezra 9–10 defends a self-definition of the post-exilic community that is marked by holiness and purity as well as an awareness of the dangers posed by the influence from outsiders—all of this quite a common motif in the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah (e.g. see the struggle for the building of the Temple in Ezra 4–6, as well as the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem in Neh 1–6). In Ezra 9–10 it is the topic of mixed marriage which becomes a focal point for a construction of a Yehudite self in contrast to the impure “other.” Like Gen 34, the narrative in Ezra takes up the prohibition of mixed marriages from Deut 7:3. Like Gen 34, it omits the rationale of Deuteronomy referring to the danger of apostasy.46 Also like Gen 34, Ezra 9–10 seeks to answer questions which might have arisen from mixed marriage traditions. Since the (older) “danger of apostasy” and the “moral devaluation of outsiders” rationales seem to be no longer sufficient, the reasons for rejecting intermarriage must be stated anew for the author of the narrative. The problem is stated explicitly in Ezra 9–10—the foreign wives. Thus Ezra 9:2 cites only that half of the prohibition of mixed marriages dealing with the “taking [of] women” (unlike Deut 7:3, but like Exod 34:16!), whereas Ezra 9:12 (like Deut 7:3) presents both sides of the commandment without the initial advice not to intermarry, which is 45. The present study deals with Ezra 9–10 in its final form. The exegetical discussion on its development is quite diverse. I suggest the following rough literary development: the basic text consisting of Ezra 9 and Ezra 10:6, 16*, 17, 44b* was expanded by two editors—first by an editor emphasizing the community’s active participation in the process of solving the problem, then by an editor with priestly interests. The theological position regarding mixed marriage would not have been changed by that. For an overview on the discussion on and several approaches to the literary development of Ezra 9–10, cf. Juha Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 82– 135; Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 248–57; H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 125–62; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1988), 173–202. 46. A point of less importance is one verbal difference: Gen 34, like Deut 7:3, has ‫לקח‬, whereas Ezra 9–10 and, for example, Neh 13 have ‫נשא‬, which substitutes the term used by Deut 7 in Late Biblical Hebrew texts.

CONCZOROWSKI All the Same as Ezra?

105

taken up in Ezra 9:14. Correlated with Ezra 10, where the foreign wives are to be sent away, it seems that only the foreign women are a danger for Israel’s construction of identity. For Ezra 9–10 the main problem is that the community has not separated (expressed using the priestly terminus technicus ‫בדל‬, cf. especially Lev 10:10!) itself from the peoples of the land (cf. Ezra 9:1; Ezra 10 has “people of the land”), which would have been appropriate to their abominations (‫)כתועבתיהם‬. These are defined in Ezra 9:1 to be like the abominations of the five previously mentioned Canaanite peoples,47 as well as of Egyptians, Ammonites and Moabites. That observation probably refers to Lev 18, which lists sexual misdeeds said to be the customs of Canaan and Egypt (18:3). It is to be noted that in Ezra 9:1 the word “abomination,” used frequently in Lev 18 (vv. 22, 26, 27, 29, 30; cf. also the use in Lev 20 and Deut 18:9), is employed. Moab and Ammon could have been included in the list because of the polemic narrative about their incestuous origins in Gen 19:30–38, which would exemplify the violation of Lev 18:6, 17. Leviticus 18:24–30 also refers to the defiling quality of those mentioned practices: acting the “Canaanite/Egyptian way,” Israel would defile itself. According to Lev 18, the peoples had even defiled the land and thus have been “spewed out” (Lev 18:25). That is also noted by Ezra 9:11, where the land is said to be “a land of defilement” because of the peoples’ customs (their ‫)!תועבת‬, which gives the reason for the following prohibition of intermarriage (cf. 9:12, 14). Consequently, Israel has to separate from those peoples said to be impure. Intermarriage with them would endanger Israel’s status as holy seed (‫זרע הקדש‬, cf. Ezra 9:2), its relation to its God and its situation of relative mercy which made it possible for a post-exilic community to live in Jerusalem and its surroundings (cf. Ezra’s lamentation in his prayer, Ezra 9:6–15). Furthermore, Israel’s identity is defined by the golah as a kind of “avantgarde” group with Ezra as representative (cf., e.g., Ezra 9:4, 6–15; 10:6). The golah even seems to be identified with Israel. The common cultural memory of the Exile is an important element of the community’s selfperception. As part of the devaluated and prohibited people, foreign wives are not acceptable for a legitimate marital policy. Instead, they are a severe danger for the post-exilic community as a whole. A statement regarding conditions for a kind of conversion (or purification) of foreign women 47. According to the text of MT which represents the lectio difficilior. Cf. also Williamson, Ezra, 126, 131, and Pakkala, Ezra, 307. For a rendering as “Edomite,” cf. Blenkinsopp, Ezra, 174.

106

Mixed Marriages

and their families is absent from the text. It keeps silent about any possibility of them joining Israel, making neither positive nor negative statements. Since, however, the foreign women and their people are said to have such a dangerous impact on Israel’s state of holiness, there seems to be simply no possible way for them to integrate, even after they have adopted Israel’s moral customs or religion.48 3. Comparison As already noted, there are several similarities between the texts of Gen 34 and Ezra 9–10 regarding the treatment of mixed marriages. For each of them, a moral-religious rationale is not sufficient to back up the favored marriage policy. They participate in a discourse which transforms the prohibitions of Exod 34:15–16 and Deut 7:3–4 and the examples from the patriarchal narratives. If a prohibition of intermarriage accuses foreign wives of leading Israelites straight into apostasy, it does not rule out the possibility that outsiders would be willing to adopt Israel’s “religion” or identity markers. To an extent, then, the argument related to apostasy would lose its distinctive power. To achieve the desired separation from other groups, different arguments must be constructed. These turn out to be not entirely new, but part of a development starting on Pentateuchal grounds. Ezra 9– 10, for example, clearly builds upon the theology of election deriving from Deut 7:1–6. As the community’s identity is defined positively by its holiness, it is natural to present it in contrast to peoples outside. When the in-group’s own status is seen as distinct from other groups as holy from profane, no close contact is possible, especially with regards to the question of marriage. The first patriarchal texts to be mentioned are not so explicit in their rationale: Gen 26:34–35 and 27:46–28:9 emphasize a diffuse moral devaluation of Canaanites, while Gen 24 is silent about it and simply takes it for guaranteed. The focus here is on the topic of marrying inside or outside the land, as well as people related or unrelated to a community defined by a common meta-narrative. Perhaps here we find the adaptation of an older custom of only marrying kinsfolk, which now appears to be used in the construction of an identity based on a narrative of common descent. 48. Regarding the composition of Ezra–Nehemiah one has to note that in Neh 6:18 as well as in Neh 13:23–29 mixed marriages are also addressed. The similarities and parallels hint at a development within this composition. For details, see the co-authored essay by Christian Frevel and Benedikt Conczorowski in the present volume.

CONCZOROWSKI All the Same as Ezra?

107

Deuteronomy 7:3–4 aims at protecting the first commandment by avoiding mixed marriages. This legislation needed to focus not only on women brought in, but on intermarriage in general. Descent is not of importance here, but a self-definition as distinct (holy) people has already emerged. As has been shown above, there are two main rationales justifying prohibitions of intermarriage in the Pentateuch. The later development creatively combines the religious and the moral devaluation of foreigners, develops the notion of Israel as a holy people and, consequently, fixes possible loopholes. Genesis 34 and Ezra 9–10 show that mixed marriages were a topic of ongoing discussion which made it necessary to supplement Pentateuchal law. That development was due to the question of what makes the post-exilic community different from its surrounding neighbors. It could no longer be answered by referring to religious denomination, marriage customs, or even the observance of a certain identity marker. While all of those measures could be used to exclude groups, they could also be circumvented through their adoption by members of the outside groups. Ezra 9–10 and Gen 34 establish boundaries which are impermeable.49 These boundaries could also be applied to conflicts between groups within the emerging Judaism where other identity markers would no longer have been controversial. A comparison of Gen 34 and Ezra 9–10 reveals that both share a similar kind of exclusivism, though it should also be noted that rationale and argumentation of the Ezra narrative are different. In opposition to Gen 34, which seems to see a necessity for an additional clarification reacting on discussions and uncertainties which may have occurred in the Pentateuch’s formative phase, Ezra 9–10 takes for granted an exclusivist understanding of Pentateuchal law. Ezra 9–10, however, is more interested in the construction of post-exilic community’s identity on the background of a sharply excluded out-group, using Pentateuchal traditions as a tool.50 49. Cf. Hayes, Impurities, 58–59. 50. The observation of those differences hint at a chronological order with Gen 34 preceding Ezra 9–10. Notably, the first-mentioned text intercedes in an internal dispute within the Pentateuch to avoid the possibility of a certain interpretation, whereas Ezra 9–10 seems to have no doubts regarding its position. The oftenobserved argument that Gen 34 and Ezra 9–10 represent the same stage of development should be replaced by a more differentiated approach. For a detailed analysis of the texts’ chronology, Ezra’s more elaborate uses of cultic language and motifs, as well as the Shechem motif in Gen 34, have also to be taken into account. These, in my view, point in the same direction.

108

Mixed Marriages

4. Conclusions In sum, at least three different strategies of justification for the prohibition of certain marriages are to be found: via moral devaluation, via fear of apostasy and via the rationale based on the dichotomy of pure vs. impure and holy vs. profane. While the first two seem to be found in clearly defined contexts of Priestly or Deuteronomistic rejection of intermarriage, the third takes up the first two and transforms them to fix any possible loophole. The transformation described here goes hand in hand with the development of an elaborated self-definition of a holy and pure people rooted in older tradition. Genesis 34 in its final form seems to be meant as a conclusion to the Pentateuch’s discussion; yet it also functions as starting point for further reflection and discussion in Second Temple Judaism (cf. the Levi literature or Jubilees), especially taking up the question of purity and impurity. The rejection of mixed marriage in the Hebrew Bible is not uniform, but it is part of the development of Israel’s self-definition. The Priestly Writer could define Israel by means of a common narrative of (Abrahamitic) descent and his definition could live on even until later times (cf. Gen 24), while the Deuteronomists emphasized Israel’s relation to its God. Both positions existed side-by-side, expressing slightly different positions regarding the topic. The later development harmonizes both positions and goes on further, radicalizing the inner-Judahite discourse. Mixed marriages have been regarded as a problem throughout Israel’s long history and with different backgrounds in mind. Thus the prohibition is not the product of one special construction of identity or the ideology of only a small and rigorist party. Marriage policy is of great importance within several contexts, times and constructions of identity, since it is here, on the level of family, the smallest component of society, that the identity of the whole community is established. It could and did change, and thus had to be protected and controlled while the range of what was regarded as “in-group” also changed. In the prohibitive texts on intermarriage discussed here we have found representations of a pluralistic Second Temple Judaism. But our view could be widened, too, if supplemented by those texts speaking in favor of intermarriage or explicitly in favor of foreign women (e.g. Ruth or the texts on Moses’ wives). Nevertheless, Gen 34 (for the Pentateuch) as well as Ezra 9–10 (for post-Pentateuch tradition) sought to put an end to any ongoing discussion. Neither seems to have been entirely successful.

UNDERSTANDING THE MIXED MARRIAGES OF EZRA–NEHEMIAH IN THE LIGHT OF TEMPLE-BUILDING AND THE BOOK’S CONCEPT OF JERUSALEM Jan Clauss

Preliminary Remarks In what follows I will argue that the book of Ezra–Nehemiah in its final form communicates an overall process of identity formation. Therefore, the large variety of introduced topics should be regarded as more than a loose compilation of allegedly historical events which were amassed in Ezra–Nehemiah to form a predominantly historiographic account of the post-exilic restoration. Though single topics, such as return from exile, temple-building and the repeatedly occurring conflict of so-called mixed marriages—topics that will be referred to as “parameters” in the present study—function as focal points of the commonwealth, they do not just allow for additive (but rather unconnected) statements about the collective identity which narratively constitutes itself in the events. Instead, this study shall argue that the overall identity-concept can be understood by asking for a nexus between often uncritically isolated topics; a rather integrative and synchronic reading might therefore bring into relief that meaning in narratives is constituted by context, semantics and reference. The point of departure for the present study is that the individual sections of Ezra–Nehemiah, with their thematic focuses, intercommunicate, and thus might even re-accentuate single “parameters.” This relation appears to be most crucial in the evaluation and analysis of Ezra– Nehemiah’s accounts on intermarriage, which have been assessed time and again, leading to very disparate results. Therefore, my analysis will focus on the narrative function of Temple, the city of Jerusalem, the intermarriage incidents and their interaction, assuming them to be three central parameters of narrative identity-establishment. For this endeavor, apart from reflections about structure and plot which allow for indirect characterization, the use of semantics is considered most relevant, the more so as the application of terminology is informative in the search for

110

Mixed Marriages

potential reference-texts. In addition, the distinct use of language appears to be revealing for underlying concepts which govern the specific presentation and configuration of events. Another preliminary remark is due: in the present study I approach Ezra–Nehemiah from a recipient’s/reader’s perspective—that is, with synchronic literary methodology, which can therefore draw on the books of Chronicles as a potential reference, establishing meaning through intertextuality, without compulsion to argue for models of relative chronology and diachrony. 1. The First Parameter: Temple-Building and the People’s Enhanced Cultic Status The prestige of having rebuilt the temple forms the core of a distinct community. Putting Cyrus’ demand to rebuild the “house of the GOD of heaven”—whose actual initiator is YHWH himself—right at the beginning of the composition strongly hints that the re-establishment of Judean commonwealth should be perceived as a primarily religious endeavor (Ezra 1:1–3). The opening chapters of Ezra–Nehemiah, which can be understood as exposition, seem to convey that the post-exilic community and their individual representatives only enter the “stage of events” because of the divinely initiated chance to rebuild the temple. In the narrative the temple therefore becomes the gravitational center of identity-formation.1 As shall be pointed out, the building simultaneously organizes the understanding of the narration as a whole and sets a hermeneutical frame.2 In this function it makes statements about the 1. Tamara Eskenazi concisely states: “Being the people of God and building the house of God are interdependent. Both people and house of God are to some extent unknown entities, not fully defined at the beginning of the book. They take form in the process that follows.” Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra–Nehemiah (SBLMS 36; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988), 43. 2. In his historical assessment of the socio-political situation of the Persian province, Joseph Blenkinsopp has rightly emphasized the pragmatic importance of the Jerusalem temple and coined the term “Center of Gravity.” With regard to Ezra– Nehemiah this also holds true on the level of composition and plot as well as for the religious self-perception emanating from it. Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah,” in Second Temple Studies 1: Persian Period (ed. P. R. Davies and J. M. Halligan; JSOTSup 117; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 22–53 (53). Cf. Peter R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJSup 65; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 89–90, states: “The legitimacy of the temple rebuilding and the repatriated Judeans to undertake the task are central concerns of these chapters… According to Ezr 1:2–3, the repatriation was for the explicit purpose of rebuilding the temple.”

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

111

characteristics of the post-exilic community whose “ethnogenesis” is essentially tied to and defined by the building project.3 One can suggest that the emergence of a specific identity runs parallel with the building project and is both structurally and semantically inscribed into the presentation of the events. The temple’s eminence in this constellation can be seen from the effort expended to prove its legitimacy—particularly by emphasizing continuity with the First Temple. Not enough that already Ezra 1:1 identifies YHWH as the actual initiator and that Cyrus as the highest mundane authority issues a decree summoning the project, Ezra–Nehemiah employs various narrative strategies to emphasize that the post-exilic building is the fully adequate successor of Solomon’s temple. Parallels are stressed to such an extent that one might even claim that the Second Temple is actually identical with its predecessor, being more a restoration than another building: the temple vessels are entirely restored, in contrast to Jer 52:17–23; 2 Kgs 24:13; 25:15 and 2 Chr 36, which report the irretrievable loss of some of the items in the pillages of 587/86 B.C.E.4 As Peter Ackroyd has shown, the restored vessels, as a vital part of the temple’s inventory, ensure continuity with the pre-exilic cult.5 The meticulous census of the people in Ezra 2 may communicate the same intention. Just as Cyrus’ decree demands a distinct people will build the temple,6 the list in Ezra 2:1–67 (par. Neh 7:6–68[69]) ensures that everybody involved in the building has a pre-exilic history. Some witnesses to the laying of the fundaments, “old people who had seen the first house” (Ezra 3:12), even biographically bridge the exile and therefore illustrate

3. Ethnos is understood here as subject to socio-cultural formation processes and by no means as a biological given. For a detailed discussion of differing definitions, see the contribution of Katherine Southwood in the present volume. 4. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 49. 5. “In Ezra i, the full reversal of this [the complete deportation] is indicated. Vv. 7–11 do not merely state that Cyrus produced the temple vessels and committed them to Mithredath and hence to Sheshbazzar; we are also informed that the inventory was made and that what was restored was the totality of the vessels. Thus the restoration of the temple includes the bringing back of the vessels, and with them the guarantee that there is a direct link with the earlier worship of the community.” Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1972), 166–81 (178). 6. David Janzen, “The Cries of Jerusalem: Ethnic, Cultic, Legal, and Geographic Boundaries in Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader (ed. M. J. Boda and P. L. Redditt; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 117–35 (121).

112

Mixed Marriages

the connection between both the pre- and post-exilic communities as well as both buildings. Thus also on the personal level continuity is established.7 Alongside narrative sequences such as Ezra 3:3 (cf. 2:68), which emphasize the re-initialization of central institutions such as the altar right at its former place (‫)על־מכונתיו‬, especially the Cyrus memorandum of Ezra 6:3–5 outlines substantial architectonical and spatial continuity (par. 2 Chr 3:3–5; 1 Kgs 6:36) by taking up identical features of both buildings.8 Using Hithpael form of ‫בנה‬, the wording might even suggest that the Second Temple be understood not as an entirely new building, but rather as a renovation of its predecessor—which may indeed be true, historically speaking.9 A connection between both buildings is also established on the textual level alluding to referential texts from Chronicles. Ezra 1–6 proceeds rather anisochronically, yet dwells closely on outstanding features and moments of the construction process. Ezra 3:7 bundles different details, conveying the impression that the Second Temple’s construction is precisely modeled after the first. Masons and carpenters are hired (1 Chr 22:15), Sidonians and the Tyrians (1 Chr 22:4) paid in money and kind (1 Kgs 5:25; 2 Chr 2:9) are commissioned with the provision of cedars from Lebanon, the latter being shipped to Joppa (2 Chr 2:16).10 Ezra 3:8– 12 corroborates the conceptual link with further typological analogies. In v. 8 the whole community musters Levites for the supervision of the building. The Levites’ presence not only arouses the impression of a cultic process, but also reveals the community, which replaces the royal 7. Furthermore, the presentation of events in Ezra 3:10–13 makes a deliberate reference to Hag 2:3 likely. Whereas Haggai implies a negative evaluation of those who have seen the former building, Ezra sets a positive mood by creating a festive context. Cf. n. 13. 8. Thomas Hieke, Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia (NSK.AT 9/2; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2005), 96–118. 9. Rainer Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit 2 (GAT 8/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 488. 10. Paul Redditt, “The Dependence of Ezra–Nehemiah on 1 and 2 Chronicles,” in Boda and Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity, 216–40 (237). From his analysis of parallels between both buildings as recounted in 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles and Ezra 1–6, Paul Redditt draws the diachronic conclusions that Ezra combines given material in a condensed way. As stated above, the present study does not investigate chronological relations, yet for the given purpose Redditt’s observations are valuable in that they expose the intentional literary linkage between the First and Second Temple. Cf. also Diana Edelman, The Origins of the “Second” Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (London: Equinox, 2005), 166–67.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

113

figure in the parallel building reports, to be a capable and conscientious agent in cultic matters.11 H. G. M. Williamson points to the phraseological congruence with 1 Chr 23:4, where King David in preparation for the future temple stipulates that Levites ‫“( לנצח על־מלאכת בית־יהוה‬shall have charge of the work in the house of YHWH”).12 In the already mentioned dedication of the fundaments (Ezra 3:10–13), priests and Levites gather analogous with 2 Chr 5:11 and 7:6. The same psalm as used in the event of the dedication Solomon’s Temple is intoned (v. 11, par. 2 Chr 5:13; 7:3).13 Apart from these condensed notes, Ezra 1–6 stays rather vague with regard to details of construction and building-activity. Beyond the structural frame, no further information is given. In contrast to the reports of the building of Solomon’s Temple according to 1 Kgs 7:15–51; 2 Chr 3:4–4:22, Ezra 1–6 does not “enter” the internal space of the temple.14

11. For an analysis of the essential relevance of the Levites in the constellation between Israel, YHWH and the cult, see Christian Frevel, “ ‘…dann gehören die Leviten mir’: Anmerkungen zum Zusammenhang von Num 3; 8 und 18,” in Kulte, Priester, Rituale: Beiträge zu Kult und Kultkritik im Alten Testament und Alten Orient: Festschrift für Theodor Seidl zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. S. Ernst and M. Häusl; ATSAT 89; St. Ottilien: Eos, 2010), 133–58, esp. the excursus on pp. 140–43. When the muster of Levites prefaces the temple building in Ezra 3:8 the building community shows its awareness of this crucial prerequisite for the re-initiation of cult. 12. H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 48. Cf. Williamson’s Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography (FAT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 268–69. 13. Yet one should note that these fragments of Pss 106:1 and 136:1 also appear in 1 Chr 16:34, here in the context of the entry of the Ark of Covenant in Jerusalem. The Sitz im Leben of the psalm is therefore not to be reduced to the event of templebuilding. Cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 101. But note the intertextual connection between both events established by intonation of the slightly modified psalm and the resulting effect of constituting a notion of unified historical identity shared between both communities. Cf. the analogous argumentation of Ehud Ben Zvi concerning 1 Chr 16:8–36 and Pss 96, 105 and 106. Ehud Ben Zvi, “Who Knew What? The Construction of the Monarchic Past in Chronicles and Implications for the Intellectual Setting of Chronicles,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (ed. O. Lipschits; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 349–60 (350–54). 14. Some have taken the absence of further details at this point as evidence for a rather negative estimation of the Second Temple as a minority project or as an inadequate surrogate of its predecessor. Robert Carroll, for instance, combines the report at this point with the assessment as given in Haggai (esp. Hag 2:3) and Zech 1–8 to interpret the silence as a subtle manifestation of socio-political conflicts that flared up about the temple and its restoration. However, in the present study an

114

Mixed Marriages

This apparently implies a shift of accentuation. Once the fundamental equivalence is established, the builder’s community, as the actual subject, becomes the focus. Implications for the Character of the Builders So how is the community behind the building project described in the course of the events? In the Old Testament and its environment, temple building is the king’s job, an outward sign for the close relation to the deity legitimating his rule.15 For example, in the sensitive moment of succession to the throne, the nexus between secured legitimate kingship and temple-building emerges as a crucial aspect of the relationship between king and deity. In 2 Chr 22:10 David quotes the divine promise: “He shall build a house for my name. He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.” Accordingly, in Chronicles’ report of the construction project, Solomon virtually builds the temple by himself, albeit the muster of builders and craftsmen in 2 Chr 2:1, 6, 12, 16–17 immediately suggests that Solomon is rather to be taken as the driving force than that he actually lends a hand with the construction works proper. The intention to present him as the key player in the process, one who, as the royal figure essentially connected to the character of the building and the prestigious implications resulting from it, becomes clearly recognizable from the repeated wordings presenting Solomon as the temple builder: ‫ויאמר שלמה‬ ‫( לבנות בית לשם יהוה‬1:18); ‫( אני בונה־בית לשם יהוה‬2:3, cf. v. 4; 3:1, 2). Furthermore, in 2 Chronicles there is no equivalent of 1 Kgs 7:14b, which informs the reader that Hiram, the gifted Tyrian craftsman, “came to King Solomon and executed all his work.” Hereafter both building accounts list single stages of work, albeit in Chronicles it is Solomon who appears to be the subject of the single actions not Hiram. In contrast to all this, in the building account of Ezra 1–6 a bigger group now competently replaces the royal figure, as Ezra 3:1, 8 show in particular. Despite Zerubbabel’s Davidic descent, no claims for kingship alternative interpretation for this silence shall be put forward. Robert P. Carroll, “So What Do We Know about the Temple? The Temple in the Prophets,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 34–51 (47–48). Against this view, cf. Bedford, Temple Restoration, 301–10. 15. Arvid S. Kapelrud, “Temple Building: A Task for Gods and Kings,” Or 32 (1963): 56–62. Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 301–4.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

115

arise from his involvement;16 his presence in the scene is better understood as a further argument for the temple’s legitimacy: The depiction of individual leaders further highlights the book’s emphasis on the participating community: outstanding individuals emerge in a manner that finally subsumes them, explicitly or implicitly, to the community as a whole. As a result, success belongs to the people and cannot be reduced to the deeds of a few illustrious men. The people themselves…actualize the return and restoration.17

The events in Ezra 1–6 therefore convey that the community in its entirety is qualified to build the temple. This status is as constitutive and legitimizing for them as it was for the king and brings along ideological implications: all protagonists are affirmatively assessed in their relation to the temple and therefore to the God worshiped there. In this initial event Israel is defined in its relation to YHWH, expressed through the devoted effort for his sanctum. The royal individual is replaced by the whole community. Their enhanced status in the holy realm logically coincides with an increased awareness of demands of ritual purity. This becomes clear in the temple dedication and the subsequent Passover concluding the whole episode (Ezra 6:17–22): the community is to be perceived as the re-established Israel, which is evident from the symbolic sacrifice of twelve goats as sin-offering in v. 17 (cf. the symbolic offering in Ezra 8:35).18 Their competence with regard to ritual purity is 16. Instead, Zerubbabel’s status is leveled by incorporating him into a bigger group where he acts alongside the priestly figure Jeshua as representative of the entire golah-group. Cf. Sara Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 66–98 (84). This estimation of the royal protagonist can be well contrasted with the picture drawn by the prophetic books of Haggai and Zechariah. Though it seems the concept has been put into perspective in later stages of the book, Zerubbabel’s Davidic descent, his title as ‫פחת יהודה‬, as “governor of Judah” (Hag 1:14; 2:2, 21), and his involvement in the temple-building give rise to prophecies that indicate a restoration of the monarchy (see Hag 2:20–23; Zech 4:1– 14; 6:9–14). 17. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 41. 18. Contra Christiane Karrer, Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologisch- politischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemiah-Buch (BZAW 308; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 304. Karrer considers that the sacrifice of Ezra 6:16–17, combined with the anachronistic reference to Israel’s organization in tribes (Ezra 1:5; 4:1), conveys the post-exilic community’s self-perception as only a part of Israel. However, to the contrary one could argue that the recourse to Israel’s premonarchic constitution expresses the present group’s notion to form a complete entity in assured continuity to Israel’s origins, able validly to take its place. Cf. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 28–30, concerning the “Israel-concept” of Ezra–Nehemiah.

116

Mixed Marriages

stressed: they organize the necessary priestly personnel and can even safeguard that all priests and Levites are in the state of ritual purity (‫)טהר‬. Though not explicitly stated, the laity seems to be pure as well, as can be deduced from vv. 20–21: For both the priests and the Levites had purified themselves (‫ ;)הטהרו‬all of them were clean (‫)כלם טהורים‬. So they killed the Passover lamb for all the returned exiles, for their fellow priests, and for themselves. It was eaten by the people of Israel who had returned from exile, and also by all who had joined them and separated themselves from the pollutions of the nations of the land (‫ )וכל הנבדל מטמאת גוי־הארץ‬to worship YHWH, the God of Israel.

According to Num 9:13, everybody who is ‫ טהר‬has to participate in Passover.19 In the much-discussed Ezra 6:21, a further group, namely all those who “separate themselves from the uncleanliness of the nations”, gains access to the newly established community and is therefore also incorporated into the collective identity despite the lack of a genealogical link to the golah.20 It is important to notice that crucial terminology (‫בדל‬: “separate [oneself]”; ‫טמאה‬: “[moral] impurity”; ‫טהר‬: “clean; purify [oneself]”) which, as discussed below, will become relevant in the treatment of mixed marriages and will therefore hermeneutically organize the perception of this conflict, is introduced for the first time in the narrative in the present cultic context. Its meaning is, therefore, preformed for what follows. The particular presentation of events paves the way for understanding the nature of the group by allusion to Passovers in Israel’s history. In 2 Chr 30–31:1 and 35:1–19 Passover celebrations conclude the famous restorations of cult and temple initiated by Hezekiah and Josiah. As was argued above, the building of the Second Temple is analogously modeled as a restoration of the first. Besides the structural analogy of Passover celebrations concluding restorative actions, the deliberate reference is further made likely, as 2 Chr 30:3 states that not enough priests had sanctified/purified themselves (‫ )כי הכהנים לא־התקדשו למדי‬to preside

19. H. Ringgren, “‫טהר‬,” ThWAT 3:306–15. 20. Among other lines of debate about v. 21, David Janzen advocates taking the ‫ ו‬here as explicative, so that ‫ הנבדל מטמאת גוי־הארץ‬would refer to the aforementioned golah-returnees. However, it seems to make better sense to understand it as a conjunctive-waw, hinting to the presence of another entity involved in the concluding celebrations of the (re-)built temple. No matter how the ‫ ו‬is translated, an increased demand for ritual purity is apparent. Cf. Janzen, “Cries of Jerusalem,” 125–26.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

117

over the cultic celebration so that in accordance with Num 9:6–14 the contingency date in the second month is chosen. Besides, on Hezekiah’s Passover the unclean laity eats the Passover meal (v. 17), something that clearly deviates from the Law. By contrast, in Ezra 6:19–22 Passover can be celebrated on the 14th of Nissan (v. 19), all priests and Levites have purified themselves and the entire community freely takes part in Passover. This is something that may well allude to an ideal overall state of purity, and reveals the community’s surplus over their pre-exilic predecessors with regard to ritual purity. Moreover, Ezra 6:21 seems conceptually close to Neh 12:30, which reports the unparalleled purification of all agents involved—even the gates and walls—also using the term ‫טהר‬. Hannah Harrington therefore outlines that the notion of ritually purified laity appears likely in Ezra 6:21 due to the use of the same terminology in Neh 12:30, where the ritually pure status of everybody involved in the parallel celebration is explicitly stated: In Nehemiah the act of purifying the people is explicit; in Ezra it is rather implicit [and with regard to the purity concept of the final composition of Ezra–Nehemiah]… [T]he same ritual status applies to both, i.e. both undergo the same ritual purification for the dedication service (Nehemiah) and probably also the Passover (Ezra).21

The use of purity semantics applied at these central sequences of the composition discloses an identity-concept that emphasizes the need for cultic purity and applies it to an enhanced personal and spatial radius. Moreover, the particularities of this program are communicated by structural and conceptual parallels which establish intertextual references to the presented building accounts of Chronicles. In this context, it seems important to note that the postulate of augmented purity emerging from the first section of the book is no end in itself; rather, it is a vital requirement of temple-building and the newly enabled close relationship to YHWH communicated by it. For what follows one has to keep in view the abiding relevance of the temple. The temple is by no means a neutral background but rather arranges affirmative placing and constitutes a specific logic. For instance, it will be the dramatic stage of the intermarriage crisis (cf. Ezra 10:1, 6, 9; esp. 9:8). Ezra, the main protagonist of this sequence, will be introduced in a way very similar to the first returnees, as a devoted supporter of Jerusalem’s temple through whose help Achaemenid benefits are channeled some 58 years after temple and cult have been re-established 21. Hannah K. Harrington, “Holiness and Purity in Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Boda and Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity, 98–116 (104–5).

118

Mixed Marriages

(Ezra 7:11–23; 8:15–33).22 Though in the first part of the Nehemiah narrative the focus shifts to the parallel building project, the restoration of Jerusalem’s system of city-wall defences, the temple here as well continues to organize meaning: the commonwealth established in the oath of Neh 10:1–40 programmatically concludes “We will not neglect the House of our God” (v. 40).23 In addition, as shall be subsequently highlighted, narrative features in the Nehemiah section indicate on the semantic and conceptual level a close connection between both spatial entities.24 3. Jerusalem as a Focal Point of Community-Formation: The Relatedness of Spatial Concepts The narrative representation of Jerusalem as the second focal point of the people’s identity formation is part of the same literary strategy as the temple—bringing sanctified institutions affiliated to YHWH in an exclusive relation to the people of Israel. Both parameters are narratively aligned. This has been seen time and again—most prominently by Tamara Eskenazi, who claims that the sacral space is expanded from the temple right to the city walls.25 Though there is no final dissolution of both entities on the semantic level, Jerusalem partakes in the temple’s holiness and ultimately becomes a sanctuary itself. 22. Lester Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah (OTR; London: Routledge, 1998), 138–43, 192–95; Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 52, 57–59. Also, in the case of Nehemiah, who is often depicted as a pragmatic politician with little interest in cultic matters contrasting to Ezra (see, e.g., Othmar Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus [2 vols.; Orte und Landschaften der Bibel 4/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007], 2:1070–79), Mark Boda has shown that Nehemiah is stylized as committed to the temple and its cult in the resumption of his memoir. Mark J. Boda, “Redaction in the Book of Nehemiah: A fresh Proposal,” in Boda and Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity, 25–54 (35–37). 23. Cf. Dieter Böhler, “Communio Sanctorum. Das Gottesvolk als Altargemeinschaft nach Esra-Nehemia,” in Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten. Zu Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels (ed. O. Keel and E. Zenger; QD 191; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2002), 207–30 (210). 24. The category of space is naturally most relevant with regard to the temple’s and Jerusalem’s function as gravitational centers of identity; nevertheless it cannot be detached from the temporal dimension which is time and again stressed in the book, especially in the prayers in Ezra 9:6–15; Neh 1:5–11; 9:6–37, which betray an increased historical awareness tied to both localities. 25. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, passim, but esp. 175–76. Eskenazi identifies the building of the “house of God” as a central theme of Ezra–Nehemiah. Conceptually, the term refers to unity and interrelation of rebuilt temple, city and community. For a critique of this model, see Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 297–99.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

119

At this point it would seem appropriate to dwell upon the general conceptual link in the Hebrew Bible and its environment between city, temple and the deity/deities worshipped therein. Certainly in the cosmologies of the ancient Near East city and temple cannot be thought as unpaired entities,26 instead the latter marks the conceptual center of the city where creation and cosmological order are established, contrasting with the chaotic, deadly spaces as which desert and wilderness are imagined.27 Despite critical voices towards Jerusalem and urban life, in general the Old Testament constitutes no exception at this point.28 It goes without saying that texts such as we find in Isaiah (Isa 52:1–8; 54:11–17; 60:14) and the genre of Zion Psalms (Pss 46; 48; 76; 87; 132), for instance, voice that the glorification of Jerusalem as YHWH’s chosen place is no entirely new creation found for the first time in Ezra– Nehemiah. Nevertheless, the book emphatically perpetuates the conceptual amalgamation of city and temple, with the result that the temple’s holiness encompasses the urban space. This concept is again expressed by different narrative and lexematic means. For instance, the repetitive naming of the city in Ezra 1 in close context with the temple, which fosters the connection between the two, may be interpreted in this direction.29 In Ezra 4:12–16 an intervention against the temple builders is attained, although the letter of Israel’s enemies to Artaxerxes—at first glance startlingly—refers to the “rebellious wicked city.” Different explanatory models for the presence of the city at this place have been brought forward, varying from editorial slovenliness, historical indifference or misinformation, to juxtapositions within the composition.30 From literary perspective Ezra 4:12–24 offers 26. Angelika Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bildpolemik (OBO 162; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1998), 25–26. 27. Bernd Janowski, “Der Himmel auf Erden: Zur kosmologischen Bedeutung des Tempels in der Umwelt,” in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte (ed. B. Janowski and B. Ego; FAT 32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 229–60 (229–35); Keel, Geschichte Jerusalems, 29. 28. Jürgen van Oorschot, “Die Stadt—Lebensraum und Symbol: Israels Stadtkultur als Spiegel seiner Geschichte und Theologie,” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. M. Witte; 2 vols.; BZAW 345; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 1:155–79 (175–79). 29. The accumulated mention of Jerusalem in connection with the temple is better understood as a programmatic linkage of both then as “typical bureaucratic pedantry” present in the alleged Persian documents, Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 12. 30. David J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), 76; Keel, Geschichte Jerusalems, 1068.

120

Mixed Marriages

an explanation for the protracted period of construction without blaming the builders.31 At the same time, the synchronic approach recognizes a concept which programmatically puts temple and city side by side, emphatically tying them together on the mental map far beyond simple spatial localization. Interaction with one affects the other. Consequently, in the case of Jerusalem, a rationale of cultic purity analogous to the temple conception is set into motion, leading to measures such as the Levites fulfilling their duty right at the city-gates (Neh 7:1; 13:22).32 Manning the city gates—as neuralgic liminary transition areas—with cultic personnel, who are normally in charge of the purity of the temple resp. its gates (cf. 1 Chr 9:2, 17–32; 15:8; 2 Chr 23:4; 31:14; 34:13 for the present context esp. Neh 12:45), thus narratively communicates the idea of expanded holiness, which is no longer limited to the templeprecinct but also includes the city of Jerusalem.33 Again, semantic indications convey hermeneutical reference to Chronicles. Nehemiah 4:1 says, verbatim, “healing had come to the walls of Jerusalem” (‫)כי־עלתה ארוכה לחמות ירושלם‬. This unusual “organic” wording applied to a building is found only one more time in a narrative context: in 2 Chr 24:13, referring to the temple restoration of King Jehoash.34 Such a limited use makes a purposeful parallelization of both events likely—particularly since 2 Chr 24:13, like Neh 2:20–4:17, remarks upon the pious zeal of the builders, the intertextual reference suggests that both projects as well as the respective agents have to be seen in ideational connection. Finally, Jerusalem’s city walls are cultically dedicated in the procession with its choreographic culmination in the temple. This event, termed as the celebration concluding the restoration of the temple “dedication” 31. Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah, 21; Hieke, Esra und Nehemia, 99. 32. Williamson tries to explain the verse by historic reconstruction of an immediate military threat (Neh 4:1–17) or at least as dramatic illustration of Jerusalem’s precarious defense situation. In this situation Nehemiah had to mobilize all forces at hand; the Levite’s organization allowed for the quick provisional measure. However, after the completion of the walls there is no more mention of military conflicts. Instead, Neh 6:16 conveys that the power relations have shifted in favor of Nehemiah’s party. Besides, this interpretation cannot explain why in Neh 13:22 the Levites are summoned to purify themselves (‫ )טהר‬and again to take up station at the city gates to “defend” the Sabbath. See Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 270–74. 33. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 84–85, 189. 34. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 248. Christiane Karrer-Grube, “Scrutinizing the Conceptual Unity of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in Boda and Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity, 136–59 (153–54).

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

121

(‫ )חנכה‬is noticeably drafted after Ezra 3:10–13 and 6:17–22.35 Nehemiah 12:30 now explicitly mentions the ritual purification (‫ )טהר‬of all agents of the scene, including the walls. Already the building process itself had a cultic touch: the high priest Eliashib and his fellows head the communal wall-building and consecrate (‫ )קדש‬the Sheep Gate when their share is accomplished (Neh 3:1b), conveying that something more than the Jerusalem fortification system is being built.36 In the highly integrative construction works again the formation of a unity and their relatedness with God through the building project is documented. Informative in this context are the various disputes with the hostile “out-group”; Nehemiah’s reply to Sanballat in 2:20—“The God of Heaven will grant us success, and we, His servants, will start building. But you have no share or claim or stake in Jerusalem!”—reveals that the community he represents identifies itself as standing in an exclusively close relation to YHWH which is manifested in the restoration of the city (cf. Neh 3:36– 37; 6:17) and is in this regard certainly comparable to the rejection of unwanted help by the temple builders in Ezra 4:3. Therefore, characteristic traits of the builders can be deduced from the nature of Jerusalem, which is by various literary means closely interconnected with the temple and its holiness. This constellation shall be illustrated by a closer look at the function of Neh 11:1–18, a sequence instructive for the rationale tying together the people with Jerusalem, which is itself termed “holy city.” Nehemiah’s So-called Synoecism: The Mutual Characterization of People and Sanctified City Nehemiah 11 is often interpreted as a military37 or political necessity to enforce the fortificatory strength of Jerusalem or to cut off Nehemiah’s

35. Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 309–10; Boda, “Redaction of Nehemiah,” 48–53. Significant in this context is the accumulated presence of parallel Leitwörter from the semantic fields of emotions and sensors such as ‫ שמחה‬/ ‫שמח‬, ‫תודה‬, ‫ שמע‬in both accounts which imply that the accomplishments celebrated in Neh 12:27–43 are conceptually related to those of the community who built the temple. 36. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 84. Because of the meaning, ‫ קדשו‬is often emended here to ‫קרוהו‬, establishing assimilation with vv. 3 and 6. However, according to Clines there are no textual witnesses that support such an emendation. Cf. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 195; Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 229; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, 150–51. 37. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 274.

122

Mixed Marriages

inner adversaries from their local power bases.38 As regards history, all these interpretations might be fully valid. Yet narration and context present the event in a rather different light. In vv. 1 and 18 Jerusalem is explicitly called “holy city.” In Neh 7:5 Nehemiah does not draw on a random document to settle the city but makes use of the census list of the first returnees (Ezra 2). As was seen above these people one century earlier had been specifically defined by their relation to the temple and its nature. Thus, the inclusio by lists bridges time,39 constitutes one comprehensive community40 and last but not least leads to the identification of city and temple. This has an enormous impact on the contemporary community’s constitution: genealogical material and the highly theologically charged events of chs. 8–10 have proven the community’s exclusive disposition towards the city. David Janzen concisely states: We find that it is only after the walls have been constructed in chs. 1–6 and after Israel has rededicated itself to keeping God’s law in chs. 8–10 the people are fit to repopulate the city in 11.1.41

Yet in Neh 11 the corroboration of the conceptual frame of expanded holiness and the people’s allocation in it goes on: in vv. 1–2 settling is organized by casting “lots” (‫)גורלות‬, leading to the people’s literal “decimation.” In v. 2 some commentators have identified a further group of volunteers (‫ )האנשים המתנדבים‬relieving those on whom the allegedly hard lot was cast. Those who see Nehemiah’s cold calculation and political necessities as the prime mover here, interpret this information as 38. Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple–Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 10; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 207–11. 39. Hieke, Esra und Nehemia, 67, 184–86. 40. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 274: “Those who should populate the city of God stand in direct continuity with the community who earlier experienced God’s redemption…” 41. Janzen, “Cries of Jerusalem,” 130. Note that the prayer in Neh 9 outlines a “theological ethnogenesis” of Israel by selective recourse to its history, covering Exodus (vv. 9–11), the wilderness campaign (vv. 12–21), the conquest of the land (vv. 22–26) and monarchy (vv. 26–31, 34–35) without mentioning the individuals central to these periods. Only Abraham and his descendants (‫)לזרעו‬, as addressees of the promise of the land, are nominally referred to. This results in the people of Israel coming to the fore as the actual subject of history. Cf. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 100– 101. Israel’s collective identity is essentially derived from its relation to God. This constellation could already be observed in the building-accounts of both city and temple and therefore should also be applied as a hermeneutical guide for the understanding of mixed marriages. As in this context, reference to a shared history underlined by genealogical material is rather a means than an end in itself.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

123

further evidence of a forced settling.42 With reference to Judg 5:2; Ps 110:3, ‫“( נדב‬to volunteer freely”) is understood as an act of self-sacrificing voluntariness in a bellicose context.43 This, however, disregards that ‫ נדב‬has already been introduced and repeatedly used in the context of the book, so that the hermeneutical frame seems to put the understanding of the verb into a rather different perspective. Ezra 1:6; 2:68; 3:5; 7:13, 15–16c make use of the stem,44 and here as well as in 1 Chr 29:5, 6, 9, 14, 17 ‫ נדב‬refers to voluntary donations made on behalf of the temple and its cult.45 In the same thematic field of voluntary activity, one can localize the denomination of the cordially self-imposed oath in Neh 10:31–40, significantly called ‫אמנה‬.46 In Ezra–Nehemiah the disposition of the people towards the sanctuary is repeatedly described as voluntary; the same can be alleged for the decision to populate the city. Also, the use of lot-casting to select one tenth of the people is well in accordance with this estimation, especially since in Neh 10:35 this same decision-making method is used to decide who would supply the woodoffering, while in Neh 10:39 the system of tithing is introduced to safeguard the provision of temple and cult. Even though the casting of lots communicates God’s will, which is most binding for everybody concerned, making all evasions impossible, there is no echo of reluctance. Instead, in the immediately consequent sequence of Neh 11:1–18 the “decimation” is better understood as a figurative tithing of the people who show their devotion towards the holy city.47 The election modus analogously communicates the cultic character of Jerusalem and especially its people. In 1 Chr 24:5–18; 25:8–31; 26:13–16, the casting of lots arranges the distribution of cultic services for the provision of the temple.48 Corresponding to divinely appointed priestly personnel in charge of the temple, the new inhabitants of Jerusalem take residence, which is consequently drafted as a privilege and thus similar to the chosen group who was by a divine act of grace privileged to build the temple in the time of Cyrus. 42. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, 211–12. 43. Ibid., 212. 44. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 51–52. 45. Cf., with further references, J. Conrad, “‫נדב‬,” ThWAT 5:237–45 (238–39). 46. For the implications of the particular use of terminology, cf. Richard J. Bautch, “The Function of Covenant Across Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Boda and Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity, 8–24 (18–19). Bautch hints at Neh 9:8 where Abraham’s disposition (‫ )לבבו נאמן לפניך‬is the rational for Gods willingness to enter the covenant with him. 47. Cf. Böhler, “Communio Sanctorum,” 216. 48. W. Dommershausen, “‫גורל‬,” ThWAT 1:991–98.

124

Mixed Marriages

One may therefore conclude that though it is not explicitly addressed,49 the temple organizes meaning in the context of Neh 8–11. The contextual framework ties the concept of Jerusalem to the temple; its holiness is not to be perceived as intrinsic, independent of the sanctuary. Besides, the observed features unveil that the relation between Jerusalem and its inhabitants is by no means neutral; neither of them is arbitrary towards the other entity. From the predication “holy city” results the application of ritual purity demands. The established status has to be safeguarded as the illegitimate profanation of the holy is not only life-threatening50 (cf. for instance Lev 22:9; Num 1:51; 3:10; 16–17; Josh 7:2; 2 Chr 26),51 but also impairs the newly established relationship to YHWH, which was seen as the prime mover of the events and which therefore triggers the demand for Israel to act ethically in a way appropriate to YHWH’s holiness—an idea not unlike the demand of Lev 19:2. For the last parameter, the treatment of mixed marriages, the constellations elaborated so far have to be considered as decisive. The Treatment of Mixed Marriages: Another Temple Restored? In Ezra–Nehemiah the controversy of so-called mixed marriages constitutes a grave and complex problem. The narration repeatedly touches upon the topic with varying breadth, emphases and outcomes.52 Both main characters quarrel with mixed marriages; Ezra is brought to sheer desperation (Ezra 9:3; 10:1, 6), while in the case of Nehemiah the confrontation with “Yĕhŭdîm (‫ )יהודים‬who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab” (Neh 13:23), leads to an outburst of rage—an emotional reaction even more extreme. Within this rather summary analysis of interaction between thematic sequences in the final stage of the composition, I can only outline in broad strokes how context and intertextuality seem to take up the cultic semantics applied here and steer them to a particular understanding. Those who are engaged in the debate on this issue will discern certain observations owing to the divergent scholarly evaluations of the topic. 49. Except for the regulations in Neh 10:34–40, which are concerned with the provision of the temple and their programmatic conclusion. Cf. Böhler, “Communio Sanctorum,” 216. 50. Hannah K. Harrington, The Purity Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 5; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 9–10. 51. Jacob Milgrom, “The Concept of Ma‘al in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 96 (1976): 236–47 (236). 52. See the introductory chapter to the present volume by Christian Frevel.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

125

With regard to content, Ezra–Nehemiah deals with the problem along the already established cultic-religious lines: when informed about the problem Ezra reacts with a prayer (9:6–15), performs gestures of grief (v. 3, cf. 2 Kgs 22:11, 19; 2 Chr 34:19) scheduled to the times of sacrificial cult (v. 5), then takes refuge to the temple where he fasts; only in Ezra 10:10 is he exclusively entitled “priest” (‫)כהן‬, pressing charges on the community gathered in front of the temple.53 Shecaniah’s religiously drafted proposal for a solution is to enter into a covenant (‫)ברית‬ with God. The delict is finally atoned for by the giving of a ram (Ezra 10:19). This payment, combined with the supplement “for their guilt” (‫)על־אשמתם‬, corresponds to the Asham-offering—as Jacob Milgrom has shown—the required sacrifice for the trespass on sancta termed ‫מעל‬.54 The protagonists’ speeches abound with religious terminology conveying their perception of the situation, for instance ‫עון‬, ‫מעל‬, ‫בדל‬, ‫זרע הקדש‬. Significant terminology reoccurs in Nehemiah. Here, after public Torahreading and a prayer compiling Israel’s Heilsgeschichte, a contract (‫ )אמנה‬consolidating the community is made, one containing the stipulation not to enter marital relations with the “people of the lands.” Nehemiah himself programmatically labels intermarriages ‫רעה‬,55 and performs purification (‫ )טהר‬that was coined earlier in the cultic context of the wall’s dedication. The analysis of temple and city in the present essay has already paved a way for understanding topics addressed in Ezra–Nehemiah by reference to Chronicles. Though the book of Chronicles itself does not raise exogamous marital relations as an issue, with regard to mixed marriages we again find extensive structural and semantic parallels with the already broached texts of 2 Chr 29–34, lending themselves as an interpretative key for the perception of mixed marriages. In high density the previously enumerated elements can be traced in the Chronistic reports

;

53. Cf. Ezra’s titles in Ezra 7:6, 10, 14, 24. Reinhard G. Kratz, “Statthalter, Hohepriester und Schreiber im perserzeitlichen Juda,” in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (ed. R. G. Kratz; FAT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 93– 119 (111–18). 54. Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (SJLA; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 70–71. Harrington, “Holiness and Purity,” 111. For a different judgment, see Adrian Schenker, “Die Anlässe zum Schuldopfer Ascham,” in Studien zu Opfer und Kult im Alten Testament. Mit einer Bibliographie 1969–1991 zum Opfer in der Bibel (ed. A. Schenker; FAT 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 45–66. 55. Note that ‫ רעה‬has been introduced in Neh 1:3; 2:17, there combined with ‫“( חרפה‬shame”) a lexeme associated with exile as the incentive to rebuild the city wall. In addition Nehemiah calls the several grievances he fights against in ch. 13 ‫—רעה‬a religious understanding is therefore triggered by the context.

126

Mixed Marriages

on Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s restorations of temple and cult (parallels are to be found in the account of Josiah’s reform as reported in 2 Kgs 22– 23:25, as well, but above all in the Chronistic texts 2 Chr 29:3–36; 34). The purifications of the holy realm expressed with (‫יצא‬, ‫ )טהר‬happen in the context of renovation works, in Ezra 1–6 quite a parallel restoration has been reported. As was discussed above both pre- and post-exilic restorations are concluded by the celebration of Passover. Note that in his exposition Ezra himself becomes a second initiator of cult. The mischief is publicly addressed by the royal figure; thereupon measures are planned and effectively conducted. We have seen that in the Ezra– Nehemiah narrative the function of the royal individual is assigned to the community respectively its representatives. In addition it has been discerned that, though invested with extensive authority, Ezra takes surprisingly little initiative in the lawsuit (Ezra 10:5–44) which hardly deserves this designation.56 In Ezra 10 the events proceed rather smoothly with consensual harmony of everybody involved, even of those who had entered into exogamous marital relations.57 In the scene Shecaniah might verbally represent the vox populi who, like Ezra is not married to a foreign spouse but still identifies himself with the offenders (‫אנחנו‬ ‫)מעלנו‬, expressing a collective conscience and direct responsibility towards God which again acts a constitutive feature of the community that is consolidated in a covenant entered in unison.58 The claim of covenant making as well as the consent participation of the entire community matches the sequence of the assumed referential temple restorations in Chronicles.59 The contaminations of cult are redressed with covenants into which Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:10) resp. Josiah (2 Kgs 23:3; 2 Chr 34:31) first enters. Then, in 2 Chr 34:29–33, the king is followed

56. Contra Karrer who annotates about Ezra 10: “Die Rolle Esras scheint hier in der autoritativen Übermittlung an die versammelte Gesamtbevölkerung zu liegen” Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 247. At least from a literary perspective Ezra does precisely not apply any authority in order to enforce the position of a minority concerning otherwise accepted mixed-marriages. 57. Cf. the absence of opposition in Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah, 35–36; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 156, 161. 58. David Janzen, Witch-hunts, Purity and social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign Women in Ezra 9–10 (JSOTSup 350; London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 43. 59. This literary interpretation could explain why Shecaniah so suddenly enters and leaves the stage of events and would not need speculations about his socioreligious background or relation to Ezra like it is done by Blenkinsopp. Cf. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 66.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

127

by the people—this procedure is quite similar to the oath of Neh 10, first sworn by representative individuals and subsequently joined by the entire community (cf. Neh 10:1–28; 29–30). Moreover, 2 Chr 34:29–30, 32 emphasizes that literally everybody is assembled in Jerusalem and consequently enters the covenant;60 the same can be said with regard to Ezra 10 (cf. vv. 1, 5, 8–12). Finally, the trespass is atoned for by the sacrificial giving of a goat. In 2 Kgs 23:2 and 2 Chr 29:4; 34:30 the king’s speeches are markedly localized at the temple resp. its immediate vicinity, a feature which is parallel to Ezra 9 and 10. Although there is no chance for a definitive identification of the setting of Neh 8–10, it is presumably related to the temple.61 Elements of Hezekiah’s speech (2 Chr 29:5–11) further corroborate the parallelism. Hezekiah addresses horrors of exile subsequent to ‫מעל‬, something quite similar to Ezra’s penitential prayer (Ezra 9:7), and introduces further Deuteronomistic motifs, such as God’s burning anger (‫)חרון אפו‬, which is lexematically identical with Ezra 10:14, where anger is caused by the foreign cult symbols called ‫תועבה‬. Ezra’s prayer uses ‫“( עזב‬to leave/forsake”) to contrast YHWH’s and Israel’s mutual relation,62 whereas YHWH has not forsaken the post-exilic community (v. 9). Israel’s current misdemeanor, that is, entering into illegitimate exogamous marriages, is seen as breach of law (‫ )עזב‬on the part of the people (v. 10), one which has to be perceived as a profound impairment of the relation between YHWH and his people. In the same way, Hezekiah paraphrases the cultic transgressions he is about to check (2 Chr 29:6). Beyond the level of structure and content, there is also significant overlap with regard to terminology which is so unique for Ezra–Nehemiah’s treatment of mixed marriages and has time and again been understood as 60. Jürgen Werlitz, Die Bücher der Könige (NSK.AT 8; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 308. 61. The localization of the events of Neh 8–10, “the square which is in front of the Water-Gate” (‫ )הרחוב אשר לפני שער־המים‬is debated. However, following Pohlmann, among others, it can be assumed that the square is associated with the temple precincts, marking the closest access from the city to the sanctuary. Cf. KarlFriedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluß des Chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FRLANT 104; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 151–54. Williamson even makes the supposition that the site might be identical with “the square of the East” (‫רחוב‬ ‫ )המזרח‬of 2 Chr 29:4 from where Hezekiah delivers his confessional sermon and initiates the restoration of the temple cult. See also Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, 182; Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Dallas: Word, 1987), 234; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 252–53; contra Keel, Geschichte Jerusalems, 1080. 62. Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 268.

128

Mixed Marriages

crucial for the conceptualization of this phenomenon.63 In the Chronicles’ accounts of the temple and cult restoration, the mischief is labeled “sacrilege” (‫ )מעל‬and the foreign gods and their affiliated objects are described with ‫נדה‬, ‫טמאה‬, ‫תועבה‬. In cultic cleansing the sacrilegious items are brought out of the holy precinct, expressed with ‫( יצא‬Hiphil, 2 Chr 29:5, 16, 33; 2 Kgs 23:4, 6). The same term is uniquely used for the act of divorce in Ezra 10:2, instead of the common ‫ שלח‬or ‫גרש‬, as in Ezra 10:3, 19.64 To this notion one would add the essentialized connection between foreign women resp. people and their “abominations” (‫ )תעבות‬in Ezra 9:1, 11, 14. Notably, the uptake of the term in its context most likely harks back to the admonitions given in the Holiness Code in Lev 18:24–30.65 However, whereas Lev 18 summarizes certain sexual transgressions with which the people of the land are imputed (‫ )את־כל־התועבת האל עשו אנשי־הארץ‬as ‫תעבות‬, Ezra speaks of ‫להתחתן‬ ‫ בעמי התעבות‬in v. 14. Christiane Karrer therefore concisely states: Damit wird in Esr 9 anders als in Lev 18 die Unreinheit des Landes an den Personen selbst, statt an bestimmten Handlungen der Personen, festgemacht… »Völker der Gräuel«, eine Verbindung, die sich in Lev 18 nicht findet und die explizit die »Gräuel« zu einer Qualifikation der Personen macht.66

Consequently, if it holds true that the foreign spouses themselves are perceived as “abominations”, it fits into the presented line of interpretation to term the act of dissolution as ‫יצא‬, since the ‫ תעבות‬of the preexilic temple restorations are dealt with in the same way and wording. Furthermore, the purification (‫ )טהר‬Nehemiah applies in cases of illegitimate intermarriage also occurs within both restorations (Neh 13:9, 22, 30). Including 2 Chr 29:18, when priests and Levites have accomplished their work they report to the king, ‫“( טהרנו את־כל־בית יהוה‬We have purified the whole House of YHWH”). In Neh 13:30 Nehemiah similarly sums up his reforms of ch. 13, including actions against exogamous marriages within the high priestly family and laity, ‫וטהרתים‬ ‫“( מכל־נכר‬I purified them of all foreign”). 63. For a discussion of the relevant terms, see, for instance, Harrington, “Holiness and Purity”; Saul M. Olyan, “Purity Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community,” JSJ 35 (2004): 1–16. 64. Markus Zehnder, Umgang mit Fremden in Israel und Assyrien. Ein Beitrag zur Anthropologie des “Fremden” im Licht antiker Quellen (BWAT 168; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 431. 65. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 119. 66. Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 270–71.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

129

The significant constellation of terminological and structural interference with the temple restorations of Chronicles might correspondingly help to explain another lexematical feature in the treatment of mixed marriages—the use for ‫( ישב‬Hiphil) for “to marry” (Ezra 10:2, 19; Neh 13:23). With regard to the conceptual centrality of spatial dimensions in Ezra–Nehemiah arguing for the intimate relation between Israel and the holy city, Jerusalem, the ‫השיב‬-marriages, literally “causing sb. to dwell,” might be used here to stress the spatial component of those marriages, as well as their sacrilegious character. Unwanted foreign influence is brought into the holy sphere where its impact is fatal. The use of ‫ בדל‬can be seen as a further indicator for the logic that is operant here, as it implies the vital separation of pure-impure; holy-profane.67 That the people themselves are able to perform this task classically belonging to the cultic personnel’s duties, as well as the giving of an ‫אשם‬-offering, suggests their self-perception as related to the holy sphere. The trespass on sancta, ‫מעל‬, as the intermarriages are termed, in combination with the “holy seed” of Ezra 9:2, has therefore been understood as evidence for Israel’s holy status, sometimes defined as intrinsic, protoracist or biological.68 However, mustering the contextual frame as given in the final stage of the book and the assumed intertextuality with Chronicles, the ‫ מעל‬might be accentuated differently: with regard to the overall concept of the final-stage composition, holiness of space is central. Subsequently, Israel’s self-conception is based on the institutions “temple” and “holy city”, sanctified by their relation to God. As the sacral space is enhanced to encompass the whole city, the people who participate in it on a spiritual level give utterance to this concept by application of ethical norms obligatory to priestly functionaries, such as the prohibition of intermarriage (Lev 21:14).69 Israel is not affected by mixed marriages as an ethnical entity, if understood in biologistic, racist sense, but as a religious one. The concept of Jerusalem as sanctuary and the quasi-priestly status it implies for those in firm association with it is

67. Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 271; Janzen, Witch-Hunts, 42. 68. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 114; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 132; Zehnder, Umgang mit Fremden, 432, 426 n. 2; Saul M. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 83. 69. Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92 (1999): 3–36 (9); Armin Lange, “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls” (Part 1), BN 137 (2008): 17–39 (21–25).

130

Mixed Marriages

communicated by the analogous use of ‫ מעל‬for both the mixed marriages and the presence of idols in the temple, as well as the essentialized identification of the foreign women as ‫תועבה‬. Thus a nexus is established by the deliberate modeling of the intermarriage crisis after the Chronistic temple restorations on compositional, contentual and semantic levels. Israel itself is not the affected sanctuary; rather, the community’s vital relationship to institutions holy to YHWH is thematized. Conclusion The conceptual cohesion of the discussed “parameters” goes considerably beyond a mere compilation of post-exilic events. Each section dealing with central incidents literarily communicates the formation of a group whose core is defined along religious and cultic lines of thought. The textual representation at various points conveys the consensual interaction of cultic personnel and laity. The latter support priestly and levitical agents and the temple, which is conceptually located at the very center of the community (Neh 10:36–40, esp. v. 40; 12:44–47). Reciprocally, Israel’s profile is defined cultic-religiously. The possibility of restoration is essentially inscribed into the golah’s self-perception as a divine act of grace, leading to a strong sense of responsibility towards YHWH’s sancta (Ezra 4:3; 9:8–9; Neh 2:20). One can therefore conclude that Israel does not generate its special status out of itself; it is ultimately grounded in YHWH’s holiness and therefore cannot be isolated from Israel’s relationship to God. The narration mediates this constellation through Israel’s fierce devotion and exclusive association to temple and city. This observation brings along implications for the interpretation of mixed marriages, as the conception operative in the composition leads to the application of a dynamic which deliberately impinges on the understanding of the episodes discussing intermarriages. Through contextualization the notion of Israel as intrinsically or ethnically holy is consequently rendered implausible. An isolated overstatement of ‫זרע‬ ‫ הקדש‬in Ezra 9:2 might arouse this notion, however the book in its entirety seems to fence in this somewhat outstanding expression and instead “rephrases” that the obligation to endogamy is an ethical requirement due to Israel’s essential trait—the exclusively close relation to YHWH.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

131

The synchronic approach I applied here, which introduced the book of Chronicles as reference-text for an analysis of Ezra–Nehemiah and the understanding of mixed marriages in particular, has indeed led to a range of observations revealing structural parallels to Chronistic restorations of cult and temple. The intertextual link was bolstered lexematically by the significant application of (cultic) terms ‫( יצא‬Hiphil), ‫ מעל‬and ‫ הועבה‬in the treatment of exogamous marriages, coinciding with the creative use of cultic terminology such as ‫ בדל‬and ‫אשם‬-offering (Ezra 10:19). All this makes the mixed marriages understandable as a sacrilege committed against the sanctuary (‫)מעל‬. Indeed, none of the accounts in Ezra–Nehemiah refers to foreign women in the temple proper. Yet the analysis of the narrative function of Jerusalem revealed the concept of the city as a holy space oriented on the temple. Therefore, the intermarriages can be understood as pollutions of the sanctuary (‫)מעל‬. Due to the essential alliance between Jerusalem and the returnees, the same application of matrimonial laws in force for the high priest, including the prohibition of exogamy in Lev 21:13–15, is expanded to all Israel. Further indication for the amplified spatial holiness may be seen in the unparalleled designation of the illegitimate marriages by ‫( ישב‬Hiphil), which carries a spatial component. The term then refers to the unwarranted presence of foreign spouses in the holy realm which collides with the notion of the city and causes a contamination analogous to idols (‫ )תעבות‬in the temple. Thus the present form of the book puts a concept of Israel’s holiness based on ethnicity into a rather different perspective. Here the separation of mixed marriages cannot be seen as final end, but is rather a means to illustrate the sacral status of the city and the people’s awareness of an immediate proximity to YHWH in their conduct of life. For the understanding of this formation process one can turn to Chronicles and perceive the temple restorations described there as an interpretative key to the mixed marriage crisis of Ezra–Nehemiah. This allows the demonstration of the concept of Jerusalem’s holiness and the ideal-typical disposition of Israel towards it. In return, the associated community is sanctified, but coevally the expansion of cultic requirements becomes mandatory.

MIXED MARRIAGE IN TORAH NARRATIVES* Karen S. Winslow

1. Introduction Some Torah narratives imply that taking a wife among one’s kin is required to preserve Israel’s identity. In a similar vein, Torah directives to Israel for entering the land prohibit intermarriage with the inhabitants. They indicate that intermarriage with Canaanites would lead to Israel’s apostasy and ultimate exile from the land. Other Torah texts, however, demonstrate that wives from groups defined as “outside” of Israel were beneficial because these women faithfully preserved Israel and/or confessed faith in Israel’s God. They are thus models for those who hear the Torah. For example, Torah narratives about Tamar, Asenath, Zipporah, and Moses’ Cushite wife (as well as about Rahab and Ruth in the Prophets and Writings) show that foreign wives were essential to the formation, preservation, and deliverance of Israel. These texts affirm that outsider women contributed to the establishment of Israel. Clearly, marriage stories and laws appear often enough in each division of the Jewish Scriptures’ (and with significant variation) to signify conflict over mixed marriages of Israelites and, later, Jews. In my view, the tension created by the wife-taking traditions throughout the Hebrew Bible is related to the social tensions over identity formation and ethnicity construction among the Second Temple Jews who processed these traditions and produced a set of Scriptures.1 These diverse stories and * This the present study contains rewritten portions of an article that was published in the online journal: Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 4, no. 1 (2006), n.p. [cited 29 November 2010]. Online: http://wjudaism.library. utoronto.ca/index.php/wjudaism/article/view/225. 1. The literature on the formation of ethnicity includes the classic by Anthony Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986). Anthony Smith theorizes that ethnic groups are built upon shared memories of a common history that separates them from others especially in times of crisis (14). According to Smith, the development of ethnicity consciousness also depends upon the recognition of the

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

133

laws found across the range of Torah, Prophets, and Writings are best explained, not by positing stages in the development of marriage customs over the range of Israel’s history, but rather as representative of distinct perspectives on exogamy among the scribes who produced them, and possibly among the earlier tradition transmitters as well. In other words, stories and laws about marriage in the Torah represent distinct voices in the post-exilic Scripture-producing community. The tales about outsider wives of the ancestors affirm that Jews were permitted to marry from groups defined as “Other.” This is in opposition to the group (˙aredim) represented by Ezra and Shecaniah (Ezra 9–10) who insisted that marrying out polluted Israel’s holy seed. Torah stories about Tamar (a Canaanite, Gen 38) Asenath (an Egyptian, Gen 41:44), and Zipporah (Exod 2, 4, and 18) demonstrate the shrewdness, fruitfulness, and faithfulness of non-Israelite wives. They supplement the stories about Rahab and Ruth to make the point that outsider women are models for a sometimes faithless Israel.2 Genetics does not define Israel; faithfulness does. This view contrasts with the diachronic view of social exogamy maintained by earlier commentators. In Marriage Laws in the Bible and Talmud, Louis Epstein explains the mix of endogamy/exogamy in the Torah as indicative of the “endogamy of the patriarchal age,” which was importance of narrative in the social construction of reality. Smith provides crosscultural evidence that religious literature both creates and sustains a social worldview essential for a group’s self-understanding, their “national and ethnic self-consciousness” (15). For further exploration of Israel’s ethnicity construction in texts and history, see Kenton Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998), esp. 1–16; E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries: The Deuteronomistic Historian and the Creation of Israelite National Identity (SemeiaSt 24; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993); Cheryl A. Rubenberg, “Ethnicity, Elitism, and the State of Israel,” in The Primordial Challenge: Ethnicity in the Contemporary World (ed. J. F. Stack, Jr.; New York: Greenwood, 1986), 161–84; Jon D. Levenson, “Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament Anti-Semitism?,” JES 22 (1985): 240–60; Levenson, “The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism,” in Ethnicity and the Bible (ed. M. Brett; Biblical Interpretation 19; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 143–69; and Peter Machinist, “Outsiders or Insiders: The Biblical View of Emergent Israel and Its Contexts” in The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity (ed. L. Silberstein and R. Cohn; New York: New York University, 1994), 74–90. 2. Torah stories about kin-wives (Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel) do not necessarily support a strict endogamy. These wives tend to be a bit more multifaceted than the outsider wives and get more press, but usually not good press.

134

Mixed Marriages

an easily breached social custom. In the time of the “restoration reformation,” Epstein writes, Ezra instituted a religiously racialized endogamy that prohibited mixing even with “followers of the Jehovah worship.”3 In two books, Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries and Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations, E. Theodore Mullen, Jr. carries the discussion forward.4 In Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations, Mullen argues that the formation of the Pentateuch is directly related to the construction of a “distinctive Judahite ethnic identity that was recreated during the Second Temple period…traditions were re-applied to the community of the restoration in an effort to forge an enduring identity.”5 This book details the many ways the narratives and laws of the Pentateuch function to construct ethnic boundaries to serve the people who have been settled in Persian Yehud. Mullen accepts the view that, with Ezra and Nehemiah, “endogamy became the officially accepted marriage relationship.” Positive stories about exogamy that remain in the text are viewed by these scholars as evidence of much earlier perspectives and practices, rather than as evidence of opposing perspectives on intermarriage in post-exilic Yehud. In other words, they assume that Ezra and Nehemiah’s anti-exogamy ideology became policy. Mark Brett’s reading strategy also reads these stories against the background of the Persian period, but argues for the resistance to the Ezra–Nehemiah polemic against “foreign” wives (as seen by the goodforeign-wife stories). I agree with Brett that this resistance may have been intended to be subtle, but we cannot assume it was “a minority view.” The view that all exogamy was dangerous to Israel’s survival was sufficiently authoritative to ensure Ezra–Nehemiah a place in the Jewish Scriptures, but it may not have been the “dominant ideology of the fifth century B.C.E.”6 Thus, a socio-historical approach explains the contrasting perspectives on exogamy in the narratives and law codes in the Pentateuch by the conflicts over suitable marriage alliances among the inhabitants of Persian Yehud. On the other hand, a canonical perspective explains the tension as teaching which outsider wives are suitable; taken together, the texts identify good and bad outsider wives. Neither approach 3. Louis M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and Talmud (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942), 150, 163. 4. Mullen, Narrative History, 66 n. 30; E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch (SemeiaSt 35; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 145 n. 65. See also Victor P. Hamilton, “Marriage,” ABD 4:564–65. 5. Mullen, Ethnic Myths, 12. 6. Mark G. Brett, “Politics of Identity: Reading Genesis in the Persian Period,” in ABR 47 (1999): 1–15 (2). See also Brett, ed., Ethnicity.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

135

need minimize the impact of literary type scenes regarding betrothal and other delightful qualities of the Torah’s marriage/fertility traditions (whether a son of Israel marries an insider or outsider woman, he or his proxy often meets her at a well). Reviewing accounts across the range of Jewish Scripture will illustrate the textual tension over exogamy and provide a context for mixed marriages in the Torah, to which I will return. 2. Survey of Mixed Marriage in the Jewish Scriptures The conspicuous presence of tension over the proper provenance/ethnicity of wives throughout early Jewish literature signifies the continuing importance of this issue for Jews and the dynamic nature of wife-taking.7 Abraham insisted that his son Isaac must absolutely not be married to a Canaanite woman (Gen 24). Nonetheless, Isaac’s grandsons, Joseph and Judah, both found wives in the lands of their exile from home after Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt. Judah married a Canaanite, and Gen 38 tells in some ironic detail how he happened to impregnate Tamar. Tamar was also a Canaanite, although anti-exogamous interpreters chose to construct her as a relative.8 Tamar’s son Perez increased Judah’s lineage (see Gen 46:12; Ruth 4:12). Joseph married Asenath, the daughter of an Egyptian priest (Gen 41:45). Their union produced Ephraim and Manasseh who were adopted as sons by Israel and fathered the Joseph tribes (Gen 41:50–52; 48:8–22). Moses, the great deliverer, law mediator, prophet, and servant of the 7. Christine Hayes has examined the views on intermarriage found in the Bible and Rabbinic literature; see Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92, no. 1 (1999): 3–34. Hayes probes the bases for Rabbinic proscriptions against Jews marrying Gentiles, focusing on “holy seed,” purity/ impurity, holy/profane terminology in Second Temple texts and how this informs Rabbinic prohibitions against intermarriage with Gentiles. Cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 241–62. Examining Pentateuchal laws against exogamy, Cohen shows that Josephus and Philo based their proscriptions against intermarriage on Deut 7:3–4 and Lev 18, as Ezra and cohorts had (Ezra 9:1–2; Cohen, Beginnings, 242–45). Yet Hasmonean Jews did not do this. This grounds J. Simcha Cohen’s discussion of the Rabbinic debate about the bases for proscriptions against intermarriage; see J. Simcha Cohen, Intermarriage and Conversion (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1987), 245–62. 8. In Jubilees, Tamar is an Aramean (see OTP 2:130). In L.A.B. (Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities), Amram, Moses’ father, calls Tamar, “our mother,” and PseudoPhilo implies that she was not a Gentile when his Tamar says, “It is better for me to die than to have intercourse with gentiles” (OTP 2:315).

136

Mixed Marriages

LORD married Zipporah, the Midianite daughter of a priest. Both Midianites, wife and father-in-law, exemplify the confessional and ritual significance of Israelite faith. Later, Moses marries a Cushite woman. Although his prophesying sister and priestly brother disapprove, the LORD confirmed Moses’ choice by dramatically insisting that Moses and he were intimate, mouth-to-mouth companions (Num 12). Whereas the legislation of Exod 34 and Deut 7 prohibits Israelites from marrying women or men of the seven nations of Canaan, Deut 21 legislates the procedures by which captive Canaanite women might be married to Israelite men (vv. 10–14). In Gen 34 and Num 31, Hivite wives and Midianite virgins, respectively, were brought into Israel after the males were slaughtered.9 Deuteronomy 23 prohibits Ammon and Moab from “entering the congregation of the LORD” for ten generations. This restricts them but eventually permits them to enter Israel. In the Former Prophets, Rahab and her family were absorbed into Israel (without a marriage narrative (but see Matt 1:5). The Judahite kings, David, Solomon, and Ahab married foreign wives. David is not censured, but exogamy is roundly condemned in connection with Solomon and Ahab (1 Kgs 11; 16:28–22:51; Neh 13). Marrying the daughter of Pharaoh was Solomon’s first move after his kingdom was established (1 Kgs 3:1), and he continued marrying women from other nations. The narratives about Ahab and his wife Jezebel clearly disparage the practice. All of the anti-exogamy texts in the Torah and the Prophets imply that the threat of apostasy drives the prohibitions against intercourse with foreigners. This is altered in the anti-exogamy discourse of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. Mal 2:11–16) describe several incidents which not only indicate “mixed” marriage in the early Second Temple period, but depict priests, governors, and prophets as wholly opposed to it. In the book of Ezra, a Jew is constructed as someone who has experienced exile (golah) in Babylon. Many of the golah Jews had married women who had remained in the region of Judah during the exile or had been brought in from other people groups. Shecaniah, who brings the report of “mixed marriages” to Ezra, claimed that “the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands” (Ezra 9:1–2).10 Although Ezra, in his despairing response to the officials’ report, referred to the Deut 7:3 and 23:2–9 prohibitions, the term, holy seed, that the officials who came to Ezra applied to the Jews is an innovation. 9. Shechemite wives and children are called “prey” and Midianite virgins are counted as “booty.” 10. Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9; Isa 6:13.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

137

In the Writings, on the other hand, the Moabite Ruth married into a Judahite family, and David was born of her progeny. By the blessing of the women over Naomi, Ruth is aligned to Tamar, the Canaanite mother of Perez, whom she strategized to bear as a result of intercourse with Judah. In addition, Esther married a Persian king, through the machinations of Mordecai, with no censure by the narrator. She was born “for such a time as this” to save her people through the status gained by becoming queen. Subsequent Jewish literature such as Jubilees, 4QMMT, and Rabbinic texts confirm that disputes over proper marriage partners, which were associated with different understandings of Israel, continued into the Hellenistic and Roman periods. For the author of Jubilees, intermarriage resulted in defilement, impurity, and must be absolutely banned. A man who gave his daughter to a Gentile was to be executed (Jub. 30:11–16). Cana Werman notes that the composers of Jubilees, the Temple Scroll of Qumran, “The Eighteen Measures,” and the Forbidden Targum in the Mishnah (m. Meg. 4:9) concur in their blanket prohibition of intermarriage, dissenting from the mitigated view of the Sages in this regard.11 The later sages banned marriage with anyone who had not abandoned idolatry (Midrash Tannaim Deut 21:13, Sifre Deut 213–14), while other Jewish writers placed no impediment on intermarriage. Clearly, Jubilees and 4QMMT, along with later Rabbinic materials, demonstrate that disputes over the subject continued into late antiquity and beyond. Let us now return to a more detailed discussion of the narratives and laws about marriage and mixed marriage in the Torah narratives. 3. Mixed Marriage in the Torah According to the narratives of Genesis, Abraham was both endogamous and exogamous. At the outset of his story, he is married to Sarah, whom he called a half-sister; clearly she is kin. Abraham agreed to take Hagar— an Egyptian slave—as a second “wife,” who bore his first son (Ishmael). Significantly, Abraham did not oppose Sarah’s proposal to take a “foreign” slave as a second wife (Gen 16:3), and this move is not criticized by the narrator. (If one interprets this to imply lack of patience or faith, Abraham’s marriage to Hagar is never disparaged on account of the fact that she is an Egyptian.) After Sarah died, Abraham also fathered sons through Keturah, whose origin is not mentioned in the biblical text,

11. Cana Werman, “Jub. 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,” HTR 90, no. 1 (1997): 1–22.

138

Mixed Marriages

though, since he was in Canaan, we might suspect she is Canaanite.12 There is no explicit indication that Sarah’s kinship with Abraham as a Terahide is the reason the covenant son must be borne by her, nor is there any suggestion that Ishmael and the sons of Keturah were sent away (‫ )שלח‬because of their “outsider” status through their mothers.13 Nevertheless, all of these other sons were sent away from Isaac, the son of Sarah. Ishmael became the father of a nation of twelve princes (Gen 21:13, 18; 25:16) and buried his father together with Isaac. The sons of Keturah were sent eastward. Isaac and Jacob were compelled by their parents to avoid the neighboring girls and marry endogamously, that is, within the Haran/Aram clan. Jacob’s journey to find a wife from among his mother’s kin was a ruse to save him from Esau’s rage (Gen 27–28). The fathers’ marriages to Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah are all variations of the father’s brother’s daughter theme and represent “a Semitic practice of long duration and wide diffusion.”14 Although related to their husbands, and thus not Canaanites, these wives are not held up by the narrator as models of behavior or faithfulness to Israel’s God. In addition, unlike outsider wives, they were unable to bear children until the LORD opened their wombs (e.g. Gen 30:24). Although some of Jacob’s sons were produced by kinship coupling, others were born of in-house maids for Jacob’s wives, just as Hagar bore Ishmael for Sarah to Abraham. The surrogate mother practice itself indicates that bloodlines are not determinative for kinship, but rather that patriliny and the Lord’s election prevailed. Cases of exogamy and exogamous progeny are not marginal, since the later tribes and kingdoms of Judah and Israel were at stake. In spite of Abraham’s genuine concern to find a wife from Haran for Isaac without sending Isaac there and Jacob’s kin-marriages, no narrative 12. According to Jub. 19:11, Keturah was Abraham’s third wife taken from the daughters of his household servants. Abraham married her “because Hagar died before Sarah.” Pirqe Rabbi Eliezar claims that Keturah was Hagar (trans. by G. Friedlander from Vienna text of A. Epstein, cf. Gerald Friedlander, ed., Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer [New York: Benjamin Bloom, 1971], xxviii, 219). 13. Ishmael was circumcised within the context of Abraham’s own covenant marking circumcision. When Hagar and Ishmael are sent away, Sarah denigrates Hagar’s slave status, even though Sarah conceived of the idea of having a son through Hagar in the first place. 14. Nathaniel Wander, “Structure, Contradiction, and ‘Resolution’ in Mythology: Father’s Brother’s Daughter Marriage and the Treatment of Women in Genesis 11– 50,” JANES 13 (1981): 75–99 (83). Cf. Kari Plum’s discussion of mother’s brother’s daughter marriage, “Genealogy as Theology,” SJOT 1 (1989): 66–91.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

139

in Genesis recounts Jacob’s interest in finding wives among his kin for his sons.15 Several are cited as marrying and/or producing children with outsiders, but all of them must have married out, because no other women were available.16 Laban and Jacob had made a truce that neither would cross the boundary marker they built (Gen 31:51–54). Genesis 34, a bloody story of rape, deceit, and revenge, nonetheless depicts exogamy without negative judgment, but with a reversal of “who was on top.” Whereas, on Hamor’s terms, Jacob’s sons’ exogamy with the Hivites would have resulted in their absorption into Shechem, on Simeon and Levi’s (deceptive) terms, the women and children of Shechem were absorbed into Israel. Genesis 34 describes the capture of the Hivite women and children by the sons of Jacob as booty after Simeon and Levi had circumcised and killed all the men to avenge Shechem’s rape of Dinah (Gen 34:29). Any censure of Simeon, Levi, and the pillaging brothers was directed toward their violence and potential incitement of the many against the few (Gen 34:30; 49:5–7), not against taking the Hivite women as captive wives. Although the Hivites are listed among the list of seven nations Israel was ordered to destroy and avoid marrying (Deut 7:2–3), Shechem appears in Deuteronomy and Josh 8:30–35 as a site of intermingling through covenant. In the narrative of Gen 38, Judah (Jacob’s son) marries a Canaanite woman and so do two of his sons, who were slain by the LORD. Tamar, their widow, is the heroine of the story because she preserved Judah’s line. Without Tamar’s desperate ingenuity in pretending to be a prostitute, Judah could have been without progeny. Shelah had been set aside for, but not given to her; he could not be given to another woman as long as Tamar was alive. Judah seized the opportunity to have her burned when he learned she was pregnant. Yet, Tamar’s contrived intercourse with Judah ensured the preservation of his line through her twin sons.17 Joseph (Jacob’s favorite son) marries Asenath, the Egyptian daughter of the priest of On, and his sons become two of the strongest tribes of Israel. Jacob blesses Asenath and Joseph’s sons, saying: “By you Israel

15. Jubilees and the Testament of Judah claim that ten of the sons returned to Haran for wives (Jub. 34:20–21; T. Jud. 9:1). The post-biblical rewrites of Genesis are consistently against exogamy. See also L.A.B. 18:13; 21:1; 30:1; 44:7; 45:3 (OTP 2:304–78). 16. A son of Simeon, Saul, is described as the son of a Canaanite woman (Gen 46:10). One wonders why he would be singled out this way if other sons also had children by Canaanites. 17. Ultimately through Perez (see Gen 46:12 and Josh 7, where the descendents of Zerah, Achan and his family are destroyed).

140

Mixed Marriages

will invoke blessings, saying, ‘God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh,’ ” and he calls Joseph “a fruitful bough” (Gen 48:20; 49:22).18 As mentioned above, insider women, the sister/cousin-wives, were barren until the LORD opened their wombs. This includes Leah—the LORD intervened on her behalf, when he saw that “she was unloved” (Gen 29:21–27). Barrenness was never a problem for the outsiders: Hagar, Tamar, Asenath, and Zipporah. All of their children were “sons of Israel.” In fact, the sons of the Egyptian, Asenath, were adopted by Jacob, Israel, as his own sons (Gen 48:5). Ephraim, the son of an Egyptian woman, became the strongest of the northern tribes and the favorite prophetic epithet for Israel. Moving into Exodus we meet Moses’ wife Zipporah—just as Moses does, in Midian, along with her father. Jethro is an outsider rendered as a significant model for Israel. Jethro confessed faith in the LORD upon hearing about the LORD’s mighty works, in contrast to Pharaoh’s strong profession that he does not know the LORD. Although Pharaoh had seen the LORD’s mighty works, Jethro, the Midianite priest, confessed that the LORD was greater than all gods simply by hearing about His works. He sacrificed and ate a covenant meal with Moses before advising him concerning the administration of justice among the children of Israel (Exod 18). In the next section, I will focus on the Torah’s contrasting depictions of the Midianites, to whom Moses is allied through marriage, and the Arameans, Jacob’s kin, from whom he acquired two wives. We will see that the Torah accounts about Moses’ mixed marriages, like those in Genesis, affirm exogamy at the foundation of Israel as a people. 4. Moses’ Outsider In-laws and Jacob’s Kin Relations The writers of Exodus used traditional motifs to link, but contrast, Moses’ exogamous relations to Jacob’s endogamous alliances. Exodus highlights the extraordinary hospitality, wits, and courage of the outsiders that became Moses’ family. This shows up the subterfuge of Laban, Jacob’s in-clan father-in-law, and even that of his wife, Rachel. I maintain that the redactor of Exodus paralleled Moses’ journeys with Jacob’s exile to emphasize that Moses’ alliances with Midianites, unlike Jacob’s endogamous relations to the Arameans, did not hinder his vocation and maturation, but supported them.

18. Tensions are also apparent within Deuteronomy, which prohibits Israelite marriage alliances with seven peoples of Canaan (Deut 7:3, cf. Exod 34:11–16), but allows Israelite men to marry captive women (Deut 20:14; 21:10–14, cf. Num 31:18).

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

141

Moses’ marriage to the daughter of a priest in the land of his exile, as a result of finding favor with his patron, Jethro/Reuel, recalls Joseph’s marriage, in the land of his exile. Pharaoh, Joseph’s patron, gave him Asenath, the daughter of the priest of On (Exod 2:21–22; Gen 41:50). Moses’ outsider marriage occurred when he fled his Egyptian household and the rage of his Egyptian mother’s father. Moses’ flight and wifetaking also recalls Jacob’s exile and insider marriages, which were the result of his flight from the rage of his brother Esau. As with Rebekah and Rachel—both kin wives of Isaac and Jacob—the Midianite Zipporah is first introduced to the reader at a well (Exod 2:15– 17).19 But, as the respective stories continue, the differences between Jacob and Moses’ relationships with their fathers-in-law and wives are drawn ever more vividly—the insider relationship degenerates while the outsider marriage alliance results in affirmation of the power and uniqueness of Israel’s God and benefits Israel. Whereas Jacob was deceived into serving his uncle Laban for fourteen years after choosing Rachel for his wife, Zipporah’s father gave her to Moses at once, with no strings attached. Both Jacob and Moses pastured the flocks of their fathers-in-law and had children who became part of Laban’s and Jethro’s respective households. Both eventually were ordered by the LORD to return to the land of their origin. Jacob abandoned his uncle and father-in-law surreptitiously (Gen 31:20), but Moses simply requested leave and Jethro said, “go in peace” (Exod 4:18). Both Jacob and Moses later encountered their fathers-in-law in scenes depicting social and religious transformations. Besides these reunions, which will be discussed below, the wilderness journey of each hero who separated from his father-in-law to establish his own household included a mysterious and dangerous encounter.20

19. Encounters with women at wells, leading to marriage, are considered “type scenes” and have been noted and treated by many scholars. See, for example, Esther Fuchs, “Structure, Ideology, and Politics in the Biblical Betrothal Type-Scene,” in A Feminist Companion to Genesis (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 273–81; Fuchs, “Structure and Patriarchal Functions in the Biblical Betrothal Type-Scene: Some Preliminary Notes,” JFSR 3 (1987): 7–13, and Fuchs, “A Jewish Feminist Reading of Exodus 1:2,” in Jews, Christians and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (ed. A. O. Bellis and J. S. Farninstay; SBLSymS 8; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2000), 307–26. 20. Bernard Robinson notes the scholars who have discussed the similarities between the “Circumcision by Zipporah” story and the account of Jacob’s wrestling match in “Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus 4:24–26,” VT 36, no. 4 (1986): 447–61 (451).

142

Mixed Marriages

A man struggled with Jacob all night while he was alone (Gen 32:24). Perhaps the wrestler of Gen 32 was seeking to take Jacob’s life, but Jacob was too strong and demanding. In any case, Jacob had already sent his family on; he had no one to help him as Moses did when the LORD attacked him during the night (Exod 4:18–26). Although bloodletting was not the climax of the struggle for Jacob in Gen 32, the divine wrestler touched (‫ )נגע‬Jacob’s groin in an attempt to escape Jacob’s grasp before the morning light, just as Zipporah touched (‫ )נגע‬Moses’ legs or genitals after she had circumcised her son and the LORD withdrew from “him.”21 Moses’ saving strength was not in his physique or resolve (as with Jacob), but in his wife and her wits: But Zipporah took a flint (‫ )צר‬and cut off the foreskin of her son and she touched (‫ )תגע‬his legs (‫ )רגלין‬and said: “Indeed you are my relation of blood (‫)חתן־דמים‬. Then he withdrew (‫ )ירף‬from him. Then—it was at that time—she said “relation of blood” (‫ )חתן־דמים‬because of the circumcision. (Exod 4:25–26)

Not only does Exod 4 parallel Jacob’s journey homeward, it links Zipporah to other preserving, delivering women featured in the lives of the ancestors, such as Tamar, Shiprah, Puah (the midwives for Israelite women who refused to kill male newborns), Moses’ mother, sister, and Pharaoh’s daughter.22 Zipporah is a link in the chain of other women— both insider and outsider—who saved males and preserved Israel. We realize through this account that the Midianite Zipporah is one of only three ‫ מהלים‬named in the entire Hebrew Bible (the other two are Abraham and Joshua). The further significance of Exod 4:24–26 lies in the uniqueness of Zipporah’s relation to Moses as a result of her circumcising her son on his behalf. In Exod 4:25–26, Zipporah calls Moses her ‫חתן־דמים‬. This indicates that the usual English translation, “bridegroom,” is at once too narrow and too imprecise. Moses was already the husband of Zipporah and they were the parents of two sons. After she 21. If this was God, as Jacob thought (he named the place “Face of God”), then we have a precedent for considering that Moses’ attacker was embodied as well. 22. Ilana Pardes points out that the blurred demarcation between Moses and his son is resonant with the Egyptian savior goddess Isis’ dual protection of her husband and child, the father–son pair, Osiris and Horus. Isis brings the dismembered Osiris back to life by collecting his body parts and hovering over him with her wings. She is impregnated by him and births in a papyrus thicket and hides from Seth. Zipporah (whose name means “bird”) “erupts in Exodus 4 with the power of an Isis” to save her husband/son. She is demythologized and presented as a human, but traces of the goddess remain. See Ilana Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 79–97.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

143

performed the bloody circumcision she states that Moses is in a new legal relationship to her. Clearly it is this act that made Moses her ‫חתן־דמים‬, as the editorial comment of Exod 4:26 indicates. After her timely cutting and touching, Moses was now not only her husband and ‫ חתן־דמים‬to her father, but (also) ‫ חתן־דמים‬to her, more precisely ‫ חתן־דמים‬because of the circumcision.23 This is the only case in which one of the relations described by ‫ חתן‬is female. Except in the case of Zipporah, all other such speakers are male. It is remarkable, then, that, through this act, Moses became Zipporah’s ‫חתן‬, and so also she became ‫ חתן־דמים‬to him.24 She becomes legally aligned to Moses through the blood of the circumcision as if she were a male in-law. The fact that a Midianite woman performed the salvific circumcision in Exod 4:24–26 leads me to suspect that one of the redactor’s motives was to show the insight and capabilities of women defined as outsiders in contrast to the notorious motion to expel non-exilic wives during Ezra’s time. “The Mixed Marriage crisis” of Persian Yehud is the first time that Israel could have been politically defined narrowly as formerly exiled male Jews. It is also the first and only time that indigenous women of the land, who could not have been Canaanites, were called Canaanites (etc.). Shecaniah’s solution was to expel such wives and children of Jews from 23. I conclude that Moses was the LORD’s likely victim, because he is the main character within the larger context. The LORD, the cause of Moses’ return to Egypt, now attempted to slay Moses on his way back to Egypt; just as Pharaoh, the cause of Moses’ flight from Egypt, had attempted to kill Moses. Moses is attacked, touched, released, and becomes Zipporah’s ‫חתן־דמים‬, terminology which also contains a measure of ambiguity in that it is used for both feet and legs in the Hebrew Bible and is also a euphemism for genitals. See Deut 28:57, Ezek 16:25, Isa 7:26; and probably Ruth 3:7, 8, 14. 24. In fact, Robinson suggests that by undertaking the circumcision of her son, Zipporah took the place of her father. She thereby became Moses’ ˙oten, just as she pronounced that he had become her ˙atan (Robinson, “Zipporah,” 457–58). He further writes: “The force of damim is: not a natural son-in-law but a son-in-law by virtue of the pouring out of blood.” He asks why this should “lead YHWH to spare Moses, who had resisted YHWH’s cause.” He answers: by touching Moses, Zipporah recircumcised him. Moses represented the whole people who would be spared through the blood of the Passover lamb, just as Moses was spared through the blood of Gershom. Ultimately, Robinson concludes (p. 459) that this tradition was rescued and used to support the new Priestly notion that circumcision and Passover were connected. It also reinforced the message of Gen 32–33 that God’s people must undergo a nearly fatal encounter with the LORD. I believe all of these meanings are supported by the context, but Robinson, like the other interpreters, neglects the significance of Zipporah’s role transformation here.

144

Mixed Marriages

the community (Ezra 9–10). Notice that these women were not to be divorced (‫ )שלח‬but expelled (‫( )הוציא‬see Ezra 10:3). Legal divorce would have implied that the marriages were considered valid and the women could be remarried to other Jewish men in the community. Instead, Ezra and Shecaniah advocated the physical removal from the community of these wives and children to an unknown fate. This was a purging that probably did not happen. See the Masoretic text version of Ezra 10:44, which closes with the list of those who had married “foreign women,” but does not say they were expelled. In opposition to a narrowly defined post-exilic Israel and an innovative exclusionist policy regarding wife-taking, the Exodus narratives about Zipporah and Jethro demonstrate how important outsiders were to Israel’s formation and preservation. A close examination of Exodus reveals that the author edited the material in order to feature both the circumcision by Zipporah tradition of Exod 4:18–26 and the Exod 18 account of Jethro’s confession, meal, and counsel to Moses. The context of the latter is the scene depicting Jethro bringing Zipporah and her sons back to Moses in the wilderness—“post-exodus.” The redactional comment—“And Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, had accepted Zipporah the wife of Moses after her sending away” (Exod 18:2)—is the means by which the redactor included both the traditions about Zipporah’s journey with Moses—away from her father—and those about Jethro’s response to the mighty works of God. Jethro could not be portrayed as bringing her back to Moses—and thus to hear of and respond to the LORD’s works—if she had remained with Moses. If the tradition transmitted in Exod 4:20–26, the circumcision by Zipporah, had not been essential to his story, the redactor could have simply left Zipporah in Midian when Moses returned to Egypt. Jethro’s confession (Exod 18:11), given in the context of his returning of Zipporah and sons to Moses, was equally important to the story. The redactor was not satisfied with including one or the other. It is an example of the response the LORD hoped would ensue from the signs, wonders, and smitings against Egypt: that the whole earth should know that the earth is the LORD’s (Exod 7:5, 17; 9:16, 29). Jethro’s faithful response to hearing of the works of the LORD is reminiscent of Rahab, who also confesses faith in the power of Israel’s god upon simply hearing about his works (Josh 2:9–13). She contrasts with the Canaanite kings, whose hearts also melt in fear about hearing about the prowess of Israel’s defender, but, instead of confessing faith, they draw up to battle Israel. Rahab’s entire Canaanite family entered the congregation of Israel because of her faith and her negotiations with the spies (Josh 6). Jethro’s affirmations also remind us of Ruth’s loyalty oath

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

145

demonstrating that a Moabite was a woman to be honored and emulated, not cast out. Zipporah’s story recalls the positive portrayals of numerous other foreign wives and women in the Bible and provides a subtle polemic against factions that oppose any sort of intermarriage between those defined as “Israel” in contrast to others not so defined. Clearly, the text as it stands shapes Zipporah and Jethro into significant figures for Israel as it emerges within the world of the story.25 In spite of the fact that the outsider Zipporah joins Abraham and Joshua as one of three mohelim (‫ )מהלים‬featured in the Bible, the early Jewish and Christian interpreters made little of her unusual role. Some Jewish darshans capitalized, instead, upon the power of the circumcision she performed, or its blood. Others deployed the role of her father as a model for proselytes to Judaism. Still others blamed Jethro and Zipporah for the attack on Moses in Exod 4, saying they forced him to swear to raise one son as an idolater in exchange for Zipporah. Several important writers, such as the author of Jubilees, Philo and Josephus, completely excised the circumcision incident from their versions of Moses’ life story. In fact, Jubilees’ Moses had no sort of intercourse with any outsiders—he did not meet Jethro, marry his daughter, or have “mixed” offspring. This is of course consistent with Jubilees’ abhorrence of such “pollution” of the holy seed. Christian interpreters ignored the ramifications of a foreign ‫מהלת‬, who made her son a son of Israel’s covenant with the LORD. Generally, these interpreters looked past the message about outsiders that the redactor of Exodus conveyed by his careful inclusion of the positive stories about Zipporah and her family. Although the narratives establish Jethro and Zipporah as worthy insiders to Israel, modern interpreters have not been occupied with them.26 Contemporary scholars have demonstrated more interest in the

25. Uriah the Hittite of 2 Sam 11 is another model foreigner whose faithfulness to Israel and Israel’s God outshines that of King David, the ultimate insider. 26. Mullen’s Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations would be a natural place to treat the implications of the narratives about Zipporah for the post-exilic community, but he does not. In regards to Moses, Mullen writes that when Moses married Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian, “…he has not married outside acceptable genealogical patterns. Even in exile, Moses could be a model for establishing proper communal relations” (p. 175). But how so? Were there Midianites or women analogous to Midianites in Babylonia or Yehud who were seen as acceptable marriage partners? Which outsider women might be considered marriageable by this model? He does not elaborate. Although he views Jethro, Zipporah’s father, as a paradigm for the proper response of outsiders who witness the LORD’s

146

Mixed Marriages

attack on Moses, what he did to deserve it, why circumcision thwarted it, the meaning of Zipporah’s words, why they were repeated, and the textual history of this tradition. For the most part, they have overlooked the significance of the role of outsiders in Moses’ story, which was so important to the redactor of Exodus.27 The stories of Moses’ Midianite relations are examples for Israel, and all other recipients of these stories, of the “faith of the outsider.” The friendly relations between Moses and the Midianites found throughout Exodus and in Num 10:29–32 contrast to the hostility of Moses toward Midian—especially Israelite men mixing with Midianite women—found in Num 25 and 31. Perhaps the hostility passages are intended as a corrective to the impact of Moses’ outsider marriages, especially since he is the one who demands that Midianite women be destroyed in Num 31. Ezra and his supporters knew that in the traditions of Israel (and Scripture cannot be broken), Moses had married a Midianite woman who was a model of a true Israelite in that she circumcised her son, a priestly act. Could the depictions of Moses’ command of bloody aggression against Midianite women in Num 31 support the exclusivist groups of Ezra’s time who wished to expel from the community the “foreign wives” of the returned Jews? Could this be a counter to the many tales of good foreign wives in the Torah story? Perhaps it explains the odd transformation from Moabite seductresses in Num 25 to Midianite deceivers in Num 31. This way both Midianite and Moabite women are disparaged, and the Numbers passages could be a narrative way of balancing the traditions about both Zipporah and Ruth.

power, as I do, he does not connect the confession of Jethro to the return of Zipporah or apply these stories to the ethnicity/intermarriage crisis of the post-exilic community (p. 194). He sees no significance to Zipporah’s “divorce” and resettlement among the people of Israel even though he focuses upon the function of these texts for the post-exilic community. Cf. Mullen, Narrative History. 27. John Goldingay is an exception, in that he finds it “pleasing” that a woman has the opportunity to “partner” with God in Moses’ “rite of passage.” He calls her a sister to the women over the centuries that brought their sons to the circumcision rite. He does not mention the Maccabean martyrs, mothers who circumcised their own sons, but he refers to the transformation of the rite to a male-only occasion. See John Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision,” JSOT 88 (2000): 3–18. Lawrence A. Hoffman cites the practice of removing mothers from the site of their sons’ circumcisions in Covenant of Blood: Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 190–208.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

147

On a socio-historical level, these opposing perspectives remained in the text as a witness to party practices and ideologies. However, a canonical/theological explanation for the tension in the text’s attitude toward Midianites may be suggested. The friendly Midianites performed rites of hospitality and communion, whereas the hostile Midianites led Israel to yoke themselves to Ba‘al Peor, through sex, sacrifice, and eating. The Midianites (to whom Moses was allied by marriage) sheltered, nurtured, enriched, saved, blessed, advised, and guided Moses and Israel. These sorts of helpful outsiders can be welcomed into Israel. However, those Midianites against whom Moses sent the sword had led Israel into apostasy through sexual intercourse and ritual acts. Idolatrous outsiders were dangerous and to be avoided and rejected. 5. Moses’ Cushite wife 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)

Moses’ Cushite wife is not an active character in the narrative of Num 12. She only appears through the voice of the all-knowing narrator in the first verse and quickly disappears when Miriam and Aaron start to speak. Nevertheless, the Cushite’s shadow is cast over the entire passage. Modern scholars have usually concluded that the mention of the Cushite wife is simply a pretext, tangential to the real issue in Num 12. However, the storyteller in Numbers clearly wants us to understand that Miriam and Aaron’s complaint against Moses was, as the text says, on account of his Cushite wife.28 Furthermore, both v. 1 and v. 2 provide reasons that Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, and they are related to each other. The juxtaposition of the narrator’s insight into the cause of Miriam and Aaron’s speaking against Moses (his Cushite wife, v. 1) with the narrator’s report of what they said (“Has the Lord spoken only through Moses; has he not spoken through us as well?,” v. 2) is significant. Miriam and Aaron’s complaints against Moses provide a platform for Moses’ elevation above all prophets (vv. 6–8), an elevation based on his intimacy with the LORD and Moses’ exogamy. The latter is affirmed

28. Another example of such narrator control is found at Gen 22:1, where the narrator of the Akedah tradition assured the reader, from the outset, that the LORD’s demand for Abraham to sacrifice his son was a test. Initial information provided by the narrator to the reader controls the significance of the unfolding plot.

148

Mixed Marriages

along with his unique prophetic role. Moses, in his marriage and prophetic role, is above criticism by Israel’s priestly (Aaron) and prophetic leadership (Miriam). The statement of Num 12:1b, “for he had indeed married a Cushite woman,” is the author’s way of assuring the audience that, although they may or may not have otherwise known this, the author himself was aware that Moses had married a Cushite woman. In this way, the author intentionally acknowledges that a Cushite marriage was a crucial aspect of Miriam and Aaron’s complaint against Moses. Then, as the story unfolds, the LORD resisted any and all complaints against his servant Moses—including a Cushite wife—because of the unparalleled role Moses held in the LORD’s household and the intimacy the two shared. The Midrashim on this passage claim that this intimacy included a mouth to mouth order that Moses separate from his Cushite wife (who in some cases is Zipporah), but that need not detain us here.29 Thus, Num 12 reflects a polemic against those who attacked mixed marriages on “ethnic” grounds. This text provides further evidence for my claim that the redactors of this material marshaled narrative traditions in support of exogamy from or for their Torah. According to Num 12, the “foreign” woman who enters Israel through marriage is not to be expelled simply because boundaries have been drawn to exclude her on the basis of her original location, language, or kinship ties.30 29. Num 12:7–8. See Avot of Rabbi Nathan (ARN), b. Šhabb. 87a, and b. Yebam. 62a. In ARN, Rabbi Judah b. Batriya said: “Moses would not have separated from his wife except that he was commanded from the mouth of the Almighty. As Scripture says, ‘Mouth to mouth I will speak to him (Num 12:8). Mouth to mouth I told him to separate from his wife, and he separated.’ Others say, ‘Moses did not separate from his wife until he was commanded by the mouth of the Almighty.’ ” ARN is a Midrash on m. Avot, which is also haggadic. It is associated with Palestine. ARN’s core originated in the third century C.E. and its commentary on Pirqe Avot continued to develop; its final redaction is seventh to ninth century. The Babylonian Talmud was redacted throughout the fifth through seventh centuries C.E. We find the same reasoning in Sifre to Numbers and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. The author of Sifre Numbers, Baha’aloteka 99–103 (third century C.E.) brings to his exposition of Num 12 the assumption that Moses had separated from his beautiful wife Zipporah. Moses’ prophetic relationship and his sexual renunciation were unique—the latter grew out of the former and the LORD habitually spoke mouth to mouth with Moses and the LORD’s mouth put the order for Moses to become celibate into Moses’ mouth—an intimate image of the relationship between the two. The identification of Zipporah with the Cushite woman in Sifre and Targum Neofiti avoids the conclusion that Moses was polygamous. 30. See further my other contribution to the present volume, “Moses’ Cushite Marriage: Torah, Artapanus, and Josephus” (pp. 208–302).

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

149

6. Conclusion Torah narratives clearly support exogamy with tales of outsider wives who overcome life and death crises with wits and skill. They thereby preserve and support Israel. The mothers of Jacob’s sons were legally kin, but their wives, the mothers of their children, were not. Outsider wives such as Tamar and Zipporah were like Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute, and Ruth, the Moabite widow who became an ancestor of David. Tamar built up the house of Judah by pretending to be a prostitute in order to conceive children. Moses’ marriage alliance with the Midianites preserved his life and aided his role as deliver, judge, lawgiver and prophet. These tales of exogamous marriage are a polemic against Second Temple period factions that oppose any sort of intermarriage between men of Israel and women defined as not-Israel. Against these pro-exogamy accounts are the narratives that depict Moabite and Midianite women as threats (Num 25 and 31) and laws that prohibit or limit intermarriage with Canaanites (Exod 34; Deut 7; 23). A socio-historical approach considers the tension in these texts as reflective of the conflicts among groups of Jews over exogamy. A canonical/theological approach suggests that, taking all the texts together, we have support for a certain pro-Israel sort of exogamy, whereas women who serve as conduits for Israel’s submission to other gods threaten Israel’s survival and must be avoided. However, no such qualification is made over Moses’ Cushite wife, regardless of who she is or what she does or does not do. His marriage to her is affirmed in Num 12 because of who Moses is in relationship to God—in effect, because of the unrivalled intimacy they share.

FROM THE WELL IN MIDIAN TO THE BAAL OF PEOR: DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TO MARRIAGE OF ISRAELITES TO MIDIANITE WOMEN Yonina Dor

There is a vivid contrast between the story of the marriage of Moses and Zipporah the Midianite woman (Exod 2:16–22) and the story of Baal of Peor (Num 25; 31), in both atmosphere and content. I shall begin my discussion with (1) a description of Moses’ conflicting attitudes toward marriage to Midianite women in these two key stories, and follow it with (2) a discussion of various attempts to explain the contrast between them. I shall (3) remark on the characterization of Midianite women, and finally, I shall (4) present my own conclusions on the attitude to marriage with Midianite women in the Bible. 1. Moses’ Conflicting Attitudes to Marriage with Midianite Women a. Moses and Zipporah The episode described in Exod 2:16–22 is based on an archetypal scene of a meeting between a foreign man and a local woman by a well, which leads to marriage.1 Since Moses has helped the daughters of the priest of Midian to water their flocks, their father, Reuel, invites him to eat with him. Since the common meal is a ceremony indicating trust and is the prelude to a contract, it is here that Reuel betroths Zipporah to Moses, a foreigner. We may go further, and see in Moses’ hastening to the defense of the women an act of deliberate courtship, similar to other episodes in which a man’s benevolent action on behalf of a weak woman leads to marriage. The common background to these episodes is the benevolent man’s foreignness in the environment of the helpless woman, or her foreignness in his environment. The characterization of Moses as an 1. E.g. Gen 24; 29:1–30; Ruth 2–4. See Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 54–57.

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

151

“Other” in Midian is emphasized when it is mentioned three times at the end of the story: by the description of Moses as a stranger; by the definition of Midian as a foreign country; and by the naming of his son Gersham (meaning “stranger there”)—‫ותלד בן ויקרא את־שמו גרשם כי אמר‬ ‫( גר הייתי בארץ נכריה‬Exod 2:22). This emphasis makes it clear that the union of Moses the Hebrew and Zipporah the Midianite was from the first a case of miscegenation, of which both Moses and Reuel approved. Later, the priest of Midian is called “Moses’ father-in-law,” and this, too, expresses approval of the marriage (e.g. Exod 18:1, 2, 5). Reuel and Jethro are considered to be different names for Moses’ father-in-law.2 Despite the emphasis on Moses’ original foreignness, he is faithful to his father-in-law, and in their later relationship he considers him to be a reliable source of authority: he accepts Reuel’s blessing of his decision to return to Egypt (Exod 4:18), he asks him for guidance in his journey through the desert (Num 10:31), and he puts into practice his advice to delegate authority in the government of the community (Exod 18:13–26). b. The Incident at Baal of Peor In the incident at Baal of Peor (Num 25) and its terrible consequences (Num 31) a very different picture of Moses’ attitude to involvement with Midianite women is painted. It is not clear why it is divided between chs 25 and 31, but the two chapters together constitute a single narrative.3 Chapter 25 is itself composed of three or four units (vv. 1–5, 6–9, 10–15 [or the latter two as one section], and 16–18), and the sequence is not continuous. The details and terminology are not consistent, the account of the actions is not coherent, and it seems that the attempts of commentators to fill the lacunae mar the spirit of the narrative. I shall discuss this incohesive chapter as it is recorded, and treat the irregular sequence as an authentic expression of the story. Numbers 25 opens with a short account of the “whoredom” of the people of Israel with the Moabite women, as a result of which the Israelites are invited to sacrifice and bow down to their god—Baal of Peor. Here, too, the relationship begins with the Israelites’ agreement to a joint meal, but in this case it is a ritual component of a religious ceremony. 2. For a discussion of the relation between these names, and of the name Heber (Judg 4:11), which is also considered to be a name of Jethro, see George F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (2d ed.; ICC 7; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1949), 33. 3. For a critical review of the reasons for this division, see Jacob Licht, A Commentary on the Book of Numbers [22–36] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995 [Hebrew]), 113.

152

Mixed Marriages

This relationship is considered to be a terrible sin, to which there are two reactions: first, God’s demand to “hang up the leaders against the sun,” an unusual punishment, apparently derived from an independent source;4 the second reaction is Moses’ command that each of the judges of Israel should slay every one of his men who worshipped Baal of Peor. We have no information about the execution of these two commands, but a new situation immediately arises: an Israelite man takes hold of a Midianite woman in the presence of his brothers and all the people of Israel, and takes her into the Tabernacle alone. This sacrilegious act causes the spectators to weep.5 The Midrash and the commentators explain that the couple went into the Tabernacle either to perform a pagan ceremony or to commit whoredom, but there is no indication in the text of an idolatrous ritual. The use of the two verbs bo, ‫ בו"א‬and karev, ‫קר"ב‬, each of which bears the connotation of sexual relationships, makes it clear that this passage is about intimate relationships.6 The presence of the crowd of witnesses, the family of the Israelite man and the whole community, suggests that a socially acceptable marriage ceremony was about to take place (Num 25:6–9).7 Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, reacts by bursting out of the crowd and stabbing Zimri son of Salu and Cozbi, daughter of Zur, the partners in the mixed marriage, to death. This is the dramatic climax of the story. Their deaths put a stop to the 4. See also 2 Sam 21:1–11; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 300–301; Joseph Ginat, Blood Disputes Among Bedouin and Rural Arabs in Israel: Revenge, Mediation, Outcasting and Family Honor (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press/The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1987), 90–112, tells of tashmis—a desert punishment. 5. Num 25:6. This chapter, which begins with the whoredom of the Moabite women, continues with intimate relationships with one Midianite woman, and thereafter all the Midianite women are accused of the same sin. The commentators explain the transition from Moab to Midian by interchange between Midianites–Kenites, Moab, Amalek, and Edom (e.g. Rashi; Maimonides; Hizkuni to Num 24:20–22). Modern criticism relates the change from Moab to Midian to the different sources which are integrated here: Num 25:1–5 from JE, and the continuation from a Priestly source. Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (trans. James D. Martin; OTL; London: SCM, 1968), 194–99; Levine, Numbers, 279–85; Gerald A. Klingbeil, “Not So Happily Ever After…: Cross-Cultural Marriages in the Time of Ezra–Nehemiah,” Maarav 14, no. 1 (2007): 43–49. 6. ‫בו"א‬, as in Gen 16:2; ‫קר"ב‬, as in Gen 20:4. And see BDB ‫ בוא‬e, 98; ‫קרב‬, 1, a, 897. 7. George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (2d ed.; ICC 4; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 384; Noth, Numbers, 198; Milgrom, Numbers, 214.

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

153

plague in which 24,000 people have died, and this was a sign to a divine punishment: the magnitude of the punishment was commensurate with the magnitude of the sin. The addition of punishments and their gradually increasing severity in the course of the chapter heighten the terrible impression made by the act. And, indeed, the story of Baal of Peor left traces in the tradition, such as ‫עיניכם הראת את אשר־עשה יהוה בבעל פעור‬ ‫( כי כל־האיש אשר הלך אחרי בעל־פעור השמידו יהוה אלהיך מקרבך‬Deut 4:3; and see Josh 12:17; Ps 106:28–31; Hos 9:10). Although the cessation of the plague shows that the sin has been atoned for and God appeased, Moses receives another command, to harass the Midianites because of their licentious behavior in Peor and the episode of Cozbi (Num 25:17–18). Thus, all the Midianites, and not only the women involved, become a collective target of revenge. Moses orders vengeance, and the people respond by killing all the Midianite men (Num 31:1–7). After the fighting Moses rebukes the people for killing only the men, and demands that women and children also be killed. In Num 25:1– 15 it is the people of Israel who are considered to be the prime offenders, and it is they who are punished or said to be punished. In Num 31 Midian is the culpable party, and its punishment is total destruction. 2. The Contradictions between the Two Episodes and Attempts to Explain Them As a private individual, Moses married a Midianite and raised a family with her. He both esteemed and cooperated with his Midianite father-inlaw. As the public leader of the Israelites, however, Moses ordered and carried out the complete destruction of Midian. How can the contradiction between Moses’ different attitudes be explained? To find out the answer one has to examine details in the two stories as well as in the Pentateuch and the Prophets, exegetic interpretations and research findings. a. The Sources of the Stories and Their Dates It is usually thought that the source of the ideal picture of relations with Midian painted in Exod 6–18 was early literary material from JE.8 Sources which mention tension and enmity between Israel and Midian, 8. Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; London: SCM, 1962), 33–35. Noth points out the early date of the stories of Moses and Jethro, and relates them primarily to J, with additions from E. On the early date of the story, see, too, Lawrence E. Stager, “Midianites, Moses, and Monotheism,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (ed. M. D. Coogan; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 142–48 (143).

154

Mixed Marriages

particularly the stories of Balak (Num 22–24), of Baal of Peor and its consequences (Num 25; 31), and of Gideon (Judg 6–8) are considered to be late. The most extreme in its enmity to Midian is the story of Baal of Peor. It is true that the opening (Num 25:1–5) is considered to be a collection of passages from J and E, but the remainder, in its various parts (Num 25:6–9, 10–15, 16–18) is thought to be a combination of different sources from the post-exilic period, some of them attributed to P because of their linguistic character and subject matter.9 The Priestly source is evident in the etiology of the appointment of Phinehas and his descendants as high priests forever. The extreme opposition to mixed marriages probably also dates from this period, following the book of Ezra–Nehemiah and other biblical and non-biblical texts (Mal 2:11; Ezra 9–10; Neh 9:3; 13:3, 23–30; Jub. 30). But the terminology of the different passages is not consistent, and there is no agreed dating. Baruch Levine maintains that the source of the non-Priestly account was in northern Israel in the eighth century B.C.E., and sees in it criticism of the sins of Israel, in the spirit of Hosea (Hos 9:10). Milgrom, however, points to indications that this chapter is early.10 Numbers 31, which describes the destruction of the Midianites, also seems at first sight to be derived from P, in view of the patently Priestly terminology (such as ‫מעל‬, ‫מטה‬, ‫)נשיאי העדה‬, and of the references to purification after the war (vv. 19–24) and the apportioning of spoil to the priests, the Levites, and the Tabernacle (vv. 25–54). Yet scholars consider this account to be a late Priestly midrash because it has no authentic details of the war, and much of it is based on Num 25.11 Even though biblical and non-biblical discourse of the post-exilic period reflects opposition to mixed marriages, and thence it was assumed that this was the background and date of the story, this in itself is not adequate proof, because there are pluralistic opinions expressed in priestly writings and others in the post-exilic period.12 Thus, we cannot attribute to P complete unequivocal opposition

9. According to Gray’s analysis (Numbers, 380–87), the priestly material is derived from at least two sources. Noth (Numbers, 195–99) conjectures that Num 25:1–5 is derived partly from J. In his view, the continuation of the chapter (vv. 6– 18) is late, and partly, though not entirely, appropriate to P; it contains different sources and late additions. Cf. Levine, Numbers, 283–300. 10. Levine, Numbers, 44–45; Milgrom, Numbers, xxxiii. 11. Noth, Numbers, 228–30; John Sturdy, Numbers (CBC; London: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 214–16. Levine (Numbers, 466) considers that the source is definitely Priestly only from v. 13. 12. Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1977 [Hebrew]), 286–99; Gary N. Knoppers,

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

155

to marriage with Midianites. Moreover, we cannot definitely attribute sympathy towards Midian to JE, if only because the short passage which refers directly to Baal of Peor (25:1–5) is assigned to this source. As has been said, although it refers to Moab and not to Midian, it is an integral part of the series of references to the Midianite women which follows on directly from mentions of the Moabite women. Nor is the simple explanation that the positive attitude to Midian is early while the negative attitude is late acceptable. This assumption is plausible to an extent; but the chapters are fragmentary, and they contain insertions and have no doubt been subjected to deletions.13 Milgrom gives two instances. First, if Num 31 is a late composition, how can the fact that camels are not included in the list of spoils taken from the Midianites be explained?14 Similarly, in Num 31:18 it is considered permissible to marry female Midianite prisoners of war. This is legitimate in early writings (as in the law of the beautiful prisoner, Deut 21:10–14), but, in Milgrom’s view, it is inappropriate in a late Priestly text. Some Priestly and other writings from the post-exilic period are pluralist, and favor the assimilation of foreigners (Isa 2:2–3; 56:6–7; Ruth 4; Lev 19:33–3415). There is even compromise in the book of Ezra–Nehemiah, since the demand for ethnic exclusivity was not actually put into practice.16 Hence, the Persian period cannot be defined as completely separatist. b. The Characteristics of Marriage The relationship between Moses and Zipporah became a socially accepted marriage through the initiative of her father and under his patronage, as is fitting in an honorable traditional society. Moses the refugee found a shelter and a home with his wife’s family (Exod 2:16–22), and built a trusting relationship with his father-in-law. On the other hand, the “Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah,” JBL 120, no. 1 (2001): 28–30; Mary Douglas, “Responding to Ezra: The Priests and the Foreign Wives,” BibInt 10, no. 1 (2002): 2–3, 14–19. 13. For instance, the deletion of the execution of the first two punishments (Num 25:4–5), or the deletion of information about the events that followed the plague. See the Massoratic Piska be-emtza pasuk (Num 25:19). 14. Milgrom, Numbers, xxxiv, compares the mention of camels, which were characteristic of Midian, in connection with spoils in Judg 8:21. 15. According to Christiana van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law (JSOTSup 107; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 154–65. 16. Yonina Dor, “The Rite of Separation of the Foreign Wives in Ezra– Nehemiah,” in The Judeans in the Achaemenid Age: Negotiating Identity in an International Context (ed. G. N. Knoppers, O. Lipschits, and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 172–88.

114

Mixed Marriages

This apparently implies a shift of accentuation. Once the fundamental equivalence is established, the builder’s community, as the actual subject, becomes the focus. Implications for the Character of the Builders So how is the community behind the building project described in the course of the events? In the Old Testament and its environment, temple building is the king’s job, an outward sign for the close relation to the deity legitimating his rule.15 For example, in the sensitive moment of succession to the throne, the nexus between secured legitimate kingship and temple-building emerges as a crucial aspect of the relationship between king and deity. In 2 Chr 22:10 David quotes the divine promise: “He shall build a house for my name. He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.” Accordingly, in Chronicles’ report of the construction project, Solomon virtually builds the temple by himself, albeit the muster of builders and craftsmen in 2 Chr 2:1, 6, 12, 16–17 immediately suggests that Solomon is rather to be taken as the driving force than that he actually lends a hand with the construction works proper. The intention to present him as the key player in the process, one who, as the royal figure essentially connected to the character of the building and the prestigious implications resulting from it, becomes clearly recognizable from the repeated wordings presenting Solomon as the temple builder: ‫ויאמר שלמה‬ ‫( לבנות בית לשם יהוה‬1:18); ‫( אני בונה־בית לשם יהוה‬2:3, cf. v. 4; 3:1, 2). Furthermore, in 2 Chronicles there is no equivalent of 1 Kgs 7:14b, which informs the reader that Hiram, the gifted Tyrian craftsman, “came to King Solomon and executed all his work.” Hereafter both building accounts list single stages of work, albeit in Chronicles it is Solomon who appears to be the subject of the single actions not Hiram. In contrast to all this, in the building account of Ezra 1–6 a bigger group now competently replaces the royal figure, as Ezra 3:1, 8 show in particular. Despite Zerubbabel’s Davidic descent, no claims for kingship alternative interpretation for this silence shall be put forward. Robert P. Carroll, “So What Do We Know about the Temple? The Temple in the Prophets,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 34–51 (47–48). Against this view, cf. Bedford, Temple Restoration, 301–10. 15. Arvid S. Kapelrud, “Temple Building: A Task for Gods and Kings,” Or 32 (1963): 56–62. Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992), 301–4.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

115

arise from his involvement;16 his presence in the scene is better understood as a further argument for the temple’s legitimacy: The depiction of individual leaders further highlights the book’s emphasis on the participating community: outstanding individuals emerge in a manner that finally subsumes them, explicitly or implicitly, to the community as a whole. As a result, success belongs to the people and cannot be reduced to the deeds of a few illustrious men. The people themselves…actualize the return and restoration.17

The events in Ezra 1–6 therefore convey that the community in its entirety is qualified to build the temple. This status is as constitutive and legitimizing for them as it was for the king and brings along ideological implications: all protagonists are affirmatively assessed in their relation to the temple and therefore to the God worshiped there. In this initial event Israel is defined in its relation to YHWH, expressed through the devoted effort for his sanctum. The royal individual is replaced by the whole community. Their enhanced status in the holy realm logically coincides with an increased awareness of demands of ritual purity. This becomes clear in the temple dedication and the subsequent Passover concluding the whole episode (Ezra 6:17–22): the community is to be perceived as the re-established Israel, which is evident from the symbolic sacrifice of twelve goats as sin-offering in v. 17 (cf. the symbolic offering in Ezra 8:35).18 Their competence with regard to ritual purity is 16. Instead, Zerubbabel’s status is leveled by incorporating him into a bigger group where he acts alongside the priestly figure Jeshua as representative of the entire golah-group. Cf. Sara Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah,” ZAW 94 (1982): 66–98 (84). This estimation of the royal protagonist can be well contrasted with the picture drawn by the prophetic books of Haggai and Zechariah. Though it seems the concept has been put into perspective in later stages of the book, Zerubbabel’s Davidic descent, his title as ‫פחת יהודה‬, as “governor of Judah” (Hag 1:14; 2:2, 21), and his involvement in the temple-building give rise to prophecies that indicate a restoration of the monarchy (see Hag 2:20–23; Zech 4:1– 14; 6:9–14). 17. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 41. 18. Contra Christiane Karrer, Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologisch- politischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemiah-Buch (BZAW 308; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 304. Karrer considers that the sacrifice of Ezra 6:16–17, combined with the anachronistic reference to Israel’s organization in tribes (Ezra 1:5; 4:1), conveys the post-exilic community’s self-perception as only a part of Israel. However, to the contrary one could argue that the recourse to Israel’s premonarchic constitution expresses the present group’s notion to form a complete entity in assured continuity to Israel’s origins, able validly to take its place. Cf. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 28–30, concerning the “Israel-concept” of Ezra–Nehemiah.

116

Mixed Marriages

stressed: they organize the necessary priestly personnel and can even safeguard that all priests and Levites are in the state of ritual purity (‫)טהר‬. Though not explicitly stated, the laity seems to be pure as well, as can be deduced from vv. 20–21: For both the priests and the Levites had purified themselves (‫ ;)הטהרו‬all of them were clean (‫)כלם טהורים‬. So they killed the Passover lamb for all the returned exiles, for their fellow priests, and for themselves. It was eaten by the people of Israel who had returned from exile, and also by all who had joined them and separated themselves from the pollutions of the nations of the land (‫ )וכל הנבדל מטמאת גוי־הארץ‬to worship YHWH, the God of Israel.

According to Num 9:13, everybody who is ‫ טהר‬has to participate in Passover.19 In the much-discussed Ezra 6:21, a further group, namely all those who “separate themselves from the uncleanliness of the nations”, gains access to the newly established community and is therefore also incorporated into the collective identity despite the lack of a genealogical link to the golah.20 It is important to notice that crucial terminology (‫בדל‬: “separate [oneself]”; ‫טמאה‬: “[moral] impurity”; ‫טהר‬: “clean; purify [oneself]”) which, as discussed below, will become relevant in the treatment of mixed marriages and will therefore hermeneutically organize the perception of this conflict, is introduced for the first time in the narrative in the present cultic context. Its meaning is, therefore, preformed for what follows. The particular presentation of events paves the way for understanding the nature of the group by allusion to Passovers in Israel’s history. In 2 Chr 30–31:1 and 35:1–19 Passover celebrations conclude the famous restorations of cult and temple initiated by Hezekiah and Josiah. As was argued above, the building of the Second Temple is analogously modeled as a restoration of the first. Besides the structural analogy of Passover celebrations concluding restorative actions, the deliberate reference is further made likely, as 2 Chr 30:3 states that not enough priests had sanctified/purified themselves (‫ )כי הכהנים לא־התקדשו למדי‬to preside

19. H. Ringgren, “‫טהר‬,” ThWAT 3:306–15. 20. Among other lines of debate about v. 21, David Janzen advocates taking the ‫ ו‬here as explicative, so that ‫ הנבדל מטמאת גוי־הארץ‬would refer to the aforementioned golah-returnees. However, it seems to make better sense to understand it as a conjunctive-waw, hinting to the presence of another entity involved in the concluding celebrations of the (re-)built temple. No matter how the ‫ ו‬is translated, an increased demand for ritual purity is apparent. Cf. Janzen, “Cries of Jerusalem,” 125–26.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

117

over the cultic celebration so that in accordance with Num 9:6–14 the contingency date in the second month is chosen. Besides, on Hezekiah’s Passover the unclean laity eats the Passover meal (v. 17), something that clearly deviates from the Law. By contrast, in Ezra 6:19–22 Passover can be celebrated on the 14th of Nissan (v. 19), all priests and Levites have purified themselves and the entire community freely takes part in Passover. This is something that may well allude to an ideal overall state of purity, and reveals the community’s surplus over their pre-exilic predecessors with regard to ritual purity. Moreover, Ezra 6:21 seems conceptually close to Neh 12:30, which reports the unparalleled purification of all agents involved—even the gates and walls—also using the term ‫טהר‬. Hannah Harrington therefore outlines that the notion of ritually purified laity appears likely in Ezra 6:21 due to the use of the same terminology in Neh 12:30, where the ritually pure status of everybody involved in the parallel celebration is explicitly stated: In Nehemiah the act of purifying the people is explicit; in Ezra it is rather implicit [and with regard to the purity concept of the final composition of Ezra–Nehemiah]… [T]he same ritual status applies to both, i.e. both undergo the same ritual purification for the dedication service (Nehemiah) and probably also the Passover (Ezra).21

The use of purity semantics applied at these central sequences of the composition discloses an identity-concept that emphasizes the need for cultic purity and applies it to an enhanced personal and spatial radius. Moreover, the particularities of this program are communicated by structural and conceptual parallels which establish intertextual references to the presented building accounts of Chronicles. In this context, it seems important to note that the postulate of augmented purity emerging from the first section of the book is no end in itself; rather, it is a vital requirement of temple-building and the newly enabled close relationship to YHWH communicated by it. For what follows one has to keep in view the abiding relevance of the temple. The temple is by no means a neutral background but rather arranges affirmative placing and constitutes a specific logic. For instance, it will be the dramatic stage of the intermarriage crisis (cf. Ezra 10:1, 6, 9; esp. 9:8). Ezra, the main protagonist of this sequence, will be introduced in a way very similar to the first returnees, as a devoted supporter of Jerusalem’s temple through whose help Achaemenid benefits are channeled some 58 years after temple and cult have been re-established 21. Hannah K. Harrington, “Holiness and Purity in Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Boda and Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity, 98–116 (104–5).

118

Mixed Marriages

(Ezra 7:11–23; 8:15–33).22 Though in the first part of the Nehemiah narrative the focus shifts to the parallel building project, the restoration of Jerusalem’s system of city-wall defences, the temple here as well continues to organize meaning: the commonwealth established in the oath of Neh 10:1–40 programmatically concludes “We will not neglect the House of our God” (v. 40).23 In addition, as shall be subsequently highlighted, narrative features in the Nehemiah section indicate on the semantic and conceptual level a close connection between both spatial entities.24 3. Jerusalem as a Focal Point of Community-Formation: The Relatedness of Spatial Concepts The narrative representation of Jerusalem as the second focal point of the people’s identity formation is part of the same literary strategy as the temple—bringing sanctified institutions affiliated to YHWH in an exclusive relation to the people of Israel. Both parameters are narratively aligned. This has been seen time and again—most prominently by Tamara Eskenazi, who claims that the sacral space is expanded from the temple right to the city walls.25 Though there is no final dissolution of both entities on the semantic level, Jerusalem partakes in the temple’s holiness and ultimately becomes a sanctuary itself. 22. Lester Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah (OTR; London: Routledge, 1998), 138–43, 192–95; Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 52, 57–59. Also, in the case of Nehemiah, who is often depicted as a pragmatic politician with little interest in cultic matters contrasting to Ezra (see, e.g., Othmar Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus [2 vols.; Orte und Landschaften der Bibel 4/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007], 2:1070–79), Mark Boda has shown that Nehemiah is stylized as committed to the temple and its cult in the resumption of his memoir. Mark J. Boda, “Redaction in the Book of Nehemiah: A fresh Proposal,” in Boda and Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity, 25–54 (35–37). 23. Cf. Dieter Böhler, “Communio Sanctorum. Das Gottesvolk als Altargemeinschaft nach Esra-Nehemia,” in Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten. Zu Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels (ed. O. Keel and E. Zenger; QD 191; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2002), 207–30 (210). 24. The category of space is naturally most relevant with regard to the temple’s and Jerusalem’s function as gravitational centers of identity; nevertheless it cannot be detached from the temporal dimension which is time and again stressed in the book, especially in the prayers in Ezra 9:6–15; Neh 1:5–11; 9:6–37, which betray an increased historical awareness tied to both localities. 25. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, passim, but esp. 175–76. Eskenazi identifies the building of the “house of God” as a central theme of Ezra–Nehemiah. Conceptually, the term refers to unity and interrelation of rebuilt temple, city and community. For a critique of this model, see Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 297–99.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

119

At this point it would seem appropriate to dwell upon the general conceptual link in the Hebrew Bible and its environment between city, temple and the deity/deities worshipped therein. Certainly in the cosmologies of the ancient Near East city and temple cannot be thought as unpaired entities,26 instead the latter marks the conceptual center of the city where creation and cosmological order are established, contrasting with the chaotic, deadly spaces as which desert and wilderness are imagined.27 Despite critical voices towards Jerusalem and urban life, in general the Old Testament constitutes no exception at this point.28 It goes without saying that texts such as we find in Isaiah (Isa 52:1–8; 54:11–17; 60:14) and the genre of Zion Psalms (Pss 46; 48; 76; 87; 132), for instance, voice that the glorification of Jerusalem as YHWH’s chosen place is no entirely new creation found for the first time in Ezra– Nehemiah. Nevertheless, the book emphatically perpetuates the conceptual amalgamation of city and temple, with the result that the temple’s holiness encompasses the urban space. This concept is again expressed by different narrative and lexematic means. For instance, the repetitive naming of the city in Ezra 1 in close context with the temple, which fosters the connection between the two, may be interpreted in this direction.29 In Ezra 4:12–16 an intervention against the temple builders is attained, although the letter of Israel’s enemies to Artaxerxes—at first glance startlingly—refers to the “rebellious wicked city.” Different explanatory models for the presence of the city at this place have been brought forward, varying from editorial slovenliness, historical indifference or misinformation, to juxtapositions within the composition.30 From literary perspective Ezra 4:12–24 offers 26. Angelika Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bildpolemik (OBO 162; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1998), 25–26. 27. Bernd Janowski, “Der Himmel auf Erden: Zur kosmologischen Bedeutung des Tempels in der Umwelt,” in Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte (ed. B. Janowski and B. Ego; FAT 32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 229–60 (229–35); Keel, Geschichte Jerusalems, 29. 28. Jürgen van Oorschot, “Die Stadt—Lebensraum und Symbol: Israels Stadtkultur als Spiegel seiner Geschichte und Theologie,” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. M. Witte; 2 vols.; BZAW 345; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 1:155–79 (175–79). 29. The accumulated mention of Jerusalem in connection with the temple is better understood as a programmatic linkage of both then as “typical bureaucratic pedantry” present in the alleged Persian documents, Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 12. 30. David J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984), 76; Keel, Geschichte Jerusalems, 1068.

120

Mixed Marriages

an explanation for the protracted period of construction without blaming the builders.31 At the same time, the synchronic approach recognizes a concept which programmatically puts temple and city side by side, emphatically tying them together on the mental map far beyond simple spatial localization. Interaction with one affects the other. Consequently, in the case of Jerusalem, a rationale of cultic purity analogous to the temple conception is set into motion, leading to measures such as the Levites fulfilling their duty right at the city-gates (Neh 7:1; 13:22).32 Manning the city gates—as neuralgic liminary transition areas—with cultic personnel, who are normally in charge of the purity of the temple resp. its gates (cf. 1 Chr 9:2, 17–32; 15:8; 2 Chr 23:4; 31:14; 34:13 for the present context esp. Neh 12:45), thus narratively communicates the idea of expanded holiness, which is no longer limited to the templeprecinct but also includes the city of Jerusalem.33 Again, semantic indications convey hermeneutical reference to Chronicles. Nehemiah 4:1 says, verbatim, “healing had come to the walls of Jerusalem” (‫)כי־עלתה ארוכה לחמות ירושלם‬. This unusual “organic” wording applied to a building is found only one more time in a narrative context: in 2 Chr 24:13, referring to the temple restoration of King Jehoash.34 Such a limited use makes a purposeful parallelization of both events likely—particularly since 2 Chr 24:13, like Neh 2:20–4:17, remarks upon the pious zeal of the builders, the intertextual reference suggests that both projects as well as the respective agents have to be seen in ideational connection. Finally, Jerusalem’s city walls are cultically dedicated in the procession with its choreographic culmination in the temple. This event, termed as the celebration concluding the restoration of the temple “dedication” 31. Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah, 21; Hieke, Esra und Nehemia, 99. 32. Williamson tries to explain the verse by historic reconstruction of an immediate military threat (Neh 4:1–17) or at least as dramatic illustration of Jerusalem’s precarious defense situation. In this situation Nehemiah had to mobilize all forces at hand; the Levite’s organization allowed for the quick provisional measure. However, after the completion of the walls there is no more mention of military conflicts. Instead, Neh 6:16 conveys that the power relations have shifted in favor of Nehemiah’s party. Besides, this interpretation cannot explain why in Neh 13:22 the Levites are summoned to purify themselves (‫ )טהר‬and again to take up station at the city gates to “defend” the Sabbath. See Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 270–74. 33. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 84–85, 189. 34. Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 248. Christiane Karrer-Grube, “Scrutinizing the Conceptual Unity of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in Boda and Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity, 136–59 (153–54).

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

121

(‫ )חנכה‬is noticeably drafted after Ezra 3:10–13 and 6:17–22.35 Nehemiah 12:30 now explicitly mentions the ritual purification (‫ )טהר‬of all agents of the scene, including the walls. Already the building process itself had a cultic touch: the high priest Eliashib and his fellows head the communal wall-building and consecrate (‫ )קדש‬the Sheep Gate when their share is accomplished (Neh 3:1b), conveying that something more than the Jerusalem fortification system is being built.36 In the highly integrative construction works again the formation of a unity and their relatedness with God through the building project is documented. Informative in this context are the various disputes with the hostile “out-group”; Nehemiah’s reply to Sanballat in 2:20—“The God of Heaven will grant us success, and we, His servants, will start building. But you have no share or claim or stake in Jerusalem!”—reveals that the community he represents identifies itself as standing in an exclusively close relation to YHWH which is manifested in the restoration of the city (cf. Neh 3:36– 37; 6:17) and is in this regard certainly comparable to the rejection of unwanted help by the temple builders in Ezra 4:3. Therefore, characteristic traits of the builders can be deduced from the nature of Jerusalem, which is by various literary means closely interconnected with the temple and its holiness. This constellation shall be illustrated by a closer look at the function of Neh 11:1–18, a sequence instructive for the rationale tying together the people with Jerusalem, which is itself termed “holy city.” Nehemiah’s So-called Synoecism: The Mutual Characterization of People and Sanctified City Nehemiah 11 is often interpreted as a military37 or political necessity to enforce the fortificatory strength of Jerusalem or to cut off Nehemiah’s

35. Jacob L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 309–10; Boda, “Redaction of Nehemiah,” 48–53. Significant in this context is the accumulated presence of parallel Leitwörter from the semantic fields of emotions and sensors such as ‫ שמחה‬/ ‫שמח‬, ‫תודה‬, ‫ שמע‬in both accounts which imply that the accomplishments celebrated in Neh 12:27–43 are conceptually related to those of the community who built the temple. 36. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 84. Because of the meaning, ‫ קדשו‬is often emended here to ‫קרוהו‬, establishing assimilation with vv. 3 and 6. However, according to Clines there are no textual witnesses that support such an emendation. Cf. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 195; Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah, 229; Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, 150–51. 37. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 274.

122

Mixed Marriages

inner adversaries from their local power bases.38 As regards history, all these interpretations might be fully valid. Yet narration and context present the event in a rather different light. In vv. 1 and 18 Jerusalem is explicitly called “holy city.” In Neh 7:5 Nehemiah does not draw on a random document to settle the city but makes use of the census list of the first returnees (Ezra 2). As was seen above these people one century earlier had been specifically defined by their relation to the temple and its nature. Thus, the inclusio by lists bridges time,39 constitutes one comprehensive community40 and last but not least leads to the identification of city and temple. This has an enormous impact on the contemporary community’s constitution: genealogical material and the highly theologically charged events of chs. 8–10 have proven the community’s exclusive disposition towards the city. David Janzen concisely states: We find that it is only after the walls have been constructed in chs. 1–6 and after Israel has rededicated itself to keeping God’s law in chs. 8–10 the people are fit to repopulate the city in 11.1.41

Yet in Neh 11 the corroboration of the conceptual frame of expanded holiness and the people’s allocation in it goes on: in vv. 1–2 settling is organized by casting “lots” (‫)גורלות‬, leading to the people’s literal “decimation.” In v. 2 some commentators have identified a further group of volunteers (‫ )האנשים המתנדבים‬relieving those on whom the allegedly hard lot was cast. Those who see Nehemiah’s cold calculation and political necessities as the prime mover here, interpret this information as 38. Lisbeth S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple–Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 10; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 207–11. 39. Hieke, Esra und Nehemia, 67, 184–86. 40. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 274: “Those who should populate the city of God stand in direct continuity with the community who earlier experienced God’s redemption…” 41. Janzen, “Cries of Jerusalem,” 130. Note that the prayer in Neh 9 outlines a “theological ethnogenesis” of Israel by selective recourse to its history, covering Exodus (vv. 9–11), the wilderness campaign (vv. 12–21), the conquest of the land (vv. 22–26) and monarchy (vv. 26–31, 34–35) without mentioning the individuals central to these periods. Only Abraham and his descendants (‫)לזרעו‬, as addressees of the promise of the land, are nominally referred to. This results in the people of Israel coming to the fore as the actual subject of history. Cf. Eskenazi, Age of Prose, 100– 101. Israel’s collective identity is essentially derived from its relation to God. This constellation could already be observed in the building-accounts of both city and temple and therefore should also be applied as a hermeneutical guide for the understanding of mixed marriages. As in this context, reference to a shared history underlined by genealogical material is rather a means than an end in itself.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

123

further evidence of a forced settling.42 With reference to Judg 5:2; Ps 110:3, ‫“( נדב‬to volunteer freely”) is understood as an act of self-sacrificing voluntariness in a bellicose context.43 This, however, disregards that ‫ נדב‬has already been introduced and repeatedly used in the context of the book, so that the hermeneutical frame seems to put the understanding of the verb into a rather different perspective. Ezra 1:6; 2:68; 3:5; 7:13, 15–16c make use of the stem,44 and here as well as in 1 Chr 29:5, 6, 9, 14, 17 ‫ נדב‬refers to voluntary donations made on behalf of the temple and its cult.45 In the same thematic field of voluntary activity, one can localize the denomination of the cordially self-imposed oath in Neh 10:31–40, significantly called ‫אמנה‬.46 In Ezra–Nehemiah the disposition of the people towards the sanctuary is repeatedly described as voluntary; the same can be alleged for the decision to populate the city. Also, the use of lot-casting to select one tenth of the people is well in accordance with this estimation, especially since in Neh 10:35 this same decision-making method is used to decide who would supply the woodoffering, while in Neh 10:39 the system of tithing is introduced to safeguard the provision of temple and cult. Even though the casting of lots communicates God’s will, which is most binding for everybody concerned, making all evasions impossible, there is no echo of reluctance. Instead, in the immediately consequent sequence of Neh 11:1–18 the “decimation” is better understood as a figurative tithing of the people who show their devotion towards the holy city.47 The election modus analogously communicates the cultic character of Jerusalem and especially its people. In 1 Chr 24:5–18; 25:8–31; 26:13–16, the casting of lots arranges the distribution of cultic services for the provision of the temple.48 Corresponding to divinely appointed priestly personnel in charge of the temple, the new inhabitants of Jerusalem take residence, which is consequently drafted as a privilege and thus similar to the chosen group who was by a divine act of grace privileged to build the temple in the time of Cyrus. 42. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, 211–12. 43. Ibid., 212. 44. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 51–52. 45. Cf., with further references, J. Conrad, “‫נדב‬,” ThWAT 5:237–45 (238–39). 46. For the implications of the particular use of terminology, cf. Richard J. Bautch, “The Function of Covenant Across Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Boda and Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity, 8–24 (18–19). Bautch hints at Neh 9:8 where Abraham’s disposition (‫ )לבבו נאמן לפניך‬is the rational for Gods willingness to enter the covenant with him. 47. Cf. Böhler, “Communio Sanctorum,” 216. 48. W. Dommershausen, “‫גורל‬,” ThWAT 1:991–98.

124

Mixed Marriages

One may therefore conclude that though it is not explicitly addressed,49 the temple organizes meaning in the context of Neh 8–11. The contextual framework ties the concept of Jerusalem to the temple; its holiness is not to be perceived as intrinsic, independent of the sanctuary. Besides, the observed features unveil that the relation between Jerusalem and its inhabitants is by no means neutral; neither of them is arbitrary towards the other entity. From the predication “holy city” results the application of ritual purity demands. The established status has to be safeguarded as the illegitimate profanation of the holy is not only life-threatening50 (cf. for instance Lev 22:9; Num 1:51; 3:10; 16–17; Josh 7:2; 2 Chr 26),51 but also impairs the newly established relationship to YHWH, which was seen as the prime mover of the events and which therefore triggers the demand for Israel to act ethically in a way appropriate to YHWH’s holiness—an idea not unlike the demand of Lev 19:2. For the last parameter, the treatment of mixed marriages, the constellations elaborated so far have to be considered as decisive. The Treatment of Mixed Marriages: Another Temple Restored? In Ezra–Nehemiah the controversy of so-called mixed marriages constitutes a grave and complex problem. The narration repeatedly touches upon the topic with varying breadth, emphases and outcomes.52 Both main characters quarrel with mixed marriages; Ezra is brought to sheer desperation (Ezra 9:3; 10:1, 6), while in the case of Nehemiah the confrontation with “Yĕhŭdîm (‫ )יהודים‬who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab” (Neh 13:23), leads to an outburst of rage—an emotional reaction even more extreme. Within this rather summary analysis of interaction between thematic sequences in the final stage of the composition, I can only outline in broad strokes how context and intertextuality seem to take up the cultic semantics applied here and steer them to a particular understanding. Those who are engaged in the debate on this issue will discern certain observations owing to the divergent scholarly evaluations of the topic. 49. Except for the regulations in Neh 10:34–40, which are concerned with the provision of the temple and their programmatic conclusion. Cf. Böhler, “Communio Sanctorum,” 216. 50. Hannah K. Harrington, The Purity Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 5; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 9–10. 51. Jacob Milgrom, “The Concept of Ma‘al in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 96 (1976): 236–47 (236). 52. See the introductory chapter to the present volume by Christian Frevel.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

125

With regard to content, Ezra–Nehemiah deals with the problem along the already established cultic-religious lines: when informed about the problem Ezra reacts with a prayer (9:6–15), performs gestures of grief (v. 3, cf. 2 Kgs 22:11, 19; 2 Chr 34:19) scheduled to the times of sacrificial cult (v. 5), then takes refuge to the temple where he fasts; only in Ezra 10:10 is he exclusively entitled “priest” (‫)כהן‬, pressing charges on the community gathered in front of the temple.53 Shecaniah’s religiously drafted proposal for a solution is to enter into a covenant (‫)ברית‬ with God. The delict is finally atoned for by the giving of a ram (Ezra 10:19). This payment, combined with the supplement “for their guilt” (‫)על־אשמתם‬, corresponds to the Asham-offering—as Jacob Milgrom has shown—the required sacrifice for the trespass on sancta termed ‫מעל‬.54 The protagonists’ speeches abound with religious terminology conveying their perception of the situation, for instance ‫עון‬, ‫מעל‬, ‫בדל‬, ‫זרע הקדש‬. Significant terminology reoccurs in Nehemiah. Here, after public Torahreading and a prayer compiling Israel’s Heilsgeschichte, a contract (‫ )אמנה‬consolidating the community is made, one containing the stipulation not to enter marital relations with the “people of the lands.” Nehemiah himself programmatically labels intermarriages ‫רעה‬,55 and performs purification (‫ )טהר‬that was coined earlier in the cultic context of the wall’s dedication. The analysis of temple and city in the present essay has already paved a way for understanding topics addressed in Ezra–Nehemiah by reference to Chronicles. Though the book of Chronicles itself does not raise exogamous marital relations as an issue, with regard to mixed marriages we again find extensive structural and semantic parallels with the already broached texts of 2 Chr 29–34, lending themselves as an interpretative key for the perception of mixed marriages. In high density the previously enumerated elements can be traced in the Chronistic reports

;

53. Cf. Ezra’s titles in Ezra 7:6, 10, 14, 24. Reinhard G. Kratz, “Statthalter, Hohepriester und Schreiber im perserzeitlichen Juda,” in Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (ed. R. G. Kratz; FAT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 93– 119 (111–18). 54. Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience (SJLA; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 70–71. Harrington, “Holiness and Purity,” 111. For a different judgment, see Adrian Schenker, “Die Anlässe zum Schuldopfer Ascham,” in Studien zu Opfer und Kult im Alten Testament. Mit einer Bibliographie 1969–1991 zum Opfer in der Bibel (ed. A. Schenker; FAT 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 45–66. 55. Note that ‫ רעה‬has been introduced in Neh 1:3; 2:17, there combined with ‫“( חרפה‬shame”) a lexeme associated with exile as the incentive to rebuild the city wall. In addition Nehemiah calls the several grievances he fights against in ch. 13 ‫—רעה‬a religious understanding is therefore triggered by the context.

126

Mixed Marriages

on Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s restorations of temple and cult (parallels are to be found in the account of Josiah’s reform as reported in 2 Kgs 22– 23:25, as well, but above all in the Chronistic texts 2 Chr 29:3–36; 34). The purifications of the holy realm expressed with (‫יצא‬, ‫ )טהר‬happen in the context of renovation works, in Ezra 1–6 quite a parallel restoration has been reported. As was discussed above both pre- and post-exilic restorations are concluded by the celebration of Passover. Note that in his exposition Ezra himself becomes a second initiator of cult. The mischief is publicly addressed by the royal figure; thereupon measures are planned and effectively conducted. We have seen that in the Ezra– Nehemiah narrative the function of the royal individual is assigned to the community respectively its representatives. In addition it has been discerned that, though invested with extensive authority, Ezra takes surprisingly little initiative in the lawsuit (Ezra 10:5–44) which hardly deserves this designation.56 In Ezra 10 the events proceed rather smoothly with consensual harmony of everybody involved, even of those who had entered into exogamous marital relations.57 In the scene Shecaniah might verbally represent the vox populi who, like Ezra is not married to a foreign spouse but still identifies himself with the offenders (‫אנחנו‬ ‫)מעלנו‬, expressing a collective conscience and direct responsibility towards God which again acts a constitutive feature of the community that is consolidated in a covenant entered in unison.58 The claim of covenant making as well as the consent participation of the entire community matches the sequence of the assumed referential temple restorations in Chronicles.59 The contaminations of cult are redressed with covenants into which Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:10) resp. Josiah (2 Kgs 23:3; 2 Chr 34:31) first enters. Then, in 2 Chr 34:29–33, the king is followed

56. Contra Karrer who annotates about Ezra 10: “Die Rolle Esras scheint hier in der autoritativen Übermittlung an die versammelte Gesamtbevölkerung zu liegen” Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 247. At least from a literary perspective Ezra does precisely not apply any authority in order to enforce the position of a minority concerning otherwise accepted mixed-marriages. 57. Cf. the absence of opposition in Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah, 35–36; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 156, 161. 58. David Janzen, Witch-hunts, Purity and social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign Women in Ezra 9–10 (JSOTSup 350; London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 43. 59. This literary interpretation could explain why Shecaniah so suddenly enters and leaves the stage of events and would not need speculations about his socioreligious background or relation to Ezra like it is done by Blenkinsopp. Cf. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 66.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

127

by the people—this procedure is quite similar to the oath of Neh 10, first sworn by representative individuals and subsequently joined by the entire community (cf. Neh 10:1–28; 29–30). Moreover, 2 Chr 34:29–30, 32 emphasizes that literally everybody is assembled in Jerusalem and consequently enters the covenant;60 the same can be said with regard to Ezra 10 (cf. vv. 1, 5, 8–12). Finally, the trespass is atoned for by the sacrificial giving of a goat. In 2 Kgs 23:2 and 2 Chr 29:4; 34:30 the king’s speeches are markedly localized at the temple resp. its immediate vicinity, a feature which is parallel to Ezra 9 and 10. Although there is no chance for a definitive identification of the setting of Neh 8–10, it is presumably related to the temple.61 Elements of Hezekiah’s speech (2 Chr 29:5–11) further corroborate the parallelism. Hezekiah addresses horrors of exile subsequent to ‫מעל‬, something quite similar to Ezra’s penitential prayer (Ezra 9:7), and introduces further Deuteronomistic motifs, such as God’s burning anger (‫)חרון אפו‬, which is lexematically identical with Ezra 10:14, where anger is caused by the foreign cult symbols called ‫תועבה‬. Ezra’s prayer uses ‫“( עזב‬to leave/forsake”) to contrast YHWH’s and Israel’s mutual relation,62 whereas YHWH has not forsaken the post-exilic community (v. 9). Israel’s current misdemeanor, that is, entering into illegitimate exogamous marriages, is seen as breach of law (‫ )עזב‬on the part of the people (v. 10), one which has to be perceived as a profound impairment of the relation between YHWH and his people. In the same way, Hezekiah paraphrases the cultic transgressions he is about to check (2 Chr 29:6). Beyond the level of structure and content, there is also significant overlap with regard to terminology which is so unique for Ezra–Nehemiah’s treatment of mixed marriages and has time and again been understood as 60. Jürgen Werlitz, Die Bücher der Könige (NSK.AT 8; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 308. 61. The localization of the events of Neh 8–10, “the square which is in front of the Water-Gate” (‫ )הרחוב אשר לפני שער־המים‬is debated. However, following Pohlmann, among others, it can be assumed that the square is associated with the temple precincts, marking the closest access from the city to the sanctuary. Cf. KarlFriedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum dritten Esra: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem ursprünglichen Schluß des Chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FRLANT 104; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 151–54. Williamson even makes the supposition that the site might be identical with “the square of the East” (‫רחוב‬ ‫ )המזרח‬of 2 Chr 29:4 from where Hezekiah delivers his confessional sermon and initiates the restoration of the temple cult. See also Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, 182; Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Dallas: Word, 1987), 234; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 252–53; contra Keel, Geschichte Jerusalems, 1080. 62. Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 268.

128

Mixed Marriages

crucial for the conceptualization of this phenomenon.63 In the Chronicles’ accounts of the temple and cult restoration, the mischief is labeled “sacrilege” (‫ )מעל‬and the foreign gods and their affiliated objects are described with ‫נדה‬, ‫טמאה‬, ‫תועבה‬. In cultic cleansing the sacrilegious items are brought out of the holy precinct, expressed with ‫( יצא‬Hiphil, 2 Chr 29:5, 16, 33; 2 Kgs 23:4, 6). The same term is uniquely used for the act of divorce in Ezra 10:2, instead of the common ‫ שלח‬or ‫גרש‬, as in Ezra 10:3, 19.64 To this notion one would add the essentialized connection between foreign women resp. people and their “abominations” (‫ )תעבות‬in Ezra 9:1, 11, 14. Notably, the uptake of the term in its context most likely harks back to the admonitions given in the Holiness Code in Lev 18:24–30.65 However, whereas Lev 18 summarizes certain sexual transgressions with which the people of the land are imputed (‫ )את־כל־התועבת האל עשו אנשי־הארץ‬as ‫תעבות‬, Ezra speaks of ‫להתחתן‬ ‫ בעמי התעבות‬in v. 14. Christiane Karrer therefore concisely states: Damit wird in Esr 9 anders als in Lev 18 die Unreinheit des Landes an den Personen selbst, statt an bestimmten Handlungen der Personen, festgemacht… »Völker der Gräuel«, eine Verbindung, die sich in Lev 18 nicht findet und die explizit die »Gräuel« zu einer Qualifikation der Personen macht.66

Consequently, if it holds true that the foreign spouses themselves are perceived as “abominations”, it fits into the presented line of interpretation to term the act of dissolution as ‫יצא‬, since the ‫ תעבות‬of the preexilic temple restorations are dealt with in the same way and wording. Furthermore, the purification (‫ )טהר‬Nehemiah applies in cases of illegitimate intermarriage also occurs within both restorations (Neh 13:9, 22, 30). Including 2 Chr 29:18, when priests and Levites have accomplished their work they report to the king, ‫“( טהרנו את־כל־בית יהוה‬We have purified the whole House of YHWH”). In Neh 13:30 Nehemiah similarly sums up his reforms of ch. 13, including actions against exogamous marriages within the high priestly family and laity, ‫וטהרתים‬ ‫“( מכל־נכר‬I purified them of all foreign”). 63. For a discussion of the relevant terms, see, for instance, Harrington, “Holiness and Purity”; Saul M. Olyan, “Purity Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community,” JSJ 35 (2004): 1–16. 64. Markus Zehnder, Umgang mit Fremden in Israel und Assyrien. Ein Beitrag zur Anthropologie des “Fremden” im Licht antiker Quellen (BWAT 168; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 431. 65. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), 119. 66. Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 270–71.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

129

The significant constellation of terminological and structural interference with the temple restorations of Chronicles might correspondingly help to explain another lexematical feature in the treatment of mixed marriages—the use for ‫( ישב‬Hiphil) for “to marry” (Ezra 10:2, 19; Neh 13:23). With regard to the conceptual centrality of spatial dimensions in Ezra–Nehemiah arguing for the intimate relation between Israel and the holy city, Jerusalem, the ‫השיב‬-marriages, literally “causing sb. to dwell,” might be used here to stress the spatial component of those marriages, as well as their sacrilegious character. Unwanted foreign influence is brought into the holy sphere where its impact is fatal. The use of ‫ בדל‬can be seen as a further indicator for the logic that is operant here, as it implies the vital separation of pure-impure; holy-profane.67 That the people themselves are able to perform this task classically belonging to the cultic personnel’s duties, as well as the giving of an ‫אשם‬-offering, suggests their self-perception as related to the holy sphere. The trespass on sancta, ‫מעל‬, as the intermarriages are termed, in combination with the “holy seed” of Ezra 9:2, has therefore been understood as evidence for Israel’s holy status, sometimes defined as intrinsic, protoracist or biological.68 However, mustering the contextual frame as given in the final stage of the book and the assumed intertextuality with Chronicles, the ‫ מעל‬might be accentuated differently: with regard to the overall concept of the final-stage composition, holiness of space is central. Subsequently, Israel’s self-conception is based on the institutions “temple” and “holy city”, sanctified by their relation to God. As the sacral space is enhanced to encompass the whole city, the people who participate in it on a spiritual level give utterance to this concept by application of ethical norms obligatory to priestly functionaries, such as the prohibition of intermarriage (Lev 21:14).69 Israel is not affected by mixed marriages as an ethnical entity, if understood in biologistic, racist sense, but as a religious one. The concept of Jerusalem as sanctuary and the quasi-priestly status it implies for those in firm association with it is

67. Karrer, Verfassung Judas, 271; Janzen, Witch-Hunts, 42. 68. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 114; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 132; Zehnder, Umgang mit Fremden, 432, 426 n. 2; Saul M. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 83. 69. Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92 (1999): 3–36 (9); Armin Lange, “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls” (Part 1), BN 137 (2008): 17–39 (21–25).

130

Mixed Marriages

communicated by the analogous use of ‫ מעל‬for both the mixed marriages and the presence of idols in the temple, as well as the essentialized identification of the foreign women as ‫תועבה‬. Thus a nexus is established by the deliberate modeling of the intermarriage crisis after the Chronistic temple restorations on compositional, contentual and semantic levels. Israel itself is not the affected sanctuary; rather, the community’s vital relationship to institutions holy to YHWH is thematized. Conclusion The conceptual cohesion of the discussed “parameters” goes considerably beyond a mere compilation of post-exilic events. Each section dealing with central incidents literarily communicates the formation of a group whose core is defined along religious and cultic lines of thought. The textual representation at various points conveys the consensual interaction of cultic personnel and laity. The latter support priestly and levitical agents and the temple, which is conceptually located at the very center of the community (Neh 10:36–40, esp. v. 40; 12:44–47). Reciprocally, Israel’s profile is defined cultic-religiously. The possibility of restoration is essentially inscribed into the golah’s self-perception as a divine act of grace, leading to a strong sense of responsibility towards YHWH’s sancta (Ezra 4:3; 9:8–9; Neh 2:20). One can therefore conclude that Israel does not generate its special status out of itself; it is ultimately grounded in YHWH’s holiness and therefore cannot be isolated from Israel’s relationship to God. The narration mediates this constellation through Israel’s fierce devotion and exclusive association to temple and city. This observation brings along implications for the interpretation of mixed marriages, as the conception operative in the composition leads to the application of a dynamic which deliberately impinges on the understanding of the episodes discussing intermarriages. Through contextualization the notion of Israel as intrinsically or ethnically holy is consequently rendered implausible. An isolated overstatement of ‫זרע‬ ‫ הקדש‬in Ezra 9:2 might arouse this notion, however the book in its entirety seems to fence in this somewhat outstanding expression and instead “rephrases” that the obligation to endogamy is an ethical requirement due to Israel’s essential trait—the exclusively close relation to YHWH.

CLAUSS Understanding the Mixed Marriages of Ezra–Nehemiah

131

The synchronic approach I applied here, which introduced the book of Chronicles as reference-text for an analysis of Ezra–Nehemiah and the understanding of mixed marriages in particular, has indeed led to a range of observations revealing structural parallels to Chronistic restorations of cult and temple. The intertextual link was bolstered lexematically by the significant application of (cultic) terms ‫( יצא‬Hiphil), ‫ מעל‬and ‫ הועבה‬in the treatment of exogamous marriages, coinciding with the creative use of cultic terminology such as ‫ בדל‬and ‫אשם‬-offering (Ezra 10:19). All this makes the mixed marriages understandable as a sacrilege committed against the sanctuary (‫)מעל‬. Indeed, none of the accounts in Ezra–Nehemiah refers to foreign women in the temple proper. Yet the analysis of the narrative function of Jerusalem revealed the concept of the city as a holy space oriented on the temple. Therefore, the intermarriages can be understood as pollutions of the sanctuary (‫)מעל‬. Due to the essential alliance between Jerusalem and the returnees, the same application of matrimonial laws in force for the high priest, including the prohibition of exogamy in Lev 21:13–15, is expanded to all Israel. Further indication for the amplified spatial holiness may be seen in the unparalleled designation of the illegitimate marriages by ‫( ישב‬Hiphil), which carries a spatial component. The term then refers to the unwarranted presence of foreign spouses in the holy realm which collides with the notion of the city and causes a contamination analogous to idols (‫ )תעבות‬in the temple. Thus the present form of the book puts a concept of Israel’s holiness based on ethnicity into a rather different perspective. Here the separation of mixed marriages cannot be seen as final end, but is rather a means to illustrate the sacral status of the city and the people’s awareness of an immediate proximity to YHWH in their conduct of life. For the understanding of this formation process one can turn to Chronicles and perceive the temple restorations described there as an interpretative key to the mixed marriage crisis of Ezra–Nehemiah. This allows the demonstration of the concept of Jerusalem’s holiness and the ideal-typical disposition of Israel towards it. In return, the associated community is sanctified, but coevally the expansion of cultic requirements becomes mandatory.

MIXED MARRIAGE IN TORAH NARRATIVES* Karen S. Winslow

1. Introduction Some Torah narratives imply that taking a wife among one’s kin is required to preserve Israel’s identity. In a similar vein, Torah directives to Israel for entering the land prohibit intermarriage with the inhabitants. They indicate that intermarriage with Canaanites would lead to Israel’s apostasy and ultimate exile from the land. Other Torah texts, however, demonstrate that wives from groups defined as “outside” of Israel were beneficial because these women faithfully preserved Israel and/or confessed faith in Israel’s God. They are thus models for those who hear the Torah. For example, Torah narratives about Tamar, Asenath, Zipporah, and Moses’ Cushite wife (as well as about Rahab and Ruth in the Prophets and Writings) show that foreign wives were essential to the formation, preservation, and deliverance of Israel. These texts affirm that outsider women contributed to the establishment of Israel. Clearly, marriage stories and laws appear often enough in each division of the Jewish Scriptures’ (and with significant variation) to signify conflict over mixed marriages of Israelites and, later, Jews. In my view, the tension created by the wife-taking traditions throughout the Hebrew Bible is related to the social tensions over identity formation and ethnicity construction among the Second Temple Jews who processed these traditions and produced a set of Scriptures.1 These diverse stories and * This the present study contains rewritten portions of an article that was published in the online journal: Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 4, no. 1 (2006), n.p. [cited 29 November 2010]. Online: http://wjudaism.library. utoronto.ca/index.php/wjudaism/article/view/225. 1. The literature on the formation of ethnicity includes the classic by Anthony Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986). Anthony Smith theorizes that ethnic groups are built upon shared memories of a common history that separates them from others especially in times of crisis (14). According to Smith, the development of ethnicity consciousness also depends upon the recognition of the

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

133

laws found across the range of Torah, Prophets, and Writings are best explained, not by positing stages in the development of marriage customs over the range of Israel’s history, but rather as representative of distinct perspectives on exogamy among the scribes who produced them, and possibly among the earlier tradition transmitters as well. In other words, stories and laws about marriage in the Torah represent distinct voices in the post-exilic Scripture-producing community. The tales about outsider wives of the ancestors affirm that Jews were permitted to marry from groups defined as “Other.” This is in opposition to the group (˙aredim) represented by Ezra and Shecaniah (Ezra 9–10) who insisted that marrying out polluted Israel’s holy seed. Torah stories about Tamar (a Canaanite, Gen 38) Asenath (an Egyptian, Gen 41:44), and Zipporah (Exod 2, 4, and 18) demonstrate the shrewdness, fruitfulness, and faithfulness of non-Israelite wives. They supplement the stories about Rahab and Ruth to make the point that outsider women are models for a sometimes faithless Israel.2 Genetics does not define Israel; faithfulness does. This view contrasts with the diachronic view of social exogamy maintained by earlier commentators. In Marriage Laws in the Bible and Talmud, Louis Epstein explains the mix of endogamy/exogamy in the Torah as indicative of the “endogamy of the patriarchal age,” which was importance of narrative in the social construction of reality. Smith provides crosscultural evidence that religious literature both creates and sustains a social worldview essential for a group’s self-understanding, their “national and ethnic self-consciousness” (15). For further exploration of Israel’s ethnicity construction in texts and history, see Kenton Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998), esp. 1–16; E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries: The Deuteronomistic Historian and the Creation of Israelite National Identity (SemeiaSt 24; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993); Cheryl A. Rubenberg, “Ethnicity, Elitism, and the State of Israel,” in The Primordial Challenge: Ethnicity in the Contemporary World (ed. J. F. Stack, Jr.; New York: Greenwood, 1986), 161–84; Jon D. Levenson, “Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament Anti-Semitism?,” JES 22 (1985): 240–60; Levenson, “The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism,” in Ethnicity and the Bible (ed. M. Brett; Biblical Interpretation 19; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 143–69; and Peter Machinist, “Outsiders or Insiders: The Biblical View of Emergent Israel and Its Contexts” in The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity (ed. L. Silberstein and R. Cohn; New York: New York University, 1994), 74–90. 2. Torah stories about kin-wives (Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel) do not necessarily support a strict endogamy. These wives tend to be a bit more multifaceted than the outsider wives and get more press, but usually not good press.

134

Mixed Marriages

an easily breached social custom. In the time of the “restoration reformation,” Epstein writes, Ezra instituted a religiously racialized endogamy that prohibited mixing even with “followers of the Jehovah worship.”3 In two books, Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries and Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations, E. Theodore Mullen, Jr. carries the discussion forward.4 In Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations, Mullen argues that the formation of the Pentateuch is directly related to the construction of a “distinctive Judahite ethnic identity that was recreated during the Second Temple period…traditions were re-applied to the community of the restoration in an effort to forge an enduring identity.”5 This book details the many ways the narratives and laws of the Pentateuch function to construct ethnic boundaries to serve the people who have been settled in Persian Yehud. Mullen accepts the view that, with Ezra and Nehemiah, “endogamy became the officially accepted marriage relationship.” Positive stories about exogamy that remain in the text are viewed by these scholars as evidence of much earlier perspectives and practices, rather than as evidence of opposing perspectives on intermarriage in post-exilic Yehud. In other words, they assume that Ezra and Nehemiah’s anti-exogamy ideology became policy. Mark Brett’s reading strategy also reads these stories against the background of the Persian period, but argues for the resistance to the Ezra–Nehemiah polemic against “foreign” wives (as seen by the goodforeign-wife stories). I agree with Brett that this resistance may have been intended to be subtle, but we cannot assume it was “a minority view.” The view that all exogamy was dangerous to Israel’s survival was sufficiently authoritative to ensure Ezra–Nehemiah a place in the Jewish Scriptures, but it may not have been the “dominant ideology of the fifth century B.C.E.”6 Thus, a socio-historical approach explains the contrasting perspectives on exogamy in the narratives and law codes in the Pentateuch by the conflicts over suitable marriage alliances among the inhabitants of Persian Yehud. On the other hand, a canonical perspective explains the tension as teaching which outsider wives are suitable; taken together, the texts identify good and bad outsider wives. Neither approach 3. Louis M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and Talmud (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942), 150, 163. 4. Mullen, Narrative History, 66 n. 30; E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pentateuch (SemeiaSt 35; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 145 n. 65. See also Victor P. Hamilton, “Marriage,” ABD 4:564–65. 5. Mullen, Ethnic Myths, 12. 6. Mark G. Brett, “Politics of Identity: Reading Genesis in the Persian Period,” in ABR 47 (1999): 1–15 (2). See also Brett, ed., Ethnicity.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

135

need minimize the impact of literary type scenes regarding betrothal and other delightful qualities of the Torah’s marriage/fertility traditions (whether a son of Israel marries an insider or outsider woman, he or his proxy often meets her at a well). Reviewing accounts across the range of Jewish Scripture will illustrate the textual tension over exogamy and provide a context for mixed marriages in the Torah, to which I will return. 2. Survey of Mixed Marriage in the Jewish Scriptures The conspicuous presence of tension over the proper provenance/ethnicity of wives throughout early Jewish literature signifies the continuing importance of this issue for Jews and the dynamic nature of wife-taking.7 Abraham insisted that his son Isaac must absolutely not be married to a Canaanite woman (Gen 24). Nonetheless, Isaac’s grandsons, Joseph and Judah, both found wives in the lands of their exile from home after Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt. Judah married a Canaanite, and Gen 38 tells in some ironic detail how he happened to impregnate Tamar. Tamar was also a Canaanite, although anti-exogamous interpreters chose to construct her as a relative.8 Tamar’s son Perez increased Judah’s lineage (see Gen 46:12; Ruth 4:12). Joseph married Asenath, the daughter of an Egyptian priest (Gen 41:45). Their union produced Ephraim and Manasseh who were adopted as sons by Israel and fathered the Joseph tribes (Gen 41:50–52; 48:8–22). Moses, the great deliverer, law mediator, prophet, and servant of the 7. Christine Hayes has examined the views on intermarriage found in the Bible and Rabbinic literature; see Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92, no. 1 (1999): 3–34. Hayes probes the bases for Rabbinic proscriptions against Jews marrying Gentiles, focusing on “holy seed,” purity/ impurity, holy/profane terminology in Second Temple texts and how this informs Rabbinic prohibitions against intermarriage with Gentiles. Cf. Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 241–62. Examining Pentateuchal laws against exogamy, Cohen shows that Josephus and Philo based their proscriptions against intermarriage on Deut 7:3–4 and Lev 18, as Ezra and cohorts had (Ezra 9:1–2; Cohen, Beginnings, 242–45). Yet Hasmonean Jews did not do this. This grounds J. Simcha Cohen’s discussion of the Rabbinic debate about the bases for proscriptions against intermarriage; see J. Simcha Cohen, Intermarriage and Conversion (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1987), 245–62. 8. In Jubilees, Tamar is an Aramean (see OTP 2:130). In L.A.B. (Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities), Amram, Moses’ father, calls Tamar, “our mother,” and PseudoPhilo implies that she was not a Gentile when his Tamar says, “It is better for me to die than to have intercourse with gentiles” (OTP 2:315).

136

Mixed Marriages

LORD married Zipporah, the Midianite daughter of a priest. Both Midianites, wife and father-in-law, exemplify the confessional and ritual significance of Israelite faith. Later, Moses marries a Cushite woman. Although his prophesying sister and priestly brother disapprove, the LORD confirmed Moses’ choice by dramatically insisting that Moses and he were intimate, mouth-to-mouth companions (Num 12). Whereas the legislation of Exod 34 and Deut 7 prohibits Israelites from marrying women or men of the seven nations of Canaan, Deut 21 legislates the procedures by which captive Canaanite women might be married to Israelite men (vv. 10–14). In Gen 34 and Num 31, Hivite wives and Midianite virgins, respectively, were brought into Israel after the males were slaughtered.9 Deuteronomy 23 prohibits Ammon and Moab from “entering the congregation of the LORD” for ten generations. This restricts them but eventually permits them to enter Israel. In the Former Prophets, Rahab and her family were absorbed into Israel (without a marriage narrative (but see Matt 1:5). The Judahite kings, David, Solomon, and Ahab married foreign wives. David is not censured, but exogamy is roundly condemned in connection with Solomon and Ahab (1 Kgs 11; 16:28–22:51; Neh 13). Marrying the daughter of Pharaoh was Solomon’s first move after his kingdom was established (1 Kgs 3:1), and he continued marrying women from other nations. The narratives about Ahab and his wife Jezebel clearly disparage the practice. All of the anti-exogamy texts in the Torah and the Prophets imply that the threat of apostasy drives the prohibitions against intercourse with foreigners. This is altered in the anti-exogamy discourse of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. Mal 2:11–16) describe several incidents which not only indicate “mixed” marriage in the early Second Temple period, but depict priests, governors, and prophets as wholly opposed to it. In the book of Ezra, a Jew is constructed as someone who has experienced exile (golah) in Babylon. Many of the golah Jews had married women who had remained in the region of Judah during the exile or had been brought in from other people groups. Shecaniah, who brings the report of “mixed marriages” to Ezra, claimed that “the holy seed has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands” (Ezra 9:1–2).10 Although Ezra, in his despairing response to the officials’ report, referred to the Deut 7:3 and 23:2–9 prohibitions, the term, holy seed, that the officials who came to Ezra applied to the Jews is an innovation. 9. Shechemite wives and children are called “prey” and Midianite virgins are counted as “booty.” 10. Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9; Isa 6:13.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

137

In the Writings, on the other hand, the Moabite Ruth married into a Judahite family, and David was born of her progeny. By the blessing of the women over Naomi, Ruth is aligned to Tamar, the Canaanite mother of Perez, whom she strategized to bear as a result of intercourse with Judah. In addition, Esther married a Persian king, through the machinations of Mordecai, with no censure by the narrator. She was born “for such a time as this” to save her people through the status gained by becoming queen. Subsequent Jewish literature such as Jubilees, 4QMMT, and Rabbinic texts confirm that disputes over proper marriage partners, which were associated with different understandings of Israel, continued into the Hellenistic and Roman periods. For the author of Jubilees, intermarriage resulted in defilement, impurity, and must be absolutely banned. A man who gave his daughter to a Gentile was to be executed (Jub. 30:11–16). Cana Werman notes that the composers of Jubilees, the Temple Scroll of Qumran, “The Eighteen Measures,” and the Forbidden Targum in the Mishnah (m. Meg. 4:9) concur in their blanket prohibition of intermarriage, dissenting from the mitigated view of the Sages in this regard.11 The later sages banned marriage with anyone who had not abandoned idolatry (Midrash Tannaim Deut 21:13, Sifre Deut 213–14), while other Jewish writers placed no impediment on intermarriage. Clearly, Jubilees and 4QMMT, along with later Rabbinic materials, demonstrate that disputes over the subject continued into late antiquity and beyond. Let us now return to a more detailed discussion of the narratives and laws about marriage and mixed marriage in the Torah narratives. 3. Mixed Marriage in the Torah According to the narratives of Genesis, Abraham was both endogamous and exogamous. At the outset of his story, he is married to Sarah, whom he called a half-sister; clearly she is kin. Abraham agreed to take Hagar— an Egyptian slave—as a second “wife,” who bore his first son (Ishmael). Significantly, Abraham did not oppose Sarah’s proposal to take a “foreign” slave as a second wife (Gen 16:3), and this move is not criticized by the narrator. (If one interprets this to imply lack of patience or faith, Abraham’s marriage to Hagar is never disparaged on account of the fact that she is an Egyptian.) After Sarah died, Abraham also fathered sons through Keturah, whose origin is not mentioned in the biblical text,

11. Cana Werman, “Jub. 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,” HTR 90, no. 1 (1997): 1–22.

138

Mixed Marriages

though, since he was in Canaan, we might suspect she is Canaanite.12 There is no explicit indication that Sarah’s kinship with Abraham as a Terahide is the reason the covenant son must be borne by her, nor is there any suggestion that Ishmael and the sons of Keturah were sent away (‫ )שלח‬because of their “outsider” status through their mothers.13 Nevertheless, all of these other sons were sent away from Isaac, the son of Sarah. Ishmael became the father of a nation of twelve princes (Gen 21:13, 18; 25:16) and buried his father together with Isaac. The sons of Keturah were sent eastward. Isaac and Jacob were compelled by their parents to avoid the neighboring girls and marry endogamously, that is, within the Haran/Aram clan. Jacob’s journey to find a wife from among his mother’s kin was a ruse to save him from Esau’s rage (Gen 27–28). The fathers’ marriages to Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah are all variations of the father’s brother’s daughter theme and represent “a Semitic practice of long duration and wide diffusion.”14 Although related to their husbands, and thus not Canaanites, these wives are not held up by the narrator as models of behavior or faithfulness to Israel’s God. In addition, unlike outsider wives, they were unable to bear children until the LORD opened their wombs (e.g. Gen 30:24). Although some of Jacob’s sons were produced by kinship coupling, others were born of in-house maids for Jacob’s wives, just as Hagar bore Ishmael for Sarah to Abraham. The surrogate mother practice itself indicates that bloodlines are not determinative for kinship, but rather that patriliny and the Lord’s election prevailed. Cases of exogamy and exogamous progeny are not marginal, since the later tribes and kingdoms of Judah and Israel were at stake. In spite of Abraham’s genuine concern to find a wife from Haran for Isaac without sending Isaac there and Jacob’s kin-marriages, no narrative 12. According to Jub. 19:11, Keturah was Abraham’s third wife taken from the daughters of his household servants. Abraham married her “because Hagar died before Sarah.” Pirqe Rabbi Eliezar claims that Keturah was Hagar (trans. by G. Friedlander from Vienna text of A. Epstein, cf. Gerald Friedlander, ed., Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer [New York: Benjamin Bloom, 1971], xxviii, 219). 13. Ishmael was circumcised within the context of Abraham’s own covenant marking circumcision. When Hagar and Ishmael are sent away, Sarah denigrates Hagar’s slave status, even though Sarah conceived of the idea of having a son through Hagar in the first place. 14. Nathaniel Wander, “Structure, Contradiction, and ‘Resolution’ in Mythology: Father’s Brother’s Daughter Marriage and the Treatment of Women in Genesis 11– 50,” JANES 13 (1981): 75–99 (83). Cf. Kari Plum’s discussion of mother’s brother’s daughter marriage, “Genealogy as Theology,” SJOT 1 (1989): 66–91.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

139

in Genesis recounts Jacob’s interest in finding wives among his kin for his sons.15 Several are cited as marrying and/or producing children with outsiders, but all of them must have married out, because no other women were available.16 Laban and Jacob had made a truce that neither would cross the boundary marker they built (Gen 31:51–54). Genesis 34, a bloody story of rape, deceit, and revenge, nonetheless depicts exogamy without negative judgment, but with a reversal of “who was on top.” Whereas, on Hamor’s terms, Jacob’s sons’ exogamy with the Hivites would have resulted in their absorption into Shechem, on Simeon and Levi’s (deceptive) terms, the women and children of Shechem were absorbed into Israel. Genesis 34 describes the capture of the Hivite women and children by the sons of Jacob as booty after Simeon and Levi had circumcised and killed all the men to avenge Shechem’s rape of Dinah (Gen 34:29). Any censure of Simeon, Levi, and the pillaging brothers was directed toward their violence and potential incitement of the many against the few (Gen 34:30; 49:5–7), not against taking the Hivite women as captive wives. Although the Hivites are listed among the list of seven nations Israel was ordered to destroy and avoid marrying (Deut 7:2–3), Shechem appears in Deuteronomy and Josh 8:30–35 as a site of intermingling through covenant. In the narrative of Gen 38, Judah (Jacob’s son) marries a Canaanite woman and so do two of his sons, who were slain by the LORD. Tamar, their widow, is the heroine of the story because she preserved Judah’s line. Without Tamar’s desperate ingenuity in pretending to be a prostitute, Judah could have been without progeny. Shelah had been set aside for, but not given to her; he could not be given to another woman as long as Tamar was alive. Judah seized the opportunity to have her burned when he learned she was pregnant. Yet, Tamar’s contrived intercourse with Judah ensured the preservation of his line through her twin sons.17 Joseph (Jacob’s favorite son) marries Asenath, the Egyptian daughter of the priest of On, and his sons become two of the strongest tribes of Israel. Jacob blesses Asenath and Joseph’s sons, saying: “By you Israel

15. Jubilees and the Testament of Judah claim that ten of the sons returned to Haran for wives (Jub. 34:20–21; T. Jud. 9:1). The post-biblical rewrites of Genesis are consistently against exogamy. See also L.A.B. 18:13; 21:1; 30:1; 44:7; 45:3 (OTP 2:304–78). 16. A son of Simeon, Saul, is described as the son of a Canaanite woman (Gen 46:10). One wonders why he would be singled out this way if other sons also had children by Canaanites. 17. Ultimately through Perez (see Gen 46:12 and Josh 7, where the descendents of Zerah, Achan and his family are destroyed).

140

Mixed Marriages

will invoke blessings, saying, ‘God make you like Ephraim and Manasseh,’ ” and he calls Joseph “a fruitful bough” (Gen 48:20; 49:22).18 As mentioned above, insider women, the sister/cousin-wives, were barren until the LORD opened their wombs. This includes Leah—the LORD intervened on her behalf, when he saw that “she was unloved” (Gen 29:21–27). Barrenness was never a problem for the outsiders: Hagar, Tamar, Asenath, and Zipporah. All of their children were “sons of Israel.” In fact, the sons of the Egyptian, Asenath, were adopted by Jacob, Israel, as his own sons (Gen 48:5). Ephraim, the son of an Egyptian woman, became the strongest of the northern tribes and the favorite prophetic epithet for Israel. Moving into Exodus we meet Moses’ wife Zipporah—just as Moses does, in Midian, along with her father. Jethro is an outsider rendered as a significant model for Israel. Jethro confessed faith in the LORD upon hearing about the LORD’s mighty works, in contrast to Pharaoh’s strong profession that he does not know the LORD. Although Pharaoh had seen the LORD’s mighty works, Jethro, the Midianite priest, confessed that the LORD was greater than all gods simply by hearing about His works. He sacrificed and ate a covenant meal with Moses before advising him concerning the administration of justice among the children of Israel (Exod 18). In the next section, I will focus on the Torah’s contrasting depictions of the Midianites, to whom Moses is allied through marriage, and the Arameans, Jacob’s kin, from whom he acquired two wives. We will see that the Torah accounts about Moses’ mixed marriages, like those in Genesis, affirm exogamy at the foundation of Israel as a people. 4. Moses’ Outsider In-laws and Jacob’s Kin Relations The writers of Exodus used traditional motifs to link, but contrast, Moses’ exogamous relations to Jacob’s endogamous alliances. Exodus highlights the extraordinary hospitality, wits, and courage of the outsiders that became Moses’ family. This shows up the subterfuge of Laban, Jacob’s in-clan father-in-law, and even that of his wife, Rachel. I maintain that the redactor of Exodus paralleled Moses’ journeys with Jacob’s exile to emphasize that Moses’ alliances with Midianites, unlike Jacob’s endogamous relations to the Arameans, did not hinder his vocation and maturation, but supported them.

18. Tensions are also apparent within Deuteronomy, which prohibits Israelite marriage alliances with seven peoples of Canaan (Deut 7:3, cf. Exod 34:11–16), but allows Israelite men to marry captive women (Deut 20:14; 21:10–14, cf. Num 31:18).

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

141

Moses’ marriage to the daughter of a priest in the land of his exile, as a result of finding favor with his patron, Jethro/Reuel, recalls Joseph’s marriage, in the land of his exile. Pharaoh, Joseph’s patron, gave him Asenath, the daughter of the priest of On (Exod 2:21–22; Gen 41:50). Moses’ outsider marriage occurred when he fled his Egyptian household and the rage of his Egyptian mother’s father. Moses’ flight and wifetaking also recalls Jacob’s exile and insider marriages, which were the result of his flight from the rage of his brother Esau. As with Rebekah and Rachel—both kin wives of Isaac and Jacob—the Midianite Zipporah is first introduced to the reader at a well (Exod 2:15– 17).19 But, as the respective stories continue, the differences between Jacob and Moses’ relationships with their fathers-in-law and wives are drawn ever more vividly—the insider relationship degenerates while the outsider marriage alliance results in affirmation of the power and uniqueness of Israel’s God and benefits Israel. Whereas Jacob was deceived into serving his uncle Laban for fourteen years after choosing Rachel for his wife, Zipporah’s father gave her to Moses at once, with no strings attached. Both Jacob and Moses pastured the flocks of their fathers-in-law and had children who became part of Laban’s and Jethro’s respective households. Both eventually were ordered by the LORD to return to the land of their origin. Jacob abandoned his uncle and father-in-law surreptitiously (Gen 31:20), but Moses simply requested leave and Jethro said, “go in peace” (Exod 4:18). Both Jacob and Moses later encountered their fathers-in-law in scenes depicting social and religious transformations. Besides these reunions, which will be discussed below, the wilderness journey of each hero who separated from his father-in-law to establish his own household included a mysterious and dangerous encounter.20

19. Encounters with women at wells, leading to marriage, are considered “type scenes” and have been noted and treated by many scholars. See, for example, Esther Fuchs, “Structure, Ideology, and Politics in the Biblical Betrothal Type-Scene,” in A Feminist Companion to Genesis (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 273–81; Fuchs, “Structure and Patriarchal Functions in the Biblical Betrothal Type-Scene: Some Preliminary Notes,” JFSR 3 (1987): 7–13, and Fuchs, “A Jewish Feminist Reading of Exodus 1:2,” in Jews, Christians and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (ed. A. O. Bellis and J. S. Farninstay; SBLSymS 8; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2000), 307–26. 20. Bernard Robinson notes the scholars who have discussed the similarities between the “Circumcision by Zipporah” story and the account of Jacob’s wrestling match in “Zipporah to the Rescue: A Contextual Study of Exodus 4:24–26,” VT 36, no. 4 (1986): 447–61 (451).

142

Mixed Marriages

A man struggled with Jacob all night while he was alone (Gen 32:24). Perhaps the wrestler of Gen 32 was seeking to take Jacob’s life, but Jacob was too strong and demanding. In any case, Jacob had already sent his family on; he had no one to help him as Moses did when the LORD attacked him during the night (Exod 4:18–26). Although bloodletting was not the climax of the struggle for Jacob in Gen 32, the divine wrestler touched (‫ )נגע‬Jacob’s groin in an attempt to escape Jacob’s grasp before the morning light, just as Zipporah touched (‫ )נגע‬Moses’ legs or genitals after she had circumcised her son and the LORD withdrew from “him.”21 Moses’ saving strength was not in his physique or resolve (as with Jacob), but in his wife and her wits: But Zipporah took a flint (‫ )צר‬and cut off the foreskin of her son and she touched (‫ )תגע‬his legs (‫ )רגלין‬and said: “Indeed you are my relation of blood (‫)חתן־דמים‬. Then he withdrew (‫ )ירף‬from him. Then—it was at that time—she said “relation of blood” (‫ )חתן־דמים‬because of the circumcision. (Exod 4:25–26)

Not only does Exod 4 parallel Jacob’s journey homeward, it links Zipporah to other preserving, delivering women featured in the lives of the ancestors, such as Tamar, Shiprah, Puah (the midwives for Israelite women who refused to kill male newborns), Moses’ mother, sister, and Pharaoh’s daughter.22 Zipporah is a link in the chain of other women— both insider and outsider—who saved males and preserved Israel. We realize through this account that the Midianite Zipporah is one of only three ‫ מהלים‬named in the entire Hebrew Bible (the other two are Abraham and Joshua). The further significance of Exod 4:24–26 lies in the uniqueness of Zipporah’s relation to Moses as a result of her circumcising her son on his behalf. In Exod 4:25–26, Zipporah calls Moses her ‫חתן־דמים‬. This indicates that the usual English translation, “bridegroom,” is at once too narrow and too imprecise. Moses was already the husband of Zipporah and they were the parents of two sons. After she 21. If this was God, as Jacob thought (he named the place “Face of God”), then we have a precedent for considering that Moses’ attacker was embodied as well. 22. Ilana Pardes points out that the blurred demarcation between Moses and his son is resonant with the Egyptian savior goddess Isis’ dual protection of her husband and child, the father–son pair, Osiris and Horus. Isis brings the dismembered Osiris back to life by collecting his body parts and hovering over him with her wings. She is impregnated by him and births in a papyrus thicket and hides from Seth. Zipporah (whose name means “bird”) “erupts in Exodus 4 with the power of an Isis” to save her husband/son. She is demythologized and presented as a human, but traces of the goddess remain. See Ilana Pardes, Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 79–97.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

143

performed the bloody circumcision she states that Moses is in a new legal relationship to her. Clearly it is this act that made Moses her ‫חתן־דמים‬, as the editorial comment of Exod 4:26 indicates. After her timely cutting and touching, Moses was now not only her husband and ‫ חתן־דמים‬to her father, but (also) ‫ חתן־דמים‬to her, more precisely ‫ חתן־דמים‬because of the circumcision.23 This is the only case in which one of the relations described by ‫ חתן‬is female. Except in the case of Zipporah, all other such speakers are male. It is remarkable, then, that, through this act, Moses became Zipporah’s ‫חתן‬, and so also she became ‫ חתן־דמים‬to him.24 She becomes legally aligned to Moses through the blood of the circumcision as if she were a male in-law. The fact that a Midianite woman performed the salvific circumcision in Exod 4:24–26 leads me to suspect that one of the redactor’s motives was to show the insight and capabilities of women defined as outsiders in contrast to the notorious motion to expel non-exilic wives during Ezra’s time. “The Mixed Marriage crisis” of Persian Yehud is the first time that Israel could have been politically defined narrowly as formerly exiled male Jews. It is also the first and only time that indigenous women of the land, who could not have been Canaanites, were called Canaanites (etc.). Shecaniah’s solution was to expel such wives and children of Jews from 23. I conclude that Moses was the LORD’s likely victim, because he is the main character within the larger context. The LORD, the cause of Moses’ return to Egypt, now attempted to slay Moses on his way back to Egypt; just as Pharaoh, the cause of Moses’ flight from Egypt, had attempted to kill Moses. Moses is attacked, touched, released, and becomes Zipporah’s ‫חתן־דמים‬, terminology which also contains a measure of ambiguity in that it is used for both feet and legs in the Hebrew Bible and is also a euphemism for genitals. See Deut 28:57, Ezek 16:25, Isa 7:26; and probably Ruth 3:7, 8, 14. 24. In fact, Robinson suggests that by undertaking the circumcision of her son, Zipporah took the place of her father. She thereby became Moses’ ˙oten, just as she pronounced that he had become her ˙atan (Robinson, “Zipporah,” 457–58). He further writes: “The force of damim is: not a natural son-in-law but a son-in-law by virtue of the pouring out of blood.” He asks why this should “lead YHWH to spare Moses, who had resisted YHWH’s cause.” He answers: by touching Moses, Zipporah recircumcised him. Moses represented the whole people who would be spared through the blood of the Passover lamb, just as Moses was spared through the blood of Gershom. Ultimately, Robinson concludes (p. 459) that this tradition was rescued and used to support the new Priestly notion that circumcision and Passover were connected. It also reinforced the message of Gen 32–33 that God’s people must undergo a nearly fatal encounter with the LORD. I believe all of these meanings are supported by the context, but Robinson, like the other interpreters, neglects the significance of Zipporah’s role transformation here.

144

Mixed Marriages

the community (Ezra 9–10). Notice that these women were not to be divorced (‫ )שלח‬but expelled (‫( )הוציא‬see Ezra 10:3). Legal divorce would have implied that the marriages were considered valid and the women could be remarried to other Jewish men in the community. Instead, Ezra and Shecaniah advocated the physical removal from the community of these wives and children to an unknown fate. This was a purging that probably did not happen. See the Masoretic text version of Ezra 10:44, which closes with the list of those who had married “foreign women,” but does not say they were expelled. In opposition to a narrowly defined post-exilic Israel and an innovative exclusionist policy regarding wife-taking, the Exodus narratives about Zipporah and Jethro demonstrate how important outsiders were to Israel’s formation and preservation. A close examination of Exodus reveals that the author edited the material in order to feature both the circumcision by Zipporah tradition of Exod 4:18–26 and the Exod 18 account of Jethro’s confession, meal, and counsel to Moses. The context of the latter is the scene depicting Jethro bringing Zipporah and her sons back to Moses in the wilderness—“post-exodus.” The redactional comment—“And Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, had accepted Zipporah the wife of Moses after her sending away” (Exod 18:2)—is the means by which the redactor included both the traditions about Zipporah’s journey with Moses—away from her father—and those about Jethro’s response to the mighty works of God. Jethro could not be portrayed as bringing her back to Moses—and thus to hear of and respond to the LORD’s works—if she had remained with Moses. If the tradition transmitted in Exod 4:20–26, the circumcision by Zipporah, had not been essential to his story, the redactor could have simply left Zipporah in Midian when Moses returned to Egypt. Jethro’s confession (Exod 18:11), given in the context of his returning of Zipporah and sons to Moses, was equally important to the story. The redactor was not satisfied with including one or the other. It is an example of the response the LORD hoped would ensue from the signs, wonders, and smitings against Egypt: that the whole earth should know that the earth is the LORD’s (Exod 7:5, 17; 9:16, 29). Jethro’s faithful response to hearing of the works of the LORD is reminiscent of Rahab, who also confesses faith in the power of Israel’s god upon simply hearing about his works (Josh 2:9–13). She contrasts with the Canaanite kings, whose hearts also melt in fear about hearing about the prowess of Israel’s defender, but, instead of confessing faith, they draw up to battle Israel. Rahab’s entire Canaanite family entered the congregation of Israel because of her faith and her negotiations with the spies (Josh 6). Jethro’s affirmations also remind us of Ruth’s loyalty oath

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

145

demonstrating that a Moabite was a woman to be honored and emulated, not cast out. Zipporah’s story recalls the positive portrayals of numerous other foreign wives and women in the Bible and provides a subtle polemic against factions that oppose any sort of intermarriage between those defined as “Israel” in contrast to others not so defined. Clearly, the text as it stands shapes Zipporah and Jethro into significant figures for Israel as it emerges within the world of the story.25 In spite of the fact that the outsider Zipporah joins Abraham and Joshua as one of three mohelim (‫ )מהלים‬featured in the Bible, the early Jewish and Christian interpreters made little of her unusual role. Some Jewish darshans capitalized, instead, upon the power of the circumcision she performed, or its blood. Others deployed the role of her father as a model for proselytes to Judaism. Still others blamed Jethro and Zipporah for the attack on Moses in Exod 4, saying they forced him to swear to raise one son as an idolater in exchange for Zipporah. Several important writers, such as the author of Jubilees, Philo and Josephus, completely excised the circumcision incident from their versions of Moses’ life story. In fact, Jubilees’ Moses had no sort of intercourse with any outsiders—he did not meet Jethro, marry his daughter, or have “mixed” offspring. This is of course consistent with Jubilees’ abhorrence of such “pollution” of the holy seed. Christian interpreters ignored the ramifications of a foreign ‫מהלת‬, who made her son a son of Israel’s covenant with the LORD. Generally, these interpreters looked past the message about outsiders that the redactor of Exodus conveyed by his careful inclusion of the positive stories about Zipporah and her family. Although the narratives establish Jethro and Zipporah as worthy insiders to Israel, modern interpreters have not been occupied with them.26 Contemporary scholars have demonstrated more interest in the

25. Uriah the Hittite of 2 Sam 11 is another model foreigner whose faithfulness to Israel and Israel’s God outshines that of King David, the ultimate insider. 26. Mullen’s Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations would be a natural place to treat the implications of the narratives about Zipporah for the post-exilic community, but he does not. In regards to Moses, Mullen writes that when Moses married Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian, “…he has not married outside acceptable genealogical patterns. Even in exile, Moses could be a model for establishing proper communal relations” (p. 175). But how so? Were there Midianites or women analogous to Midianites in Babylonia or Yehud who were seen as acceptable marriage partners? Which outsider women might be considered marriageable by this model? He does not elaborate. Although he views Jethro, Zipporah’s father, as a paradigm for the proper response of outsiders who witness the LORD’s

146

Mixed Marriages

attack on Moses, what he did to deserve it, why circumcision thwarted it, the meaning of Zipporah’s words, why they were repeated, and the textual history of this tradition. For the most part, they have overlooked the significance of the role of outsiders in Moses’ story, which was so important to the redactor of Exodus.27 The stories of Moses’ Midianite relations are examples for Israel, and all other recipients of these stories, of the “faith of the outsider.” The friendly relations between Moses and the Midianites found throughout Exodus and in Num 10:29–32 contrast to the hostility of Moses toward Midian—especially Israelite men mixing with Midianite women—found in Num 25 and 31. Perhaps the hostility passages are intended as a corrective to the impact of Moses’ outsider marriages, especially since he is the one who demands that Midianite women be destroyed in Num 31. Ezra and his supporters knew that in the traditions of Israel (and Scripture cannot be broken), Moses had married a Midianite woman who was a model of a true Israelite in that she circumcised her son, a priestly act. Could the depictions of Moses’ command of bloody aggression against Midianite women in Num 31 support the exclusivist groups of Ezra’s time who wished to expel from the community the “foreign wives” of the returned Jews? Could this be a counter to the many tales of good foreign wives in the Torah story? Perhaps it explains the odd transformation from Moabite seductresses in Num 25 to Midianite deceivers in Num 31. This way both Midianite and Moabite women are disparaged, and the Numbers passages could be a narrative way of balancing the traditions about both Zipporah and Ruth.

power, as I do, he does not connect the confession of Jethro to the return of Zipporah or apply these stories to the ethnicity/intermarriage crisis of the post-exilic community (p. 194). He sees no significance to Zipporah’s “divorce” and resettlement among the people of Israel even though he focuses upon the function of these texts for the post-exilic community. Cf. Mullen, Narrative History. 27. John Goldingay is an exception, in that he finds it “pleasing” that a woman has the opportunity to “partner” with God in Moses’ “rite of passage.” He calls her a sister to the women over the centuries that brought their sons to the circumcision rite. He does not mention the Maccabean martyrs, mothers who circumcised their own sons, but he refers to the transformation of the rite to a male-only occasion. See John Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision,” JSOT 88 (2000): 3–18. Lawrence A. Hoffman cites the practice of removing mothers from the site of their sons’ circumcisions in Covenant of Blood: Circumcision and Gender in Rabbinic Judaism (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 190–208.

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

147

On a socio-historical level, these opposing perspectives remained in the text as a witness to party practices and ideologies. However, a canonical/theological explanation for the tension in the text’s attitude toward Midianites may be suggested. The friendly Midianites performed rites of hospitality and communion, whereas the hostile Midianites led Israel to yoke themselves to Ba‘al Peor, through sex, sacrifice, and eating. The Midianites (to whom Moses was allied by marriage) sheltered, nurtured, enriched, saved, blessed, advised, and guided Moses and Israel. These sorts of helpful outsiders can be welcomed into Israel. However, those Midianites against whom Moses sent the sword had led Israel into apostasy through sexual intercourse and ritual acts. Idolatrous outsiders were dangerous and to be avoided and rejected. 5. Moses’ Cushite wife 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)

Moses’ Cushite wife is not an active character in the narrative of Num 12. She only appears through the voice of the all-knowing narrator in the first verse and quickly disappears when Miriam and Aaron start to speak. Nevertheless, the Cushite’s shadow is cast over the entire passage. Modern scholars have usually concluded that the mention of the Cushite wife is simply a pretext, tangential to the real issue in Num 12. However, the storyteller in Numbers clearly wants us to understand that Miriam and Aaron’s complaint against Moses was, as the text says, on account of his Cushite wife.28 Furthermore, both v. 1 and v. 2 provide reasons that Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, and they are related to each other. The juxtaposition of the narrator’s insight into the cause of Miriam and Aaron’s speaking against Moses (his Cushite wife, v. 1) with the narrator’s report of what they said (“Has the Lord spoken only through Moses; has he not spoken through us as well?,” v. 2) is significant. Miriam and Aaron’s complaints against Moses provide a platform for Moses’ elevation above all prophets (vv. 6–8), an elevation based on his intimacy with the LORD and Moses’ exogamy. The latter is affirmed

28. Another example of such narrator control is found at Gen 22:1, where the narrator of the Akedah tradition assured the reader, from the outset, that the LORD’s demand for Abraham to sacrifice his son was a test. Initial information provided by the narrator to the reader controls the significance of the unfolding plot.

148

Mixed Marriages

along with his unique prophetic role. Moses, in his marriage and prophetic role, is above criticism by Israel’s priestly (Aaron) and prophetic leadership (Miriam). The statement of Num 12:1b, “for he had indeed married a Cushite woman,” is the author’s way of assuring the audience that, although they may or may not have otherwise known this, the author himself was aware that Moses had married a Cushite woman. In this way, the author intentionally acknowledges that a Cushite marriage was a crucial aspect of Miriam and Aaron’s complaint against Moses. Then, as the story unfolds, the LORD resisted any and all complaints against his servant Moses—including a Cushite wife—because of the unparalleled role Moses held in the LORD’s household and the intimacy the two shared. The Midrashim on this passage claim that this intimacy included a mouth to mouth order that Moses separate from his Cushite wife (who in some cases is Zipporah), but that need not detain us here.29 Thus, Num 12 reflects a polemic against those who attacked mixed marriages on “ethnic” grounds. This text provides further evidence for my claim that the redactors of this material marshaled narrative traditions in support of exogamy from or for their Torah. According to Num 12, the “foreign” woman who enters Israel through marriage is not to be expelled simply because boundaries have been drawn to exclude her on the basis of her original location, language, or kinship ties.30 29. Num 12:7–8. See Avot of Rabbi Nathan (ARN), b. Šhabb. 87a, and b. Yebam. 62a. In ARN, Rabbi Judah b. Batriya said: “Moses would not have separated from his wife except that he was commanded from the mouth of the Almighty. As Scripture says, ‘Mouth to mouth I will speak to him (Num 12:8). Mouth to mouth I told him to separate from his wife, and he separated.’ Others say, ‘Moses did not separate from his wife until he was commanded by the mouth of the Almighty.’ ” ARN is a Midrash on m. Avot, which is also haggadic. It is associated with Palestine. ARN’s core originated in the third century C.E. and its commentary on Pirqe Avot continued to develop; its final redaction is seventh to ninth century. The Babylonian Talmud was redacted throughout the fifth through seventh centuries C.E. We find the same reasoning in Sifre to Numbers and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. The author of Sifre Numbers, Baha’aloteka 99–103 (third century C.E.) brings to his exposition of Num 12 the assumption that Moses had separated from his beautiful wife Zipporah. Moses’ prophetic relationship and his sexual renunciation were unique—the latter grew out of the former and the LORD habitually spoke mouth to mouth with Moses and the LORD’s mouth put the order for Moses to become celibate into Moses’ mouth—an intimate image of the relationship between the two. The identification of Zipporah with the Cushite woman in Sifre and Targum Neofiti avoids the conclusion that Moses was polygamous. 30. See further my other contribution to the present volume, “Moses’ Cushite Marriage: Torah, Artapanus, and Josephus” (pp. 208–302).

WINSLOW Mixed Marriage in Torah Narratives

149

6. Conclusion Torah narratives clearly support exogamy with tales of outsider wives who overcome life and death crises with wits and skill. They thereby preserve and support Israel. The mothers of Jacob’s sons were legally kin, but their wives, the mothers of their children, were not. Outsider wives such as Tamar and Zipporah were like Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute, and Ruth, the Moabite widow who became an ancestor of David. Tamar built up the house of Judah by pretending to be a prostitute in order to conceive children. Moses’ marriage alliance with the Midianites preserved his life and aided his role as deliver, judge, lawgiver and prophet. These tales of exogamous marriage are a polemic against Second Temple period factions that oppose any sort of intermarriage between men of Israel and women defined as not-Israel. Against these pro-exogamy accounts are the narratives that depict Moabite and Midianite women as threats (Num 25 and 31) and laws that prohibit or limit intermarriage with Canaanites (Exod 34; Deut 7; 23). A socio-historical approach considers the tension in these texts as reflective of the conflicts among groups of Jews over exogamy. A canonical/theological approach suggests that, taking all the texts together, we have support for a certain pro-Israel sort of exogamy, whereas women who serve as conduits for Israel’s submission to other gods threaten Israel’s survival and must be avoided. However, no such qualification is made over Moses’ Cushite wife, regardless of who she is or what she does or does not do. His marriage to her is affirmed in Num 12 because of who Moses is in relationship to God—in effect, because of the unrivalled intimacy they share.

FROM THE WELL IN MIDIAN TO THE BAAL OF PEOR: DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TO MARRIAGE OF ISRAELITES TO MIDIANITE WOMEN Yonina Dor

There is a vivid contrast between the story of the marriage of Moses and Zipporah the Midianite woman (Exod 2:16–22) and the story of Baal of Peor (Num 25; 31), in both atmosphere and content. I shall begin my discussion with (1) a description of Moses’ conflicting attitudes toward marriage to Midianite women in these two key stories, and follow it with (2) a discussion of various attempts to explain the contrast between them. I shall (3) remark on the characterization of Midianite women, and finally, I shall (4) present my own conclusions on the attitude to marriage with Midianite women in the Bible. 1. Moses’ Conflicting Attitudes to Marriage with Midianite Women a. Moses and Zipporah The episode described in Exod 2:16–22 is based on an archetypal scene of a meeting between a foreign man and a local woman by a well, which leads to marriage.1 Since Moses has helped the daughters of the priest of Midian to water their flocks, their father, Reuel, invites him to eat with him. Since the common meal is a ceremony indicating trust and is the prelude to a contract, it is here that Reuel betroths Zipporah to Moses, a foreigner. We may go further, and see in Moses’ hastening to the defense of the women an act of deliberate courtship, similar to other episodes in which a man’s benevolent action on behalf of a weak woman leads to marriage. The common background to these episodes is the benevolent man’s foreignness in the environment of the helpless woman, or her foreignness in his environment. The characterization of Moses as an 1. E.g. Gen 24; 29:1–30; Ruth 2–4. See Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 54–57.

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

151

“Other” in Midian is emphasized when it is mentioned three times at the end of the story: by the description of Moses as a stranger; by the definition of Midian as a foreign country; and by the naming of his son Gersham (meaning “stranger there”)—‫ותלד בן ויקרא את־שמו גרשם כי אמר‬ ‫( גר הייתי בארץ נכריה‬Exod 2:22). This emphasis makes it clear that the union of Moses the Hebrew and Zipporah the Midianite was from the first a case of miscegenation, of which both Moses and Reuel approved. Later, the priest of Midian is called “Moses’ father-in-law,” and this, too, expresses approval of the marriage (e.g. Exod 18:1, 2, 5). Reuel and Jethro are considered to be different names for Moses’ father-in-law.2 Despite the emphasis on Moses’ original foreignness, he is faithful to his father-in-law, and in their later relationship he considers him to be a reliable source of authority: he accepts Reuel’s blessing of his decision to return to Egypt (Exod 4:18), he asks him for guidance in his journey through the desert (Num 10:31), and he puts into practice his advice to delegate authority in the government of the community (Exod 18:13–26). b. The Incident at Baal of Peor In the incident at Baal of Peor (Num 25) and its terrible consequences (Num 31) a very different picture of Moses’ attitude to involvement with Midianite women is painted. It is not clear why it is divided between chs 25 and 31, but the two chapters together constitute a single narrative.3 Chapter 25 is itself composed of three or four units (vv. 1–5, 6–9, 10–15 [or the latter two as one section], and 16–18), and the sequence is not continuous. The details and terminology are not consistent, the account of the actions is not coherent, and it seems that the attempts of commentators to fill the lacunae mar the spirit of the narrative. I shall discuss this incohesive chapter as it is recorded, and treat the irregular sequence as an authentic expression of the story. Numbers 25 opens with a short account of the “whoredom” of the people of Israel with the Moabite women, as a result of which the Israelites are invited to sacrifice and bow down to their god—Baal of Peor. Here, too, the relationship begins with the Israelites’ agreement to a joint meal, but in this case it is a ritual component of a religious ceremony. 2. For a discussion of the relation between these names, and of the name Heber (Judg 4:11), which is also considered to be a name of Jethro, see George F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (2d ed.; ICC 7; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1949), 33. 3. For a critical review of the reasons for this division, see Jacob Licht, A Commentary on the Book of Numbers [22–36] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995 [Hebrew]), 113.

152

Mixed Marriages

This relationship is considered to be a terrible sin, to which there are two reactions: first, God’s demand to “hang up the leaders against the sun,” an unusual punishment, apparently derived from an independent source;4 the second reaction is Moses’ command that each of the judges of Israel should slay every one of his men who worshipped Baal of Peor. We have no information about the execution of these two commands, but a new situation immediately arises: an Israelite man takes hold of a Midianite woman in the presence of his brothers and all the people of Israel, and takes her into the Tabernacle alone. This sacrilegious act causes the spectators to weep.5 The Midrash and the commentators explain that the couple went into the Tabernacle either to perform a pagan ceremony or to commit whoredom, but there is no indication in the text of an idolatrous ritual. The use of the two verbs bo, ‫ בו"א‬and karev, ‫קר"ב‬, each of which bears the connotation of sexual relationships, makes it clear that this passage is about intimate relationships.6 The presence of the crowd of witnesses, the family of the Israelite man and the whole community, suggests that a socially acceptable marriage ceremony was about to take place (Num 25:6–9).7 Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, reacts by bursting out of the crowd and stabbing Zimri son of Salu and Cozbi, daughter of Zur, the partners in the mixed marriage, to death. This is the dramatic climax of the story. Their deaths put a stop to the 4. See also 2 Sam 21:1–11; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 300–301; Joseph Ginat, Blood Disputes Among Bedouin and Rural Arabs in Israel: Revenge, Mediation, Outcasting and Family Honor (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press/The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1987), 90–112, tells of tashmis—a desert punishment. 5. Num 25:6. This chapter, which begins with the whoredom of the Moabite women, continues with intimate relationships with one Midianite woman, and thereafter all the Midianite women are accused of the same sin. The commentators explain the transition from Moab to Midian by interchange between Midianites–Kenites, Moab, Amalek, and Edom (e.g. Rashi; Maimonides; Hizkuni to Num 24:20–22). Modern criticism relates the change from Moab to Midian to the different sources which are integrated here: Num 25:1–5 from JE, and the continuation from a Priestly source. Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (trans. James D. Martin; OTL; London: SCM, 1968), 194–99; Levine, Numbers, 279–85; Gerald A. Klingbeil, “Not So Happily Ever After…: Cross-Cultural Marriages in the Time of Ezra–Nehemiah,” Maarav 14, no. 1 (2007): 43–49. 6. ‫בו"א‬, as in Gen 16:2; ‫קר"ב‬, as in Gen 20:4. And see BDB ‫ בוא‬e, 98; ‫קרב‬, 1, a, 897. 7. George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (2d ed.; ICC 4; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 384; Noth, Numbers, 198; Milgrom, Numbers, 214.

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

153

plague in which 24,000 people have died, and this was a sign to a divine punishment: the magnitude of the punishment was commensurate with the magnitude of the sin. The addition of punishments and their gradually increasing severity in the course of the chapter heighten the terrible impression made by the act. And, indeed, the story of Baal of Peor left traces in the tradition, such as ‫עיניכם הראת את אשר־עשה יהוה בבעל פעור‬ ‫( כי כל־האיש אשר הלך אחרי בעל־פעור השמידו יהוה אלהיך מקרבך‬Deut 4:3; and see Josh 12:17; Ps 106:28–31; Hos 9:10). Although the cessation of the plague shows that the sin has been atoned for and God appeased, Moses receives another command, to harass the Midianites because of their licentious behavior in Peor and the episode of Cozbi (Num 25:17–18). Thus, all the Midianites, and not only the women involved, become a collective target of revenge. Moses orders vengeance, and the people respond by killing all the Midianite men (Num 31:1–7). After the fighting Moses rebukes the people for killing only the men, and demands that women and children also be killed. In Num 25:1– 15 it is the people of Israel who are considered to be the prime offenders, and it is they who are punished or said to be punished. In Num 31 Midian is the culpable party, and its punishment is total destruction. 2. The Contradictions between the Two Episodes and Attempts to Explain Them As a private individual, Moses married a Midianite and raised a family with her. He both esteemed and cooperated with his Midianite father-inlaw. As the public leader of the Israelites, however, Moses ordered and carried out the complete destruction of Midian. How can the contradiction between Moses’ different attitudes be explained? To find out the answer one has to examine details in the two stories as well as in the Pentateuch and the Prophets, exegetic interpretations and research findings. a. The Sources of the Stories and Their Dates It is usually thought that the source of the ideal picture of relations with Midian painted in Exod 6–18 was early literary material from JE.8 Sources which mention tension and enmity between Israel and Midian, 8. Martin Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; London: SCM, 1962), 33–35. Noth points out the early date of the stories of Moses and Jethro, and relates them primarily to J, with additions from E. On the early date of the story, see, too, Lawrence E. Stager, “Midianites, Moses, and Monotheism,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (ed. M. D. Coogan; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 142–48 (143).

154

Mixed Marriages

particularly the stories of Balak (Num 22–24), of Baal of Peor and its consequences (Num 25; 31), and of Gideon (Judg 6–8) are considered to be late. The most extreme in its enmity to Midian is the story of Baal of Peor. It is true that the opening (Num 25:1–5) is considered to be a collection of passages from J and E, but the remainder, in its various parts (Num 25:6–9, 10–15, 16–18) is thought to be a combination of different sources from the post-exilic period, some of them attributed to P because of their linguistic character and subject matter.9 The Priestly source is evident in the etiology of the appointment of Phinehas and his descendants as high priests forever. The extreme opposition to mixed marriages probably also dates from this period, following the book of Ezra–Nehemiah and other biblical and non-biblical texts (Mal 2:11; Ezra 9–10; Neh 9:3; 13:3, 23–30; Jub. 30). But the terminology of the different passages is not consistent, and there is no agreed dating. Baruch Levine maintains that the source of the non-Priestly account was in northern Israel in the eighth century B.C.E., and sees in it criticism of the sins of Israel, in the spirit of Hosea (Hos 9:10). Milgrom, however, points to indications that this chapter is early.10 Numbers 31, which describes the destruction of the Midianites, also seems at first sight to be derived from P, in view of the patently Priestly terminology (such as ‫מעל‬, ‫מטה‬, ‫)נשיאי העדה‬, and of the references to purification after the war (vv. 19–24) and the apportioning of spoil to the priests, the Levites, and the Tabernacle (vv. 25–54). Yet scholars consider this account to be a late Priestly midrash because it has no authentic details of the war, and much of it is based on Num 25.11 Even though biblical and non-biblical discourse of the post-exilic period reflects opposition to mixed marriages, and thence it was assumed that this was the background and date of the story, this in itself is not adequate proof, because there are pluralistic opinions expressed in priestly writings and others in the post-exilic period.12 Thus, we cannot attribute to P complete unequivocal opposition

9. According to Gray’s analysis (Numbers, 380–87), the priestly material is derived from at least two sources. Noth (Numbers, 195–99) conjectures that Num 25:1–5 is derived partly from J. In his view, the continuation of the chapter (vv. 6– 18) is late, and partly, though not entirely, appropriate to P; it contains different sources and late additions. Cf. Levine, Numbers, 283–300. 10. Levine, Numbers, 44–45; Milgrom, Numbers, xxxiii. 11. Noth, Numbers, 228–30; John Sturdy, Numbers (CBC; London: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 214–16. Levine (Numbers, 466) considers that the source is definitely Priestly only from v. 13. 12. Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1977 [Hebrew]), 286–99; Gary N. Knoppers,

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

155

to marriage with Midianites. Moreover, we cannot definitely attribute sympathy towards Midian to JE, if only because the short passage which refers directly to Baal of Peor (25:1–5) is assigned to this source. As has been said, although it refers to Moab and not to Midian, it is an integral part of the series of references to the Midianite women which follows on directly from mentions of the Moabite women. Nor is the simple explanation that the positive attitude to Midian is early while the negative attitude is late acceptable. This assumption is plausible to an extent; but the chapters are fragmentary, and they contain insertions and have no doubt been subjected to deletions.13 Milgrom gives two instances. First, if Num 31 is a late composition, how can the fact that camels are not included in the list of spoils taken from the Midianites be explained?14 Similarly, in Num 31:18 it is considered permissible to marry female Midianite prisoners of war. This is legitimate in early writings (as in the law of the beautiful prisoner, Deut 21:10–14), but, in Milgrom’s view, it is inappropriate in a late Priestly text. Some Priestly and other writings from the post-exilic period are pluralist, and favor the assimilation of foreigners (Isa 2:2–3; 56:6–7; Ruth 4; Lev 19:33–3415). There is even compromise in the book of Ezra–Nehemiah, since the demand for ethnic exclusivity was not actually put into practice.16 Hence, the Persian period cannot be defined as completely separatist. b. The Characteristics of Marriage The relationship between Moses and Zipporah became a socially accepted marriage through the initiative of her father and under his patronage, as is fitting in an honorable traditional society. Moses the refugee found a shelter and a home with his wife’s family (Exod 2:16–22), and built a trusting relationship with his father-in-law. On the other hand, the “Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah,” JBL 120, no. 1 (2001): 28–30; Mary Douglas, “Responding to Ezra: The Priests and the Foreign Wives,” BibInt 10, no. 1 (2002): 2–3, 14–19. 13. For instance, the deletion of the execution of the first two punishments (Num 25:4–5), or the deletion of information about the events that followed the plague. See the Massoratic Piska be-emtza pasuk (Num 25:19). 14. Milgrom, Numbers, xxxiv, compares the mention of camels, which were characteristic of Midian, in connection with spoils in Judg 8:21. 15. According to Christiana van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law (JSOTSup 107; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 154–65. 16. Yonina Dor, “The Rite of Separation of the Foreign Wives in Ezra– Nehemiah,” in The Judeans in the Achaemenid Age: Negotiating Identity in an International Context (ed. G. N. Knoppers, O. Lipschits, and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 172–88.

156

Mixed Marriages

relationships with the Moabite women are described as whoredom, and the bond of intimacy between Zimri the Israelite and Cozbi the Midianite woman was considered a sin (Num 25:1, 6, 18). The weeping of the congregation shows how deep a shock the incident caused; the couple’s public display of intimacy in the Tabernacle infringed the convention that intimate relationships between a man and a woman should take place in private, and the text presents it as provocative immorality, even though this intercourse behind curtains could be interpreted as a marriage ceremony. The fact that it took place in the presence of the family (Zimri’s brothers) and the public is an expression of ceremonial formality (Num 25:6). The hostile description of this ceremony by the author represents it as a sin because it was a mixed marriage. In Num 25:6–15 it is the mixed marriage which is the sin, and not idolatry, which is not mentioned at all. The killing of Zimri and Cozbi and the great plague are the consequences of mixed marriages, and not of idolatry. In my view, this passage was inserted after the description of the worship of Baal of Peor in order to excoriate marriage with Midianite women, on the grounds that they lead to idolatry, as is explicitly said at the beginning and the end of this chapter (v. 1: whoredom; v. 18: wiles). The same link between mixed marriages and idolatry is found throughout the Bible, as is the characterization of foreign women as profligate (e.g. Gen 39:6–19; Deut 7:3–4; 1 Kgs 11:1–8; Ezek 16:3–45).17 In this case the different attitudes are not explained. c. Origins Midian’s friendship and cooperation with Israel is expressed in the common origin of Midian and Abraham (Gen 25:1–4), and in the inclusion of Midian’s descendants among the tribes of Judah (1 Chr 2:46; 4:17) and Reuben (Gen 46:9; Num 26:5).18 It may be inferred from the positive relationships between the Kenites and the Israelites that this, too, was the result of blood relationship. The family bonds between Moses and his father-in-law, Heber the Kenite (Judg 4:11), explain the mutual help between the Kenites and the Israelites: Yael, Heber’s wife, killed Sisera (Judg 4:17–23), and the Kenites helped the Israelites during the Exodus and therefore Saul evacuated the Kenites from the land of the Amalekites before going to battle with Amalek (1 Sam 15:6).

17. Yonina Dor, Were the “Foreign Women” Really Expelled? Separation and Exclusion in the Restoration Period (Jerusalem: Hebrew University/Magnes, 2006 [Hebrew]), 225–27. 18. Knoppers, “Intermarriage,” 18–28 (24, 26).

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

157

But because the Kenites are offspring of Cain, the attitude to them is intricate. Their eponym Cain was a criminal, he was the first murderer, but at the same time he was a positive figure: he was the first man who brought an offering to Yahweh, he was a father of humankind, the originator of human culture (Gen 4:8, 20–22, 26). Paula M. McNutt explains the ambivalent attitude to the Kenites from anthropological aspect: the descendants of Tubal Cain were professionally esteemed as smiths and iron-workers (2 Kgs 24:14), but were accused of the fashioning of idols (Isa 44:17).19 The identification of the Kenites with the Midianites through the identification of Jethro with Hovav, in addition to the similarity of the religion of Israel to that of the descendants of Cain (see the following sub-section), enhances the close relationships between Midian and Israel. All along the Scriptures the congruence and exchange of identity between the Midianites and other tribal ethnic groups throughout the ancient Middle East, such as the Amalekites, the Ishmaelites, the people of the east, the plunderers (‫ )שסים‬is conspicuous. They are nomads, ride camels, steal from the Israelites peasants, are traders and know the ways of the desert. Their origins, their typology, and the nature and strength of the contacts between them, are unclear.20 Although they are usually considered to be enemies of Israel, some of them share a common origin with Israel (Ishmael: Gen 16:15; Amalek: Gen 36:12). Moab is sometimes referred to as an ally of Midian or even part of it, sometimes as one of Israel’s traditional enemies, but Moab’s eponymous founder was also a blood relation of Abraham (Gen 19:36–37).21 This complex depiction of the traditions of the origins of Midian and similar peoples does not explain by itself the differences in attitudes to them. d. Religion: The Name of God, the Holy Place, Belief and Ritual While Moses was grazing his father-in-law Jethro’s flock in the vicinity of the Mountain of God in Midian, God appeared to him for the first time in his own name and spoke with him (Exod 3:1–2, 13–14). The tradition 19. Paula M. McNutt, “The Kenites, the Midianites, and the Rechabites as Marginal Mediators in Ancient Israelite Tradition,” Semeia 67 (1994): 112–18. 20. See Samuel Abramsky, “The Ishmaelites and the Midianites,” Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 17 (1984): 128–34 (Hebrew). 21. E.g. Num 22:4, 7. In the Targum Jonathan of Num 22:4, Balak, son of Tsipor, was a Midianite king in Moab. See Haim Ben-David, “Sites of ‘Medina’ on the Springs of the Arnon—Midian Next to Moab?” (Hebrew), in In the Hill-Country, in the Plain and in the Arabah (Josh 12: 8): Studies and Researches Presented to Adam Zertal on the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Manasseh Hill-Country Survey (ed. S. Bar; Jerusalem: Ariel, 2008), 78–88, about the connection between Midian and Moab from an archaeological point of view.

158

Mixed Marriages

that God’s presence was in the region of Midian was further developed upon the return of Moses from Egypt, when he met Jethro on the Mountain of God. At this meeting Jethro’s belief in God is revealed: he pronounces a blessing in his name, acknowledges his superiority to other gods, sacrifices to him, and invites Aaron and the elders to eat bread before him (Exod 18:5–12). It may be surmised that here, too, the function of the common meal is to cement an alliance. It is not clear whether this is an alliance with God, an alliance between Moses and Jethro under the auspices of God, or some other alliance.22 This initiative of Jethro’s and his authoritative status on this occasion support several scholars’ conjecture that it was he who converted Moses to monotheism.23 The characterization of Jethro as a worshipper of God is consistent with his identification as a Kenite. After Cain was punished by eternal wandering, the sign which Yahweh affixed to him symbolizes the protection which he and his descendants were afforded. This is an expression of Yahweh’s ambivalent attitude to Cain. Joseph Blenkinsopp understands this story as the prehistory of the worship of God, and as evidence of the deep religious connection between Israel and the Kenites.24 These religious features support the theory that the Keno-Midianites were the source of the religion and cult of Yahweh. In addition to the placing of the Mountain of God in the geographical region of Midian, this theory is supported by location of theophanic areas in early poetry: Seir, Edom, Paran, Cushan, and Teman, which are identified as being in the territory of Midian and located on its plains (e.g. Deut 33:2, 9; Judg 5:4–5; Ps 68:8).25 Another indication of cult practice common to Midian and Israel is the prohibition of idols.26 The findings concerning the Shasu, who are identified with the ‫“( שסים‬spoilers”), bitter enemies of Israel (Judg 2:14), provide further proof of the identity of the Midianite religion with the 22. Ernest W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 126–27. 23. Stager, “Midianites, Moses,” 147–48; Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (trans. John Bowden; 2 vols.; Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1992), 1:50–52; McNutt, “Kenites, Midianites,” 126; Israel Knohl, The Bible’s Genetic Code (Or Yehuda, Israel: Kinneret/Zmora-Bitan/Dvir, 2008 [Hebrew]), 78–90. 24. Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Midianite–Kenite Hypothesis Revisited and the Origins of Judah,” JSOT 33, no. 2 (2008): 140–44. 25. Noth, Numbers, 30–33; Stager, Midianites, Moses, 142–48; Blenkinsopp, “Midianite–Kenite Hypothesis,” 131–40. 26. Joseph Patrich, The Formation of Nabatean Art: Prohibition of a Graven Image among the Nabateans (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), 174–75; Nadav Na’aman, “No Anthropomorphic Graven Image,” UF 31 (1999): 391–415.

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

159

roots of the religion of Israel. Some features of the Shasu’s fanatical religion are similar to those of Israelite religion, and the earliest archaeological evidence of the worship of Yahweh, the inscription Eretz Hashasu Yeho (“the land of the Shasu Yeho”), was found in their territory.27 Donald B. Redford maintains that Israelite Jehowism was derived from the Shasu tribes, and he identifies them with the Midian of the book of Exodus. It is not clear exactly to what extent Midian and the ethnic units within it influenced Israel. But, although many of the conjectures quoted above are not based on solid evidence, it is impossible to ignore the similarity between the two religions. Nevertheless, in Num 25 Midianite culture is described as blatantly idolatrous; this follows on directly from the description of the encounter with the Moabite women who urge the Israelites to worship Baal of Peor. As has been remarked above, since the Moabite women are identified with the Midianite women, the Midianite women are unequivocally accused of the transgression of Peor (Num 25:18; 31:16). Thus, from the point of view of faith and worship one may distinguish between Midian as a religious partner of Israel, on the background of the religion of Jethro and the Kenites, worshippers of Yahweh, and the other Midian, which was linked with Moab and worshipped Baal of Peor. e. Time and Geographic Space As has just been remarked above, the good relationship between Moses and Jethro is believed to have originated in a very early tradition, before the period of the Israelite settlement, in the geographic area of northern Arabia.28 On the other hand, other sources indicate that Midian was in eastern Transjordan: in the story of Balak Midian is mentioned as an ally of Moab (Num 22:4, 7), and the Baal of Peor episode took place on the Plains of Moab. In the period of the Judges Gideon fought against the Midianites, who had come from eastern Transjordan to invade the cultivated area of the Land of Israel (Judg 6:1–5). Gideon was credited with the classic victory which was engraved in the memory of the nation: “the Day of Midian” (Isa 9:3).29 27. Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 275–80; On Eretz Hashasu Yehu, see David ben Gad Hacohen, “Eretz Hashasu Yehu,” NET 2 (2007): 1–22 (Hebrew). 28. Cf. Stager, “Midianites, Moses,” 143; Abramsky, “Ishmaelites and Midianites,” 128–34. Stager (p. 145) claims that the ancient town of Qurayyah, in the northwest of Arabia, was their principal site in the heart of the Land of Midian. 29. The mention of the enemies, Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna, in this connection (Ps 83:11) proves that the reference is to the wars of Gideon.

160

Mixed Marriages

Eusebius’ Onomasticon states that the attribution of these two different locations to Midian was ancient. The nomadic Midianites inhabited an unidentified area in north Arabia, and also the Land of Moab, on the shore of Arnon wadi.30 Despite doubts as to the veracity of the tradition that Midian was in the region of Moab, recent archaeological evidence has tended to confirm it.31 Another view is that the Midianites did not only live in eastern Transjordan, but also in Canaan itself: in the Negev, in Judea, in Jezreel, in the regions of Issachar and Manasseh and in the mountains of southern Galilee. Elizabeth Payne bases this claim mainly on the books of Joshua and Judges (e.g. Josh 15:61; Judg 4:11; 8:24– 27).32 Her most extreme claim concerning our preoccupation is that Gideon himself was of Midianite origin, and that his wars were internal battles within Midian itself.33 The attribution of Exod 2:15–22 to an early period, and of Num 31 and part of Num 25 to the Persian period, can, therefore, scarcely be denied. Moreover, the friendly relationships with Midian are typical primarily of southern Midian, in Arabia, whereas hostile relationships are typical of the Midian of eastern Transjordan. Do the criteria advanced by these scholars explain the difference between the conflicting attitudes to Midian in the Bible? Yes and no. It is probable that the definition “Midianite” included various groups at various times and in various places, each of which maintained relationships with Israel or parts of it (and Israel was also not a monolithic homogeneous entity).34 In general it may be said that the good relationships are

30. Eusebius of Caesarea, The Onomasticon (trans. G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville; ed. and int. J. E. Taylor; Palestine in the Fourth Century A.D.; Jerusalem: Carta, 2003), 143. 31. Jan Alberto Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (trans. J. Bowden; 2d ed.; OTL; London: SCM, 1987), 105–7. See also Ben-David, “Sites of Medina,” 78–88, on six Midianite sites east of the Dead Sea. 32. Some of her arguments are: Midian was situated in the territory of the tribes of Manasseh and Issachar; Ophrah was the town of Gideon, and is similar to Epher son of Midian (Gen 25:2); Epher was one of the families of the tribe of Manasseh (1 Chr 5:24); Jether, like the name Jethro, was the first-born son of Gideon (Judg 8:20). See Elizabeth J. Payne, “The Midianite Arc in Joshua and Judges,” in Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia (ed. J. F. A. Sawyer and D. J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 24; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 163–72. 33. Ibid., 166. 34. In Num 24:20–21 the different attitudes to various Midianite tribes are marked: they are mentioned in sequence—Amalek is doomed to extinction, while the attitude to the Kenites is favorable. According to 1 Kgs 11:18, Midian helped Adad the Edomite, and this demonstrates hostility to the kingdom of David. See

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

161

typical of the traditions of the Kenites, as well as the early southern traditions of the affinity between Moses and Jethro, for which the sources are mainly J and E. Conversely, it may be said that the attitudes to the Midianite groups of eastern Transjordan, such as those which related to the Amalekites, the Shasu, or Moab, were late, and are in line with the spirit of the Priestly source and the world-view evinced at the Baal of Peor episode and its consequences. These generalizations do not take into account differences, internal contradictions, conjectures and hypotheses which are not always firmly based. Hence they cannot serve to define the attitude of the scriptures to Midian in unambiguous terms. What Israel and Midian had in common was deep and ancient. It was based on combination of hereditary, regional, cultural or religious factors. It seems that Israel’s antagonism to the Midianites stemmed from the depth of their common features, as well as from the urge to stay aloof from them. One can understand the struggle between these conflicting forces as a reflection of Israel tremendous and continuous effort to preserve its detachment from its sources—the autochthonous peoples and nomad tribes from north Arabia.35 3. The Attributes of the Midianite Women Despite the extreme diversity of Moses’ attitudes to marriage with Midianite women, and despite the differences between Zipporah and Cozbi, some attributes common to both of them can be discerned. Both were daughters of courageous leaders, and both were brave enough to carry out unusual actions connected with sexuality and matrimony. Zipporah’s courageous act is described in the obscure passage about the bridegroom of blood (Exod 4:23–25). In this act the relations between Moses and Zipporah are reversed: when they met by the well Moses saved the helpless Zipporah and her sisters—here it is Zipporah who saves him from Yahweh’s attack. The attacker releases him when she cuts off her son’s foreskin, presents it as a valuable sacrifice, and pronounces solemnly: “Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me… A bridegroom of blood by circumcision” (4:25–26). This great sacrifice, Jacob Liver, “Midian,” Encyclopaedia Biblica 4:687 (Hebrew); Yohanan Aharoni, “Amalek,” Encyclopaedia Biblica 6:289–92 (Hebrew); Soggin, Judges, 105–8. 35. Nadav Na’aman, Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 1–24; Israel Finkelstein, “When and How Did the Israelites Emerge?,” in The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (ed. B. Schmidt; SBLABS; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 73–84; Knohl, Genetic Code, 50–76.

162

Mixed Marriages

of the part of the male sexual organ which symbolizes the continuity of the family’s seed, is accepted as a substitute for Moses’ life. The blood of the symbolic substitute wound becomes a symbol of a covenant, and the “bridegroom of blood,” at first an enemy, becomes an ally. Although the development of the plot implies that it is the aggressive God who becomes Zipporah’s ally, some commentators have maintained that Moses himself was her bridegroom of blood, and that only after he was circumcised, or his son’s foreskin touched his sexual organ—‫( לרגליו‬his feet is a euphemism here)—was their marriage solemnized. In other words, although the act of circumcision is presented as a spontaneous and sophisticated act of defense by means of a valuable sacrifice, it is performed here in the course of a marriage ceremony.36 This is not the recognized socially accepted circumcision found in later biblical sources: the phrase brit milah (“covenant of circumcision”) is not used, and it is the woman rather than the man who is responsible for the circumcision. It is hard to explain why a mother injures her son in order to save her husband. Is this an instance of an incident such as those occasionally mentioned in the Bible, when the son is injured in place of the father?37 Noth conjectures that the inclusion of the son is secondary. The subject of the beginning and end of the story is Moses, and the strange solemnization of the circumcision ceremony with the concluding oath proves that there is here an allusion to an ancient marriage custom, whose main feature is the circumcision of the bridegroom.38 When Zipporah injures her son’s body, she is not acting as a mother, with compassion, but endangering herself and heroically standing up against God in order to save Moses’ life. This is a courageous feminine rebellion, which has no parallel in the Bible. In this respect Zipporah is a unique personality, standing above the image of common women who cherish their sons’ life more than their own (Gen 27:13; Judg 17:3) and accept their husband’s authority. Zipporah is presented as an almost divine figure. Ilana Pardes maintains that when Zipporah resists God’s plan in order to protect her husband she embodies the personality of a goddess to some extent.39 As a source very similar to the story of the bridegroom of blood she adduces 36. Cornelis Houtman, Exodus: Historical Commentary on the Old Testament (trans. Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra; 4 vols.; Kampen: Kok, 1993), 1:439–49. 37. Canaan was punished for the shameful deed done by his father, Ham (Gen 9:22–27); Amon and Moab were cursed because of their mothers’ incest (Gen 19:30–35). 38. Noth, Exodus, 49–50. 39. Ilana Pardes, “Zipporah and the Bridegroom of Blood: Women Giving Birth to a People in the Book of Exodus,” Theory and Criticism: An Israeli Forum 7 (1995): 93–94 (Hebrew).

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

163

the Egyptian myth of the goddess Isis, who defends her husband/brother, Osiris, and saves him from death. Both women dare to struggle against a threatening male divinity, both succeed in saving their husbands by an act affecting the penis, and both have bird-like features. Zipporah thus carries characteristics of a feminine figure in a pagan culture. The women of Moab-Midian in the story of Baal of Peor also dare to perform acts of contrivance, although their artifice is not unique. They use their sexuality as a temptation to idolatry, and thereby cause the Israelites to sin (Num 25:1–2). Their deeds are, therefore, described as “wiles” (Num 25:18; 31:16).40 The Kenite woman Yael, who offered food and hospitality to Sisera, shared her bed with him, and then killed him, played a similar trick in order to ensure that the Israelites’ victory over Canaan should be complete (Judg 4:17–21). Just as the ceremony of Zipporah’s blood bridegroom’s covenant can be understood as a wedding ceremony, so too, as has been remarked above (§2b), can the union of the couple in the Tabernacle. The elevated social status of Zimri in Israel and Cozbi in Midian was intended to emphasize the importance of the occasion and the power of its sociopolitical message. What the onlookers saw was not simply a marriage ceremony, but a demonstration of support for marriages of Israelites and Midianite women, and a declaration that they were permitted and honorable, and not only an individual, random, one-time aberration. The intercourse of a couple behind a tent-cloth “in the eyes of all Israel” in order to pass on a message to the community is reminiscent of the story of Absalom. In order to make David’s deposition as king official and to confirm his own rule, Absalom also had intercourse with David’s wives “in the eyes of all Israel” in a tent on the roof of the royal palace (2 Sam 16:22). In response to the union of the distinguished couple in the Tabernacle, Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest attacked them and stabbed them to death. Not only did he enter the Tabernacle with a spear in his hand; he struck the Midianite woman in her stomach (according to the traditional commentators, a euphemism for the vagina) and killed both her and her Israelite partner.41 This action purified the people of Israel from the desecration, and the deadly plague came to an end. Explanations of Phinehas’s act, such as that it was a spontaneous expression of rage, or that he was doing his duty as a priest by protecting the sanctity of the 40. Even though it is hinted that Balaam was responsible for this plot, the women are held responsible. 41. Rashi: “Aimed at the male parts of Zimri and her female parts”; Hizkuni: “To her stomach (kevata) = to her pudenda (nakvuta).” See Milgrom, Numbers, 215.

164

Mixed Marriages

Tabernacle,42 are unsatisfactory. This extreme and flamboyant reaction was first and foremost a powerful ritual expression of a call to complete prohibition of mixed marriages. In the same way the Levites attacked the people who sinned by worshipping the golden calf, and killed three thousand men (Exod 32:1–29). In both instances the act is a reaction to a terrible sin committed in public, and the slaughter purifies the congregation. As a sign of esteem the Levites who did the killing were blessed and rewarded for their zealousness.43 The two stories evoking mass punishment are analogous: we can suppose that the fact that many Israelites were killed results from the fact that many Israelites married Midianite women, just as the fact that there were numerous golden calf’s worshippers, brought punishment upon many. It is difficult to believe that all the Midianite people were liquidated because of one woman’s sin, or that 24,000 Israelites were killed because of one man’s sin. The two accounts of the collective punishment—of Israelites in Num 25, and of Midianites in Num 31—must be understood as a midrash, a myth which warns of the bitter results of mixed marriages. This is the essence of the overall story. Commentators have discussed at length the question of what happened inside the Tabernacle—idolatry, sexual licentiousness, or pagan ritual prostitution.44 These interpretations are tendentious; their purpose is to vilify contact with Midianite women and to justify the terrible punishment it incurred. Even without these interpretations the message is clear: those who are involved in mixed marriages can expect death and catastrophe, and the temptresses are mostly to blame. 4. The Ambivalence of the Attitude to Mixed Marriages a. The Ambiguous Attitude to Mixed Marriages in the Bible The attitude to marriage with foreign woman in the Bible is ambivalent. Here I analyze examples of several instances: the story of Dinah and 42. Phinehas is mentioned in 1 Chr 9:19–20 as commander of the Temple guard. See Milgrom, Numbers, xxxiii. 43. Ibid., 211. 44. Licht, Numbers, 43–46, discusses these interpretations in the light of the context. Since Phinehas was commended for his zealousness for God, and since zealousness for God was required as a reaction to idolatry, prostitution, and intercourse with foreign women, he draws conclusions about what went on in the Tabernacle. Levine, Numbers, 296–97, sums up these interpretations and others, mentions the connection which some surmised with Mesopotamian ritual prostitution (ἱερός γάμος), and rejects them all, on the grounds that the principal issue in the story of Baal of Peor is the religious rebellion against Yahweh.

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

165

Shechem, the story of Ruth, the book of Chronicles, and the book of Ezra–Nehemiah. In the story of Dinah and Shechem (Gen 34) two voices can be heard: the voice of Jacob and the voice of his sons. Jacob does not oppose the marriage of his daughter Dinah to Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite. But his sons, Simeon and Levi, do not accept this marriage; they attack the inhabitants of Shechem deceitfully, kill all the males and take whatever remains as booty. Jacob castigates his sons soundly for their dangerous deeds, but the blunt rhetorical question with which they reply—‫הכזונה‬ ‫“( יעשה את־אחותנו‬Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?”)—is intended to justify their violent reaction (Gen 34:31). This is similar to the definition of the actions of the Moabite women as whoredom in the episode of Baal of Peor. Their demand that the men of Shechem be circumcised is also parallel to Phinehas’s stabbing Cozbi’s pudenda. Despite the separatist conclusion of the story, it is significant that the moderate pluralistic voice is attributed to Jacob—the most honored personage, and his prestige adds weight to the attitude which he represents. This parallels the role of Moses, the revered leader, who took a Midianite wife. In the book of Ruth, Ruth’s positive personal qualities are emphasized, even though she is a Moabite: her faithfulness, her modesty, and her agreement to the purchase of the family plot prove that she is worthy of joining the Israelite community. The birth of Oved, who becomes the grandfather of David, is the high point of the legitimating of marriage with a Moabite woman. Yet, besides the pluralism which is evident throughout the book of Ruth, there is also some criticism of her: the erotic story of nocturnal temptation on the threshing-floor is reminiscent of the sin of Ham who uncovered the nakedness of his father Noah (Gen 9:21), and the rape of Lot by his daughters (Gen 19:31–35). The worst blow to her standing is struck by her neighbors when they give a name to her new-born child—‫( ילד־בן לנעמי‬Ruth 4:17)—and Naomi took steps to adopt him (Ruth 4:16)45 in order to Judaize King David’s ancestry, and thereby to neutralize his relationship with his Moabite biological ancestress. This is a separatist attitude that undermines the pluralist message which is dominant through the book of Ruth. In the book of Chronicles Israel is conceived of as a community of all its citizens, and it tells of mixed marriages which are kept hidden in First 45. On her action’s accordance with the ceremonial norm of adoption, see Meir Malul, “Adoption of Foundlings in the Bible and in Mesopotamian Documents: A Study of some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16:1–7,” Tarbiz 57 (1988): 461–82 (480 n. 109) (Hebrew).

166

Mixed Marriages

Temple literature (e.g. 2 Chr 24:26 as against 2 Kgs 12:22).46 Yet it ignores and even hides the tradition of Solomon’s marriage with foreign women in its account of the House of David. Thus, this pluralistic account reaches a compromise with the separatist approach. Ezra and Nehemiah demand that all the foreign women and all their children be expelled, and the assembly assents, decides, and even swears to its agreement. But this concept is not put into practice. The impressive ceremonies in which it was decided to expel the foreign women, and which perhaps included a symbolic performance of expulsion—were no more than a formal purification of the community. This enabled the men to continue living with their foreign wives without breaking up families. The ceremonial nature of the treatment of foreign women proves that it was no more than a ritual performance which exhibited what was desirable and demanded, and hid the fact that actually the foreign women were not expelled.47 b. Ambivalence in Moses’ Attitude to Marriage with Midianite Women Despite the positive position to Zipporah, there are remarks and hints which undermine this attitude. The first one is heard in the statement that Moses had sent her away (Exod 18:2). The reason for the divorce was Zipporah’s foreignness, as can be deduced from Miriam’s and Aaron’s criticism of Moses because of the “Cushite woman whom he had married” (Num 12:1). The definition of Moses’ wife as black without mentioning her name is intended to show that she is “other.”48 Even though the text does not state categorically that the black woman is Zipporah, the idea that they are the same person is based, first of all, on the synonymous parallelism of Cushan and Midian: ‫אהלי כושן ירגזון‬ ‫( יריעות ארץ מדין‬Hab 3:7). Furthermore, relating to the identification of the black woman as Zipporah, and also as the Kenite wife of Moses (as is seen in Judg 4:11), Gerhards maintains that the fact that there are several versions of the foreignness of Moses’ wife is a definite proof of the reliability and authenticity of the Moses tradition.49 He follows ancient 46. The book of Chronicles specifically mentions marriage with sons and daughters of foreign parents, but considers them to be Israelites. See Japhet, Chronicles, 286–99. 47. Dor, “Rite of Separation.” 48. Abraham Melamed maintains that one of the characteristics of the black person in the Bible is his/her Otherness. See his discussion of the black woman: Abraham Melamed, The Image of the Black in Jewish Culture: A History of the Other (Haifa: Haifa University/Zmora-Bitan, 2002 [Hebrew]), 68, 202–8. 49. Meik Gerhards, “Über die Herkunft der Frau des Mose,” VT 55, no. 2 (2005): 162–75.

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

167

commentators, who believed that Cush was one of the tribes of Midian, and sees “Midianite woman” and “woman of Cush” as variations of the same identity. He considers that the claim that Moses’ wife was a Kenite was derived from a concern which arose after the Israelite settlement, when Midian was thought to be an enemy to Israel and an ally of Amalek. In order to improve the status of Moses, the tradition that his wife was a Midianite was replaced by a tradition that she was a Kenite, which was considered more positive.50 After the divorce Zipporah returned and joined Moses during Israel’s wanderings in the desert (Exod 18:5–6). Miriam and Aaron spoke against her because she was black— foreign and other; but God defended Moses against his family’s criticism, and thereby legitimated his black wife and confirmed his leadership (Num 12:6–10). A minor reminiscence of the criticism of Zipporah may be discerned in the disparagement of her grandson, which besmirches her good name, in that “children’s ill deeds reflect on their parents.” The nun written above the line in the genealogy of the Levite who sinned by building a temple in Dan reveals the existence of a tradition that Moses’ and Zipporah’s grandson was the Levite who instituted the worship of the statue in Dan (Judg 18:30). The difficulty involved in attributing the misdeeds of Jonathan to Moses led to the concealment of his name by its corruption to Manasseh.51 However, the fact that the nun of Manasseh is written above its natural place in the line preserved the criticism which besmirched Moses’ good name in the scriptural text of the Massorah, and challenged the perfection of Moses’ family, the mother of whose sons was a Midianite. Although the criticism is faint and subdued, the traditional version makes it impossible to ignore. A double message can also be seen in the story of Baal of Peor. At the end of the incident, the people are ordered to attack Midian (Num 25:17– 18). The Midianites as a whole, and not only the woman involved, have become the target of collective punishment. The reason for the accusation that all the Midianites practiced deception is not stated, and it is apparently only a consequence of the behavior of the Moabite women (Num 25:1–2) and the result of Balaam’s suggestion that the Israelites be tempted to sin (Num 31:16). Moses’ command to kill all the women who were not virgins and every male child emphasizes that the goal is to prevent any possibility of revenge, and ensure complete destruction of

50. See above, §2c. 51. Rashi on Judg 18:30; and see C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges (The Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1970), 435.

168

Mixed Marriages

the progeny of the defeated (Num 31:17).52 Later, Moses expressly orders that the virgins be kept alive for the conquerors: ‫וכל הטף בנשים אשר‬ ‫( לא־ידעו משכב זכר החיו לכם‬Num 31:18).53 Hence, these women have no evil in them, and the fact that they have not lain with Midianite men cleanses them completely of their Midianite nature. As has been remarked above, both the Bible and other accounts of ancient genocide in different cultures describe the obliteration of the original identity of virgins in order to allow them to be taken by the men who have destroyed their people.54 This ancient attitude contradicts the hegemonic message of the story, that intimate relationships with the Midianite women are a terrible sin and a source of disaster. Through this crack in the uncompromising account can be heard the silenced voice of reality, in which marriages with the daughters of Midian actually did take place. Summary The extreme contrast between the Bible’s positive attitude to the marriage of Moses and Zipporah the Midianite and the negative attitude to marriage with Midianite women which is conveyed in the Baal of Peor incident is moderated by the voices which express reservations about each of these two extreme views. The attempts to explain the contradictions between these two attitudes by categories such as the written sources and their dates, the origins of the ethnic groups, religion and ritual do not provide a completely satisfactory answer. Israel was involved with Midian from a very early period, and the boundaries between them are sometimes unclear, as are the differences between Midian and Moab, or Midian and Amalek. The complex picture portrayed by the present discussion shows that the attitude to relationships between Israel and Midian, which reached its peak in mixed marriages, changed from time to time and from case to case. Together with the dominant view expressed in the Bible, which is opposed to marriage with Midianite women, one can hear voices which speak of the relationships with these women with sympathy, or at least as normal. 52. Norman H. Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers (NCB; Greenwood, S.C.: The Attic, 1967), 195. 53. This is similar to the purification of the 400 virgins of Jabesh Gilead, who were given to Benjamin as wives and not slaughtered like their fellow townspeople (Judg 21:12–14). It is similar too to Pharaoh’s command to cast into the Nile all the sons who were born to the Israelites, but to let the daughters live (Exod 1:22). 54. Deut 21:10–13. And see Roger W. Smith, “Women and Genocide: Notes on an Unwritten History,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 8, no. 3 (1994): 316–19. Smith cites Num 31 as a foundation story of accounts of genocide.

DOR From the Well in Midian to the Baal of Peor

169

So how should we relate to this ambivalence? Does it arise from the long process of Israel’s detachment from the peoples from whom it originated, in which case it can be understood as one of the features of any cultural revolution? Does the dialogue described here express a complex human attitude to others—a combination of strong attraction and longings for common roots, besides a fanatical aspiration to separateness and uniqueness? Or does the difference lie in the contrast between reality and the aspiration of the didactic literature? In this case, it may be that mixed marriages were actually widespread, and the ideological separatist literature painted them in demonic colors in order to educate the community. Furthermore, throughout the Bible there is an on-going dialogue about the question of marriage with the Other, in his/her many guises. The Baal of Peor incident with its bitter ending seems to be an extreme ideological response to the narrative of Moses and Zipporah’s marriage.

“MARRIED INTO MOAB”: THE EXOGAMY PRACTICED BY JUDAH AND HIS DESCENDANTS IN THE JUDAHITE LINEAGES* Gary N. Knoppers

In the first-person account of his mission, Ezra reports that soon after he and his companions had arrived in Jerusalem from Babylon, they encountered a major problem in the community. The officers (‫)השרים‬ approached Ezra saying, “The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not kept themselves separate from the peoples of the land according to their abominable practices—the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Edomites” (Ezra 9:1).1 At first glance, the account seems alarming. Both the laypeople of Israel and their sacerdotal leadership—the priests and the Levites—have been guilty of intermarrying with aboriginals. Such actions, so the third-person complaint from the officers asserts, involved the Israelites, priests, and Levites taking “their daughters [that is, the daughters of foreigners] for their sons” and thus “mixing up (‫ )התערב‬the holy seed (‫ )זרע הקדש‬with the peoples of the lands” (Ezra 9:2).2 * An earlier and shorter version of this study was read at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Rome in 2009. I wish to thank the organizer of the special sessions on intermarriage (Christian Frevel), the other lecturers, and the attendees for their helpful comments. 1. Following a few Hebrew manuscripts and the LXX. The MT has “Amorites” (metathesis and a rêš/dālet confusion). The composition of the lists of the aboriginal inhabitants of the land within the Pentateuch admits to some variation. The standard list in MT Exodus comprises six nations: the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exod 3:8, 17; 33:2; 34:11). In Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History the list sometimes includes a seventh nation: the Girgashites (Deut 7:1; Josh 3:10; 24:11; Judg 3:5; cf. Deut 20:17). 2. The report’s reference to the contamination of “the holy seed” (‫)זרע הקדש‬, as Michael Fishbane points out, seems to be a deliberate allusion to the mention of Israel as a “holy people” (‫ )עם קדוש‬in Deut 7:6, see his Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 116.

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

171

If this were not bad enough, the infractions involved not only ordinary laypeople and lower echelon priests and Levites, but also the leadership of the community. In fact, “the officers (‫ )השרים‬and the rulers (‫”)הסגנים‬ were foremost in committing such infidelity (‫מעל‬, Ezra 9:2). Given that “the officers” (‫ )השרים‬report the transgressions to Ezra about a variety of people belonging to the holy seed, including, most prominently, “the officers (‫ )השרים‬and the rulers (‫)הסגנים‬,” one is dealing with a fundamental divide within the ruling circles in Yehud. The issue is not simply a class issue, but also an issue within the repatriated elite. Some within the in-group are adamantly opposed to exogamy, while others within the in-group have actually been practicing exogamy. The texts dealing with exogamy in Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13 are representative of an important new development attributed by the editors of Ezra–Nehemiah to the mid- to late-fifth century.3 To be sure, recourse is often made to earlier texts in Deuteronomy (ch. 7) and the Deuteronomistic History outlawing marriage between Israelites and the autochthonous inhabitants of the land and depicting the negative consequences of exogamy (e.g. Josh 23; Judg 3; 1 Kgs 11). In this respect, the two reformers of the fifth century hearken back to older times and appear as conservators of earlier traditions, laws, and customs. But the editors of Ezra–Nehemiah go beyond the writings of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History in a number of important respects, including the establishment of a clear differentiation between the exiles and descendants of the Babylonian exiles defined as Israel, on the one hand, and the “peoples of the lands,” defined as non-Israelites, on the other hand, as the operative distinction in the Jerusalemite community.4 The texts of 3. The writers do not present intermarriage as an issue during the early establishment of the community and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple (Ezra 1–6). The problem first appears in the time of Ezra, several generations after the time of the first return. The intermarriage dispute pits recent returnees against the descendants of returnees, who had already been back in the land for generations. See further my “Ethnicity, Genealogy, Geography, and Change: The Judean Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. A. Ristau; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 147–71. On the ways in which the authors of Ezra–Nehemiah innovate beyond the Holiness texts of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic tradition in their non-integration of foreigners in the community, see Saul M. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 81–90. 4. I speak of editors because the first-person account of Nehemiah often speaks simply of Judeans (yehûdîm), as he does in Neh 13:23–26; see Gary N. Knoppers, “Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within?,” in Judah and the

172

Mixed Marriages

Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13 thus reveal a clear and unambiguous sense of the distinction between the self and the other.5 The definition of identity has a strong genealogical cast, but is tied to a specific, comparatively recent, historical experience. Those who are descendants of the Babylonian deportees constitute Israel. There are also, as many have pointed out, literary works commonly thought to have been written or edited in the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods, such as Third Isaiah, Ezekiel, Ruth, and Esther, which bear witness to different and competing understandings of Israelite and Judean identity.6 These writings, some of which are commonly labeled as more liberal than Ezra–Nehemiah, attest to a variety of conceptions of the relationship of the Israelite or Judean self, however that self may be defined, and the other, however that other may be defined. But there is yet another text, dating to approximately the same era, which bears witness to another option for understanding Israelite and Judean identity. This relatively neglected text (Chronicles), stemming most likely from Jerusalemite circles, also evinces a major concern with

Judeans in the Fourth Century (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 305–31. 5. Bob Becking, “The Idea of Thorah in Ezra 7–10: A Functional Analysis,” ZABR 7 (2004): 273–85. The marriage reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah are discussed in much greater detail in the essays by Dor, Pakkala, Rothenbusch, and Southwood elsewhere in the present volume. 6. See, e.g., Georg Braulik, “Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Ijob, Sprichwörter, Rut: Zur Frage früher Kanonizität des Deuteronomiums,” in Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (ed. E. Zenger; HBS 10; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 1996), 61–138. Reference may also be made to other texts, such as those at Elephantine, in Judith (e.g., 5:5–12; 14:5–10) and in 1 Maccabees (e.g., 1:11). See Bezalel Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 149, 173–74, 178, 248–52; Edward Lipiński, “Marriage and Divorce in the Judaism of the Persian Period,” Transeu 4 (1991): 3–11; Ina Willi-Plein, “Problems of Intermarriage in Postexilic Times,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis, and Its Language (ed. M. Bar-Asher, D. Rom-Shiloni, E. Tov, and N. Wazana; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 177–89. On intermarriage between members of the elite in Jerusalem and Samaria, see Josephus (Ant. 11.297–312, 321–25) and the discussion of Frank M. Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 189–97. In a diasporic Babylonian context, see Kathleen Abraham, “West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth Century BCE,” AfO 51 (2005/2006): 198–219. The reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah are, of course, themselves evidence for the phenomenon of mixed marriages in Yehud. For other examples of exogamy in later periods (with discussion), see the essays by S. Grätz and A. Lange in the present volume.

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

173

genetics as a major criterion of Israelite and Judean ethnicity and engages the question of mixed marriages in the broader context of a concern with genealogy. Nevertheless, it does so in quite a different way from that of Ezra and Nehemiah. My essay will focus on the practice of exogamy in the lineages of Judah (1 Chr 2:3–4:23) with a variety of nonIsraelite peoples. But I would like to begin with some comments on the larger Chronistic construction and contextualization of Israelite consanguinity. Gaining a good understanding of the Chronistic presentation of Israelite consanguinity is critical to comprehending how Judahite identity fits within a larger corporate context. 1. Lineage Structures in 1 Chronicles 1–9: An Overview That the writers of Chronicles are keenly concerned with genetics can be readily seen by reading the first nine chapters of this book, which comprise a complex collection of segmented and linear genealogies interlaced with scattered family anecdotes, short lists, brief historical digressions, geographical annotations, summary censes, and short tales about martial skirmishes, tribal migrations, and clan settlements.7 Such a 7. Several recent treatments have focused on the genealogies in 1 Chr 1–9, including: Joel P. Weinberg, “Das Wesen und die funktionelle Bestimmung der Listen in I Chr 1–9,” ZAW 93 (1981): 91–114; Magnar Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConBOT 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989); Manfred Oeming, Das wahre Israel: die “genealogische Vorhalle” 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990); Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 246–65; James T. Sparks, The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9 (Academia Biblica 28; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2008). More generally, see Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977); Martin L. West, The Hesiodic Catalogue of Women: Its Nature, Structure, and Origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Walter E. Aufrecht, “Genealogy and History in Ancient Israel,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor; JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 205–35; Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies (2d ed.; SNTSMS 8; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Rosalind Thomas, Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Key Themes in Ancient History; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Thomas, “Ethnicity, Genealogy, and Hellenism in Herodotus,” in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (ed. I. Malkin; Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2001), 213–33; Irad Malkin, “Introduction,” in Malkin, ed., Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, 4–19; Thomas Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis (HBS 39; Freiburg i. Br.: Herder, 2003); Hieke, “Genealogie als Mittel der

174

Mixed Marriages

dense and lengthy literary preoccupation with the histories of generations is unparalleled anywhere elsewhere in the scriptures. The genealogies begin with primordial origins, the first man (Adam; 1 Chr 1:1), and sketch the long history of his progeny and the sundry nations they represent. This schematic outline of the development of the inhabited world takes on ever greater definition as it approaches the time of Shem (1:17), Abraham (1:27), and Isaac (1:34). The last half of the genealogy of nations is focused on the descendants of the two sons of Isaac: Esau and Israel (1 Chr 1:35–2:2). Drawing from and developing various genealogies in Genesis, the writers classify the gradual growth of human inhabitation and the relationships that exist among various peoples. In this highly schematic outline of world history, all known peoples are shown to be related to each other and originating from a common progenitor.8 Although the writers will go on to focus on their chief interest—the descendants of Israel (Jacob)—the universal genealogy shows the different ways in which the Israelites share kinship with other peoples, especially with some of those in geographic proximity to themselves. In short, the universal genealogy evinces antiquarian interests in the relationships among historical geography, ethnic agnation, and corporate identity. Israel’s origins are explored against the background of a very broad anthropological canvas. The authors’ concern with the history of generations stemming from the eponymous ancestor Jacob/Israel also shows broad interests. Even though the writers reside in the relatively small province of postmonarchic Judah, they understand Judah to be but one part, albeit a critical part, of a larger whole. They do not equate Judah, much less one subsection of Judah, with Israel. Instead, the positions of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin— the three tribes that dominate life in Yehud—anchor the other Israelite tribes. In this respect, the authors of the book show themselves very much to be creatures of their own times. They are not interested in the hoary past simply for the past’s sake. Their lineages dealing with the segmentation of Israel’s descendants bear many marks of having been composed by Jerusalemite scribes in late Persian or early Hellenistic times. Geschichtsdarstellung in der Tora und die Rolle der Frauen im genealogischen System,” in Hebräische Bibel—Altes Testament: Tora (ed. I. Fischer, M. Puerto Navarra, and A. Taschl-Erber; Die Bibel und die Frauen: Eine exegetisch-kulturgeschichtliche Enzyklopädie 1/1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2010), 149–85. 8. Gary N. Knoppers, “Shem, Ham, and Japheth: The Universal and the Particular in the Genealogy of Nations,” in The Chronicler as Theologian (ed. M. P. Graham, S. L. McKenzie, and G. N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; London: T&T Clark International, 2003), 1331.

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

175

Table 1. The Structure of the Chronistic Lineages a

The peoples of the world (1 Chr 1:1–2:2) Judah (1 Chr 2:3–4:23) c Simeon and the trans-Jordanian tribes (1 Chr 4:24–5:26) d The tribe of Levi (1 Chr 5:27–6:66 [ET 6:1–81]) c1 The northern tribes (1 Chr 7:1–40) b1 Benjamin (1 Chr 8:1–40) The Persian period inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:2–34)

b

a1

As the table suggests, each of Israel’s sodalities is linked to the others. There is development within each sodality, but each sodality is genealogically tied to other segments within the nation. The northern tribes and Simeon may garner less attention than do Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, but they are all clearly Israelite in nature. Since the genealogies cover, or at least touch on, a variety of periods, they do not identify any one particular experience, such as the exodus, the Assyrian exile, or the Babylonian exile, as the pivotal experience in defining what it means to be Israelite.9 In this, they differ markedly from the model espoused by the editors of Ezra–Nehemiah. To be sure, there are allusions to and anecdotes about some of the major events within Israelite history, but such anecdotes are not written to authorize a wholesale redefinition of Israelite identity. The writers mention the exile of the Trans-Jordanian tribes in the Assyrian exile initiated by Tiglathpileser (1 Chr 5:22, 25–26),10 but these tribes do not cease to be Israelite as a result of this geographic dislocation.11 Similarly, the genealogies allude to or mention the Babylonian deportations in a few different contexts, but the Babylonian captivity does not lead to a wholesale redefinition of who can be called and who cannot be called an Israelite. Indeed, the list of Persian period inhabitants, which closes the genealogical section in Chronicles, mentions Manassites and Ephraimites, among others, as settling within Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:3–4).12 9. It should be recalled that the writers do not deny the Exodus altogether. In this respect, I do not see Chronicles as providing an alternate history of Israel’s origins from that presented in the first books of the Bible (pace Sara Japhet, “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles,” JBL 98 [1979]: 205–18). The genealogies address questions of corporate identity, familial, tribal, and external relationships, and the people’s ties to the land. As such, they deal with several eras, including the monarchy; see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 246–65. 10. Always rendered as Tilgat-pilneser in Chronicles (1 Chr 5:6, 25; 2 Chr 28:20); see ibid., 377. 11. As surviving deportees, they continue to exist in foreign lands (1 Chr 5:26). 12. The situation differs in Neh 11:4, which does not mention any Jerusalemite residents stemming from Manasseh and Ephraim; see Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles

176

Mixed Marriages

In brief, it should not be said that the writers of Ezra–Nehemiah display a stronger concern with the preservation of Israel than the other postexilic authors do. The authors of Chronicles, like the authors of Ezra– Nehemiah, exhibit a strong sense of collective identity that is rooted in the past, but the authors of Chronicles define that identity much more broadly, intricately, and deeply than do the writers of Ezra–Nehemiah. Like the writers of Ezra–Nehemiah, the writers of Chronicles are keenly interested in genealogy as a critical means to define and secure ethnic identity, but they do not uphold the experience of the Babylonian deportations as the defining experience in what it means to be an Israelite. Quite the contrary, Israel both predates and postdates the Babylonian exile. The long ethnogenesis of Israel relativizes, in fact, the effect of any one particular event in the history of the nation. In spite of major and minor setbacks, the people of Israel endure and prevail through the centuries. 2. Judah: The One “who became great among his brothers” Having provided a brief overview of the consistent Chronistic interest in tribal lineages and Israelite identity, it may be helpful to take a closer look at the Chronistic construction of Judahite identity and how this identity plays a role in shaping Israelite identity. As Table 1 (above) indicates, Judah enjoys a privileged place within the broader Israelite tribal system. It is no accident that Judah is the first tribe dealt with in the Chronistic introduction to the Israelite people. The deliberate choice to begin with Judah involves more than an interest in David, although the Davidic line stands at the center of the Judahite genealogy (1 Chr 3:1– 24) as critical to Judah’s legacy (see Table 2).13 Table 2. The Structure of the Genealogy of Judah a b a1

Lineages of Judah (1 Chr 2:1–55) The Davidic Genealogy (1 Chr 3:1–24) Lineages of Judah (1 Chr 4:1–23)

(OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 208; Gary N. Knoppers, “Sources, Revisions, and Editions: The Lists of Jerusalem’s Residents in MT and LXX Nehemiah 11 and I Chronicles 9,” Text 20 (2000): 141–68. 13. Wilhelm Rothstein and Johannes Hänel, Kommentar zum ersten Büch der Chronik (KAT 18/2; Leipzig: Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1927), 133; Wilhelm Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: Mohr, 1955), 65–66; Jacob M. Myers, I Chronicles (AB 12; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), xxx–xl; Peter R. Ackroyd, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (TBC; London: SCM, 1973), 28, 48; Gary N. Knoppers, “The Davidic Genealogy in Chronicles: Some Contextual Considerations from the Ancient Mediterranean World,” Transeu 22 (2001): 35–50.

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

177

For the genealogists, Judah is not a subsidiary line, but the most dominant tribe in Israelite history.14 The high estimation of Judah’s significance is evident in the introduction to the sodality of Reuben (1 Chr 5:1–2).15 Reuben is freely acknowledged to be the firstborn of Israel (1 Chr 2:1–2; 5:1), but in Chronistic perspective this status does not automatically destine Reuben to a preeminent rank among Jacob’s seed.16 To Joseph, and not to Reuben, went the birthright (1 Chr 5:1–2).17 But the honor of preeminence went to another Israelite son. Although Judah was neither the firstborn (cf. 1 Chr 2:1–2) nor the son who received the birthright, “he became great (‫ )גבר‬among his brothers and a leader (‫)נגיד‬ came from him” (1 Chr 5:2).18 Accordingly, the longest, most elaborate, 14. That Judah appears first in the tribal genealogies breaks with two precedents: the precedent set in 1 Chr 1:1–2:2, in which subsidiary lines were dealt with first, and the precedent set by other traditional tribal listings in which Reuben appears first (e.g. 1 Chr 2:1–2); see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 302–3. 15. The comment appears in the introduction to Reuben’s lineages to explain why Reuben’s descendants are not listed first. I read with the MT of 1 Chr 5:2 (cf. LXXBL kai eis hēgoumenon ex autou, “and for the leading was from him”). I am reading the lāmed as emphatic (Arno Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik Vergleichen mit der seiner Quellen: Ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen [BZAW 16; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909], 4–6), introducing a subject (cf. 2 Chr 11:22). It is also possible to see the subject of the noun clause as the pronoun in ‫ממנו‬, “and of him one became a prince” (GKC, § 141a). On the recourse to Judah in this anecdote about Reuben, see Thomas Willi, “Late Persian Period Judaism and Its Conception of an Integral Israel According to Chronicles,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 146–62. 16. The writer decouples birthright from firstborn status, tying the former to proper conduct; see Gary N. Knoppers, “The Preferential Status of the Eldest Son Revoked?,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ed. T. Römer and S. L. McKenzie; BZAW 294; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 115–26. 17. Hence, the writers acknowledge the historic privilege and status of the prominent tribes represented by Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh); see Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt: Lang, 1989); H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Thomas Willi, Juda–Jehud–Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995). 18. The mention of a leader alludes, of course, to David’s kingship, which encompassed all of the Israelite tribes (1 Sam 13:14; 25:30; Mic 5:1). The Blessing of Jacob may also be in view not least because Jacob speaks of the scepter as not departing from Judah (Gen 49:10); see Raymond de Hoop, Genesis 49 in Its Literary and Historical Context (OtSt 39; Leiden: Brill, 1998).

178

Mixed Marriages

and most complex set of lineages is allocated to the descendants of Judah (1 Chr 2:3–4:23).19 Hence, it cannot be said that the writers of Chronicles are any less keenly interested in genealogy as a critical means to define and secure the collective identity of the Israelite people than the authors of Ezra– Nehemiah are. Indeed, the interest in the primordial past in Ezra– Nehemiah is linked to a comparatively recent event that is deemed pivotal in determining Israelite identity: the crucible of the Babylonian exile. But the primordial interest in Chronicles stretches much farther back in history to the time of the Ancestors. In this context, the lineages of Judah function as primordial charters both to validate the concept of collective leadership in the people of Israel and to lend internal cohesiveness to the people of Judah in postexilic times. The highly segmented structure of the Judahite genealogy shows great complexity, and space constraints do not allow a full discussion of the different ways in which the writers fashion various literary devices to lend some unity to the assorted lineages they include within the larger Judahite family tree. Such techniques include the formulation of summary introductions to major sections within the lineage (1 Chr 2:3; 3:1; 4:1) and interrupting some lineages to introduce other lineages dealing with subsidiary lines (Table 3). Table 3. The Descendants of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:1–55) The Sons of Judah: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah (2:3–4) The Sons of Perez (2:5) The Descendants of Zerah (2:6–8) The Descendants of Hezron, I (2:9) The Descendants of Ram (2:10–17) The Descendants of Caleb, I (2:18–20) The Descendants of Hezron, II (2:21–24) The Descendants of Jerahmeel (2:25–33) The Descendants of Sheshan (2:34–41) The Descendants of Caleb, II (2:42–50a) The Descendants of Hur (2:50b–55)

19. The deity’s manner of acting within the history of Israel may thus subvert normal human expectations; see Knoppers, “Status of the Eldest Son,” 115–26. Judah’s importance is also apparent in certain parts of Numbers. Reuben is recognized as firstborn (Num 1:5–15), but Judah enjoys a primary position in the encampment of the Israelite tribes (Num 2:3–31) and in the order of presenting daily offerings (Num 7:12–83). See recently, Reinhard Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZABR 3; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003).

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

179

A related literary device that lends some unity to the whole is the creation of descending and ascending patterns of genealogical relations, surrounding the central set of Davidic lineages (1 Chr 3:1–24). This pattern of descending and ascending genealogies (Table 4) structures the heterogeneous lineages within the two frames that introduce and conclude the Chronistic discussion of the Judahite tribal legacy (1 Chr 2:3–55; 4:1–23). Table 4. Inverse Correspondences among the Lineages in 1 Chronicles 2:1–55 and 4:1–23 1. 2. 3. 4.

Sons of Judah (2:3–4) Ash˙ur (2:24) Sons of Óur (2:50–55) Haroeh (= Reaiah) (2:52)

4. 3. 2. 1.

Reaiah (4:2) Sons of Óur (4:4) Ash˙ur (4:5) Shelah (4:21–23)

Three summary remarks may be made about the authorial interests evident in the structure and composition of this work. First, the lineages reveal an active interest in the different subdivisions within the tribe and their relations to each other. Some are larger and more closely integrated within the lineages than others. Second, the lineages reveal a keen concern with documenting a pattern of succession among the descendants of David well into the postmonarchic period.20 Third, the writers pursue a variety of Judean connections to other tribes and to its non-Israelite neighbors. To this last point, I shall now turn. 3. Mixed Marriages with Non-Israelites The lineages of Judah contain some six cases of intermarriage. Since intermarriage can be defined differently in a variety of settings and circumstances, it may be useful to discuss, however briefly, some terminology. By intermarriage, I do not mean a connubial between a Judahite and a member of another Israelite tribe, but rather a connubial with a non-Israelite. In speaking of non-Israelites, I am not limiting the list of such non-Israelite peoples to the six or seven autochthonous peoples mentioned in the Pentateuch, even though the prohibitions of intermarriage within the Pentateuch are restricted to these six or seven nations (Exod 34:11–16; Deut 7:1–6).21 Admittedly, Biblical texts do not speak 20. Knoppers, “Davidic Genealogy,” 35–50. 21. Things are more complicated in the Deuteronomistic History in which the interdiction against intermarriage is extended in certain contexts to affect a range of peoples. In a preliminary way, see Gary N. Knoppers, “Sex, Religion, and Politics: The Deuteronomist on Intermarriage,” HAR 14 (1994): 121–41. See also the essay by Benedikt Conczorowski in the present volume.

180

Mixed Marriages

with one voice in certain cases about whether a particular group is an in-group or an out-group.22 Nevertheless, this study follows a general understanding of intermarriage as one that involves a Judahite and a non-Israelite. A close reading of the lineages of Judah reveals that mixed marriages are an integral part of the tribe’s long-term ethnogenesis. That intermarriage is not incidental to the life of the tribe as a whole can be seen from the fact that the genealogy begins with an instance of intermarriage. The eponymous ancestor, Judah, has a Canaanite wife (1 Chr 2:3). Of the patriarch’s five sons, the first three, Er, Onan, and Shelah, “were born to him by Bathshua the Canaanite” (1 Chr 2:3).23 It should be observed that the text does not include any critical remarks about the role that this Canaanite woman played in her husband’s family.24 Quite the contrary, the authors call attention to it by mentioning it first in the presentation of Judah’s legacy. A mixed marriage is foundational to the very beginnings of the tribe’s development. A second case of a marital disposition between a Judahite and a foreigner involves certain descendants of Shelah (1 Chr 4:21–22), “who married into Moab” (‫)בעלו למואב‬. Shelah is one of the sons of Judah through the patriarch’s marriage to Canaanite Bathshua (1 Chr 2:3). There are some text-critical and philological issues in this unparalleled text.25 Some modern interpreters assume that the verb ‫ בעל‬indicates rule 22. Indeed, the Judahite lineages contain several cases in which a group that appears as a marginal group or an out-group in earlier biblical writings is presented as one of the clans of Judah; cf. Gary N. Knoppers, “Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah,” JBL 120 (2001): 15–30. 23. The MT’s “Bath-shua” (‫ )בת־שוע‬can also be translated, “the daughter of Shua” (so some witnesses to the LXX). MT Gen 38:2 reads, “daughter of a Canaanite man and her name (so the LXX; the MT: ‘his name’) was Shua.” Tg. 1 Chr 2:3 avoids these implications by calling Bath-shua a “trader,” instead of a “Canaanite.” The writers of the Targum ingeniously play on the meaning of “Canaanite” (Job 40:30; Zeph 1:11) and transform the text so that Judah does not violate the prohibitions against intermarriage with members of the autochthonous nations (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3; Josh 23:15–16); see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 302. 24. The approach taken by the author of Jubilees differs. His opposition to intermarriage leads him to downplay “Betasuel” and privilege Judah’s union with Tamar, who uniquely traces her ancestry back to Aram. Hence, in Jubilees, she does not appear as a Canaanite. On this point, see Richard J. Bautch, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHBOTS 471; London: T&T Clark International, 2009), 141–42. 25. I am reading with the MT (maximum differentiation). The LXXAB reads “who resided in Moab” (hoi katōkēsan en Mōab). My translation follows the NJPS. See also the helpful comments of Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 125–26, 141–42.

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

181

over Moab and hence they deem the text to be corrupt.26 But the most common meaning of the verb ‫ בעל‬is “to marry.”27 It seems sensible to recognize that the author is positing some close links between Judahites and their neighbors in the past.28 The text goes on to assert that these descendants of Shelah went on to reside in Bethlehem.29 Given that the first instance of a mixed marriage occurs between the eponymous ancestor and a Canaanite woman and the second involves some of the male descendants of one of the male offspring (Shelah) of the marriage between Judah and Bathshua, the possibility arises that exogamy runs in the family. One case of intermarriage begets another. But the situation is more complicated. The pattern of mixed marriages is not confined to simply one phratry in the Judahite line. There are other cases involving descendants of a different paramour of the eponymous ancestor. In other words, the family tree of Judah does not begin by positing a case of intermarriage involving the patriarch before tracing several other cases of intermarriage among the offspring of that connubial relationship. Indeed, the genealogists devote relatively little attention to the progeny of the union between Judah and Bath-shua. Most, but by no means all, of the other cases of marital unions with foreigners involve 26. Immanuel Benzinger, Bücher der Chronik (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 20; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901), 5–16; Kurt Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia (ATD 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 23; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 36; Roddy L. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1986), 56. The editors of HALOT (142b) propose emending to ‫עברו‬. The issue is complicated by the fact that the (MT) text seems to go on to speak of their residence in (or return to) Bethlehem (see below). 27. Gen 20:3; Deut 21:13; 22:22; 24:1; Isa 54:1, 5; 62:4, 5; Mal 2:11; Prov 30:23. This is also how Tg. 1 Chr 4:22 understands the use of the verb. Note also the meaning of the noun ‫ בעל‬as “husband” (Gen 20:3; Exod 21:3, 22; Deut 22:22; 24:4; Lev 21:4; 2 Sam 11:26; Hos 2:18; Prov 12:4; 31:11, 23, 28). 28. Within the Chronistic lineages, the assertion of cohabitation with the Moabites is not unique. A similar claim is made about one of the male descendants of Benjamin (1 Chr 8:8–12); see Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 474–83. 29. MT 1 Chr 4:22 ‫ וישבי לחם‬is defective. The LXXB reads kai apestrepsen autous, perhaps reflecting ‫וישב להם‬. It is possible to construe the consonants of the MT as “dwellers of Lehem,” Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 61. A wâw/yôd confusion is also possible, “and they returned to Bethlehem” (‫ ;)וישבו בית לחם‬see Rudolf Kittel, Bücher der Chronik und Esra, Nehemia und Esther (HAT 1.6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902), 32. I prefer to read “and they resided in Bethlehem” (‫ )וישבו בית לחם‬or “and they resided in Lehem” (‫)וישבו לחם‬, assuming that ‫ בית‬was dropped, as it sometimes was in compound names; see Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 121. Also note, ‫וישבו שם‬, “they resided there,” in v. 23.

182

Mixed Marriages

a collateral line, the descendants of the union between Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar.30 One of these, the third case of intermarriage, involves a descendant of Jerahmeel, the firstborn of Hezron. In a story unparalleled elsewhere in the scriptures, the writer notes that Sheshan, some six generations removed from Jerahmeel, did not have any sons, but gave one of his daughters in marriage to his Egyptian servant named Jarha (1 Chr 2:34– 35). This connubium bore fruit and the family stemming from this union extended many generations. The tale recalls the ancestral tales in Genesis, in particular the stories of Abram’s relationship with Hagar (Gen 16:1–16; 17:15–27; 21:1–21). Nevertheless, the outcomes differ in the two stories, because the arrangement is an unqualified success in Chronicles. The authors posit, in fact, a thirteen-generation descending linear genealogy for the Judean and her Egyptian husband (2:35–41), one of the longest genealogies in the Hebrew Bible. This is extraordinary. To have a written lineage is itself a sign of status in the ancient world. Even so, the vast majority of genealogies are just a few generations in length. Only a few lineages in Chronicles, such as the Davidic (3:1–24), priestly (5:27–41), and Saulide (8:29–40//9:35–44) lineages, are more extensive than the Sheshanide family tree.31 One cannot regard, therefore, the inclusion of this mixed marriage in the lineages of Judah as some sort of literary accident. Quite the contrary, the lineages of Judah call attention to this unusual marital union, because the resulting family proved to be so perdurable in the ethnogenesis of the larger tribe. A fourth case of a spousal relationship between a Judahite and a foreigner occurs among the descendants of Ram, the son of Hezron. Ram and Hezron are related to the patriarch Judah by means of Hezron’s father Perez, who was, in turn, the son of Tamar (1 Chr 2:4–5, 9). Chronicles mentions that Abigail, the sister of David, gave birth to Amasa and that “the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite.”32

30. Thomas Willi thus argues that the story of Gen 38 is critical to understanding the development of the Judahite genealogies; see Willi’s Chronik (BK 24; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991), 72–80. 31. And, as such, the lineage may well extend into postexilic times; see Willi, Chronik, 99; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 102. 32. The text of 1 Chr 2:17 reflects a slightly variant version of 2 Sam 17:25; see P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), 390–91. MT 2 Sam 17:25’s “Ithra” (‫ )יתרא‬provides a longer form of the name “Jether” (‫)יתר‬. For MT and LXX* 1 Chr 2:17 “the Ishmaelite” (‫)הישמעאלי‬, MT 2 Sam 17:25 reads “the Israelite” (‫)הישראלי‬. LXXA 2 Sam 17:25 agrees with 1 Chr 2:17. The lemma in Tg. 1 Chr 2:17, which employs both terms, harmonizes the two texts.

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

183

Another connection between the family of David and the Ishmaelites is asserted in the context of the depiction of David’s administrative reforms.33 In this passage, which is unparalleled in Samuel–Kings, we read that the set of twelve overseers, who served the king in his royal administration (1 Chr 27:25–31), included an Ishmaelite with the allocutory name Obil (‫)אוביל‬.34 This Ishmaelite had the responsibility of taking care of the royal camels (1 Chr 27:30).35 King David is directly involved in the fifth case of a foreign marriage (1 Chr 3:1–2). In this case, the writers of Chronicles are drawing information from the book of Samuel and diverge little from the relevant content of their source (2 Sam 3:2–5). Of David’s many marriages, one involves Maacah daughter of Talmai, the king of Geshur (cf. 2 Sam 3:3). This case of exogamy is probably to be understood as a strategic diplomatic marriage on the king’s part, because Ishbaal the son of Saul had earlier laid claim to this area (2 Sam 2:9).36 In any case, the relationship results in the birth of Absalom and perhaps other offspring.37 At this point, one could raise some objections. One could object that the writers are not endorsing any of the actions of the characters in the genealogies that they narrate. Similarly, one could maintain that the writers are merely passing along traditional lineages and anecdotes they

33. Interestingly, Ishmael (as a proper name) is attested in Samaria during the late Persian period; see Ephraim Stern, “A Hoard of Persian Period Bullae from the Vicinity of Samaria” (Hebrew), in The Samaritans (ed. E. Stern and H. Eshel; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2002), 82–103. 34. Although not included among the seed of Jacob/Israel, Ishmael is sometimes regarded as embraced by the Abrahamic covenant (in the Priestly work). See, e.g., Albert de Pury, “Abraham: The Priestly Writer’s ‘Ecumenical’ Ancestor,” in Römer and McKenzie, eds., Rethinking the Foundations, 163–81; de Pury, “Pg as the Absolute Beginning,” in Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexaeuque et de l’Ennéateuque (ed. T. Römer and K. Schmid; BEThL 203; Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 99–128 (118–23). The writers of Chronicles acknowledge Ishmael’s Abrahamic parentage and provide a twelve-member lineage of Ishmael’s descendants (drawn from Genesis), Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 278–79. 35. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 903. Aside from these texts and the mention of Ishmael and his descendants in the universal genealogy that opens the work (see the previous note), no other Ishmaelites are found in Chronicles. 36. Jon D. Levenson and Baruch Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” JBL 99 (1980): 507–18. In the Chronistic enumeration of David’s sons, only the firstborn are mentioned. 37. Because the text of 2 Sam 5:5 is employed as a rubric to organize a summary of David’s children, the list does not comprise a full tabulation of David’s progeny (cf. 1 Sam 25:43–44; 27:3; 30:5; 2 Sam 2:2).

184

Mixed Marriages

find in older sources, such as the book of Samuel. Nevertheless, the force of these possible objections is not strong. If the genealogists considered mixed marriages to be highly objectionable or reprehensible, they could have moralized against them. Certainly, they censor a few Judahite actions. For example, when alluding to the story of Gen 38:1–10, they assert bluntly that Er, the son of Judah, “did evil in the sight of Yhwh and he [Yhwh] killed him” (‫וימיתהו‬, 1 Chr 2:3).38 Later, one finds a pun on the name of Achar (‫)עכר‬, referring to him as “the troubler (‫ )עוכר‬of Israel, who violated the ban” (1 Chr 2:7).39 Indeed, the appearance of notes, anecdotes, and comments is not unusual in the genealogies stemming from various writers in the ancient Mediterranean world.40 Such remarks may shed light on the genealogies themselves and contextualize them within the writers’ construction of the past. Given the propensity of the writers to interject brief explanations and criticisms, when it suits them, the absence of any critique of mixed marriages is telling.41 As to the second objection, it is true that some of the material found in the Judahite lineages is drawn from older sources. Table 5 provides a synopsis of the scriptural passages from which the writers draw and, less often, diverge.42

38. Frederick E. Greenspahn, When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). 39. Reading “Achar” with the MT and the LXX. A few Hebrew manuscripts and MT Josh 7:1, 18, 20, 24 read “Achan” (‫)עכן‬. Since LXXB and Syr. Josh 7:1 read Achar, it is quite possible that the Chronicler’s Vorlage read “Achar.” A play on words is also found in the text of Josh 7:24–25, but it involves the death sentence imposed upon Achan and his family in the Valley of Achor; see Richard S. Hess, “Achan and Achor: Names and Wordplay in Joshua 7,” HAR 14 (1994): 94–96. 40. John Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 8–16. 41. So also Japhet, “Chronicles,” 74, 90; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 108. 42. This listing is not intended to be comprehensive. Moreover, readers will note that in some cases Chronicles departs from the details of earlier texts, even as it engages them. See further H. G. M. Williamson, “Sources and Redaction in the Chronicler’s Genealogy of Judah,” JBL 98 (1979): 351–59; Kartveit, Motive und Schichten, 36–61; and Oeming, Das wahre Israel, 100–130; Gary N. Knoppers, “ ‘Great Among His Brothers’, but Who is He? Heterogeneity in the Composition of Judah,” JHS 3, no. 4 (2000). Online http://www.purl.org/jhs (repr. in Perspectives on Biblical Hebrew [ed. E. Ben Zvi; Gorgias Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures 1; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006], 269–89).

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

185

Table 5. Biblical Sources, Parallels, and Comparanda 1 Chronicles 2:1–55 2:3 Gen 46:12 (cf. Gen 38:1–10; Num 26:19) 2:4 Gen 38:12–26 2:5 Gen 46:12 2:6–8 Josh 7:1, 18, 24–26; cf. 1 Kgs 5:11 2:9 (//Ruth 4:18); Gen 46:12; Num 1:7; 26:19–21 2:10 Exod 6:23; Num 2:3; 26:19–21 2:10–17 (//Ruth 4:19b–22) 2:13–15 1 Sam 16:1–23; 17:1–51 2:16a cf. 17:24–25 2:16b 2 Sam 2:18 2:19–20 Exod 24:14; 31:1–2 2:21 cf. Gen 50:23; Num 32:39–40; Deut 3:14–15; Judg 5:14 2:22 cf. Num 32:41; Deut 3:14 2:49 Josh 15:16–19; Judg 1:11–15 1 Chronicles 3:1–24 3:1–3 2 Sam 3:3–5 3:4 2 Sam 5:5 3:5–8 2 Sam 5:14–16 3:9 2 Sam 5:13; 13:1 3:10–14 1 Kgs 11–2 Kgs 22 3:15–19 2 Kgs 23–25; cf. Jer 22:11; 28:4; 29:2 1 Chronicles 4:1–23 4:13 cf. Josh 15:17; Judg 1:13; 3:9, 11 4:15 Num 13:6; 14:6, 30, 38; 26:65; etc. 4:21 Gen 38:5

In this context, the compositional technique employed by the writers may be compared with that employed by the writers of other late works, such as Ezra–Nehemiah. Most late biblical authors draw from and allude to older literary texts. Nevertheless, one has to ask the question: Why did the authors include the material they did within their composition? Surely, they could have left some details out without those omissions adversely affecting their overall literary creation. They could have listed the offspring of a certain male individual, for instance, without listing the mother. Moreover, they could have edited, rewritten, or commented on the material they quoted from older biblical texts dealing with sexual liaisons with foreigners. That they do not add such disparaging remarks is quite revealing. I wish to return to this matter later.

186

Mixed Marriages

In the sixth instance of intermarriage, a Judahite named Mered marries an Egyptian, named “Bithiah” (‫)בתיה‬, who happened to be a daughter of Pharaoh (1 Chr 4:18).43 Mered belongs to the otherwise unattested Judahite line of Ezrah (1 Chr 4:17). The Judahite family of Ezrah is nonaligned in that his lineage is situated among the other lineages of Judah, but his line is not directly linked with any one of the other major clans within the tribe. The text is obtuse. It does not explain how this particular descendant of Judah was privileged enough to have one of his male progeny chosen for nuptials with an Egyptian royal daughter, much less one with an evidently Yahwistic name.44 In any event, one has to ask why this tale was included among the Judahite lineages. One reason may be that the anecdote flatters the tribe. One of the patriarch’s descendants married someone so prominent as the daughter of the Egyptian king.45 Another reason, complementary to the first, is that genealogy is often connected to geography. The writers connect three sites or offspring with this spousal relationship: Gedor, Soco, and Zanoah.46 In associating these toponyms with a Judean-Egyptian connubium, the writers call attention to the confluence of Egyptian and Judean interests in certain areas of the southern Levant. Such Egyptian interests were not simply something of the distant past, but continued during parts of the Persian period as Egyptian leaders attempted to regain independence from Persian control and expand their influence in southern Palestine.47

43. On the use of ‫ לקח‬to designate taking a wife, see also Gen 4:19; 12:19; 24:4; 25:1. There are major text-critical issues in 1 Chr 4:18–19. My reconstruction of this difficult text may be found in my I Chronicles 1–9, 340–42. 44. Solomon is said to have married a daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kgs 3:1; 7:8; 9:16, 24; 11:1; 2 Chr 8:11; see Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992], 308–11), but this particular marriage goes unexplained. On the name (‫)בתיה‬, see Jeaneane D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew (JSOTSup 49; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1988), 339. 45. In Tg. 1 Chr 4:18, the force of the intermarriage is blunted by the assertion of a process of proselytization that Bithiah underwent before she was married to Mered. 46. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 350. For other possible explanations, see the discussion of Klein, 1 Chronicles, 139–40. 47. Ian Stern, “The Population of Persian-period Idumea According to the Ostraca: A Study of Ethnic Boundaries and Ethnogenesis,” in A Time of Change: Judah and Its Neighbours in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods (ed. Y. Levin; Library of Second Temple Studies 65; London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 205–38.

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

187

4. The Positions of Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles in Ethnographic Perspective We have seen that there are at least six cases of intermarriage in the genealogies of Judah.48 The groups involved are the Canaanites, Ishmaelites, Geshurites, Egyptians (twice), and Moabites. I have argued that the listing of these foreign unions within the lineages of Judah is no accident. If there were only one case, it might not be significant, but the fact that there are six mixed marriages is significant. To this line of argumentation, it could be objected that some of the figures mentioned are obscure members of marginal clans within Judah’s system of social organization. This is certainly true for Mered, who belongs to the otherwise unknown line of Ezrah, but the objection does not hold true for any of the other families listed. Judah is the eponymous ancestor of the tribe, while Shelah is one of his five sons. Sheshan belongs to the Jerahmeelites, who appear as one of Judah’s major phratries.49 The other relationships concern David and one of his ancestors in the line of Ram. The marriages involve mostly the tribe’s major phratries. In this respect, the writers of Ezra and Chronicles share a similar perspective. Intermarriage affects not only commoners, but also the elite. Moreover, both works seem to agree that the phratries of Judah include (or consist of) the descendants of Perez, Zerah, and Shelah (Neh 11:4, 6, 24).50 The very appearance of descendants belonging to Perez, Zerah, and Shelah in both Chronicles and Nehemiah demonstrates that these authors were not speaking of extinct phratries. This is important, because the biblical picture, in this context, resonates with the results of comparative anthropology. For the most part, ancient family trees were

48. Interestingly, the genealogists do not mention Solomon’s many foreign wives (1 Kgs 11:1–2), but the genealogy they construct for David’s descendants up to the time of Josiah is a strict linear descending genealogy, designed to trace a succession among the founding father’s descendants (1 Chr 3:10–14). When it comes to Josiah, the genealogists have to break this pattern and resort to segmentation, because the royal succession following Josiah became complicated (and contradictory in the sources), Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 319–27. Elsewhere, the writers allude to the fact that one of Solomon’s wives was the daughter of Pharaoh (2 Chr 8:11). 49. The Jerahmeelites, however, are cast differently in other sources; see ibid., 304. 50. Reading in Neh 11:5 “the Shelanite,” rather than the MT’s “the Shilonite”; see Wilhelm Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT 20; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1949), 182–83. Compare with Num 26:20, 1 Chr 9:5–6, and see my text-critical comments in I Chronicles 1–9, 494.

188

Mixed Marriages

not written and preserved simply for their own sake. Lineages were inextricably linked to questions of social identity, territory, and relationships.51 Genealogists did not passively amass and compile great quantities of traditional onomastic and familial data. Nor were lineages created simply to present an idyllic picture of the hoary past. Genealogies were composed, shaped, and adjusted in accord with the present perceptions and interests of the authors, who wrote them. The names of the ancestors, whether remote or recent, were relevant to writers, because their genealogical connections defined the relationships of descendants in later generations. Genealogies helped to define one’s relationship, whether near or distant, to others. A group’s proper allegiances and sympathies were reflected in its lineages. Given the keen interest of ancients in antiquity, even genealogies dealing with remote times could be of great import.52 Hence, the listing of several cases of intermarriage in the ethnogenesis of the sodality of Judah is significant. From an ethnographic perspective, there is nothing too surprising about the types of intermingling depicted within the Judahite family tree. Marital unions between members of different groups may be employed to initiate, affirm, or consolidate links between families. Nevertheless, in a late Persian or early Hellenistic context, the assertion of numerous connubial ties to some of Judah’s traditional neighbors is striking. The multilayered, socially diverse, and complex set of Judahite lineages thus forms a stark contrast with the definitions of Israelite and Judean identity advocated by the editors of Ezra–Nehemiah.53 Two out of the four peoples added to the traditional list of autochthonous nations cited in Ezra, the Egyptians and the Moabites, appear within the Judahite lineages involving mixed marriages.54 Associations with a third people—the Edomites—are intimated elsewhere within the Judahite genealogy.55 Yet

51. Gerrie F. Snyman, “A Possible World of Text Production for the Genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2.3–4.23,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (ed. M. P. Graham, S. L. McKenzie, and G. N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; London: T&T Clark International, 2003), 32–60. 52. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 309–10. 53. Knoppers, “Sex, Religion, and Politics,” 121–41. 54. The names added to the traditional list in Ezra 9:1–2 are quite germane to the immediate situation. Intermarriage with Hivites was, for instance, unlikely to be a problem in Yehud, but intermarriage with Moabites might be. Note the campaign of Nehemiah against intermarriage, associated with his second term in office (Neh 13:23–27). He mentions Judean men (‫)היהודים‬, who established in residence (‫)השיבו‬ Ammonite, Ashdodite, and Moabite women (Neh 13:23). 55. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 309–10.

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

189

other collectives, such as the Qenites and Qenizzites, who are listed in the vision of Abram as indigenous peoples, appear among Judah’s descendants.56 In the prayer of Ezra (9:10–15), the returnees’ delicate existence in the homeland is directly jeopardized by the phenomenon of mixed marriages, but in Chronicles the phenomenon of mixed marriages is one means by which the descendants of Judah multiply and branch out within the land. The gradual incorporation of different individuals, families, groups, and towns creates the conditions for the growth of the larger unit. In Chronicles, large families and territorial expansion are generally viewed as signs of divine blessing.57 It is interesting that the foreign marriages mentioned do not lead to Judahite idolatry, as the writers of Exodus (34:11–16) and the Deuteronomistic History assert (e.g. Josh 23:5–12; Judg 3:5–6).58 Nor do mixed marriages lead to the defection of the children of those spousal relationships to the ancestral lands of the alien parents. Of the progeny resulting from these marital unions, at least a few have Yahwistic names.59 In any case, all are incorporated, as are the progeny of strictly inner-Judahite marital unions, in the larger tribe. Given this evidence, it is not particularly helpful to label the positions espoused in Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles as conservative and liberal, respectively. Both writings are genetically oriented and draw on older literary works, yet both also innovate beyond their sources. Both sets of writers are keenly interested in the conservation of Israel. The question that needs to be asked is: What is the Israel that each of these works seeks to conserve? Ethnographers have called attention to the fact that ethnicity is not immutable, static, tangible, or undifferentiated, but fluid,

56. The expansive list in Gen 15:19–21 mentions “the Qenites, Qenizzites, Qedemites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, and Jebusites.” After “Girgashites,” the SP and LXX add “and the Hivites” (‫)ואת־החוי‬. The lemma could easily have been lost by haplography (homoioarkton) before “and the Jebusites” (‫)ואת־היבוסי‬. On the incorporation of Qenites and Qenizzites into the lineages of Judah, see Knoppers, Intermarriage, 15–30. 57. See Raymond B. Dillard, “Reward and Punishment in Chronicles: The Theology of Immediate Retribution,” WTJ 46 (1984): 164–72 (and the references listed there). 58. The connection is made explicit by Nehemiah, who cites the example of Solomon’s regression: “There was not a king like him among the many nations. He was loved by his God and God made him king over all of Israel. Yet, foreign wives made even him sin” (Neh 13:26–27; cf. 1 Kgs 3:4–14; 10:23–24). 59. E.g. Azariah (1 Chr 2:38) and Jeqamiah (1 Chr 2:41).

190

Mixed Marriages

mutable, and contested, a category that is very much shaped by perceptions, felt needs, and changing social circumstances.60 Boundaries may be constructed by recourse to genealogy, social customs, foundational myths, consanguinity, ties to a particular territory, and religious structures, but such boundaries may shift over time. Members of a given ethnicity may realign their allegiance as a response to changing political, economic, or social circumstances and if such a change occurs, the boundaries of affected groups may change as well. It would seem that the members of the Judean elite responded to new political, economic, and social circumstances in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic ages in various ways. As a result, the boundaries of affected groups changed in the literary works produced by the Judean scribes, who wrote during these times. Conclusions The authors of literary works during Persian and early Hellenistic times had to deal with many changing circumstances. The era was characterized by increased international trade, travel, and contacts among various cultures. Judaism had become an international religion. Judeans resided in a variety of locales within the land, including Yehud and nearby areas, and within other lands, such as Babylon and Egypt.61 Complicating matters even further, there was a substantial Yahwistic community north of Yehud in Samaria that laid claim to many of the same foundational 60. Frederik Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969); Richard H. Thompson, Theories of Ethnicity: A Critical Appraisal (New York: Greenwood, 1989); Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Kenton L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998); Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999); Louis C. Jonker, “Reforming History: The Hermeneutical Significance of the Books of Chronicles,” VT 57 (2007): 21–44. 61. On the population of Yehud in the Persian period, see Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period (JSOTSup 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005). There is some evidence in textual sources for population movements (e.g. involving Benjaminite elements) within late-Persian and early-Hellenistic times; see Oded Lipschits, “The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modi‘in and Its Vicinity,” Cathedra 85 (1997): 7– 32 (Hebrew); Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 148–49, 155–58, 248–49; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 482–83.

KNOPPERS “Married into Moab”

191

traditions as did the Yahwists in Yehud.62 It is no wonder that Judean writers disagreed about the very nature of Israelite identity and whether intermarriage should be considered to be a vexing problem or a timetested means of advancing the cause of the larger group. Such matters were examined, debated, and negotiated not only in oral discussions, but also in textual form. The perspective of the editors of Ezra–Nehemiah should not be taken, therefore, as the representative viewpoint of the late Persian or early Hellenistic age. The very survival of writings, such as (Third) Isaiah, Ezekiel, Ruth, Esther, Ezra–Nehemiah, and Chronicles is testimony to the substantial diversity that characterized early Judaism in Persian and Hellenistic times.

62. Gary N. Knoppers, “What has Mt. Zion to Do with Mt. Gerizim? A Study in the Early Relations Between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Persian Period,” SR 34, nos. 3–4 (2005): 307–36; Knoppers, “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. M. Oeming and O. Lipschits; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 265–89.

THE QUESTION OF “MIXED MARRIAGES” (INTERMARRIAGE): THE EXTRA-BIBLICAL EVIDENCE Sebastian Grätz

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the extra-biblical evidence for mixed marriages or intermarriage in Persian and Hellenistic times. It is reasonable, however, to begin with a glance at the biblical tradition and especially the texts that tend to restrict intermarriage. This step may be helpful to develop the differences, the similarities, and maybe the reciprocity between the biblical and the extra-biblical texts. 1. The Biblical Tradition Looking firstly at the inner-biblical evidence for intermarriage it is comparatively easy to identify cases of intermarriage because the authors mostly comment on these cases and are not cautious about taking a firm stand on this phenomenon. It is possible to discern different reasoning concerning intermarriage in biblical literature. First, in the narrative of the patriarchs the fathers are very anxious to see their sons marry an appropriate wife. While Abraham is married to Sarah, whose lineage is unclear but who is called “sister” by Abraham on one occasion (Gen 12:13), which may also point at a kind of cousinship,1 the tales concerning the marriages of Isaac and Jacob elucidate the case. Both of them marry their paternal cousins: Rebecca is the daughter of Betuël who is Nahor’s son, the brother of Abraham, Lea and Rachel are the daughters of Laban who is the brother of Rebecca and also a descendent of Nahor. Even if these tales are fabricated, they clearly display the aim of the narrator, who wishes to make clear that the patriarchs used to marry their agnates.

1. See W. Gesenius, “‫אחות‬,” Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament (Berlin: Springer, 1987), 1:35, cf. meaning no. 3.

GRÄTZ The Question of “Mixed Marriages” (Intermarriage)

193

Consider, for instance, the solemn warning in Gen 24:3: And I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and earth that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites…

This text is a late and secondary explanation of the Patriarch’s marital customs.2 Nobody, of course, would have had the idea to marry someone coming from outside of the kinship group. This appears still to be true in Hellenistic times: the book of Tobit depicts the ideal couple exaggeratedly when the younger Tobit marries his paternal cousin Sarah (Tob 7:5– 6), who had already had seven husbands, all of whom had died just before the wedding night. The only appropriate husband is her paternal cousin. In his famous book Kinship and the Social Order, the social anthropologist Meyer Fortes stresses the importance of endogamy for tribal societies. Only within the kin are the bonds of amity expected to be strong enough to keep the tribal society together and to protect this social entity from outside threats. Therefore, the marriage of cousins is common and defined as ideal, whereas the marriage of strangers is not ideal but inevitable in regard to political and commercial connections with other clans.3 This leads to my second example, the famous intermarriage between the Israelite king Ahab and the Phoenician princess Jezebel. Looking from a political point of view, this alliance is reasonable and maybe necessary, but the Deuteronomists judge this intermarriage as sinful because Jezebel was worshipping foreign gods who seduce the king and the people of Israel. Accordingly we can read in the Deuteronomistic text Deut 7:2–5 that foreign wives or husbands “…would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods.” This is a clear theological verdict, one that defines foreignness primarily via religion. At the same time, Deut 7:1 mentions several peoples who still inhabit the “Promised Land” in the Deuteronomistic fiction but who did not exist at all in the time of the Deuteronomistic writer. These peoples simply serve as a vehicle to transport the Deuteronomistic definition of Israel, that is, to observe the first commandment.4 2. On this passage, see Matthias Köckert, Vätergott und Väterverheißungen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben (FRLANT 142; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 183–90 (189). 3. Meyer Fortes, Kinship and the Social Order: The Legacy of Lewis Henry Morgan (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970), 233 and passim. 4. See Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 94–95: “Because the seven nations are long gone, the rhetoric in this text [i.e. Deut 7:1–5] is now to be understood symbolically and not literally…” (italics original).

194

Mixed Marriages

Thirdly, Ezra 9:1 displays nearly the same enumeration of foreign peoples as in Deut 7:1. What is true for the Deuteronomist must also be valid for the author of Ezra 9: nobody of his audience/readership runs the risk of getting married to a Canaanite, a Hittite or a Jebusite. As in Deut 7, the enumerated peoples serve as code. Yet in the context of Ezra 9–10 the argument of the seducing foreign gods is missing when Ezra sets off to solve the problem of the mixed marriages.5 As Michael Fishbane and others have clearly shown, the main theological issue in Ezra 9–10 is the idea of forbidden mixtures which stems from the Holiness Code.6 One can imagine that the argument of a seduction by foreign gods is no longer sustainable because of the possibility that the women in question did not worship foreign gods at all. But they also did not fit to the society or community defined by the authors of the book of Ezra in post-exilic times. Here we find a definition of society that is conditioned by matters of lineage as the genealogical records and registers display (cf. Ezra 2:66–67). This is stressed by the traditional and restorative diction in Ezra 4:1, where the exiles are labeled as “Judah and Benjamin.” The sodefined kin is on the one hand artificial in the sense of a given (i.e. the Holiness Code) theological construction, namely, the “holy people” (Ezra 9:2), and on the other hand it is built on the intrinsic norms of traditional kinship with its rigorous distinction between the inside and the outside as described by Meyer Fortes.7 2. The Extra-Biblical Evidence a. Elephantine Within the documents of wifehood from Elephantine, we do have two particular cases of intermarriage in which Judeans are involved. The first example is TAD B3.3 (= Kraeling no. 2), dated from August 449 B.C.E. In this document a certain “Ananiah, son of Azariah, a servitor of YHH the God who is in Elephantine the fortress” asks a certain “Meshullam, son of Zaccur, an Aramean of Syene” to give him his maidservant Tamet Thus, Brueggemann interprets the foreign nations as a symbol of chaos that affects the good order of society created by YHWH. 5. The term ‫( תועבה‬Ezra 9:1) is not limited to describing the worship of foreign gods, but is also used to determine religious and cultural taboos. See H. D. Preuss, “‫תועבה‬,” ThWAT 8:580–92 (590–91). 6. See Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 114–29; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1988), 174. 7. See Fortes, Kinship, 234–35.

GRÄTZ The Question of “Mixed Marriages” (Intermarriage)

195

for wifehood. Here it is not necessary to deal with the juridical form of this deed8, unfortunately there are no marriage contracts found among the Samarian papyri allowing a contemporaneous comparison with the Palestinian marriage law, but what is of interest here is the ethnic constellation of the parties involved. The bridegroom, “Ananiah, son of Azariah,” is denoted as an employee/“servitor” (‫ )לחן‬in the house of the YHW. Notably, however, he is not identified as “Judean” (‫)יהודיי‬, though we may assume that he was a Judean on the basis that he is called “servitor of YHW,” and he bears a name with a distinct theophoric element.9 His counterpart, “Meshullam, son of Zaccur,” is denoted as “Aramean” (‫ )ארמי‬but elsewhere (B3.1, 3; B3.6, 2) also as “Judean.” He is apparently the owner of the maidservant (‫ )אמה‬Tamet (see B3.6, 3) with her child Pilãi (‫)פלטי‬, and he is authorized to get her married. The personal names Tamet or Tapamet (‫תמת‬/‫ )תפמת‬is of Egyptian origin while Pilãi is a Semitic (Hebrew-Aramaic) name.10 The fact that the connubial daughter of both is called Jehojishma‘, can be taken as a hint that the progeny of this intermarriage assumed the status of the father. The other case of probable intermarriage in Elephantine where a Judean is involved is attested in the deed TAD B2.6 where “Es˙or, son of Íeha,” apparently an Egyptian,11 marries Mibãa˙iah, daughter of Mahseiah, who is designated as an Aramean from Syene but as a Judean in B2.3, 1–2. It should be added that there are also some peculiarities in the onomasticon of the documents: Helene Nutkowicz holds that intermarriage was common to the Judeans of Elephantine. Concerning the practice of intermarriage in Elephantine, she observes: …environ une quinzaine de personne ne portent pas des noms hébreux, au contraire de leurs enfants… La plupart qui ne sont pas probablement des Judéens, se seraient mariés avec des Judéennes. Par ailleurs, quelquesunes des douze occurrences où le père porte un nom hébreu et le fils un nom qui ne l’est pas…attestent également de marriages mixtes et peuvent s’expliquer par la papponymie.12 8. See Reuven Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 44–64; Edward Lipiński, “Marriage and Divorce in the Judaism of the Persian Period,” Transeu 4 (1991): 63–71. 9. On the person of Ananiah, see Bezalel Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change (DMOA 22; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 80–81. 10. See Michael H. Silverman, Religious Values in the Jewish Proper Names at Elephantine (AOAT 217; Kevelaer: Ugarit-Verlag, 1985), 58, 79. 11. See ibid., 55. 12. Hélène Nutkowicz, “Les marriages mixtes à Éléphantine à l’époque perse,” Transeu 36 (2008): 125–39 (126).

196

Mixed Marriages

Returning to the Egyptian-Judean couple Es˙or and Mibãa˙iah, it is regrettable that their union remained childless, with the result that we are unable to verify the assumption of Helene Nutkowicz concerning an intermarriage where a Judean women is involved. It seems therefore that the Judean community in Upper Egypt was not aware of the same restriction of intermarriage attested in the biblical tradition. There are several possible explanations for the evidence. First, the biblical tradition, including the Torah, was in fact unknown to the Judeans of Elephantine. Besides the disputed so-called Passover Papyrus (TAD A4.1),13 there is no allusion to a biblical text in Elephantine— though, interestingly, the inhabitants possessed literature, namely, copies of the A˙iqar romance and an Aramaic translation of the great inscription of Darius I from Behistun, which they may have held in high esteem. Thus, it seems unlikely that the restrictive texts from the biblical tradition are known to the inhabitants of Elephantine. Ernst Axel Knauf has therefore denoted the Judean community of Elephantine as pre-biblical Judaism.14 Secondly, Bezalel Porten has accurately analyzed the housing conditions in the Aramean Quarter of Elephantine. His results15 are approved by the recent archaeological excavations of the DAI in Elephantine.16 The community is found to have been quite international: the house of the above-mentioned Judean women Mibãa˙iah adjoins the houses of the Egyptian Espemet, the Khwarezmian Dargamana, the Judeans Hoshea, Jezaniah, and Konaiah, as well as the Aramean Haßßul. The house of the also above-mentioned Judean women Jehojishma‘ adjoins the sanctuary of Aramean gods, the houses of the Judean Anani/Ananiah, the Egyptian Óor who is designated as a “servitor of Khnum, the god,” and the 13. See, e.g., Erasmus Gass, “Der Passa-Papyrus (Cowl. 21): Mythos oder Realität,” BN 99 (1999): 55–68. 14. Ernst Axel Knauf, “Elephantine und das vor-biblische Judentum,” in Religion und Religionskontakte im Zeitalter der Achämeniden (ed. R. G. Kratz; Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 22; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002), 179–88: “Es gibt im Judentum von Elephantine nicht nur keinerlei Hinweise auf die Existenz einer ‘Bibel’, es gibt im Gegenteil deutliche Hinweise auf die Nicht-Existenz einer Bibel” (p. 187). 15. See Bezalel Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 235–63. 16. See Werner Kaiser et al., “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. 19./20. Grabungsbericht,” MDAIK 49 (1993): 133–87 (170–81); W. Kaiser et al., “Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine. 25./26./27. Grabungsbericht,” MDAIK 55 (1999): 63–236 (118–24); Anke Joisten-Pruschke, Das religiöse Leben der Juden von Elephantine in der Achämenidenzeit (Göttinger Orientforschungen, III. Reihe: Iranica 2; Göttingen: Harrassowitz, 2008), 85–86.

GRÄTZ The Question of “Mixed Marriages” (Intermarriage)

197

Egyptian brothers Pa˙i and Pemeã. The Aramean Quarter of Elephantine housed many nations and religions within a limited area. Therefore, this unique kind of cohabitation could have advanced the phenomenon of intermarriage in a way which cannot be observed elsewhere in these times.17 b. Greek Papyri from Ptolemaic Egypt In his famous opus The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, Raphael Taubenschlag states: “Intermarriage between Greeks and Egyptians occurs already in the III cent. B.C.E. It is certain that such unions were considered legal. This is borne out by the fact that their progeny assumes the status of the father but not of the mother.”18 However, the amount of intermarriages between Greeks and Egyptians is in fact very small,19 so that one cannot expect a large number of cases of intermarriage in which Judeans are involved. In fact, there is only a single instance from Lower Egypt, one which is nonetheless highly disputed, CPJ 128: To King Ptolemy greeting from Helladote, daughter of Philonides. I am being wronged by Jonathas, the Jew… He has agreed in accordance with the law of the Jews to hold me as wife… Now he wants to withhold… I beg you therefore, my king, to order Diophanes, the strategus, to write to…the epistates of Samareia not to let…to send Jonathas to Diophanes in order…20

This heavily damaged document shows the usual form of an enteuxis, a plaint to the king concerning a legal claim and is dated to the year 218 B.C.E. In relation to our question, this document is of particular interest because of two features: first, we encounter a wife bearing a greek name, the daughter of a man bearing a Greek name also who is married to a man with a clear Jewish name. Second, the possible evidence for a decisive legislation, πολιτικος νομος των Ιουδαιων, as restored by Victor Tcherikover,21 is, of course, absorbing. 17. See also Nutkowicz, “Les Marriages mixtes,” 139. On the case of Idumea, see below. 18. Raphael Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, 332 B.C.–640 A.D. (New York: Herald Square, 1944), 79. 19. See Joseph Mèlèse-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Philadelphia, Pa.: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 71, who discusses the case against the background of the story of Joseph and Asenath. 20. Victor A. Tcherikover, Corpus papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 1:236–38. 21. See again ibid.

198

Mixed Marriages

Regarding the first point, it is unclear whether the document attests a case of intermarriage between a Greek woman and a Judean or Jewish22 man. Tal Ilan has listed the name “Helladote” among the Jewish bearers of Greek names.23 Her explanation is ambiguous: “She is married to a Jew, ‘according to the laws of the Jews’…but her complaint to the Ptolemaic Gentile authorities against her husband may suggest that she is not.”24 With the case of Helladote we meet the problem of the distinctiveness of Jewish names in Hellenistic times. One of the most popular Jewish names in this era was “Alexandros.” Tal Ilan has listed 133 instances,25 but at first glance one would hesitate to assume a Jewish person behind this name.26 In Hellenistic times it is quite impossible to exclude Jewishness just on the basis of a pagan name. Thus, it is necessary to gather further evidence, such as the reference to a genuine Jewish law, if, of course, the restoration of the text is correct. This leads to a second point: the possible mentioning of a genuine Jewish law in CPJ 128. The text of this document is badly damaged, and according to the edition of Victor Tcherikover the original text runs as follows: [ –c. 45 lett.– κατα τον νομον π]ολιτικον των [Ιου]δαιων

There may be other possible restorations of the text,27 but one can refer to an analogous case appearing in a collection of Papyri published by James Cowey and Klaus Maresch.28 These documents stem from the district of

22. According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 69–106, the translation “Jew” or “Jewish” for Greek Ioudaios is wrong in all occurrences before the end of the second century B.C.E. Cohen states: “ ‘Judean’ is an ethnicgeographic term: a Judean is a member of the Judean people (ethnos) and hails from Judea, the ethnic homeland… In contrast, ‘Jew’ (at least in English) is a religious term: a Jew is someone who venerates the God of the Judeans…” (104–5, italics original). 23. Tal Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, Part III: The Western Diaspora 330 BCE–650 CE (TSAJ 126; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 417. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid., 203–8. 26. See also Martin Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts vor Christus (3d ed.; WUNT 2/10; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 114–16. 27. See Tcherikover, Corpus, 238. 28. James Cowey and Klaus Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3–133/2 v.Chr.) (P. Polit. Iud.). Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien (Abhandlungen der Nordrhein-Westfälischen

GRÄTZ The Question of “Mixed Marriages” (Intermarriage)

199

Herakleopolis in Lower Egypt (second century B.C.E.) and witness for the first time to the unmistakable existence of a Jewish politeuma (πολιτευμα) in Egypt.29 This was presumably a territorial association of Ioudaioi (Ιουδαιοι) in Egypt, one which appears to have had the rights of partial autonomy, established by an elite called archontes (αρχοντες), within the realm of the Ptolemies.30 The members of such an association called themselves politai (πολιται), whereas the others were denoted as allophyloi (αλλοφυλοι) (P. Polit. Iud. 1.17–18).31 The relationship of such an association is not only determined by the same ethnic origin but also by the above-mentioned partial legal sovereignty. Thus the papyri from Herakleopolis mirror genuine applicable law. Papyrus no. 4, for example, deals with the dissolution of a betrothal. It is remarkable that the dissolution is described with a genuine term, the biblion tou apostasiou (βιβλιον του αποστασιου), which is the Greek translation (especially also of the Septuagint!) of the Hebrew term “certificate decree of divorce” (‫( )ספר כריתות‬P. Polit. Iud. 4.22–24; cf. Deut 24:1, 3; Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8). Legal terminology is also employed when it is confirmed by the plaintiff that the circumstances of the betrothal were in accord to the law (kata tou nomou/κατα του νομου). In their comments on the papyrus under discussion, the editors pointed out that the term biblion tou apostasiou (“certificate/decree of divorce”) is not common in Greek law, whereas the community of the politeuma is obviously familiar (eithismenos/εϑιζω) with this kind of document. So, the legal terminology may give a hint at the common application of genuine Jewish law within the politeuma.32 Whether this genuine law was the Torah,33 as at least the letter of Aristee (§ 310) suggests, is possible but not confirmable, because this law is not distinctly labelled, as it is in Tob 7:13: kata tou nomou Moyseos. On the other hand, the evidence of these papyri can support the conjecture of Viktor Tcherikover in CPJ 128: Helladote and Jonathas get married according to a specific law which was subsidiary to the king’s law. Akademie der Wissenschaften: Papyrologica Coloniensia 29; Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001). 29. See ibid., 4–9. 30. See ibid., 26–29. 31. See ibid., 38, with references to Wilhelm Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1905), 2:589; William Horbury and David Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 196; Friedrich Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (ed. E. Kiessling; 4 vols.; Berlin: Selbstverlag, 1925–44). 32. See Cowey and Maresch, Urkunden, 69–70. 33. See Mèlèse-Modrzejewski, Jews, 107–12.

200

Mixed Marriages

Ultimately, it is impossible to state decisively whether the matrimony of Helladote and Jonathas was a mixed marriage,34 yet the existence of such territorial associations of ethnic groups in Egypt who were allowed to apply their own subsidiary law, especially family law, can help explain the near-complete absence of intermarriage with Jews involved.35 Within the Jewish politeuma of Herakleopolis the diction denotes clear distincions: as mentioned above, the members of the politeuma call themselves politai, whereas the non-members are called allophyloi (P. Polit. Iud 1.17–18). The word choice thus distinguishes an inside from an outside which may indicate a political, cultural, and social identity, comparable to that of a Greek polis (πολις).36 Moreover, the term allophylos as well as allogenes (αλλογενης) seems to be used specifically to distinguish Jews from non-Jews. In the Septuagint and also in the works of Flavius Josephus the term is often used to designate non-Jews or Gentiles, especially the Philistines,37 but occurs otherwise rarely in pagan Greek sources. This observation can be taken as a clear hint at a Jewish selfconception within the aforesaid politeuma based on concepts we can find in the Torah and elsewhere in the Bible. Exodus 34:15–16, for example, reads: You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land (μηποτε θης διαθηκην τοις αλλοφυλους επι της γης), for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice. And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods.

This quotation from the book of Exodus displays the (Deuteronomistic) combination of the stereotyped foreign peoples with the warning of intermarriage. In the Greek translation the use of the term allophylos appears thus in an appropriate biblical context. 34. See above, n. 22. It is remarkable that Helladote appeals to the king. Within the politeuma of Herakleopolis a law case between Jewish members of the politeuma probably would have been heard by the archontes. 35. Cohen, Beginnings, 104, states: “The papyri document not a single case in which an Ioudaios marries a non-Iudaios. No doubt intermarriages took place, but in the written record Ioudaioi marry other Ioudaioi or individuals of ethnic designation.” 36. See Jürgen Bellers, “Aristoteles. Die polis zwischen Außenpolitik und deren Negierung,” in Klassische Staatsentwürfe. Außenpolitisches Denken von Aristoteles bis heute (ed. J. Bellers; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996), 11–20 (15). 37. See the appropriate concordances. The term designates in several instances especially the Philistines, in others “foreigners” without specification.

GRÄTZ The Question of “Mixed Marriages” (Intermarriage)

201

Considering the special terminology used for identity distinction, one cannot rule out the possibility that the Torah, or at least ideas derived from the Torah, was/were influential in the Jewish politai of Herakleopolis and probably elsewhere in second century B.C.E. Egypt—even if there is no indication in the Greek papyri that biblical law has replaced the classical form.38 Cases of intermarriage, however, seem a priori to be less likely than in Elephantine, where cohabitation was relatively international and where, despite the common practice of labeling individuals by ethnic affiliation, a biblical-influenced terminology for distinguishing between the “interior/Jews” and the “exterior/non-Jews” is missing. Before coming to the final point, it is appropriate to consider an odd passage in the written record of Hekataois of Abdera. The final passage of the account of Diodorus Siculus runs as following: He [Moses] required those who dwelt in the land to rear children, and since offspring could be cared for at little cost, the Jews were from the start a populous nation. As to marriage and the burial of the dead, he saw to it that their customs should differ widely from those of other men. But later, when they became subject to foreign rule, as a result of their mingling with men of other nations (both under Persian rule and under that of the Macedonians who overthrew the Persians), many of their traditional practices were disturbed.39

In the preceding paragraphs, Hekataios is portraying the habits of the Israelites in Mosaic times. It is likely that Hekataios had knowledge of the Torah, or at least parts of it, when he was writing his own account.40 Yet the above-quoted final paragraph of his account seems to be a contemporary statement in Hellenistic times. It is possible that in the eyes of Hekataios the lifestyle of the contemporary Jews was not in accordance with his image of Judaism which he had derived from the Torah. In the present study the term epimeignumi (επιμειγνυμι, “to mix”) is of special interest because Hekataios uses it in the same context as allophylos, the term with which he denotes foreign nations from a Jewish point of view. It is also employed in 1 Esdras to indicate the mixed marriages in 8:67, 38. See, e.g., Tcherikover, Corpus, 144, and his comment. There is, of course, the possibility that the husband, Herakleides, was not Jewish. This possibility could also explain why a Greek form was used to write down the case (like the appeal to the king in ibid., 128, see above). 39. Translation from Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. 1, From Herodotus to Plutarch (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), 29. 40. See Raik Heckl, “Wann ist mit dem Abschluss des Pentateuchs zu rechnen? Zur Bedeutung von Hekataios von Abdera für die Literargeschichte Israels,” WdO 39 (2009): 184–204 (189–201).

202

Mixed Marriages

where it is announced to Ezra that the holy people has mingled (epemige/ επεμιγη) with foreign nations (allogenes). The wording in both passages is quite similar, but this observation should not lead to the assumption that Hekataios had knowledge of the Greek version of Ezra. It is more likely that he was informed by contemporary Jews who shared an attitude towards Hellenistic Judaism comparable to that of the author of the book of Ezra: the mixing with foreigners, especially in the sense of intermarriage, will certainly lead to the decline of Judaism. Even though this attitude must not have been in accordance with the beliefs of the majority of contemporary Judaism,41 Philo of Alexandria can be cited as an exponent of such an attitude, especially the likelihood of apostasy from monotheism: “But also he [i.e. Moses] says, do not enter into partnership or marriage with a member of a foreign nation” (De spec. Leg. 3.29). c. The Case of Idumea It is well known that the most important city of the late Persian/Hellenistic Edomite territory was Mareshah. The archaeological finds from the Hellenistic period suggest that the city of Mareshah was a multiethnic center of trade. This is demonstrated, among other things, by the presence of a Sidonian colony at Maresha, which dates from the third century B.C.E. at the latest.42 Amos Kloner points to water installations in an excavated house which were obviously used for ritual purposes: The use of water installations for ritual purification among the IdumeanSidonian population is intriguing. It is possible that members of these nations practiced some kind of purification rites even before their conversion by John Hyrcanus I, and there were other respects in which the everyday lifestyle of the Mareshans resembled that of the Jews. Perhaps this purification tradition originated in the Jewish population who had remained in the area and formed part of the human mosaic of Mareshah during the fourth to second centuries BCE.43

The multiethnic character of Idumea in late Persian and Hellenistic times is also proven by the Aramaic ostraca published by André Lemaire.44 41. See Tcherikover, Corpus, 2–3. 42. See Amos Kloner, Maresha Excavations Final Report I. Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70 (IAA Reports 17; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2003), 21–24. 43. A. Kloner, “Mareshah (Marisa),” NEAEHL 3:951–57 (953). 44. André Lemaire, Nouvelles Inscriptions Araméennes d’Idumée au Musée d’Israël (Supplément à Transeuphratène 3; Paris: Gabalda, 1996); André Lemaire, Nouvelles Inscriptions Araméennes d’Idumée II (Supplément à Transeuphratène 9; Paris: Gabalda, 2002).

GRÄTZ The Question of “Mixed Marriages” (Intermarriage)

203

Unfortunately, the actual origin of the inscribed potsherds is a matter of debate. In Lemaire’s judgment they are most likely from Khirbet elQom. Whereas the multiethnic onomasticon of these inscriptions clearly affirms the cohabitation of different ethnic groups in the same vicinity45 during the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods, inscription no. 283 is of especially great interest for the current discussion: as in Elephantine, a temple of YHWH is testified (line 2: byt yhw), and as in Elephantine the “house of YHWH” is mentioned in the context of other sanctuaries and holy places (line 1: byt ‘z’ (= temple of [al-] ‘Uzzâ46; line 5 byt nbw [?] = house of Nabû47; line 3: rpyd’ zy bãn’ “la terasse du térébinthe” could be understood according to Lemaire as an indication of a sanctuary of Qos48). It seems apparent that a group of worshippers of YHWH comparable to those in Elephantine and identified by their given personal names49 lived in close interpersonal relationships with other religious or ethnic groups. However, intermarriage between these groups is not attested so far. 3. Conclusions Coming full circle, the book of Ezra holds an elaborate definition of intermarriage, one which depends on the concept of a “holy people” whose lineage is rooted in pre-exilic times as well as in the way station of the Babylonian captivity. Thus, intermarriage is described as a union with an individual from a group outside of the so-defined holy people; they may be worshippers of the LORD of Israel or not. As demonstrated above, this concept is derived from the Holiness Code and Deuteronomistic motifs, coming close to a tribal conception with a sharp distinction between the insider and the outsider. The patriarchs went hundreds of miles to look for an adequate, that is, agnate, wife. So does the younger Tobit when he marries his agnate cousin. It seems that the book of Ezra applies this idea of an appropriate marriage to the theological entity of the “holy people.” 45. See ibid., 218–23. Lemaire states: “…nous pensons que même s’il faut être très prudent dans l’utlisation de l’onomastique, on ne peut pas ne pas en tenir compte pour établir grosso modo le charactère ethno-linguistique d’une région donnée…” (p. 219, emphasis original). 46. See Lemaire, Nouvelles Inscriptions II, 153–54. 47. On the reading, see ibid., 154. 48. See ibid., 155. 49. See ibid., 220–21, and already Ran Zadok, “A Prosopography of Samaria and Edom/Idumea,” UF 30 (1998): 781–828 (792–821), see also the table on p. 814 where Zadok considers only around 2 to 3 % of the given names to be Jewish.

204

Mixed Marriages

The external evidence of Elephantine, by contrast, shows that the distinctive features of the book of Ezra or even the Torah are obviously unknown to the local Judeans. The cohabitation with foreigners in the narrow “Aramean Quarter” of Elephantine may have encouraged intermarriage, but that was not deemed problematic. Though clear evidence is lacking it may be assumed that the situation in the Edomite area in late Persian and early Hellenistic times resembles that of Elephantine. Around two hundred years after the Elephantine documents, the situation in Lower Egypt was different: there is only sparse evidence for intermarriage, if any at all. There are two aspects for this change. First, the living conditions for ethnic groups like the Jews in Lower Egypt differ from those in Elephantine. They were probably organized in territorial associations like the politeumata which enjoyed subsidiary legal, political, and social autonomy. Therefore, it is not as likely as in Elephantine that individuals would get married to someone from outside of the politeuma. Moreover, the papyri from Herakleopolis use wordings that probably can be labeled as Jewish. Here, and maybe elsewhere, the social entity of a politeuma can be specified as a Jewish politeuma, with Jewish ethical and social attitudes. It is possible that they were aware of the Torah, and indeed some scholars argue that the Torah functions as politikos nomos, that is, the subsidiary law of the politeuma, though this is not provable. At any rate, with the emergence of a Jewish identity and the development and spread of biblical literature, principally the Torah, the Jewish perspective on intermarriage became increasingly influenced by the Bible.

MIXED MARRIAGES AND THE HELLENISTIC RELIGIOUS REFORMS* Armin Lange

In earlier studies,1 I have shown that the question of mixed marriages was at the heart of intercultural disputes in Jewish texts from Persian and Ptolemaic times. In this essay, I want to ask how far Jewish texts that were written during the Hellenistic religious reforms and the Maccabean wars are concerned with the issue of exogamy. This question is an important one, because the impact of the Hellenistic religious reforms of the years 175–164 B.C.E. and the Maccabean wars on the cultural history of Judaism can only be compared with the impact of the Babylonian exile almost 400 years earlier. To answer the questions raised by the crisis of the Hellenistic religious reforms, Jews created an extensive literature. In this respect, the Hellenistic religious reforms are also comparable with the Babylonian Exile. As far as I can see, between four and seven literary works are still preserved from this brief period in the history of Second Temple Judaism, and at least one more is lost but is known to have existed.2 These are: * I am grateful to my assistant, Dr. Nóra Dávid, for her help in editing this article. 1. Armin Lange, “‘Eure Töchter gebt nicht ihren Söhnen und ihre Töchter nehmt nicht für eure Söhne’ (Esra 9,12): Die Frage der Mischehen im Buch Esra / Nehemia im Licht der Textfunde von Qumran,” in Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5) Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie. Festschrift für Bernd Janowski zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. M. Bauks et al.; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008), 295–311; Lange, “ ‘Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons’ (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls,” BN 137 (2008): 17–39 (Part 1); BN 139 (2008): 79–98 (Part 2); Lange, “The Significance of the Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library for the Understanding of the Hebrew Bible: Intermarriage in Ezra/Nehemiah—Satan in 1 Chr 21:1—the Date of Psalm 119,” in Congress Volume: Ljubljana, 2007 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 171–218. 2. Those works for which a date between 175 and 150 B.C.E. is uncertain are marked with a question mark.

206

Mixed Marriages        

Daniel3 Apocalypse of the Weeks (1 En. 93:1–10 + 91:11–17)4 Book of Dreams (1 En. 83–90)5 Jubilees6 Treatise of the Two Spirits (1QS 3:13–4:26)?7 Epistle of Enoch (1 En. 91–105)?8 Book of Giants?9 Jason of Cyrene’s history of the Maccabean war (summarized in 2 Maccabees)10

Given this extensive literary production and the prominent criticism of exogamy in earlier Jewish literature, it is all the more surprising that the issue of intermarriage is less prominent in texts written between 175 and 150 B.C.E. Is it possible that Jewish intermarriages occurred less often during this time of harsh oppression? The book of 1 Maccabees provides an answer for this question. 1 Maccabees 1:15 and the Question of Intermarriage during the Hellenistic Religious Reforms That intermarriages occurred during the Hellenistic religious reforms is shown by 1 Maccabees. This work describes the early phase of the Hellenistic religious reforms in 1 Macc 1:11–15 as follows: 3. For the literary history and the date of the book of Daniel, see, e.g., John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia 27; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 24–71. 4. For the date of the Apocalypse of Weeks, see George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 440–41; Loren T. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108 (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 60–62. 5. For the date of the Book of Dreams, see below. 6. For the date of the book of Jubilees, see below. 7. For the date of the Treatise of the Two Spirits and its character as a literary work in its own right which was incorporated into the Rule of the Community, see Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prädestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prädestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (STDJ 18; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 121–35. 8. For the discussion of the date of the Epistle of Enoch, see Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 211–15. 9. For a date of the Book of Giants between the third century B.C.E. and 164 B.C.E., see Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Book of Giants from Qumran: Text, Translation, and Commentary (TSAJ 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 28–31. 10. For the relationship between 2 Maccabees and the history of Jason of Cyrene, see Helmut Engel, “Die Bücher der Makkabäer,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (ed. E. Zenger et al.; 7th ed.; Kohlhammer Studienbücher 1/1; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 312–28, 324–27.

LANGE Mixed Marriages and the Hellenistic Reforms

207

In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, “Let us go and make a covenant with the nations around us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us.” This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the nations (ἐζευγίσησαν11 τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) and sold themselves to do evil.12

In v. 15, 1 Maccabees uses a word which is rather rare in Greek literature to describe how Jews joined the nations, namely ζευγίζω. Until the early second century C.E. the TLG database13 knows only three occurrences of this word, a love poem from Ptolemaic Egypt (Papyrus Grenfell I.1.1), 1 Macc 1:15, and Aquila’s recension to Num 25:3. While Papyrus Grenfell I.1.114 uses the verb ζευγίζω to describe the union (αἵρεσις) of a pair of lovers,15 Aquila employs ζευγίζω in Num 25:3 to translate the Hebrew verb ‫ צמד‬and to describe how Israel joint with Baal Peor.16 The context of 1 Macc 1:15 allows for both meanings: on the one hand, after 1 Maccabees’ description of the beginnings of the Hellenistic religious reforms, ζευγίζω could mean—as Aquila employs it—that Jews joined the other nations by way of removing their circumcision, that is, by becoming pagan Greeks.17 On the other hand, the statement that the Jews abandoned the holy covenant could close the remarks of 1 Macc 1:15 on Jews who removed their circumcision surgically. In this case, 11. Sc, V, L’, 58, 311 read the passive aorist ἐζεύχθησαν of the verb ζεύγνυμι (see Werner Kappler, Maccabaeorum liber I [ed. R. Hanhart and W. Kappler; 3d ed.; Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990], 50), instead of the rare ἐζευγίσθησαν. This variant reading is to be taken as a later correction of the difficult to understand ἐζευγίσθησαν. 12. Translation according to RSV. 13. Thesaurus Linguae Graeca: A Digital Library of Greek Literature. n.p. [cited May 6th 2010]. Online: http://www.tlg.uci.edu. 14. Bernard P. Grenfell, An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and Other Greek Papyri, Chiefly Ptolemaic (Oxford: Clarendon, 1896). 15. For an English translation of the papyrus, see Stephen Bertman, Erotic Love Poems of Greece and Rome: A Collection of New Translations (London: Penguin, 2005), 48–49. 16. Cf. Frederik Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt; sive, Veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. Post Flaminium Nogilium, Drusium, et Montefalconium, adhibita etiam versione syro-hexaplari, concinnavit, emendavit, et multis partibus auxit Fridericus Field (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1875), 257. 17. Thus, e.g., the interpretation implied by the translation proposed in Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 313, for 1 Macc 1:15: “become allied with.”

208

Mixed Marriages

the verb ζευγίζω—in the sense attested in Papyrus Grenfell I.1.1—would be part of the accusation in 1 Macc 1:15 and would refer to yet another wickedness of the Jews who were on the side of the Hellenizing high priests. Not only did they build a gymnasium and remove their circumcision, thus abandoning the holy covenant, they also joined the nations sexually18 by way of intermarriage. This second interpretation requires a comparison of v. 15 with v. 11. In 1:11, 1 Maccabees uses alternative language to describe apostate Jews who wanted to join the surrounding nations, namely, “Let us go and make a covenant (διαθώμετα διαθήκην) with the nations around us.” In 1:15, 1 Maccabees does not use the figura etymologica διαθώμετα διαθήκην of v. 11, but rather the verb ζευγίζω. Therefore v. 15 does not refer to v. 11 but narrates something new. This means 1 Macc 1:15 reflects the usage of ζευγίζω as attested in Papyrus Grenfell and describes how apostate Jews joined the surrounding nations sexually by way of intermarriage. With regard to Aquila’s use of ζευγίζω in Num 25:3, I think, that Aquila was influenced by 1 Macc 1:15 when he revised the OG text of Numbers about 200 years after 1 Maccabees was written. But Aquila misunderstood the rare word ζευγίζω as referring back to 1 Macc 1:11. For him, ἐζευγίσθησαν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν was in 1 Macc 1:15 just another way to characterize a covenant of Jews with the surrounding nations. If my interpretation of 1 Macc 1:15 is correct, it points to an increased rate of Jewish–Greek intermarriages at the beginning of the Hellenistic religious reforms. While there is no evidence that Antiochus IV enforced such mixed marriages, Jews converting to Greek religion and culture were certainly not scrupulous when it came to marrying non-Jewish women. In which perspective such exogamous marriages might have been perceived during the Hellenistic religious reforms becomes apparent when we consider how intermarriage was judged in the ancient Jewish literature of the third and early second centuries B.C.E. Intermarriages before the Hellenistic Religious Reforms Elsewhere I have discussed extensively the appreciation of intermarriage in Jewish literature from the third century B.C.E.19 Some texts (Esther; 2 Chr 2:3, 17, 34–35; 3:1–2; 4:22) display a positive attitude towards intermarriage, or are at least indifferent (cf. Sir 45:23–26; 47:19–20). But 18. Cf. Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976), 201; Werner Dommershausen, 1 und 2 Makkabäer (2d ed.; NEchtB 12; Würzburg: Echter, 1995), 16. 19. See n. 1. For an extensive survey of Jewish attitudes towards intermarriage from the books of the Hebrew Bible through the Talmudim, see Christine E. Hayes,

LANGE Mixed Marriages and the Hellenistic Reforms

209

the majority of the ancient Jewish texts from the third century B.C.E. clearly reject intermarriage and argue for endogamous unions (Ezra 9– 10; Neh 10:31; 13:23–29; 1QapGen ar VI 6–9, 20; 1 En. 6–36; ALD 1; 6:1–5; 11–12; 11QTa II 11–15; LVII 15–17; LXIII 10–15; Tob 1:9; 3:15; 4:12–13; 6:12–13, 16; 7:10–11). The general prohibition of intermarriage in the third century B.C.E. represents a democratization of priestly law (Lev 21:13–15; Ezek 44:22; Mal 2:11–12) which began already in Persian times (Neh 13:23–29) and responds to the increased cultural pressure of Hellenism. In the late third and early second century B.C.E., a concern for priestly (levitical) endogamy might still be active in the Visions of Amram20 from the Qumran library when this text describes how Miriam was married to her uncle (4QVisions of Amrama [4Q543] 1 5–6).21 Similarly, in the Testament of Qohath,22 Qohath admonishes his son Amram to keep “pure from all intermingling” (4QTQohath ar [4Q542] 1 i 8–9).23 Concerns about mixed marriages are also apparent in two texts about the birth of Noah (1QapGen ar 0-V.27; 1 En. 106–107). Both texts describe Lamech’s doubts about baby Noah’s parentage. Although both texts might have been written later than the middle of the second century B.C.E.,24 it is highly probable that they draw on one or more common Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); for the late Second Temple period, cf. also Christine E. Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92 (1999): 3–36. 20. For a date of the Visions of Amram before the book of Jubilees, see Emile Puech, “Visions de ‘Amram,” DJD 31 (2001): 283–405 (285–87). 21. Cf. William Loader, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in Sectarian and Related Literature at Qumran (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 324–26. 22. The bad stage of preservation of 4Q542 makes it very difficult to date the Testament of Qohath. Its similarities with the ALD, on the one hand, and the Visions of Amram, on the other hand, could point to a time in the early second century B.C.E. For this reason already Józef T. Milik, “Ecrits préesséniens de Qumrân: d’Hénoch à Amran,” in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (ed. M. Delcor; BETL 46; Leuven: University Press, 1978), 91–106 (103), lists the Testament of Qohath among the pre-Essene texts from Qumran. 23. See Loader, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality, 324; cf. Henryk Drawnel, “The Literary Form and Didactic Content of the Admonitions (Testament) of Qahat,” in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en homage à Emile Puech (ed. F. García Martínez et al.; STDJ 61; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 55–73 (69). 24. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, 542; Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 616.

210

Mixed Marriages

sources25 which followed the same story line. When Lamech doubts in both texts that Noah is his son because of his miraculous appearance and suspects that his wife had intercourse with one of the fallen Watchers, this points not only to a cuckold husband but also puts the birth of Noah into the context of the intermarriages between the fallen heavenly Watchers and human women. Similarly, the Book of Giants, which seems to precede the book of Daniel (see above, n. 9), has Enoch forecast the punishment of Watchers and Giants in form of the deluge (4QEnGiantsa ar [4Q203] 8 12–15) because of the Watchers’ fornication (‫ )בזנותכון‬with human women (4QEnGiantsa ar [4Q203] 8 9). In adaptation of an earlier narrative from the Book of Watchers, the mixed marriages of the Watchers are thus the reason which ultimately, after a complaint of the earth (4QEnGiantsa ar [4Q203] 8 7–12), causes the destruction of the world by way of the deluge.26 To conclude so far: 1 Macc 1:15 shows that intermarriages did occur during the Hellenistic religious reforms and probably even at an increased rate. Earlier ancient Jewish literature bears evidence that until the Hellenistic religious reforms such intermarriages were mostly heavily condemned. Intermarriage was perceived as a threat to the cultural and religious identity and integrity of Judaism. But do the texts which were written during the Hellenistic religious reforms regard intermarriages in the same way or did the Hellenistic religious reforms change the attitude of ancient Judaism towards intermarriage? There is surprisingly little evidence to answer this question. Of the Jewish literature composed during the Hellenistic religious reforms and the Maccabean wars, with some degree of certainty, only the Enochic Book of Dreams (1 En. 83–90) and the book of Jubilees engage with the question of intermarriage in various contexts: 1 En. 84:4–6; 86:1–88:1; Jub. 5:1–11; 20:4; 22:20; 25:1–10; 30:7–17. Because of constraints of space I cannot discuss all these texts. To answer my question I will here focus on 1 En. 84:4–6 and Jub. 30:7–17. 25. For 1 En. 106–7 and 1QapGen ar 0-V.27 drawing on a common source, see, e.g., Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, 539–40, and Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 612–13. For a history or research on the issue, see Daniel A. Machiela, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13–17 (STDJ 79; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 9–13. 26. Cf. Stuckenbruck, Book of Giants, 90–93; William Loader, Enoch, Levi, and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007), 84.

LANGE Mixed Marriages and the Hellenistic Reforms

211

Intermarriages in the Enochic Book of Dreams: The Example of 1 Enoch 84:4–6 It is interesting that of the three texts which can be dated to the time of the Hellenistic reforms itself, namely, Daniel, the Apocalypse of Weeks, and the Enochic Book of Dreams, only the Enochic Book of Dreams is concerned with the question of mixed marriages. The Enochic Book of Dreams (1 En. 83–90) knows about the initial victories of Judas Maccabee, expects the eschatological judgment during the life time of Judas Maccabee and does not mention his death. Therefore, a date between 166 and 160 B.C.E. seems most likely.27 Its positive attitude towards Judas Maccabee (cf. 1 En. 90:6–19) makes it likely that at least in its final form the Book of Dreams was written by his supporters. In the Book of Dreams, mixed marriages occur early in its narrative. In its introduction, the Book of Dreams describes how the young Enoch has a vision of the destruction of the earth: Heaven was thrown down and taken away, and it fell down upon the earth. And when it fell upon the earth, I saw how the earth was swallowed up in the great abyss. Mountains were suspended upon mountains, and hills sank down upon hills; tall trees were cut from their roots, and were thrown away and sank into the abyss. (1 En. 83:3–4)28

The catastrophic proportion of this vision exceeds even the flood as it is described in Gen 6–9. Phrases such as “hills sank down upon hills” point to a more universal destruction than a flooding of the earth: “…the cosmos reverts to primordial chaos.”29 The language that the Book of Dreams employs to describe the flood points beyond the flood to the eschaton and the eschatological destructions. The flood functions therefore as a prolepsis of the eschaton in the Book of Dreams. After his vision, the young Enoch is so worried that he utters a lengthy prayer in which he asks God to save a remnant from the earth’s destruction. Both the vision and the prayer of Enoch function as a prologue to the Book of Dreams and set the tone for everything which follows. It is therefore important that, although the vision of 1 En. 83:3–4 does not mention the fall of the Watchers, the story of the fallen Watchers is the only reason for the deluge which Enoch’s prayer gives: 27. Cf. Patrick A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch (SBLEJL 4; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993), 60–82. 28. Translation according to George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 116. 29. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, 349.

212

Mixed Marriages And now the angels of your heavens are doing wrong, and upon human flesh is your wrath until the great day of judgment. And now, O God and Lord and great King, I make supplication and request that you fulfill my prayer, to leave me a remnant on the earth, and not obliterate human flesh, and devastate the earth, that there be eternal destruction. And now my Lord, remove from the earth the flesh that has aroused your wrath, but the righteous and true flesh raise up as a seed-bearing plant forever. And hide not your face from the prayer of your servant, O Lord. (1 En. 84:4–6)30

A comparison of this brief mention with the story of the fallen Watchers in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 6–11) is of interest. In 1 En. 6–11, the Watchers themselves are more in the focus of the story than they are in Enoch’s prayer in 1 En. 84:3. In 1 En. 6–11, the Watchers bring sin to the world. Hence the Watchers and their offspring, the Giants, are punished. With regard to the Book of Watchers, Nickelsburg describes this shift in focus as follows. “The emphasis differs from ch. 9 and chs. 6–11 as a whole, where humanity is the victim of the angelic transgression… Here (i.e. in 1 En. 84:4–5) the association of angelic sin and human guilt is taken for granted.”31 In Enoch’s prayer of 1 En. 84:4–5, human sin and guilt is more important than angelic one. In this reading of the Watcher story, the focus of interest is not the mixed marriages of the Watchers with human women, but the resulting guilt of humans. Similarly in the rephrased version of Gen 6:1–4 in the Book of Dreams (1 En. 86–88), it is not the intermarriage of the fallen Watchers with human women that is in the focus of the Book of Dreams. It is only of importance because it led to the conception of the Giants. What interests the Book of Dreams is the violence the Giants inflicted upon humanity (1 En. 86:5–6) and the corresponding harsh punishment of both Watchers and Giants (1 En. 87–88). First Enoch 86–88 demonstrates thus that although terrible violence is inflicted on the innocents, it never lasts forever and does not go unpunished. This new understanding of the story of the fallen Watchers reflects the changed situation of the Hellenistic religious reforms. Hellenizing Jews and Seleucid oppression brought Judaism to the brink of destruction. As the human guilt which developed out the Watchers’ intermarriage necessitated the punishment of Watchers and Giants and brought along the flood, the events of the Hellenistic religious reforms herald the eschatological destruction and the eschaton itself during the lifetime of Judas Maccabee.

30. Translation according to Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch, 119–20. 31. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, 353.

LANGE Mixed Marriages and the Hellenistic Reforms

213

When Enoch prays in 1 En. 84:4–5 for a remnant to be saved from the flood, this remnant is a prolepsis of those Jews who resisted the Hellenistic religious reforms and supported Judas Maccabee. The Book of Dreams thus has a different interest in the Watcher story than the Book of Watchers. As Enoch prays for a just remnant to survive the flood, so the Book of Dream hopes for a just remnant to survive the Hellenistic religious reforms. It is in the fate of these Jews who resist the Hellenistic religious reforms that the Book of Dreams shows interest. The Book of Dreams does not want to warn about the catastrophic consequences of acculturation by way of intermarriage or otherwise. In symbolic language, the Book of Dreams tells the story of the just and their oppression throughout the history of the world. It thus puts the experiences of the Hellenistic religious reforms into an overall perspective by relating them to the history of Judaism and the oppression of the righteous Jews. In this way, the Book of Dreams draws a line from the beginnings of just life to those Jews who resist the Hellenistic religious reforms. This interest of the Book of Dreams to put the suffering of righteous Jews into a historical perspective explains also why mixed marriages are not mentioned outside the paradigm of the Watcher story in the Book of Dreams. The Book of Dreams is not so much interested in the consequences of actual Jewish intermarriages. It wants to explain the suffering of those who resisted the Hellenistic religious reforms. The dangers of the Hellenistic religious reforms forced pious Jews to deal with more pressing issues than intermarriage. During the Hellenistic religious reforms intermarriage was not much of a problem for the Jewish resistance because it occurred only outside the true remnant of Judaism. Those who intermarried had left Judaism already. In its shifted focus from the intermarriage of the fallen heavenly Watchers to the resulting guilt of humans, the Book of Dreams shows also why the interest in the question of exogamy declined during the Hellenistic religious reforms itself. On the one hand, Judaism needed to deal with the more pressing issues of the Hellenistic religious reforms, which threatened its existence directly. On the other hand, the Book of Dreams is not interested in all of Judaism but only in the remnant of the remaining righteous. Inside this group the issue of intermarriage was not a problem because Jews who married non-Jews were understood to be among the Hellenizers. These Hellenizing Jews had left Judaism already and during the Hellenistic religious reforms they committed more serious crimes against Judaism than intermarriage.

214

Mixed Marriages

Intermarriages in the Book of Jubilees: The Example of Jubilees 30:7–17 Soon after Judaism regained its religious freedom with the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple in 164 B.C.E., and after it reestablished itself as a temple community, concerns about the dangers of intermarriage resurfaced. Evidence for this development can be found in the extensive treatment of the intermarriage issue in the book of Jubilees. Because a comprehensive discussion of the intermarriage issue in the book of Jubilees can be found in the contribution of Christian Frevel to the present volume,32 I will restrict my own deliberations to Jub. 30:1–17 as the key reference to intermarriage in this book. In my opinion, the book of Jubilees can be dated to the time from 166 B.C.E. to roughly 150 B.C.E. A terminus post quem in 166 B.C.E. is given by the reference to the Enochic Book of Dreams in Jub. 4:29. A terminus ad quem is established by the free use of the tetragrammaton outside quotations of Jewish scriptures. Such a free use of the tetragrammaton is attested in ancient Jewish literature only until the middle of the second century B.C.E.33 That the earliest known copy of the book of Jubilees, 4QJuba (4Q216), is dated by way of paleography to the years 125 to 100 B.C.E.34 corroborates this timeframe. Because there is no indication that 4QJuba is the autograph of the book of Jubilees, a paleographic date in the last quarter of the second century B.C.E. makes a terminus ante quem in the middle of this century likely. Jubilees’ great interest in priestly matters, as well as its depiction of Levi as the ancestor of all priests (Jub. 30–32) point to a Levitical35 origin of the book. 32. For further surveys, see Cana Werman, “Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,” HTR 90 (1997): 1–22; Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 73–81; Loader, Enoch, 155–96. 33. Cf. Hartmut Stegemann, “Religionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu den Gottesbezeichnungen in den Qumrantexten,” in Qumrân: Sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (ed. M. Delcor; BETL 46; Leuven: University Press, 1978), 195–217 (216); Stegemann, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΘΕΟΣ und ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ: Aufkommen und Ausbreitung des religiösen Gebrauchs von ΚΥΡΙΟΣ und seine Verwendung im Neuen Testament (Habilitation; University of Bonn, 1969), 173–83; Emile Puech, “Les deux derniers Psaumes davidiques du rituel d’exorcisme, 11QPsApa IV 4-V 14,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 64–89 (80–88). 34. For the paleographic date of 4QJuba (4Q216), see James C. VanderKam and Józef T. Milik, “Jubilees,” DJD 13 (1994): 1–185 (2). 35. Thus Friedemann Schubert, Tradition und Erneuerung: Studien zum Jubiläenbuch und seinem Trägerkreis (Europäische Hochschulschriften 3/771; Bern: Lang, 1998).

LANGE Mixed Marriages and the Hellenistic Reforms

215

Being written in the years between 166 and150 B.C.E., the book of Jubilees attests to significant concerns about intermarriage only a few years after the Jerusalem Temple was rededicated. It engages with the question of exogamy explicitly in Jub. 5:1–11; 20:4; 22:20; 25:1–10 and 30:7–17 and implicitly in several more passages. After Judaism prevailed during the Hellenistic religious reforms against the systematic elimination of Jewish culture and religion by both Temple officials and the Seleucid empire and after the Maccabean resistance eliminated this threat, earlier concerns of conservative religious circles about intermarriage came to the forefront of their worries again. A good example is Jub. 30:1–17. When Jub. 30:1–17 re-narrates the story of the rape of Dinah from Gen 34,36 the book of Jubilees uses this story as a warning against the dangers of intermarriages with the nations. In this interpretative interest in Gen 34, the book of Jubilees resembles earlier texts. Martha Himmelfarb has shown that Jubilees even incorporates passages of the Aramaic Levi Document about Gen 34 as a secondary base text into its retelling of Gen 34.37 In its reading of the Dinah story, Jubilees hence shares in an earlier interpretative tradition about Gen 34. The book of Jubilees summarizes Gen 33:18–34:29 in just four verses (Jub. 30:1–4) and is otherwise mainly concerned with a legal admonition about intermarriages based on the story of Dinah (Jub. 30:5–17). Interestingly enough, the sexual intercourse that Shechem had with Dinah is not rejected because Shechem slept with a 12-year-old girl. According to all modern standards, such an encounter with a young girl can only be regarded as rape and would deserve the harshest punishment any legal system allows for. But Jubilees does not describe the extinction of the Shechemites as a punishment of Shechem’s rape of Dinah. The Shechemites were justly slaughtered according to Jub. 30:2, 3, 5, 6 because Shechem defiled Dinah. The extinction of the Shechemites is a deterrent which guarantees that no one will ever defile an Israelite virgin again. The extinction of the Shechemites is therefore not a punishment for rape in Jub 30, but a measure to ensure the religious purity and sanctity of Israel.

36. For a survey of the interpretative history of Gen 34 in ancient Jewish literature, see James L. Kugel, The Ladder of Jacob: Ancient Interpretations of the Biblical Story of Jacob and His Children (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), 36–80. 37. M. Himmelfarb, “Levi, Phinehas, and the Problem of Intermarriage at the Time of the Maccabean Revolt,” JSQ 6 (1999): 1–24 (3).

216

Mixed Marriages

The main interest of Jubilees lies not in reiterating Gen 34, however. As I have mentioned earlier, it uses only four verses (Jub. 30:1–4) to summarize Gen 33:18–34:29. The book of Jubilees uses Gen 34 to fill a legal gap it perceives in the Torah. While Jubilees strongly objects to Jewish intermarriages, no prohibition of intermarriage as such can be found in the Torah. Exodus 34:14–16 and Deut 7:3 forbid intermarriages for all Israelites but only with the inhabitants of the Promised Land. In Num 25:6–9, Phinehas stops a plague among the Israelites by murdering an intermarried Israelite–Midianite couple. For the sake of endogamy, the patriarchs of the book of Genesis take great care to marry inside their own family. While texts such as these could point to a general rejection of intermarriages in the Torah, no law forbids them explicitly. Such a prohibition of intermarriage is restricted in Lev 21:13–15 to the high priest. The picture becomes even less clear when it is recognized that the Torah does mention various intermarriages (Gen 26:34; 28:6–9; 38:2; 41:45; Exod 2:21). Most prominent among them is Moses’ intermarriage in Exod 2:21. Even some legal passages of the Torah seem to accept intermarriages (Lev 24:10; Deut 21:10–14). While especially Enochic literature develops the rejection of all Jewish intermarriages out of Gen 6:1–4, Jubilees mentions the intermarriage of the fallen heavenly Watchers critically in Jub. 5:1–11, but anchors its legal arguments against all Jewish exogamy in its rewriting of Gen 34. Being a sister of Levi, Dinah is not part of the Israelite priesthood which began only with Levi himself. Her sexual intercourse with Shechem thus provides Jubilees with a legal precedent to reject all Jewish intermarriages. Based on the example of Gen 34, the book of Jubilees therefore develops a legal code about intermarriages out of the Dinah story. Verses 7–12 of this legal code deal with intermarriage between a Jewish woman and a foreign man. Verses 11 and 13–16 generalize this ruling to include also intermarriages between a foreign woman and a Jewish man. The gist of the legal code from Jub. 30:5–17 is this: if an Israelite woman marries a Gentile both, the father who conceded to the marriage and the bride must die. The angel who functions as the first person narrator of the book of Jubilees commands Moses based on his reiteration of Gen 34 as follows: And you, Moses, command the children of Israel and exhort them not to give any of their daughters to the Gentiles and not to take for their sons any of the daughters of the Gentiles because that is contemptible before the Lord. (Jub. 30:11)38 38. Translation according to O. S. Wintermute, “Jubilees (Second Century B.C.): A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:35–142 (113).

LANGE Mixed Marriages and the Hellenistic Reforms

217

Jubilees uses at this juncture language taken from Deut 7:3, putting it into the mouth of the angel: Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods.39 (Deut 7:3–4)

In this way, the book of Jubilees generalizes a prescription of the Torah which originally had only intermarriage with the non-Israelite inhabitants of the Promised Land in mind. All Israelite intermarriages are forbidden. The preceding verse, Jub. 30:10, shows that Jubilees even shares the concern with Deut 7:4 that exogamy provokes the veneration of other Gods: And there is no limit of days for this law. And there is no remission or forgiveness except that the man who caused defilement of his daughter will be rooted out from the midst of all Israel because he has given some of his seed to Moloch and sinned so as to defile it. (Jub. 30:10)40

For Jub. 30:10 it is comparable to child sacrifices to give one’s daughter to a non-Jew. Jubilees thus applies here the prohibition of Lev 18:21 regarding child sacrifice to the question of intermarriage.41 You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. (Lev 18:21)42

Because one partner of an exogamous marriage venerates foreign deities, to marry Jewish children to a foreigner is comparable to sacrificing them to Molech. The children are lost to a foreign deity. But worse, intermarriages also bring the veneration of foreign deities into Judaism itself and defile its holy seed. When Jub. 30:10 qualifies such a violation of Israel’s religious integrity as a defilement it participates in one of the main themes of Jub. 30:5–7. Pervading this small law code as a leitmotif, defilement rhetoric can be found in Jub. 30:5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16. On the one hand, intermarriages defile both the married couple and their parent families (Jub. 30:8, 10). On the other hand, intermarriages defile the whole of

39. Translation according to NRSV. 40. Translation according to Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 113. 41. Cf., e.g., John C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS 18; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987), 135; Werman, Jubilees 30, 11–14; David Rothstein, “Sexual Union and Sexual Offences in Jubilees,” JSJ 35 (2004): 363–84 (383–84). 42. Translation according to NRSV.

218

Mixed Marriages

Israel as a holy seed and its sanctuary as well (Jub. 30:8, 13–15). That intermarriages imply a defilement of Israel and its sanctuary points to the overall consequences of exogamy for Judaism. Hayes explains what concerns the book of Jubilees: Jubilees establishes that the entire nation of Israel is categorically distinct from other peoples, that all Israel are holy priests. Once all Israel is elevated to the status of holy priests (nay, angels!), the application to all Israel of priestly standards of ritual and marital purity is a next logical step.43

Therefore, sexual union with a Gentile is prohibited to lay Israelites by Torah law (Lev 18 and 20) and results in defilement (Gen 34) and profanation (Lev 21) of a variety of sancta.44

The intermarriage interdiction of Jubilees is thus due to a democratization of priestly law to all of Israel.45 Once all Israel is priestly in character, intermarriages imply the veneration of other deities in God’s own priesthood (Jub. 30:10). This compromise of Israel’s religious integrity is hence a defilement of its holy seed. For Jubilees, intermarriage endangers the cultic and religious integrity and identity of Judaism. Therefore, they need to be avoided at all costs, even if this means the extinction of a whole city as in the story of Dinah. As can be seen in Jub. 30:13–15, intermarriages risk the destruction of Judaism: And it is a reproach to Israel, to those who give, and to those who take any of the daughters of the gentile nations because it is a defilement and it is contemptible to Israel. And Israel will not be cleansed from this defilement if there is in it a woman from the daughters of gentiles. For there will be plague upon plague and curse upon curse, and every judgment, and plague, and curse will come. And if he does this thing, or if he blinds his eyes from those who cause defilement and from those who defile the sanctuary of the LORD and from those who profane his holy name, (then) all the people will be judged together on account of all the defilement and the profaning of this one.46

43. 44. 45. 46.

Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 74. Ibid. Cf. Endres, Biblical Interpretation, 133–42. Translation according to Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 113.

LANGE Mixed Marriages and the Hellenistic Reforms

219

Conclusions The Jewish literature written during the Hellenistic reforms displays little interest in the question of intermarriage, although 1 Macc 1:15 attests to Jewish intermarriages during this time. After the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple, however, the book of Jubilees displays a significant interest in the intermarriage problem. Even the Enochic Book of Dreams, the only text written during or shortly after the Hellenistic religious reforms which discusses intermarriages, does not reject intermarriages because they represent a threat to the existence of Judaism. The Book of Dreams discusses a particular passage from the Torah, Gen 6:1–4, because the story of the fallen Watchers provides a paradigm which explains what happens to the Jews suffering from persecution during the Hellenistic religious reforms and what will happen to their persecutors afterwards. The dangers of the Hellenistic religious reforms forced pious Jews to deal with more pressing issues than intermarriage. During the Hellenistic religious reforms, intermarriage was not much of a problem for the Jewish resistance because it occurred only outside the true remnant of Judaism. In the eyes of the religious Jews responsible for the Jewish literature which is preserved from the time of the Hellenistic religious reforms, those Jews who intermarried had left Judaism already before they intermarried to Hellenize. The rededication of the Jerusalem Temple and the relative safety of Jewish existence afterwards led to a different understanding of intermarriages. Different from the Book of Dreams, the book of Jubilees is concerned with all Jewish people and not only with a righteous remnant which will be saved in a time of eschatological destruction. While the Book of Dreams expected the eschaton during the lifetime of Judas Maccabee, Jub. 23 shows that for the book of Jubilees the eschaton is part of a more distant future. Different from the Book of Dreams which did not regard the Hellenizing intermarrying Jews as Jews anymore, Jubilees understands all of Israel as a priestly community. Jews who intermarry become a threat to this priestly identity of Israel because they carry the veneration of other deities into Israel itself. Once Judas Maccabee had stopped the religious persecution of Jews and the Seleucid attempt to eradicate Judaism, intermarriages became therefore for the book of Jubilees one of the most serious threats against the cultic and religious identity and integrity of Judaism.

“SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE GENTILES” (JUBILEES 22:16): INTERMARRIAGE IN THE BOOK OF JUBILEES* Christian Frevel

1. The Book of Jubilees as Part of Early Hellenistic Discourse: Introduction In early Hellenistic Judaism the refusal of mixed marriages was widespread. Its impact has an anti-Hellenistic direction and aims at the development of a distinct Jewish religious identity. Therefore, it is referred to authoritative literature in this context, as Armin Lange has pointed out correctly.1 The same holds true for the book of Jubilees, especially for ch. 30. Jubilees reveals an anti-Hellenistic attitude, be it extro- or introverted,2 which is quite prominent because of its radicalism and the recourse to the biblical texts. Within the Hellenistic discourse on Jewish identity, the book of Jubilees advocates a clear-cut demarcation between Jews and the Gentiles.3 There is hardly any Jewish writing from the second century B.C.E. that is as radical and plain in the call for separation from the nations as the book of Jubilees, which dates from the * An earlier version of this study was presented to the ProPent-Meeting 2009 at Bass Lake (Pretoria). I thank Dirk Human, Jurie le Roux, Eckart Otto and the other participants for helpful comments. 1. See Armin Lange, “ ‘Eure Töchter gebt nicht ihren Söhnen und ihre Töchter nehmt nicht für eure Söhne’ (Esra 9,12). Die Frage der Mischehen im Buch Esra / Nehemia im Licht der Textfunde von Qumran,” in Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie. Festschrift für Bernd Janowski zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. M. Bauks et al.; Neukirchen– Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2008), 295–312 (309). 2. For discussion, see Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology, and Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 37–38, 320–22. 3. Eberhard Schwarz, Identität durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im 2. Vorchristlichen Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Jubiläenbuches (Frankfurt: Lang, 1982), esp. 17–40.

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

221

middle of the second century B.C.E.4 As in most biblical texts, the concept is explicated by a narrative whose plot is a specific re-narration of the biblical account, which forms the frame; Jubilees can be addressed as a sort of narrative halakhic Midrash.5 Thus the narrative can be applied to the early Hellenistic discourse in Jewish identity. Within the book of Jubilees the binary opposition between Jews and Gentiles was constructed and employed in different ways, producing either permeable or impermeable boundaries between the Hellenistic or Hellenized world and the ideally constructed Israel, which may be in fact restricted to Jerusalem. The concept of separation by the prohibition of mixed marriage promoted by Second Temple texts has manifold biblical roots. One quite significant reference is Deut 7:3: “You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters their sons or take their daughters for your sons!” Like Deut 7:3, many biblical texts attest that this multifaceted discourse on a religious “Jewish” identity is, with regard to the texts, closely linked to the problematic of sexual contacts resp. mixed marriages. The rejection of interethnic marriages as unfolded in the book of Jubilees (Jub. 20:4–6; 22:20–22; 25:3–10; 27:8–10; 30:7–17; 34:20–21; 35:14 etc.) is an important part of this concept, referring to, correcting and intensifying biblical traditions (Gen 24; 26:34–35; 27:46–28:9; 34; 36; 38; Exod 34:15–16; Lev 21:7, 9; Num 25:6–13; Deut 7:1–5; Ezra 9:2, 12, 14; 10:10–11; Neh 13:27; Mal 2:10–16 etc.). Thus the book of Jubilees can be placed in the multifaceted discourse on the acceptance and rejection of intermarriages in the (early) Hellenistic period, also represented by Esther, Tobit, the Book of the Words of Noah (1Q20),6 the Book of (the) 4. Regarding the dating of Jubilees, see James C. VanderKam, “The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani et al.; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr, 1997), 14–16; VanderKam, “Recent Scholarship on the Book of Jubilees,” Currents in Biblical Research 6, no. 3 (2008): 405–31 (409); VanderKam, “Jubilees,” in EDSS 1:434–38; Sidnie W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (SDSSRL; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans 2008), 62; Cana Werman, “Jubilees in the Hellenistic Context,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 133–58 (134–35). Werman (p. 157) proposes a later date around 100 B.C.E. 5. See Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Pre-Maccabean Halakhah in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Tradition,” DSD 13 (2006): 348–61 (358); Martha Himmelfarb: “Sexual Relations and Purity in the Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” DSD 6 (1999): 11–36 (11); Segal, Jubilees, 45–46, 317–18; Werman, “Jubilees in the Hellenistic Context,” 158. 6. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary (3d ed.; BibOr 18B; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2004), 76.

222

Mixed Marriages

Watchers (4Q201–206, 1 Hen. 6–11),7 the Testament of Levi (T. Levi 6),8 the Aramaic Levi Document (4Q213–215; 1Q21; CLevBodl.Cam, Koutloumasiou 39),9 the Temple Scroll (4Q524; 11Q19–21) and several other texts.10 The book of Jubilees offers an anti-Hellenistic bias11 similar to that which arose in proto-Sadducean Levitical priestly circles.12 The present study deals with these discourses on mixed marriages in the book of Jubilees by focusing on the reception of the Dinah account in Jub. 30, which is the paramount narrative paradigm regarding the rejection of intermarriage with the Gentiles in post-biblical times.13 This rejection is based on the purity–impurity paradigm as any sexual contacts with foreigners are considered defiling. The discussion of purity in Jubilees will play a background role in this essay, but I will not give special attention to that topic.14

7. Joseph T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 140–41. 8. Jürgen Becker, Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen (2d ed.; JSHRZ 3/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1980), 15–183. 9. James M. Greenfield et al., The Aramaic Levi Document: Edition, Translation, Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2004). 10. See, most recently and extensively, Armin Lange, “ ‘Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons’ (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls,” BN 137 (2008): 17–39 (Part 1), BN 139 (2008): 79–98 (Part 2); Lange, “The Significance of the Pre-Maccabean Literature from the Qumran Library for the Understanding of the Hebrew Bible: Intermarriage in Ezra/Nehemiah—Satan in 1 Chr. 21:1—the Date of Psalm 119,” in Congress Volume: Ljubljana, 2007 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 133; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 171–218. 11. See VanderKam, “The Origins,” 16; Klaus Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen (JSHRZ 2/3; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1999), 298; Schwarz, Identität, 102–11; Werman, “Jubilees in the Hellenistic Context,” 133–36; Segal, Jubilees, 37–38, 320–22. 12. See Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 287; Christfried Böttrich, “Liber Iubilaeorum,” NP (1999): 138–39. Also cf. Liora Ravid, “Purity and Impurity in the Book of Jubilees,” JSP 13, no. 1 (2002): 61–86. Ravid argues for a non priestly anti-Zadokide position with affinity to the Deuteronomistic school. But see the argumentation in VanderKam, “Recent Scholarship,” 418–40. 13. See Cana Werman, “Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,” HTR 90, no. 1 (1997): 1–22 (9); Segal, Jubilees, 292; VanderKam, “Recent Scholarship,” 421. 14. Regarding the purity paradigm which encompasses physical, ritual, moral and genealogical aspects, see Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford:

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

223

With regard to intermarriages Gen 34 has to be considered a nodal point: on the one hand, it reflects the post-exilic/pre-Hellenistic debate on circumcision, conversion and intermarriages with its numerous and varied positions. By taking up, discussing, interpreting, “correcting” and tightening several biblical traditions including the topic of “intermarriage” as well as the identity, resp. boundary-marker “circumcision,” Gen 34 constitutes an “endpoint” resp. a highlight of an inner-biblical development concerning the attitude(s) towards mixed marriages and boundary maintenance. On the other hand Gen 34 has to be considered a starting point regarding the history of reception.15 Therefore it provides a concept for the refusal of mixed marriages, which is frequently referred to in Hellenistic times (e.g. Jubilees, the Testament of Levi, the Aramaic Levi Document etc.) in order to justify a general prohibition of any sexual contact with Gentiles resp. of mixed marriages. Because Jub. 30 provides one of the most popular and explicit recourses to Gen 34, my remarks will concentrate on this narrative and the line of reception in Jubilees. Thus my essay will highlight the discussion as well as the development concerning the assessment of intermarriage from the Persian to the Hellenistic period. Nevertheless, I will start my investigation with a brief look at the Abraham chapters in Jub. 20–22, chapters in which the basics of separation are developed and some benchmarks of the topic of Jub. 30 are already established. Then, after some short introductory remarks on Gen 34, I will focus firstly on the different positions regarding intermarriages and the finally predominant one in Oxford University Press, 2000); Klawans, “Idolatry, Incest, and Impurity: Moral Defilement in Ancient Judaism,” JSJ 29 (1998): 391–415; Christine E. Hayes, “Intermarriages and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92 (1999): 3–36; Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). See further, with regard to the book of Jubilees, Werman, “Jubilees in the Hellenistic Context”; Jacob Milgrom, “The Concept of Impurity in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 16, no. 2 (1993): 277–84; Ravid, “Purity”; James C. VanderKam, “Viewed from Another Angle: Purity and Impurity in the Book of Jubilees,” JSP 13, no. 2 (2002): 209–15; Lutz Doering, “Purity and Impurity in the Book of Jubilees,” in Enoch and the Mosaic Torah: The Evidence of Jubilees (ed. G. Boccaccini and G. Ibba; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 261–75, and the review of positions in Hannah K. Harrington, The Purity Texts (London: T&T Clark International, 2004). 15. See Angela Standhartinger, “ ‘Um zu sehen die Töchter des Landes’. Die Perspektive Dinas in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Diskussion um Gen 34,” in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (ed. L. Bormann et al.; NovTSup 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 89–116.

224

Mixed Marriages

Gen 34. Second, I will look at the reception of Gen 34 in Jub. 30 or, to put it differently, the question of how Jub. 30 refers to Gen 34 and what significant modifications can be found there. It will become apparent that Jub. 30 provides a general ban on intermarriages which in its rationales and explicitness is far beyond the scope of Gen 34 and has a decidedly anti-Hellenistic attitude. Since it is quite interesting that this general prohibition is not founded in the first instance by referring to the explicit prohibitions of Exod 34:12–16 or Deut 7:1–5, but by the recourse to the “Molech passage” in Lev 20:2–5, I will finally propose an explanation for this linkage by taking the Hellenistic “context” and the anti-Hellenistic “scope” of Jub. 30 into consideration. 2. Fornication and Defilement: Setting the Agenda in the Abraham Narrative Within Jubilees’ Abraham narrative the issue is raised for the first time in an explicit mode: when Abraham, who is “recorded a friend of the Lord in the heavenly tablets” (Jub. 19:9), became old and expected his imminent death, three ultimate admonitions are introduced which are all inspired by Gen 24:3–4 and which put increasing importance on the separation from the nations. The first and last one address the topic of interethnic marriages explicitly, and the final testimony to Jacob alludes in some way to the story of Dinah in Jub. 30: (1) In Jub. 20 Abraham gathers his sons and grandsons and demands all his male offspring to guard the way of the Lord (Jub. 20:2) by committing to justice and righteousness, performing circumcision and keeping from all fornication and pollution. This is underlined by a general law uttered in direct speech (Jub. 20:4): “If any woman or girl among you commits a sexual offense, burn her in fire.”16 This general law, which in this form is not attested in the biblical commandments, is a productive interpretation of several biblical pre-texts (Deut 22:23–24; Lev 19:29; 21:9; Num 5:11–31, and Gen 38:24). Especially noteworthy is the sanction to burn the delinquent with fire, instead of a stoning sentence (Deut 22:21, 24). Burning is rare in the Torah: one may be referred to Lev 20:14 where an intra-familial marriage with mother and daughter is

16. Translation by James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees: Translation (CSCO 511 / Scriptores Aethiopici 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), but see Orval S. Wintermute, “Jubilees (Second Century B.C.),” OTP 2:35–142 (93): “And when any woman or girl fornicates among you, you will burn her with fire.” Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Jubilees are by VanderKam.

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

225

prohibited and all persons concerned shall be burnt because of the severity of the issue (‫)זמה הוא‬. Although Jub. 41:25–26, Jubilees’ Tamar account, takes up Lev 20:14, and Jub. 41:28 refers back to the law of Abraham in Jub. 20:4, the special matter seems a bit far away from the more general Jub. 20:4. Leviticus 21:9 appears to be rather close instead: “When the daughter of a priest profanes herself through prostitution (‫)תחל לזנות‬, she profanes her father; she shall be burned to death (‫באש‬ ‫)תשרף‬.”17 If one assumes that Jubilees expands the specific laws regarding the priestly caste on the whole society (as it is the case with regard to mixed marriage), the burning in Jub. 21:4 may be related to Lev 21:9 (see below). The second close parallel is Tamar (in Gen 38:24) who shall be burned (‫ )והוציאוה ותשרף‬because of public fornication (‫)תמר זנתה‬.18 The Tamar account in Jubilees adds the category of pollution: “Bring her out and let her be burned because she has done something impure in Israel” (Jub. 41:17). Especially noteworthy is the combination of stoning and burning in the Dinah narrative in Jub. 30:7. While the man who gives his daughter or sister to the Gentiles shall be stoned, the daughter or sister shall be burned. Because mixed marriages are evaluated as fornication and defilement, the sentence of Jub. 20:4 is applied. In the same way adultery defiles, interethnic marriages make unclean. This will become clear in looking at Jub. 30 below. With “fornication” and “defilement,” Jub. 20:4 introduces key words of the mixed marriage discourse which hint at the Tamar story in Jub. 41 as well as at the Dinah story in Jub. 30. The act of fornication oscillates between adultery and idolatry, which becomes clear in the continuation of the passage. The children of Abraham must not commit idolatry and go after their idols and after their uncleanness (Jub. 20:7). The first textual reference of “their” is Sodom and Gomorrah (Jub. 20:6), but this is only the paramount paradigm of Canaan (Jub. 20:4). Accordingly, the general law to burn the fornicating unmarried woman is followed by the warning against any sexual alliance with her and this is directly combined with the refusal of mixed marriages in a significant way:

17. Translation NRSV. 18. One may discuss whether Judg 15:6 is to be interpreted in a comparable context to Gen 38:24; Lev 21:9. See Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 1811; Christian Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs. Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion (BBB 94/2; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 2:720–21 n. 589.

226

Mixed Marriages they are not to commit sexual offences (by) following their eyes and their hearts so that they take wives for themselves from the Canaanite women, because the descendants of Canaan will be uprooted from the earth.19

By referring to Canaan and especially Sodom and Gomorrah, “fornication” and “pollution” are linked strongly to a certain ethos. It seems obvious that the paradigm of religious imperilment (Exod 34:15–16; Deut 7:3–4; 1 Kgs 11 etc.) is implicitly present and combined with the purity paradigm by the terms “fornication” and “pollution.” Any illicit sexual encounter is regarded as defiling (Jub. 7:21–22; 16:7; 20:4–5; 22:7–8; 30:15; 35:15)20 and especially mixed marriages are potentially (permanently) defiling for the “holy seed.”21 (2) This holds true for the second admonition in Jub. 21, which is addressed to Isaac in the first part and relates to cultic matters surprisingly.22 He is charged to observe the blood taboo and he shall be pure in all cultic acts and times (Jub. 21:16). After that, in vv. 21–23, he is committed to separate from the nations: I see, my son, that all the actions of mankind (consist of) sin and wickedness and all their deeds of impurity, worthlessness, and contamination. With them there is nothing that is right. Be careful not to walk in their ways or to tread in their path… Depart from all their actions and from all their impurity. Keep the obligations of the most high God…

Again, the behavior of the Gentiles is devaluated with categories of purity as defilement, pollution and contamination, and Isaac is encouraged to avoid any contact. Because the admonition is addressed to Isaac, who is married already to Rebecca, the issue of intermarriage takes a back seat for a while. Nevertheless, it is implicitly present within the scheme of preference (Jacob) and discrimination (Esau) which is reported several times in the whole chapter (cf. Jub. 21:15–31). 19. On the enlarged interpretation of desire as fornication, see Matt 5:26 and its Hellenistic background in Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1. Teilband (EKK; Zurich: Benzinger, 1985), 264–65, and Klaus Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu I (WMANT 40; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972), 246–47. 20. Cf. William R. Loader, Enoch, Levi and Jubilees on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in the Early Enoch Literature, the Aramaic Levi Document, and the Book of Jubilees (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007); Loader, “Jubilees and Sexual Transgression: Reflections on Enochic and Mosaic Tradition,” Henoch 31, no. 1 (2009): 48–54. 21. Cf. the phrase “holy people” in Jub. 16:19; 22:12; 33:20–21 and “holy seed” in Jub. 16:17–18, 26; 22:27; 25:4, 12, 18, cf. further 31:14–15. 22. The material in this chapter has parallels in the Aramaic Levi, see VanderKam, Jubilees, 56.

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

227

(3) The final testimony of Abraham focuses on Jacob in Jub. 22. He is blessed to be a “holy people” (Jub. 22:12) and all the blessings of Adam and Noah shall rest on his seed (Jub. 22:13). Jacob is especially committed to the regulations of Abraham (Jub. 22:15) which refers back among others to Jub. 20:4–5 (see above). This becomes clear in the following verse: Separate from the nations, and do not eat with them. Do not act as they do, and do not become their companion, for their actions are something that is impure and all their ways are defiled and something abominable and detestable. (Jub. 22:16)

The proscription of table fellowship resorts evidently to the prohibition of alliance in Exod 34:15–16 and the narrative in Num 25 (especially 25:2). Both associate the sacrificial communion with the connubium in a significant way. The abominations of the nations are further substantiated by the inclusion of other references: Deut 26:14 (‫ ;)נתן למת‬32:17 (‫יזבחו‬ ‫ ;)לשדים‬Ps 106:28 (‫ ;)זבחי מתים‬Ps 106:35–37 (esp. ‫ויזבחו את־בניהם‬ ‫ ;)ואת־בנתיהם לשדים‬Isa 65:4 (‫)קברים‬, with the idol polemics of Pss 115:4–8; 135:15–18 (equation of idolaters with the incapability of the idols); Jer 10:3, 5, 15 (‫ )הבל‬and Jer 2:27; 3:9 (‫)עץ ואבן‬. Thus, Jub. 22:17–18 states: They offer their sacrifices to the dead and they worship demons. They eat in tombs, and everything they do is empty and worthless. They have no mind to think, and their eyes do not see what they do and how they err in saying to (a piece of) wood: “You are my Lord; you are my deliverer.” (They have) no mind.

As in Jub. 20, assimilation to the nations is associated with idolatry and defilement. Especially Jacob is warned against becoming a companion of the Gentiles. This is certainly because of his figurative identity with Israel, but may also already hint at the situation in Shechem narrated in Jub. 30. In Jacob’s case, the abominations are colorfully emphasized and he is notably directed toward the guidance of the Lord, who shall turn him from all the impurities of the nations (Jub. 22:19). Two possibilities explain why Jacob seems to be eminently in need of that support: he has to turn outside the land because of his courtship for Rachel and Lea with Laban in Mesopotamia (Gen 28–33, cf. Jub. 24–29) or because of his encounter with the Shechemites in the Dinah affair (Gen 34, cf. Jub. 30). That the latter is already in mind may become obvious when looking more closely at the passage and comparing Jub. 22 with Jub. 25 and Jub. 30. First, one has to note that the mixed marriage topic is subsequently stressed in the testimony of Isaac:

228

Mixed Marriages Be careful, my son, Jacob, not to marry a woman from all the descendants of Canaan’s daughters, because all of his descendants are (meant) for being uprooted from the earth. (Jub. 22:20)

The commandment is not given by Isaac, as it is in Gen 28:1–2 (cf. Jub. 27:7–10), but by Abraham shortly before his death (Jub. 23:2) and is thus highlighted with special emphasis. It is exactly this commandment to which Jub. 25:5 and other passages refer. Once more it is substantiated by the allusion to the moral inferiority of the sons of Canaan especially by referring to their idolatrous practices, which are put on the same level with sexual deviations represented by the Sodom narrative (Jub. 22:21–22). Concerning the imperative of endogamy, Jacob is totally obedient, as can be seen in the dialog with his mother Rebecca (Jub. 25). Because of her disgust, caused by the presence of Esau’s wives (again associated with impurity, fornication and lust), she underlines the desire for Jacob’s endogamy in Jub. 25:1–3. Jacob answers with reference to the demand of Abraham (Jub. 22:20) in Jub. 25:5. His righteousness and obedience is referenced comprehensively throughout the book of Jubilees (see, for instance, Jub. 31 or the Reuben affair in Jub. 33:7–9). Apart from his attitude against his brother (which is accepted entirely in the book of Jubilees), the only passage in which Jacob’s active righteousness is overshadowed by passiveness is the account on Gen 34 in Jub. 30. Although the book of Jubilees is far from criticizing Jacob, as the Hebrew Bible does implicitly in the rebuke of Simeon and Levi in Gen 34:30 (cf. Jub. 30:25), and although Jacob seems to agree with the harsh punishment of the Shechemites, he remains inactive in the Dinah story, while his sons are proactive. This may be seen as a compromise between unavoidable sin and justified revenge. It may become intelligible if one resumes the election of his seed as reported in the testimony of Abraham in Jub. 22. In this context Jub. 22:14 is quite remarkable: “May he purify you from all filthy pollution so that you may be pardoned for all the guilt of your sins of ignorance.” Which issue is addressed by the purity terminology and what are the transgressions which he has committed ignorantly? Is this meant only generally? One may read this statement also as an anticipation of Jacob’s passiveness in the Shechem affair in Jub. 30 from which God shall withdraw. The revenge of Simeon and Levi against the Shechemites is displayed as exemplary regarding the separation from the nations in Jub. 30 and is evaluated significantly in the heavenly record (Jub. 30:23). According to Jub. 30:25, the proactive intervention of the sons of Jacob

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

229

caused merciful preservation of Jacob by God. Hence, the action of Simeon and Levi can be seen as God’s providence in favor of Jacob as requested by Abraham in Jub. 22. In sum: The Abraham testimonies in Jub. 20–22 set the agenda regarding the rejection of interethnic marriages in the book of Jubilees. The issue is implemented within the frame of the demand for separation. Therefore the ethos of the Gentiles is demonstrated to be inferior throughout the text, using the highly charged domain of sexuality. By forming the key concepts of fornication, adultery, defilement and sexual deviation any sexual contact with foreigners is regarded as violation of Abraham’s laws and as a challenge to the blessing of election. The development of the argument in Jub. 20–22 was characterized by a productive, transformative and additive reception of several biblical pre-texts. Jubilees 20 and 22 already allude to the Dinah-story, which forms the core of the mixed marriage thread in Jubilees, and significant aspects are predetermined in these chapters. Thus, the foundation for the evaluation of the proactive intervention of Simeon and Levi is already laid here. Before turning to the central aspects of the Dinah story and some significant transformations of Gen 34 in Jub. 30, we must introduce briefly the mixed marriage topic in Gen 34. 3. Some Introductory Remarks on Genesis 34 Genesis 34, the so-called Rape of Dinah, presents one of the most troubling stories in the book of Genesis. The readers are challenged to deal with rape and apparently treacherous slaughter: sexual and political violence are intertwined. The narrative opens with Jacob’s daughter Dinah being raped and thereby becoming defiled by Shechem, the son of the local ruler Hamor (vv. 2, 5). Hamor proposes marriage for Dinah and Shechem, as well as a general policy of intermarriage between the two peoples (vv. 8–10). Dinah’s brothers, who are distressed and angered by the “outrage” committed by Shechem (v. 7), seemingly accept this proposal, answering that intermarriage in general is fine, but only on condition that the Shechemites all undergo circumcision (vv. 14–24). While the Shechemites are recovering from their circumcision, Simeon and Levi kill all the males and the other sons of Jacob plunder the town (vv. 25– 29). Jacob upbraids Simeon and Levi for their actions, which endangered Jacob’s status in the land (v. 30), but Simeon and Levi are unrepentant. The story concludes with their question, “Should he treat our sister like a whore?” (v. 31), which underlines the rejection of intermarriages by

230

Mixed Marriages

pointing out Dinah’s lasting degradation in social status.23 This narrated conflict seems to be consistently dominated by the notion that interethnic contacts, and especially interethnic sexual contacts, are fraught with problems (except for the special case of the martial law, cf. Gen 34:29; Deut 21:10–14). Furthermore, an ethical dilemma concerning collective penalty, social status resp. honor and Dinah’s humiliation is evoked. Is it acceptable to use violence as punishment of misdoing on the one hand and as political instrument to prevent certain mixtures on the other hand? In the scholarly discussion, Gen 34 is mainly analyzed with regard to its complex literary history24 and to the understanding of the sexual assault (rape vs. abduction marriage).25 I will not deal with these undoubtedly important topics here. Without marginalizing the “rape” of Dinah, I would like to propose a reading of Gen 34 which concentrates on the aspect of mixed marriages. In its final form Gen 34 is a complex postexilic text which is already close to a halakhic Midrash. The application of several commandments of the Torah to Gentiles is checked: Gen 17; Exod 22:15–16; 34:15–16; Num 31, and more intensively Deut 7:3–5; 22:21, 28–29. The focus is on the following question: “How are

23. See Christian Frevel, “Gen 34,31—‘Ein stolzes Wort!’?,” in Fragen wider die Antworten: Festschrift für Jürgen Ebach zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. K. Schiffner et al.; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2010), 194–209. 24. The discussion on the growth of Gen 34 is very diverse. The recent commentaries adhere to a Yahwistic (Horst Seebass) or Elohistic (Lothar Ruppert) text level; cf. Horst Seebass, Genesis 2: Vätergeschichte (23,1–36,43) (Neukirchen– Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999), 418–35, and Lothar Ruppert, Genesis. Ein kritischer und theologischer Kommentar. 3. Teilband: Gen 25,19–36,43 (Forschung zur Bibel 106; Würzburg: Echter, 2005), 417–58. John Van Seters takes a into account a Priestly reworking of his Yahwist, cf. John Van Seters, “The Silence of Dinah (Genesis 34),” in Jacob: Commentaire à plusieurs voix de / Ein mehrstimmiger Kommentar zu / A Plural Commentary of Gen. 25–36. Mélanges offerts à Albert de Pury (ed. J.-D. Macchi et al.; Le Monde de la Bible 44; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2001), 239–47 (240). Andreas Ruwe (“Beschneidung als interkultureller Brauch und Friedenszeichen Israels. Religionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu Genesis 17, Genesis 34, Exodus 4 und Josua 5,” ThZ 64, no. 4 [2008]: 309–42 [340]) opts for a post-priestly date and states: “Eine gewisse Tendenz in der neueren Forschung betrachtet Gen 34 als einen relativ späten Text im Rahmen der Jakob-Erzählungen” (see p. 337). 25. I will not go into the broad discussion whether the category of rape is appropriate; see Lyn M. Bechtel, “What if Dinah Was Not Raped? (Genesis 34),” JSOT 62 (1994): 19–36 (27–28); Frank M. Yamada, Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three Rape Narratives (Studies in Biblical Literature 109; New York: Lang, 2008).

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

231

interethnic sexual contacts and their consequences to be dealt with?” For instance: must one to apply the legislation on rape in Deut 22:28–29 if the perpetrator is a foreigner? In Gen 34 this problem is linked to sexual (sexual violence), social (honor), socio-economic (bride-price), sociallegal (forced marriage), religious (circumcision, or rather conversion) and ethic (murder) aspects—and in this culmination or combination, respectively, it is unique within the scope of biblical texts dealing with intermarriages. In its final form Gen 34 represents a generally restrictive attitude towards interethnic sexual contacts and more specifically mixed marriages, since de facto the position of Simeon and Levi is established at the end. Their radical refusal of interethnic marriages is not explicitly substantiated in the text, but implicitly founded by the recourse to, the dispute over, the interpretation and the tightening of several biblical traditions (cf. e.g. the various patterns for justification in Gen 34: the [social] status, the purity, and the holiness of Israel). Although the refusal is exemplarily accomplished regarding the marriage of an Israelite maiden with a foreign man, and although Gen 34:29 implies marital relations with foreign woman according Deut 21:10–14, the direction of impact is quite clear: a radical refusal of every interethnic sexual relation. In doing so Gen 34 sheds light on the polyphonic post-exilic/pre-Hellenistic discourse on intermarriage. 4. Genesis 34 within the Post-Exilic/Pre-Hellenistic Discourse on Intermarriage Understanding Gen 34 in its final form as a “halakhic” discourse on interethnic (sexual) contacts resp. intermarriages, we have to raise the question of which attitudes towards intermarriages are attested by Gen 34 within this post-exilic/pre-Hellenistic discussion. As already indicated, in Gen 34 those various attitudes are closely linked to the question of circumcision. The demand for circumcision does not only function as a narrative device in order to enable the trickery initiated by Jacob’s sons, but has to be seen as a central topic of the narrative which is considered as a non-indispensable, an indispensable or an irrelevant precondition for Dinah’s marriage with her rapist. Therefore, Gen 34 turns out to be a discourse on possible preconditions for intermarriages. Three different attitudes can be found in the narrative—a favorable, a permissive, and a restrictive one. These will be discussed here in turn. First, the position of Shechem and his father Hamor, who represent a proactive attitude towards intermarriages: for Shechem, the sexual assault against Dinah is not very problematic at all. From his point of

232

Mixed Marriages

view Dinah’s defilement can be rescinded by marriage (cf. Gen 34:3–4) and the payment of an appropriate bride-price (cf. Gen 34:11–12). Shechem and Hamor do not mention any resistance or preconditions concerning this marriage. According to their opinion interethnic marriages are no problem. This is underlined by the general demand for intercultural marriages in Gen 34:9 and its replication in Gen 34:21. Both are linguistically related to Deut 7:3 and Exod 34:16. In Gen 34:23 the Shechemites point out that interethnic marriage exclusively entail benefits (e.g. economic advancement). Second, the position of Jacob who stands for a permissive attitude towards mixed marriages: although his stance on Dinah’s “rape” and on exogamous intercultural marriages in general is not explicitly mentioned in the text, a permissive attitude towards mixed marriages is implied by Jacob’s inactivity and his silence in view of Dinah’s defilement (Gen 34:5), his uncommented acceptance of the capture of women and his reaction to the murder of the Shechemites and the depredation of the city. In this context Jacob intervenes for the first time and accuses Simeon and Levi of jeopardizing by their actions the survival of the entire clan. He fears the revenge of the Canaanites. From Jacob’s point of view the circumcision of Shechem and the following wedding seem to be adequate requirements resp. sufficient preconditions for approving an interreligious marriage which reestablishes the lost honor. Therefore Jacob’s behavior implies a legal position which states that Deut 22:28–29, with its claim for marriage and a payment of compensation, can also be employed on intercultural premarital, and in the case under consideration, enforced sexual contacts.26 Maybe his silence with regard to Shechem’s and Hamor’s offer hints at a neutrality of the position represented by Jacob, which neither rejects intercultural marriage in general, nor euphorically welcomes it. This attitude could be called a rather pragmatic one. Third, we can identify the position of Simeon and Levi, who represent a restrictive attitude towards intercultural resp. interreligious marriages. Sexual contacts with foreigners are considered a violation of the social integrity of the involved clan (cf. Gen 34:7). Bearing in mind Deut 22:21 resp. 2 Sam 13:12–13, it appears to be evident that, following this line of argument, Dinah became unmarriageable because of Shechem’s actions. On condition that a marriage with Shechem is excluded on principle, this has to be considered a defilement of Dinah and a violation of the honor of Jacob’s clan. Therefore the proposal of the circumcision as 26. For Exod 22:15–16, in addition to Deut 22:28–29, cf. the terminus technicus φερνή in Gen 34:12 LXX. See recently Stefan Schorch, “Hellenizing Women in the Biblical Tradition,” BIOSCS 41 (2008): 3–16 (8–11).

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

233

precondition for marriage (Gen 34:14–17) has been designed by Dinah’s brothers as a ruse (‫ )מרמה‬from the start. Simeon and Levi never did even take into consideration that the circumcision could function as a precondition for an intercultural marriage and that the defilement could be rescinded in that way. In their opinion Dinah has been treated like a prostitute (Gen 34:31). For a harlot extramarital sexual contacts do not affect or more specifically denigrate her social status. But the brothers claim implicitly: Dinah is a daughter instead. Because Dinah was subordinated to patriarchal power of direction and custody, her honor is permanently compromised and Jacob’s honor impacted as well. This prompts an ethnic affair: the Shechemites are killed just like the Midianites in Num 31:7–12, where the interethnic illegitimate sexual relationship between Zimri and Cozbi (cf. Num 25:7–8; 31:16) functions as the rationale for the Midianite war. Simeon and Levi’s attitude does not establish the ban on exogamous intercultural marriages, but calls for it. Three Deuteronomic laws resp. legal issues (Deut 22:28–29; 20:14; 21:10–14, respectively) which implicitly include the possibility of exogamous marriages are interpreted and specified. Using the example of the “raped” Dinah, the final-form of the text of Gen 34 discusses whether Deut 22:28–29 can be applied to intercultural resp. interreligious marriages of daughters on condition of the conversion (expressed by the circumcision). The answer that is given by the text differentiates between the proposal of marriage after a dishonoring rape and the marriage of female prisoners of war. The former is explicitly and exclusively—even on condition of circumcision—prohibited. But including the note of the deprivation of the Shechemite women and children (Gen 34:29), it is implicitly stated by using the example of the Shechemite’s punishment (cf. Deut 20:14) that an exogamous marriage is acceptable for female captives and under-age female children. Concerning the legal principles, this attitude is (apart from the demand for virginity) identical to Num 25:16–18; 31:7–12, 18. It is important to state that Gen 34 is only one voice within the polyphonic post-exilic discourse on mixed marriages. It takes up three different positions of this discourse, trying to demonstrate that its own is the right and legal one. Although it reflects three different positions within this discourse—a proactive one, a permissive one, and a restrictive one—its concluding appraisal is definitive: in its final form the text represents a firm disclaiming attitude towards interethnic marriages of Israelite women—the position of Simeon and Levi is de facto established and implemented. Deuteronomy 22:28–29 is applied in so far as it is stated that the payment of compensation for the father of the raped daughter only comes into use within the context of intra-ethnic marriages.

234

Mixed Marriages

Simeon and Levi’s attitude is not founded in the text, but furthermore morally charged by ‫ טמא את דינה‬and the final question: ‫הכזונה יעשה‬ ‫את־אחותנו‬. Thus the latter is linked to the paradigm of purity, which forms the background of the rejection. Although the term ‫( טמא‬Gen 34:5, 13, 27) has a cultic connotation, it often functions as a terminus technicus in the context of mixed marriage texts signifying illegitimate and mostly extramarital sexual contacts. ‫ טמא‬does not refer to a ritualcultic impurity here, but labels a state which is generated by extramarital and any kind of morally reprehensible sexual contacts. By using this term, the relationship between Shechem and Dinah is significantly marked as illegitimate. The “rape” of Dinah by Shechem is classified as prohibited premarital sexual intercourse. The degradation of Dinah’s status is durable and cannot be revoked by the payment of compensation (cf. Deut 22:28–29) because it concerns interethnic contacts. It is not by chance that Simeon and Levi are the main protagonists with regard to the punishment of the Shechemites. Especially Levi represents the radical rejection of interethnic exogamous marriages (cf. Num 25:6–9; Mal 2). As has been demonstrated, Gen 34 cannot be dismissed from the postexilic discourse on mixed marriages. The restricted attitude, which is mainly promoted and forced by priestly circles, is based on an ideology of separation of Israel as chosen people from the other nations especially promoted by the book of Leviticus (Lev 20:24–26). The purity regulations of the priests shall be transferred to all people. Therefore, Lev 19:29; 21:1–5 and Lev 21:14, as well as the supposed holiness of Israel in general, are to be considered in the background of the narrative. Even those aspects, the purity and the holiness of Israel, will play a significant role within the reception of Gen 34 in Jub. 30 and expose a “shift” in the patterns for justification of the ban on intermarriages. I will now turn to this reception, first looking at the rough structure and then pointing at the significant modifications between Gen 34 and Jub. 30. 5. The Reception of Genesis 34 in Jubilees 30: Baselines and Significant Modifications The narrative of Gen 34 is referred to explicitly merely in the framework of the chapter in Jub. 30:1–4, 23–26. In the Jubilees version the significantly modified narrative has an extensive parenetic-halakhic justification of Simeon’s and Levi’s actions inserted into vv. 6–22. This halakha establishes a general prohibition of mixed marriages which is assigned to the “heavenly tablets.” Verses 5–6 bridge the narrative and the interpreting passage with a general prohibition. The verses are arranged in a concentric order:

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees A:

235

Nothing like this is to be done anymore from now on—to defile an Israelite woman. B1: For the punishment had been decreed against them in heaven B2: that they were to annihilate all the Shechemites with the sword,

C:

since they have done something shameful in Israel. B2′: The Lord handed them over to Jacob’s sons B1′: for them to uproot them with the sword and to effect punishment against them

A′:

and so that there should not again be something like this within Israel—defiling an Israelite virgin.

The deed of Simeon and Levi is authorized and the motif of honor and shame (cf. Gen 34:7, 31) is put into the centre of the Jubilees narrative. After interpreting the heavenly demand of punishment (vv. 5b, 6), the halakha generalizes the prohibition of intermarriage and imposes the death penalty for the father or brother (stoning v. 7a) and the daughter or sister (burning v. 7b) involved with this misdeed. The responsibility of the father is consistent (Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3);27 only if his responsibility has ended with death must the brothers assume this duty. It is important to note that the shift of the story’s setting and of Jacob’s attitude prevents him from being included in the verdict of v. 7. Had the permissive attitude in Gen 34 regarding a marriage with Shechem been adopted, Jacob would be a man who “wishes to give his daughter to a foreigner.” According to the legacy promoted by Jubilees he should be stoned. Yet, as noted above, Dinah was seduced by the Shechemites and defiled by Shechem, and Jacob is completely in line with his sons regarding the anger about that (Jub. 30:3). Thus he was threatened but did not consent. However, the sentencing of a father for giving away his daughter to the Gentiles already has a “hypotext” in Lev 20:2–5, especially if one assumes a figura etymologica ‫ מות יומת‬in the original Hebrew text, which is followed in Jub. 30:7 by the stoning sentence as in Lev 20:2 (‫)ירגמהו באבן‬.28 As has been noted above, the sentence of burning refers back to Jub. 20:4 and thus Jub. 30 is linked to the paramount exhortation of Abraham. Compared to Jub. 20:4, the emphasis on Lev 21:9 is distinct. In Lev 21:9 a priest’s daughter (‫ )בת איש כהן‬is sentenced to death because she has desecrated her father (‫ )את־אביה היא מחללת‬by illicit sexual relations (‫)כי תחל לזנות‬. The proximity to Jub. 30:7 is obvious: the profanation of the sanctity of the priestly father correlates 27. Cf. Gen 24:3, 37; Neh 10:31; 13:25; Ezra 9:12; differently Gen 27:46; Judg 3:6; Ezra 9:2; 1 Kgs 11:1–2. 28. Cf. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 471.

236

Mixed Marriages

with the pollution of the name of the Israelite father’s house29 by a daughter who enters into an intercultural marriage. Mixed marriages are interpreted as illegitimate sexual relations and one considered to be morally no different than adultery, fornication or incest.30 Following Jub. 30, intermarriage is not only an improper mixing with foreign people, but concerns the very core of Israel: its holiness. Israel is considered “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6, cf. Jub. 16:18; 30:8; 33:20).31 According to Hayes, Jubilees establishes that the entire nation of Israel is categorically distinct from other peoples, that all Israel are holy priests. Once all Israel is elevated to the status of holy priests (nay, Angels!), the application to all Israel of priestly standards of ritual and marital purity is the next logical step.32

Accordingly, all regulations which are related to the particular priestly state are applied to the whole people.33 Mixed marriages affect the status of “holiness,” not because of “purity” and “holiness” are fully convertible sizes here, but rather because “holiness” reveals the status of election and segregation. Any “impurity” is considered as being contrary to that manner. It is this conceptual mélange which makes it problematic to 29. G renders τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῆς (cf. also 4Q213a). If one may assume the reading of ‫ בית אב‬in 4Q26a attesting Lev 21:9 or perhaps a combination of G and 4Q26a, the link of Jub. 30:7 to Lev 21:9 would be all the more conclusive. 30. Cf. further Jub. 33 and Jub. 41:25–27. ‫ זנה‬may comprise not only sexual activity but marital relations as well. Cf. 4QMMT B 75–82; 4Q513 Frag. 2; T. Levi 9:9–10. See Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 1805–6; Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 82–87. The linkage between Jub. 30 and Lev 21:7, 9 would be the more convincing if Jubilees would have known the Aramaic Levi Document, 4Q213a (= 4QLevib Frag. 3–4) resp. the traditions behind it. For a discussion of this fragmentary text, see Greenfield et al., Aramaic Levi; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1989), 220–21; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Some ‘Qumranic’ Observations on the Aramaic Levi Document,” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism (ed. C. Cohen et al.; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 393–401 (400). 31. Segal, Jubilees, 279–81; Schwarz, Identität, 93, 95; John C. Endres, “Prayers in Jubilees,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L. LiDonnic and A. Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 31–47, 170. 32. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 74; cf. John C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (CBQMS 18; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987), 139–40. 33. Cf. the Damascus Document or the Temple Scroll. See Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 471; cf. further Harrington, Purity Texts.

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

237

differentiate between ritual, moral, and genealogical aspects of purity. “The demarcation of types of impurity should (thus) not be too rigid.”34 As already coined in Jub. 20, mixed marriages are associated with adultery and defilement. Compared to Jub. 20–22 it is striking that v. 8a adds the explicit substantiation to the prohibition “because Israel is holy to the Lord” (cf. Jub. 22:12, 27). Any transgression shall be sentenced (v. 8b) as recorded in the tablets of heaven (v. 9), because otherwise “there is no remission or forgiveness” (v. 10). It is important to note that already v. 8b relates the defilement of mixed marriages to the sanctuary of the Lord just as vv. 15, 17 do explicitly.35 Intermarriages are considered as severe infractions which affect not only the couple and the immediate family, but also the whole congregation and the centre of holiness: they defile the sanctuary and profane the name of the Lord (v. 15). According to Berger, “Die Mischehe ist daher als direkte Befleckung der Heiligkeit des Tempels verstanden.”36 This interpretation is a key for the understanding not only of the prohibition but also of the reference to Lev 20:2–5: ‫כי מזרעו נתן למלך למען טמא את־מקדשי ולחלל את־שם קדשי‬

The defilement of the sanctuary is not caused by direct contact or an actual transgression of the real boundaries of the holy precinct. It is the permanent moral defilement caused by intermarriage which defiles the sanctuary rather than the physical impurity of the Gentiles. The holiness of the sanctuary is strongly linked to the holiness of the people. This conception is already present in biblical texts such as Num 19:13, 20 or Lev 15:31: The Pentateuch presents three types of acts or processes that defile the sanctuary from afar: offering progeny to Molech, an offense expunged by stoning the offender; corpse defilement, punished by excision unless one makes atonement; and failure to make expiation after a genital discharge, which one can rectify through purification rites, including sacrifice. Of the three scriptural cases, only the first admits no possibility of absolution through purification. The sole corrective is the physical removal of the sinner from the nation.37 34. Doering, “Purity and Impurity,” 272. 35. The Latin text attests the pronoun eum, which is assumed in most translations (see Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 472; VanderKam, Jubilees, 194), but usually related to Israel. A singular pronoun is attested in v. 10 in the Ethiopic Ge’ez text. That all these references should not be related to Israel becomes clear from vv. 15 and 17, where the defilement of the sanctuary is addressed. 36. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 473. 37. Werman, “Jubilees 30,” 14.

238

Mixed Marriages

Thus the pollution caused by intermarriage cannot be solved by purity rituals (Jub. 30:10, 14, 16). Yet the impurity is not merely “moral,” as can be seen in the defilement of the sanctuary. Two times it is underlined that the man who causes defilement by giving away his daughter to the Gentiles has to die (v. 9), and the sanction is justified in the heavenly tablets: “for this is the way it has been ordained and written on the heavenly tablets regarding any descendant of Israel who defiles (it).” The reference to the heavenly record, which is a specific form of authorization in the book of Jubilees, occurs four times in Jub. 30:9, 19, 20, 22.38 F. García Martínez identifies five categories of usage of the phrase: (1) tablets of the law (Jub. 3:9–11; 4:5; 16:3–4; 33:10–12), (2) heavenly register of good and evil (Jub. 19:9; 30:19–22), (3) predestinating records (Jub. 5:13–14; 16:9; 24:33; 23:32; 31:32; 32:21–22), (4) calendar and feast (Jub. 6:17, 28–29, 30–35; 18:19; 32:27–29; 49:8), and finally (5) introducing new halakhot (Jub. 3:31; 4:32; 15:25; 28:6; 30:9; 32:10– 15).39 Within the wide array of usage the last category is most interesting for the interpretation of Jub. 30. As García Martínez notes, “The HT [Heavenly Tablets] constitute a hermeneutical recourse which permits the presentation of the ‘correct’ interpretation of the Law, adapting it to the changing situations of life.”40 This hermeneutical recourse is rather aiming at interpretation or at additional aspects than at a substitution of the law. “The authority of the HT (Heavenly Tablets) is invoked anew for the imposition of a halakha which has no biblical basis.”41 The new aspect of the halakha in Jub. 30 is the application of Lev 20:2–5 to intermarriages and their association with Molech worship. The general prohibition is thus authorized and characterized as already given in the heavenly Torah. In vv. 7–9 the prohibition is skillfully generalized by forming an intertwining cluster, as is shown in the following figure:

38. The combination of ordinance and scripting occurs also in Jub. 5:13; 6:17; 15:25–26; 16:3; 18:19; 28:6. Jub. 5:15; 32:16 are comparable. Jub. 3:10; 4:5; 32:21, 28 (cf. 50:13) refer to the record on the heavenly tablets; Jub. 6:13 refers to writing down in the first testament; Jub. 21:10 mentions the books of the forefathers; Jub. 30:12 mentions the words of the law. 39. See Florentino García Martínez, “The Heavenly Tablets in the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees (ed. M. Albani et al.; TSAJ 65; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 243–60, 243–58, and the critical review in Segal, Jubilees, 213–14. Segal resumes categories 1, 4 and 5 as “commandments and covenant.” 40. Ibid., 258. 41. Ibid., 257.

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

239

father/brother

a shame in Israel

stoning

daughter/sister

de¿lement of the name of the father’s house

burning

any adulteress

Israel is holy to the Lord

shall not be found

any man

de¿lement [of the sanctuary]

stoning

More or less surprisingly v. 10b adds another rationale for the punishment which argues with Lev 20:2–5: “because he has given some of his seed to Molech and sinned so as to defile it.” Regarding the new halakha introduced by the reference to the heavenly tablets, this is the new aspect of interpretation (see below). The following verses, vv. 11–22, address Moses, who is summoned to establish a general prohibition of mixed marriages, one which resorts to Deut 7:3. Yet the imperilment is not cast as a religious one, but rather, by using the key word “reproach” (‫ )חרפה‬from Gen 34:14, a moral one. Intermarriages are “impure and despicable for Israel” (Jub. 30:13) and they cause defilement of the sanctuary of the Lord, profanation of his holy name and thus plague and curse (v. 15). Because Simeon and Levi have prevented the people from this, their action is singled out as exemplary: “it was recorded as a just act for them” (v. 17). Regarding Levi, this is elaborated further in the election of the tribe of Levi in vv. 18–20, which alludes to the Phinehas episode in Num 25. Because of his zealous engagement,42 Levi is—as Abraham in Jub. 19:19—recorded as friend and righteous (v. 19). Within this line of argument the groups which adhere to Simeon and especially Levi as ancestors are configured as preservers of Israel’s state of holiness. Although there can be no doubt that Gen 34 is the background of the reception in Jub. 30, there can be found a lot of significant differences between the texts. It has to be stressed that every altered aspect is grounded implicitly in Gen 34. Jubilees 30 completely focuses on the difficulty of mixed marriages and the ban on exogamous bonds. Thus, any sexual contact with Gentiles is depreciated by applying the paradigm of defilement. Compared to Gen 34, a tightening which is linked to a shift within the halakhic discourse can be observed with regard to the legacy. In sum, Jub. 30 contains the following significant modifications towards Gen 34: (1) In Jub. 30 Dinah is entirely inactive. She is turned into an object completely by this depiction: first of robbery (executed by the Shechemites; cf. Jub. 30:2a), then of sexual intercourse and defilement (Shechem;

42. See Num 25:13 and the motif of zeal in Jdt 9:2; T. Levi 6:3; Jos. As. 23:14; 1QH 2:15; 1QS 9:21–23.

240

Mixed Marriages

cf. Jub. 30:2b), afterwards of the desire for marriage (Shechem; cf. Jub. 30:3), and finally of the repatriation (Simeon and Levi; cf. Jub. 30:24). (2) The focus is not on the sexual offense (Jub. 30:2), but on Dinah’s kidnapping into Shechem’s house (cf. T. Levi 6:8). The illegitimacy of the sexual intercourse is therefore not constituted by the “rape” of the twelve-year-old Dinah, corresponding to a decline in status, but by the sexual contact with Gentiles in general (Jub. 30:3, 5). While Dinah and her family’s loss of civil rights was involved in Gen 34, status and honor play only a marginal role in Jub. 30 (Jub. 30:7, 12). By using the term ‫( טמא‬cf. Gen 34:5, 13, 27)—which becomes a leitmotif (Jub. 30:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 22)—the sexual contact (Jub. 30:2) and already Dinah’s abduction in order to marry her (Jub. 30:4) is qualified as defilement. (3) There is no affection between Shechem and Dinah. The request for marriage is significantly addressed to Jacob and not to Hamor.43 The appeal for marriage is not substantiated in Jub. 30; neither by Shechem’s affection nor by economical benefits like in Gen 34:9–10, 21, 23. Out of the three positions towards mixed marriages in Gen 34, only the restrictive one of Simeon and Levi can be found in Jub. 30. In this respect Jacob and his sons form an integral whole there. Neither the permissive attitude of Jacob nor the proactive position of Shechem and his father Hamor or of the Shechemites has been adopted. Shechem’s quest for marriage remains unsubstantiated and uncommented upon. There are no negotiations or preconditions for potential exogamous marriages; the rejection of the marriage is out of question, “because they had polluted Dinah, their sister” (Jub. 30:4). Jacob and his sons refuse, and they act with hostility from the beginning (Jub. 30:4). A consultation between Jacob and his sons on the following proceeding does not take place, though “Simeon and Levi entered Shechem unexpectedly and effected punishment on all the Shechemites” (Jub. 30:4). Jacob remains passive but permissive to the revenge of Simeon and Levi rather than to the liaison between Dinah and Shechem. (4) Although circumcision is involved in Jub. 15:11–14; 16:14–15, 26; 17:17; 20:3, this subject matter of Gen 34 is not mentioned in Jub. 30. There is no negotiation on circumcision (Gen 34:13–17) as a “solution” for the problem and a note about Shechem’s (Gen 30:19) and the Shechemites’ (Gen 34:22–24) willingness to convert. Even the motif of the Shechemites’ weakening by traumatic fever (Gen 34:25) is missing.

43. For the text-critical option for “his” or rather “her” father, see VanderKam, Jubilees, 191; Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 470.

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

241

Jubilees 30 is completely “immune to the remedy of circumcision.”44 Although circumcision is mentioned once in the middle section of the text in Jub. 30:12, there can be no doubt that according to Jub. 30 there is no possibility of conversion for Gentiles. Therefore Jub. 30 is completely in line with Simeon and Levi’s attitude towards mixed marriages. Israel is considered a separate group which would be defiled by sexual congress (and all the more by intermarriages) with any Gentile. This extreme opinion, a general objection to conversion, is “fueled by the holy / profane—rather than ritually pure / impure-distinction.”45 (5) The ban on intermarriage is radically extended to any sexual contact with Gentiles, because sexual congress can be positively sanctioned only within the legal context of marriages. Therefore any kind of sexual contact with Gentiles is prohibited and appraised as defilement. In doing so, Jub. 30 is beyond the scope of Gen 34. (6) On the one hand, Jacob and his sons no longer represent two different positions within the discourse on mixed marriages, but on the other hand the reactive action is limited to Simeon and Levi. Their actions are displayed as exemplary and any critique concerning their behavior is eliminated. Jubilees 30 does not contain a rebuke of Simeon and Levi’s reaction as found in Gen 49:5–7. In fact, their act of punishment is enshrined in the heavenly law (see below). The concluding verse, Jub. 30:25, emphasizes that their actions are also acknowledged by God. According to Jub. 30, the procedure against sexual contacts with Gentiles—which could lead to mixed marriages—has to be carried out intransigently and fearlessly. By their action Simeon and Levi enabled the preservation of Israel which is granted by God. Therefore their representative actions are more than a generic punishment; they have to be considered as the facilitation of Israel’s existence. (7) The orientation towards the laws of Deut 20:14; 21:10–14 and 22:28 and their specifications is lacking. Simeon and Levi kill every male (Jub. 30:4) and capture the livestock and the movable belongings, but there is no mention of women and children (cf. Gen 34:29) in the context of the foray. Although the punishment is applied explicitly only to all male Shechemites in Jub. 30:4–5, Jub. 30:17, 23 has inclusive phrases regarding gender. The women and children of Gen 34:29 are lacking in Jub. 30:24. Jubilees seems even to refuse the application of Deut 20:10–14 to the Shechemites implicitly. Leviticus 20 and Deut 7 take the place of the interpretation of the Deuteronomic laws.

44. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 77. 45. Ibid.

242

Mixed Marriages

In sum: in Jub. 30 the discourse of Gen 34 on circumcision as precondition for intermarriages transforms into an absolute prohibition of mixed marriages which is revealed by using the example of Dinah. Out of the three positions towards mixed marriages in Gen 34—a proactive, a permissive, and a restrictive one—in Jub. 30 only the restrictive and delimiting one of the sons of Jacob remains. Any sexual contact of Israelite women with Gentiles is condemned as defilement without specifying the mode of impurity, but by referring consistently to the holiness of Israel. But one of the most puzzling differences between Gen 34 and Jub. 30 is that in the latter the ban on intermarriages does not refer to the “classic” texts Exod 34:12–16 or Deut 7:1–5 for the first instance. In fact, the prohibition of mixed marriages is substantiated by referring to Lev 20:2–5, a text which is not referred to in Gen 34 and where intermarriages are not mentioned at all: “…the man who caused defilement of his daughter will be rooted out from the midst of all Israel because he has given some of his seed to Molech and sinned so as to defile it” (Jub. 30:10). To understand this recourse to Lev 20 we must first take a closer look at the direction of impact of the book of Jubilees resp. of Jub. 30. 6. The Rationale for the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages in the Book of Jubilees In the book of Jubilees the absolute refusal of intermarriages is grounded in the paradigm of purity/impurity and in the distinction between “holy” and “profane.” Any sexual contact with Gentiles is marked as polluting and therefore not commensurate to the holiness and purity of Israel. It is remarkable that the mode of purity in the book of Jubilees includes physical–ritual, moral and genealogical aspects as well. The refusal of intermarriages is pioneered in Jub. 20–22 and culminates in the interpreting passage in Jub. 30:5–23, which establishes the general prohibition of mixed marriages with recourse to Lev 20:2–5. As has been argued above, the separation from the Gentiles is developed in Jub. 20–22 as base for the evaluation of intermarriage. Within the testimonies of Abraham the demand for intraethnic endogamy was justified with regard to the moral inferiority of the Canaanites resp. Gentiles (Jub. 20:4–6; 22:16–21), their constitutional impurity (Jub. 20:3; 21:21, 23; 22:14, 16, 19) and their idolatry (Jub. 20:8; 22:22), rather than with clear references to the legislations of the Torah.

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

243

Especially the reception of Gen 34 in Jub. 30, which is developed as a kind of “rewritten Torah” or rather “rewritten scripture,”46 turned out to be a paramount instance of the radical refusal of intermarriages,47 now obviously substantiated with recourse to the Torah. The story of Dinah simply provides the peg for the general challenge in Jub. 30:7. The diametrical opposition between the “seed of the Gentiles” and the “seed of Israel” (cf. Jub. 30:9), as well as the reference to the holiness of Israel (Jub. 30:8), show that Jub. 30 reverts to the conception of the ‫זרע הקדש‬ (Ezra 9:2) resp. the requirements of segregation in Neh 9:2 and to the idea of Israel as “holy people” (Lev 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7, 26; Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19, and also Exod 19:6). In this way the separation from the Gentiles is founded and permeated theologically by the category of election. Taking this line of argumentation for granted one may wonder why the ban on intermarriages does not refer to Exod 34:12–16 or Deut 7:1–5, but to Lev 20:2–5—a text where intermarriages are not mentioned at all. Though we just developed the “shift” in patterns for justification and the anti-Hellenistic direction of the book of Jubilees, the recourse to Lev 20 still remains puzzling. Because this reference presents one of the most striking differences between Gen 34 and Jub. 30, we have to raise the following questions: How did the author of Jub. 30 form the idea that Lev 20 could be interpreted as a ban on intermarriages? What made him do that? Although Lev 20 occurs in the context of sexual taboos, a relation between Molech worship and intermarriages resp. interethnic sexual contacts is not that obvious at all. There are three possibilities: (1) the reference to mixed marriages is made explicit in the text of Leviticus by means of keywords and so on; (2) there are precursors in early Jewish literature for this interpretation and the author of Jubilees merely picked up a common understanding of Lev 20:2–5; or (3) the application of Lev 20 to intermarriages was an innovation by the author of Jubilees, who aimed at forming a new rationale for the prohibition of mixed marriages. 46. For the terms “rewritten Torah” and “rewritten Scripture” instead of the more common but partially anachronistic term “rewritten Bible,” see Geza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (StPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 95, and the discussion in Moshe J. Bernstein, “Rewritten Bible: A Generic Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?,” Text 22 (2005): 169–96; VanderKam, “Recent Scholarship,” 409; Crawford, Scripture, 1–18; Andreas Bedenbender, “The Book of Jubilees—an Example of ‘Rewritten Torah’?,” Henoch 31, no. 1 (2009): 72–78. For “intertextuality” in the book of Jubilees, see Pieter M. Venter, “Intertextuality in the Book of Jubilees,” HvTSt 63, no. 2 (2007): 463–80. 47. See the following works by Lange: “Eure Töchter”; “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons”; and “The Significance of the Pre-Maccabean Literature.”

244

Mixed Marriages

Due to the fact that any re-interpretation presumes an original meaning, we have to address the question of Molech worship briefly. Without stressing the complex and controversial ongoing debate on the origins and the specific identity of Molech as well as on the interpretation of the offerings’ type (human sacrifice vs. ritual assignment) in length here again,48 I restrict myself to the following conclusion: from my point of view the evidence attests a symbolic assignment of children to a deity Baal / Hadad, or less probably Adad-milki, who was titled “king” (‫)מלך‬ and possibly was identified with YHWH (cf. Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). This ritual—the symbolic assignment as rite de passage—became popular in Judah in the eighth/seventh century B.C.E. because of Aramaic-Assyrian influence, though this assumption becomes less probable if 2 Kgs 17:31 does not refer back to an Assyrian influence.49 With regard to the question of the relation between Molech worship and intermarriage it is also important to state that the biblical Molech texts itself do not show any correlation to the sacrifice of the first-born or to sexual(-cultic) practices in general. Therefore, Molech’s reception in context of the prohibition of any sexual illegitimate relationship cannot be explained by recourse to the original impact of the ritual; it presupposes a reinterpretation in which Molech is not understood as a deity (anymore). This process of desemantization is presumed in Jub. 30. Hence, we should take a look at the exact meaning of ‫ זרע‬and ‫ מלך‬in Jub. 30. The rabbinic tradition attests that Lev 18:21 and Lev 20:2–5 could have been understood in a sexual way, insofar as ‫( נתן זרע‬cf. Lev 18:20, 21 and Lev 20:2, 3, 4) is interpreted literally as “seed / sperm” (e.g. m. Megilla 4:9, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Neofiti, Peshitta).50 Regarding Lev 18:21, Geza Vermes has studied the issue in a learned and encompassing article. He figures out three lines of interpretation of the post-biblical reception:51 48. See the review of the issue in Christian Frevel, “Moloch und Mischehen. Zu einigen Aspekten der Rezeption von Gen 34 in Jub 30,” in Juda und Jerusalem in der Seleukidenzeit: Herrschaft–Widerstand–Identität (ed. U. Dahmen and J. Schnocks; BBB 159; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 161–87 (164–70). 49. See the review of the arguments against the hypothesis of Moshe Weinfeld in Theodor Seidl, “Der ‘Moloch-Opferbrauch’ ein ‘rite de passage’? Zur kontroversen Bewertung eines rätselhaften Ritus im Alten Testament,” in An den Schwellen des Lebens (ed. B. Heiniger; Geschlecht-Symbol-Religion 5; Münster: Lit-Verlag 2008), 136–55 (first published in OTE 20 [2007]: 432–55). 50. See Himmelfarb, “Sexual Relations,” 30. 51. See Geza Vermes, “Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis,” in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (ed. J. J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981), 108–24.

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

245

(1) The first one (LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch, Targum Onqelos, Samaritan Targum, Targum Neofiti) assumes ‫ זרע‬to refer to offspring. ‫( להעביר למלך‬sometimes explicitly altered to ‫ )עבד‬is interpreted as idolatry. As Vermes translates, “Thou (Israelite father) shalt not cause thy seed (i.e. children) to pass (i.e. serve, worship, be set aside for, be consecrated to) Molekh (an umbrella term for idolatry).”52 Exemplarily, we may cite the LXX, which (a) reads or assumes ‫ עבד‬instead of ‫עבר‬, and (b) understands ‫ למלך‬either nominally as “king” or as participle to read “to the ruling one”: καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματόϛ σου οὐ δώσειϛ λατρεύειν ἂρχοντι, “And you shall not give any of your offspring/semen to worship a ruler.”53 Unless referring to 1 Sam 8:13, there is no sexual connotation in the LXX understanding, but rather a socio-critical one (to serve the ruler). (2) The second line of interpretation interprets Lev 18:21 explicitly in a sexual way by taking ‫ זרע‬literally as “semen” and interpreting ‫ נתן‬as euphemism. The phrase ‫ להעביר‬is either taken euphemistically (denoting sexual intercourse) or taken as “to make pregnant.” This interpretation is attested in the Targum Pseudo Jonathan, in a marginal note to Targum Neofiti Lev 20:2 and in the Syriac version. The reading is further attested prominently in m. Megillah 4:9 in rejecting the understanding of the Targum: If one say And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to pass through to Molech (‫ )מזרע לא תתן להעביר למלך‬by And though shalt not give any of thy seed to a heathen woman to become pregnant (‫ומזרעך לא תתן‬ ‫בארמתה‬/‫)לאעברה בארמיותא‬,54 they must silence him with a rebuke.55

52. Vermes, “Leviticus 18:21,” 111. 53. For the discussion of the LXX text, see Dirk Büchner, “ ‘You Shall Not Give of Your Seed to Serve an Archon’: Leviticus 18:21 in the Septuagint,” in Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (ed. H. Ausloos et al.; BEThL 213; Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 183–96 (185–88). 54. See the variants ‫ארמיותא‬/‫ ארמתה‬discussed in Vermes, “Leviticus 18:21,” 113; Lothar Tetzner, Megilla (Esther-Rolle) (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968), 134; Michael Krupp, Megilla. Rolle. Bearbeitet von Michael Krupp [ = Die Mischna. Textkritische Ausgabe mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentar] (Jerusalem: Achim, 2002), 27. 55. Translation by Philip Blackman, Mishnayot. Vol. 2, Order Moed (2d ed.; New York: Judaica, 1983), 460. Cf. Krupp, Megilla, 26, who states: “Wer ‘Und von deinem Samen sollst du nichts dem Moloch überführen’ mit ‘Und von deinem Samen sollst du nichts ins Aramäertum überführen,’ den bringt man mit Anschrein zum Schweigen.”

246

Mixed Marriages

The rebuke has to be understood as an indulgent form of exclusion.56 The criticized reading is attested in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Lev 18:21 in combination with variant 1 (understanding ‫ מלך‬as umbrella term for idolatry): And of your offspring/semen (‫ )ומן זרע‬you shall not give into intercourse (‫ )בתשמישתא‬with a daughter of the people (‫ )בת עממין‬to make her pregnant in favor of a foreign service (‫)לפולחנה נוכראה‬, and you shall not profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.

In reading wmn zr‘k l’ trm’ lmbtnw nwkryt’, “you shall not let any of your semen cast into a strange women to cause her to be pregnant,”57 the Syriac version attests exactly this understanding. Because the heathen woman resp. the Aramaic woman of the mishnaic variant and the foreign woman of the Syriac are to be considered synonymous, this reading proscribes any sexual relation between Israelite men and non-Israelite women, or in other words any intermarriage. (3) Following Vermes, a third line of interpretation is attested in m. Sanhedrin 7:4. It is this interpretation that became halakha: He who gives any of his seed to Molekh is guilty only if he gives (the child) to Molekh, and causes it to pass through the fire. If he gave it to Molekh but did not cause it to pass through the fire, or if he caused it to pass through the fire but did not give it to Molekh, he is not guilty. He must both give it to Molekh and cause it to pass through the fire.58

The concrete understanding of Lev 18:21 is left in abeyance (the Gemara points again at idolatry) and the sentence of stoning is de facto suspended. The second line is of special importance in regard to the passage in Jubilees. However, it is rather more convincing in relation to Lev 18:21 (cf. Lev 18:20 as an associative anchor) than to Lev 20 where the explicit references to sexual taboos (Lev 20:11–21) are missing and a sexual understanding of ‫ נתן זרע‬is impeded by the phrase ‫ואת כל־הזנים אהריו‬ ‫ לזנות אהרי המלך‬in Lev 20:5. This phrase can only be understood as a reference to a personal subject. Concerning the reception of Lev 20:2–5 in Jub. 30 the sexual interpretation causes many problems: if ‫ זרע‬is understood as “seed / sperm,” then marriages between Gentile women and Israelite men would be prohibited, but not marriages between Israelite women and Gentile men. Yet the latter seems to be provided in Gen 34, which has to be considered the main background of Jub. 30. 56. See Vermes, “Leviticus 18:21,” 117; Krupp, Megilla, 26. 57. Translation by George M. Lansa. 58. Vermes, “Leviticus 18:21,” 117.

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

247

Furthermore, in Jub. 30 the reference to Lev 20:2–5 is obviously stronger than that of Lev 18:21; and we already pointed out that a sexual interpretation of Lev 20:2–5 is not that obvious. With regard to Jub. 30:9 (“For this is the way it has been ordained and written on the heavenly tablets regarding any descendant of Israel…”), it can be stated that the author of Jub. 30 understood ‫ זרע‬in the sense of “offspring” rather than literally in the sense of “semen.” But what meaning does the term “Molech” bear in the book of Jubilees? Based on Jub. 1:9 and 22:16–18, it seems quite plausible to understand “Molech” as a code/cipher for idolatry. But this impression fades when we consider the book of Jubilees as a whole, where the idolatry of the nations and the defilement by idolatry are not that important. Although intermarriages are qualified as defilement by the nations, this is not traced back to their religions, but to their ethics, ethos and the lack of holiness. It is significant that there are no explicit references to Exod 34:15–16 or Deut 7:5, where intermarriages are considered religious threats. In fact the book of Jubilees is in line with the reception of Pentateuchal law in Ezra 9–10, where the concern for the intermingling of the holy seed with the nations is expressed: Israel’s state of holiness and its election is questioned by the contact with the nations. Regarding the theology of election and seclusion of Israel in ethical terms, a similarity to Lev 18 and 20 is apparent. God segregated Israel from the nations by means of election (Lev 20:26; cf. Lev 20:24). He finds their ways disgusting (‫קוץ‬, cf. Lev 20:23) and he does not want Israel to act in this manner, because the ways of the nations defile Israel. In accordance with this line of understanding, the author of Jub. 30 interpreted Lev 20:2–5 in the sense of a ban on amalgamation or intermarriage with the nations. In Lev 18 and 20 he found a strategy of distinction which is based on a different sexual ethos of the nations.59 Therein he considers his harsh refusal of any sexual contacts with Gentiles as justified. Because the book of Jubilees regards every sexual deviation as polluting, the subject of intermarriage is kept in mind implicitly in the context of Lev 20 and is explicitly embedded by the recourse to Molech. The authors of Jubilees would have expected a ban on intermarriage in Leviticus due to the issues of purity and holiness. Since the basic chapters about Israel’s segregation from the “ways of the nations” do not contain an explicit prohibition of mixed marriages, it is substituted in Jub. 30 by the reinterpretation of the Molech passage in Lev 20:2–5. 59. For the combination of amalgamation with the nations, child sacrifice, idolatry and defilement one may suggest also Ps 106:35–36 as background.

248

Mixed Marriages

Because there is no excuse or atonement for handing over a child to Molech, this law was convenient to be applied to the absolute refusal of interethnic relations. This sophisticated parallelization of Molech worship and intermarriage seems to be attested in the halakhic interpretation in Jub. 30 for the very first time. It is remarkable that this interpretation of Lev 20:2–5 does not require any justification, but is simply authorized by the recourse to the heavenly tablets. Via the paradigm of purity and the notion that any defilement is devastating for the sanctuary and the holiness of Israel the defilement of the daughter is characterized as pollution of the sanctuary (Jub. 30:10) and by this means equated with the worship of Molech (Lev 20:3). 7. Molech, ‫מלך‬, ἆρχων—An Additional Proposal Assuming that Jub. 30 relates the Molech passage to mixed marriages for the very first time, I would like to propose another rationale for the adaptation of Lev 20:2–5 in Jub. 30:10, one which takes the Hellenistic “context” of the book of Jubilees into consideration and is based on the reception of Gen 34 in the LXX. According to the scholarly discussion, there can be no doubt that the book of Jubilees was originally written in Hebrew. But it cannot be excluded that the authors and the addressees of the book of Jubilees knew Greek and the Hellenistic literature, as C. Werman has stated recently.60 In view of the fact that the direction of impact of the book of Jubilees is anti-Hellenistic, from my point of view it seems quite plausible that the authors knew the position they were dealing with and therefore they also should have been familiar with the LXX. Looking at Lev 18:21 and Lev 20:2–5 in the LXX there appears to be an anomaly concerning “Molech.” Except for the later translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodosius at Lev 18:21 and Lev 20:2, 3, 4, 5, Molech is not read as a personal name or the name of a deity (cf. 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 39:35; Amos 5:26), but as ἆρχων, “ruler” (and not βασιλεύς, “king,” which is the usual translation for ‫)מלך‬. By using ἆρχων instead of Μολοχ both passages are removed from the cultic context (although λατρεύειν has cultic connotations often denoting to worship rather than to serve), reinterpreted and, especially in the case of Lev 20, linked to the topic of mixed marriages. This is emphasized especially by the associated keywords in Gen 34 (LXX) and Jub. 30 (e.g. ‫טמא‬, ‫)זנה‬. Yet the crucial impact for the connection of Molech worship and Gen 34 can be seen in the replacing of ‫ מלך‬by ἆρχων, because Hamor—the father of 60. Werman, “Jubilees in the Hellenistic Context.”

FREVEL Intermarriage in the Book of Jubilees

249

Shechem—is called in Gen 34 ἆρχων: Συχεμ ὁ υἱὸς Εμμωρ ὁ Χορραῖος ὁ ἆρχων τῆς γῆς. Thus Shechem may be ἆρχων as well. On condition that the authors of the book of Jubilees knew the transfer made by the LXX, perhaps they simply held on to the Hebrew lexeme by interpreting it in the sense of the LXX’s reception as “ruler.” In so doing (and not taking up the extensive but obscure transformation of the LXX61), in Lev 20:2–5, by the interplay ‫ מלך‬/ ἆρχων (note esp. the generalizing plural in Lev 20:5), there could be incorporated an explicit link to intermarriages resp. to any sexual contacts with Gentiles (Jub. 30); and a general prohibition of mixed marriages could be placed within the requirement of Lev 18 and 20. This proposal, which may be seen as too far-fetched, is not meant to replace the main theory discussed above, namely the reinterpretation and the assumption that the authors of Jubilees asked for a general prohibition of mixed marriages in the book of Leviticus. Yet it may perhaps serve as additional argument for the sophisticated discourse on mixed marriage in Hellenistic times. 8. Final Conclusions Genesis 34 was developed as the paramount example for mixed marriage and its consequences in Jub. 30. The “rape” of Dinah in Gen 34 already bears witness to the polyphonic and manifold discourse on “Jewish” identity during the Persian Period which is closely linked to the notion of intermarriage as problematic. Although Israelite identity is constructed by the sharp distinction between Israelites and Gentiles, there is a “halakhic discourse” on the key markers of Israelite identity in the background of Gen 34. Especially the role of genealogy in determining identity is discussed by mentioning the circumcision and with it the question of conversion. Furthermore, Gen 34 provides contexts in which mixed marriages are at least implicitly considered acceptable. But still its concluding appraisal is definitive: in its final form Gen 34 represents a firmly disclaiming attitude towards interethnic marriages, insofar as the position of Simeon and Levi is de facto established—though not explicitly grounded in the narrative itself. The position is comparable to the absolute refusal of intermarriage in Num 25 or Ezra 10. Other opinions, such as the permissive position which claims for preconditions (circumcision) or compensations, are represented but repudiated at the same moment. This made Gen 34 a paramount example for the Hellenistic absolute refusal of intermarriage. 61. For the possible meanings of ἆρχων in the Ptolemaic context of the Septuagint, see recently Büchner, “You Shall Not Give,” 189–96.

250

Mixed Marriages

Using the example of the reception of Gen 34 in Jub. 30, it has been revealed that the discourse on identity and therewith the abhorrence for the Gentiles was clearly intensified and sharpened in the Hellenistic Period. The book of Jubilees opts for separation and sharp demarcation, as was seen in the interpretation of Jub. 20–22. The demand for separation, which includes the rejection of mixed marriages, is ascribed to the testimonies of Abraham. This authorizing strategy of endogamy was of special importance for the general ban on intermarriage in Jub. 30. The chapter thus provides a total and radical rejection of intermarriages which is based on the pure/impure paradigm as well as on the holy/profane distinction. In generalizing, intensifying and applying Torah resp. the halakhic interpretations rooted in the Torah (especially in the book of Leviticus) and enlarging the requirements of the priestly caste to the whole people, the prohibition of intermarriages is understood as a ban on any sexual contact with Gentiles. It is possible that the lack discussion of the issue of sexual violence in Jub. 30 also reflects this extreme attitude: the circumstances leading to the sexual intercourse with a Gentile simply did not matter for the authors. In any case, and without exception, sexual contacts resp. mixed marriages are forbidden because they threaten Israel. The problem of such an extreme position is obvious. The examination of the patterns of justification in the book of Jubilees and the proposed suggestion to explain the recourse to Lev 20 have revealed that this total refusal of interethnic contacts and intermarriages has an outward anti-Hellenistic direction of impact which aims at the construction of a religious “Jewish” identity.

INTERMARRIAGE IN QUMRAN TEXTS: THE LEGACY OF EZRA–NEHEMIAH Hannah Harrington

The influence of Ezra–Nehemiah is strong in several Dead Sea Scrolls dealing with intermarriage. Not only is there a resonance in context and crisis between the authors, but certain terminology, innovative in Ezra– Nehemiah, is utilized in many Qumran texts. While many studies have focused on the origin of Ezra–Nehemiah’s strict intermarriage position, the present study examines its legacy, in particular, in the non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls. It will become evident that there is a dominant ideological strain in the Scrolls which prohibits any marriage with outsiders. While only fragments of Ezra–Nehemiah remain in the Qumran corpus, the impact of the book in antiquity comes into relief by the Scroll authors’ use of specific terminology from it.1 Clearly some authors find a resonance between their own struggles with group identity and those found in Ezra–Nehemiah and maintain a similar firm stance on the issue. Other Qumran texts add new elements in their approach to the subject, while some texts do not discuss the topic at all. The present study builds upon the work of several scholars. In searching for the pre-history of particularistic notions at Qumran, this essay follows the lead of George Nickelsburg and Carol Newsom, who have suggested tracing out trajectories of discourse in the Scrolls. Nickelsburg, in particular, notes the greater precision of tracing legal terminology over other types (e.g. eschatology).2 Both of these scholars agree that “the tracking of exclusivistic rhetoric is of great importance” in understanding 1. 4QEzra is comprised of three fragments of Ezra (Ezra 4:2–6, 9–11; 5:17; 6:1– 5). A fragment of Nehemiah (3:14–15) has just come to light, cf. James H. Charlesworth, “Announcing a Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of Nehemiah,” available online from the Institute for Judaism and Christian Origins, http://www.ijco.org. 2. George Nickelsburg, “Religious Exclusivism: A Worldview Governing Some Texts Found at Qumran,” in George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective: An Ongoing Dialogue of Learning (ed. J. Neusner et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 139–61 (159).

252

Mixed Marriages

the formation of sectarian ideology.3 Since the prohibition on intermarriage is an exclusivist ruling by definition, it fits well with the trend toward sectarianism found in many of the Dead Sea scrolls. Scholarship on Jewish identity and intermarriage in Second Temple Judaism has increased dramatically in recent years, but the following authors have been especially helpful to this work.4 Christine Hayes brings into relief the dynamics of cultic language in Ezra–Nehemiah and the work’s influence on later authors, especially the writer of Miqtsat Ma’ase ha-Torah. Joseph Blenkinsopp too notes “intriguing parallels” between Ezra–Nehemiah and some of the early Scrolls. Armin Lange traces the concern for intermarriage in the pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls. Treating all aspects of sexuality, William Loader provides a thorough survey of the entire Qumran corpus. The present study focuses only on the issue of intermarriage, but examines the phenomenon throughout the Scrolls, highlighting the influence of cultic terminology from Ezra–Nehemiah. Ezra–Nehemiah The date and composition of Ezra–Nehemiah are difficult to determine. Some scholars opt for a Persian and others for a Hellenistic setting of the text.5 In my view, an early editor has combined material regarding Ezra and Nehemiah no later than the death of Artaxerxes I in 424 B.C.E. There is no mention in Ezra–Nehemiah of Alexander’s conquest nor 3. Carol Newsom, “Response to ‘Religious Exclusivism: A Worldview Governing Some Texts Found at Qumran,’ ” in Neusner, ed., George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective, 162–68 (168). Newsom prefers using Venn diagrams to chart the different strains, while Nickelsburg advocates trajectories to track the movement from non-sectarian into sectarian literature, cf. George Nickelsburg, “Response,” in Neusner, ed., George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective, 169–76 (170). 4. Christine Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Armin Lange, “Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls” (Part 2) BN 139 (2008): 79–98; William Loader, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in Sectarian and Related Literature at Qumran (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009); Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism, the First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), see especially 222–27. 5. For more on issues of dating and sequence, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra– Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 139–44, as well as the essays appearing in M. J. Boda and P. L. Redditt, eds., Unity and Disunity in Ezra– Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008).

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

253

even the suffering of the mid-fourth century B.C.E. when Judah joined the Phoenician rebellion and was harshly put down by Artaxerxes III. Nevertheless, later editing is discernible (e.g. Neh 11:10). The lists of the high priests of Neh 12 reveal that the book’s final compilation could not have been before “Darius the Persian,” most likely Darius III, near the end of the fourth century B.C.E. The bulk of the traditions in Ezra–Nehemiah regarding identity, continuity, and intermarriage make best sense in a setting which reflects a diaspora community returning to its land while still under foreign rule, which is, in fact, the context presented by the author. Thus, while there is a current tendency to find Hellenistic influence in Ezra–Nehemiah, Blenkinsopp is correct that on the issue of continuity and discontinuity the “strongest impulse came at that time, and continued to come, from the Babylonian diaspora, and that its principal embodiment was the group whose ideology is presented in the canonical book Ezra–Nehemiah.”6 The cultic emphasis, in my view, begins during the Babylonian Exile and early Persian period, and predates Hellenistic pressures. Ezra–Nehemiah is unique in biblical literature due to its stringent stance against intermarriage—to the point of breaking up families. In an effort to preserve the holy identity of the community, the writer uses cultic language to enforce clear boundaries between Jewish marriage partners and their non-Jewish spouses. The bodies of Israel are considered sancta because of their Jewish ethnicity and their belonging to a certain religious community. Scholars have referred to this view as “religio-biological” (Weinfeld) or “religious-genealogical” (Hayes) or “ritual ethnicity” (Blenkinsopp).7 The concern develops when Ezra is made aware that the ‫זרע הקודש‬, “the holy seed,” ‫התערבו‬, “had mixed” with ‫עמי הארצות‬, “the peoples of the lands” (Ezra 9:2). The peoples enumerated follow a combination of 6. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 229. 7. Moshe Weinfeld, Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 262. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, argues against a purely racial or ethnic understanding of “holy seed”: “because the holy status of the Israelites is not racially but religiously based. That is, their higher (and holy) status is not intrinsic to their race per se; it is not the result of a perceived biological superiority or racial virtue. Rather, it is the result of God’s separation of the seed of Abraham to himself, an act that conferred upon that seed a holy status” (p. 9 n. 19). Nevertheless, the fact that God has selected the family of Abraham for his purposes, thus giving them a holy status, sets apart that ethnic group for holiness. Hayes is correct that the issue for Ezra–Nehemiah is not ritual impurity but “fear of profaning holy seed” (p. 5), but the physical character cannot be erased. Hayes thinks the issue for Nehemiah was priestly not lay intermarriage on the basis of Josephus’ rendering of Nehemiah. See also Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 229.

254

Mixed Marriages

the prohibited people lists of Deut 7 and 23, most of whom were not extant in Ezra’s time. The crux of the problem is not explained in terms of pagan influence, as in Deut 7:4 or Exod 34:15–16, although the reference to “abominations” in Ezra 9:11 recalls the immoral practices set out in the Torah (cf. Lev 18). Instead, the author presents his case primarily in genealogical and cultic terms, ‫זרע הקודש‬, “the holy seed,” that is, Israel’s children, have become desecrated, or invalidated, by amixia. Furthermore, the author suggests no conversion or acculturation process for foreigners residing among Israel.8 Neither the fact that some patriarchs did marry foreigners (e.g. Gen 38:2; Num 12:1), nor the law which allows an Israelite to marry a foreign captive (Deut 21:10–14), are discussed. The exclusion of Moabites and Ammonites is not, as in the Torah, limited to ten generations nor justified by their inhospitality (Deut 23:4–5). More importantly, the stricture on Moabites and Ammonites is applied to all Gentiles. Moshe Weinfeld points out two cases:9 (1) the law not to seek the peace and prosperity of Ammonites and Moabites (Deut 23:7) is applied to all the peoples of the land (Ezra 9:12); and, (2) the author states that when the people heard the law “that no Ammonite or Moabite might ever enter the congregation of God…they separated all the alien admixture from Israel” (Neh 13:1–3). Ezra–Nehemiah associates the ‫עמי הארצות‬, “the peoples of the land,” with ‫טמאתם‬, “their impurity,” and ‫תועבתיהם‬, “their abominations” (Ezra 9:11). In fact, Ezra–Nehemiah is the first to coin the phrase, ‫טמאת גויי‬ ‫הארץ‬, “the impurity of the peoples of the land” (Ezra 6:21). The nature of this impurity has been debated, but there seems to be more than just a moral or genealogical impulse.10 In fact, the phrase is introduced in this passage as a reason for ritual purification for Passover: 8. The ger is obligated to certain laws of Israel but does not become an Israelite and remains in a separate status. Cf. Katell Berthelot, “La Notion de ‫ גר‬dans les Textes de Qumran,” RevQ 74 (1999): 169–216; Shaye Cohen, “From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage,” in Biblical and Other Studies in Honor of Robert Gordis (ed. R. Ahroni; HAR 7; Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1983), 1–257 (23); Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 24–26. 9. Weinfeld, Normative and Sectarian, 262. 10. Saul Olyan, “Purity Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community,” JSJ 35, no. 1 (2004): 11–33; Lester L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. Vol. 1, Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah (LSTS 47; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 286. For an alternative view, see Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 21. Hayes (ibid, 122–31) points to the commercial interaction between Jews and Gentiles in Ezra–Nehemiah without mention of purification (Neh 10:32; 13:16), and does not recognize any Gentile impurity before the Tannaitic era. Cf. also Jonathan Klawans, “Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,” AJSR 20, no. 2 (1995): 285–312 (296).

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

255

“For the priests and the Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, and killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brothers the priests, and for themselves. And the children of Israel, which were come again out of captivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them from the impurity of the peoples of the land ( ‫טמאת‬ ‫ )גויי הארץ‬to seek the LORD God of Israel, did eat.”

For the first time in Scripture, the term ‫טומאה‬, “impurity,” usually referring to a variety of ritual impurities in the Torah, is directly linked to non-Israelites. The phrase, ‫טמאת גויי הארץ‬, “the impurity of the peoples of the land,” makes the matter personal. Although one would expect ritual purification before Passover to purge ritual impurity (e.g. corpse impurity), the only impurity mentioned here is that of Gentiles from whom Israel is enjoined to separate.11 Similar language is used before Ezra’s exhortation against intermarriage, and he attributes the impurity of the land to ‫נדת עמי הארצות בתועבתיהם אשר מלאוה מפה אל פה‬ ‫בטמאתם‬, “the impurity of the peoples of the lands through their abhorrent practices with which they, in their impurity, have filled it from one end to the other” (Ezra 9:11b). The combination of ‫נדת‬, ‫בתועבתיה‬, and ‫ טמאתם‬carries both moral and ritual overtones. In both examples, separation is the only way of treating the problem (Ezra 6:21; 9:12). Additionally, Nehemiah purifies the chambers of the room where Tobiah the Ammonite has been residing. Nehemiah not only expels Tobiah but his belongings as well (Neh 13:4–9). Thus, there are hints of both moral and ritual impurity of Gentiles in Ezra–Nehemiah, and nowhere does the text suggest that the Gentile can be purified. The term ‫תועבה‬, “abomination,” is used in the Torah to describe various moral offenses in Israel, especially wrongful sexual relations, and these are linked with the practices of the foreign residents of the land of Canaan (cf. Lev 18:27; Deut 20:18). According to Leviticus, bringing an idol into one’s home is a ‫( תועבה‬Lev 20:2–5). Ezra–Nehemiah expels not only the idolatry but also the idolater. There is no effort to separate the two. In fact, Nehemiah points out that by eradicating intermarriage he has ‫טהרתי‬, “purified,” ‫כל נכר‬, “all foreignness,” not idolatry, from the priesthood (Neh 13:30). The intertwining of the concepts of impurity, Gentiles, and intermarriage in Ezra–Nehemiah is original and is taken up by several later Second Temple authors (see below).

11. Following H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 85, who regards those who separated themselves from the Gentiles to the “legitimate” community of Israel as probably Israelites left in the land, not outright Gentiles.

256

Mixed Marriages

The precise genealogy and religion of the foreign spouses of Ezra– Nehemiah remains a mystery. Since they had already been married to Israelites, it seems they could simply have been absorbed into the community like the captive bride (Deut 21:10–14). In fact, the Torah allows limited participation of the ‫גר‬, the resident alien, within Israel (cf. Passover observance, Exod 12:48; Num 9:14; some purity laws, Lev 17:15–16; offering sacrifices, Num 15:16). Y. Kaufmann argues that the foreign women referenced in Ezra–Nehemiah were not outright idolaters; had they been, the text would have mentioned it explicitly.12 Others have suggested that the foreign spouses were Israelites labeled as foreigners because their families did not belong to the community of ‫בני הגולה‬, the returned exiles.13 Indeed, in the time of the first return, the local residents offered to help with the Temple rebuilding project and stated that they worshipped the God of Israel too, but they were rebuffed by Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the elders, without explanation (Ezra 4:3–4). It is most likely that the foreign women referred to later in the text were of at least mixed parentage in order to warrant the label of ‫נשים נכריות‬, “foreign women,” and, according to Ezra–Nehemiah, they did bring an element of religious syncretism into the group (cf. Ezra 9:11, “their abominations”; Neh 13:26, foreign women caused Solomon to sin), but the latter is not stressed. By applying the notion of sanctity in a cultic sense to the people of Israel, the benefits and boundaries of the community are circumscribed, and most importantly, holy Israel can, like any other sanctum, be desecrated by wrongful access.14 This introduces the term ‫מעל‬, “sacrilege,” into the equation (Ezra 9:2; Neh 13:27). Just as Israel’s sancta in the temple, that is, the holy furniture, sacrifices and contributions, can be desecrated, so the bodies of Israelites, according to Ezra–Nehemiah, can be desecrated by illicit sexual unions.15 For Ezra this is rectified by 12. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The History of the Israelite Faith (trans. M. Greenberg; London: Allen & Unwin, 1960). 13. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 139. 14. Ezra is the first to consider intermarriage in cultic terms of desecration of sancta. However, the idea that Israel is holy seed is already in Isa 6:13, which describes the faithful remnant of Israel who survive punishment as the stump of the tree, as “holy seed.” 15. Jacob Milgrom finds the notion of desecration by wrongful sexual union apparent already in Gen 49:4, where Jacob accuses Reuben of incest with Bilhah: ‫חיללת‬, “you desecrated” (cf. Jub. 33:7–18). As Milgrom puts it, according to this writer, Israel is inherently holy as a “genetic endowment”; see Jacob Milgrom, “The Concept of Impurity in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 16, no. 2 (1993): 277–84.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

257

forced divorce as well as a guilt offering which expiates sins against sancta (Ezra 10:19; cf. Lev 5:14–16).16 This emphasis on the people of Israel as sancta is applied to intermarriage in Ezra–Nehemiah and taken up later in several of the Qumran Scrolls. Intermarriage in Second Temple Judaism There is a variety of opinions in Second Temple sources regarding the topic of intermarriage.17 In the biblical period, the examples of Esther and Ruth both indicate that a mixed marriage situation is allowable under certain circumstances and can even be providential. The author of Judith describes an Ammonite who is circumcised and admitted into the congregation of Israel (Jdt 14:10). Some of the prophets even foresee Gentiles serving the God of Israel in the Temple alongside Jews in the future (cf. Isa 56:6–7; 66:21; Zech 2:14). Some Second Temple authors consider intermarriage detrimental to Jews but only because of the immorality of Gentiles (cf. Philo, Spec. 3.29; Josephus, Ant. 4.8.2; 8.5.191–93). The genealogical view, which prevents marriage with outsiders, is applied by Josephus only to priests as in Torah law (Lev 21:7, 14). Accordingly, Gentiles who reject idolatry can be assimilated into Israel via marriage, but not into the priesthood, which remains restricted (e.g. Ant. 20.7.1). Nevertheless, in the same vein as Ezra–Nehemiah, other Second Temple sources emphasize the biological nature of the holy seed of all Israel. Tobit points out to his son that he should marry “a wife of the seed of your fathers, take not a strange wife, who is not of your father’s tribe; for we are the sons of prophets” (Tob 4:12a).18 The focus here is not on morality or religion but on genealogy. Like Ezra–Nehemiah, Aramaic Levi considers Israelite seed holy; it is analogous to the sanctuary, “like the holy place” (Aramaic Levi Document [ALD] col. a 17–18; T. Levi 9:9–10).19

16. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 87. 17. Cf. Cana Werman, “Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,” HTR 90, no. 1 (1997): 1–22. 18. Lange, “Daughters,” 84, dates Tobit no earlier than the third century B.C.E. based on the reference to the Macedonian month of Dystros (Tob 2:12) as well as an allusion to Ps 119:38 (Tob 3:2). 19. Ibid., 80–81, following Joseph Baumgarten, regards the intermarriage issue in ALD as between a foreigner and any Jew, not just a priest. Lange dates ALD as early as the late fourth or third century B.C.E. based on “ALD’s incorporation into the book of Jubilees (cf. Jub. 30:1–32:9), by its non-polemic use of a solar calendar, by

258

Mixed Marriages

Most prominently, Jubilees, following Lev 20, regards giving a Jewish child in marriage to a foreigner as committing sacrilege. In fact, a father who gives his daughter in marriage to a foreigner becomes defiled (Jub. 30:10). Possibly following the Aramaic Levi Document, the author considers the deed of Simeon and Levi in destroying Shechem and his clan entirely justified because he had engaged in sexual relations with their sister, Dinah.20 Although this act is deplored in the biblical tradition by Jacob, who castigates his sons for breaking faith with the neighbors to whom he had promised Dinah if they would be circumcised, Jubilees extols their actions. Certainly, no priestly line was at stake with the liaison of Shechem and Dinah, but a descendant of Israel had been joined in sexual union with an outsider. From the viewpoint of Jubilees, since the deed could not be undone, there was no other solution other than to kill the offenders. Dead Sea Scrolls It is worth noting that Tobit, the Aramaic Levi Document, and Jubilees are all found in multiple copies at Qumran. On the other hand, the books of Esther and Judith are absent from the textual record (although Ruth is represented). A look at the Qumran texts which discuss intermarriage reveals influence of Ezra–Nehemiah in concept and/or language. To be sure, Tobit, the Aramaic Levi Document and Jubilees also made an impact on the Qumran writers, but this study will focus on the legacy of Ezra–Nehemiah which predates them. Recent scholarship has focused on the moral-religious nature of the intermarriage concern, that is, these authors exclude non-Israelites in marriage because of the pagan element.21 This is certainly true in part. However, there is an ideology, which begins in Ezra–Nehemiah, that expresses revulsion to intermarriage primarily in physical terms, emphasizing cultic and genealogical purity, and this notion continues in a number of later Second Temple texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

an ethical dualism which does not reflect the Hellenistic religious reforms, and by an appreciation of the absolute authority of the high priest” (p. 79); cf. James L. Kugel, “How Old is the Aramaic Levi Document?,” DSD 14 (2007): 292–300, who prefers a Hasmonean date for ALD. 20. For the dependence of Jubilees on ALD, see Lange, “Daughters,” 80; Martha Himmelfarb, “Levi, Phineas, and the Problem of Intermarriage at the Time of the Maccabean Revolt,” JSQ 6 (1999): 1–24 (3). 21. Cf. Lange, “Daughters,” 89.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

259

Like Ezra, the Qumran authors who discuss intermarriage do not offer a reasonable acculturation process for the non-Israelite partner. Instead, most adopt a priestly stance to holiness which configures it in cultic terms. On this view, like the temple itself, all Israel becomes a container for holiness. Intermarriage with foreigners compromises the holy vessel causing an irrevocable desecration of the holy, Jewish partner and the family’s offspring. The Scroll authors often apply the Torah’s priestly restrictions to laity and even encourage sexual abstinence in certain settings (cf. 4Q271 5 i 1–2; CD 12.1–2; 11Q19 xlv 11–12). Below is a survey of the non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls in which there is evidence of the influence of Ezra–Nehemiah on some Scroll authors, either in concept or terminology, in the area of intermarriage. The following sources are relevant in this regard: MMT, the Temple Scroll, the Damascus Document, the Genesis Apocryphon, and miscellaneous Cave 4 fragments. Although a major sectarian text at Qumran, the Community Rule is not concerned with intermarriage. It appears that at this point the sect is a closed holy community and the issue of intermarriage absent. Miqtsat Ma‘ase Ha-Torah Miqtsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah (MMT), dating from ca. 150 B.C.E. or even earlier, is a document usually placed in the formative period of the Qumran sect.22 Although the social reality underlying the text is far from certain, the text may be a letter addressed to someone in the priesthood urging proper cultic practice according to the author’s definition. The points of difference enumerated in Section B of the composite text are primarily issues of cult and purity, including some dealing with Gentiles and sexual impurity. MMT draws decidedly on cultic terminology from Ezra–Nehemiah to make a case against intermarriage.23 Throughout the letter the author emphasizes the demarcation between holy Israel and unholy outsiders. The following terms found in Ezra–Nehemiah are found in some form in MMT: ‫“ טמאה‬impurity”; ‫התערב‬, “to mix”; ‫זרע‬ ‫הקדש‬, “the holy seed”; ‫מעל‬, “sacrilege”; ‫תועבה‬, “abomination.” 22. Cf. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 55. 23. Zonah/zenut in several Second Temple texts refers to intermarriage (cf. MMT B75; T. Levi 9:9–10; 4Q513 ii 2). Cf. also Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 57, who translates zenut in Qumran texts broadly as “sexual wrongdoing.” Carolyn Sharp regards all of the issues in MMT B as at least indirect references to the problem of intermarriage, but this seems to go beyond the evidence of the text. The authors are also concerned about the protection of the sanctuary and the holy city of Jerusalem in ways unconnected to marriage. Intermarriage plays a key role but it is not the only threat.

260

Mixed Marriages

MMT builds on the physical and cultic dimensions of Ezra–Nehemiah’s combination of impurity and intermarriage. In the B section of the letter, the author, probably a priest, urges other priests in Jerusalem to rectify a number of cultic infractions, largely dealing with ritual purity. The text begins with a fragmentary passage probably describing the impurity of Gentile grain.24 Lines 8–9 of the composite text (4Q394 3–7 i 11b–12a; 4Q395 3–7 i–ii 3b) compare sacrifices from Gentiles to sexual relations with them.25 Although the word ‫זבח‬, “sacrifice” (l. 8) is a reconstruction, it seems appropriate in light of controversies surrounding Gentile sacrifices mentioned by Josephus and the Rabbis. As Loader notes, since there is no “licit relationship or covenant between Gentiles and Israel’s God…there can be no intermarriage.”26 But the matter is even more threatening for the author. Since the Gentile is by definition unholy he cannot engage what is holy, whether the people or the sacrifices of Israel. If he does, he will “defile” (‫ )מטמאי]ם‬it (B81; cf. also B42, see below). According to Ezra–Nehemiah, the outsider and any Jew identifying with him must be excluded on account of impurity (Ezra 6:21). MMT is more explicit; the Jew is also defiled. The use of impurity language to emphasize the illegitimacy of intermarriage recalls the ideology and terminology of Ezra–Nehemiah. Defilement comes to any Jew, a container for holiness, who has sexual union with a foreign spouse. While Ezra–Nehemiah is explicit in this regard concerning the priesthood (Ezra 2:61–63; Neh 13:29–30), it is a logical conclusion for the rest of Israel as well since they are called “holy seed” (Ezra 9:2). MMT’s use of ‫ת[ערובת ]ה[גבר‬, “(wrongful) sexual mingling” (MMT B48), in the context of intermarriage recalls Ezra 9:2. As John Strugnell points out, the term does not refer here to homosexual relations but to any inappropriate sexual relations.27 This usage is supported also by the 24. He begins the list with some kind of concern regarding the impurity of ‫דגן‬ ‫]הג[וים‬, “grain of the Gentiles.” The term ‫טהרת‬, “purity of,” is clear in l. 3 and the reconstruction of ‫מט]מאים‬, “defile,” in l. 4 is reasonable in light of ‫מגיעים‬, “touch,” at the beginning of the line. The concern for contaminating produce by touch is well represented in Second Temple Judaism (cf. Mark 7:3–4). 25. Carolyn Sharp, “Phinehan Zeal and Rhetorical Strategy in 4QMMT,” RevQ 18 (1997): 207–27 (217), sees these issues as analogies for the intermarriage issue. Cf. also Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 58–59, who claims that all these issues emphasize separation from Gentiles. 26. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 90; Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 85–86, also notes that the main issue is about the demarcation all Israel, who is holy, and impure Gentiles. 27. John Strugnell, “More on Wives and Marriage in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” RevQ 17 (1996): 537–47; Elisha Qimron, “The Halacha of the Damascus

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

261

Psalmist’s phrase, ‫ויתערבו בגוים‬, “They mingled (sexually) among the Gentiles” (Ps 106:35), which celebrates Phineas’ zeal in skewering the bodies of an Israelite man and Moabite woman engaged in sexual relations and averting God’s wrath on the entire congregation. For the author of MMT, wrongful sexual intermingling is on a par with wrongful entry into the sanctuary; both are considered “impurities” in B42 which have invaded the “holy.” MMT B39–41 protests marriage with ineligible persons, and supports this with Deuteronomy’s prohibition on Ammonites, Moabites, and those with damaged sexual organs, entering the congregation (Deut 23:1). Entering the congregation [‫ ]קהל‬is interpreted by many ancient Jewish commentators to be a marriage restriction, and this is supported in light of the following verses regarding improper marriage.28 Like Ezra– Nehemiah, MMT deletes the time limit (until after the third generation) on Ammonite and Moabites ever joining the congregation by marriage. According to Ezra–Nehemiah, when this verse was preached to Nehemiah’s audience, ‫ויבדילו כל ערב מישראל‬, “they separated all of the mixture out of Israel,” that is, those who were not considered true Israelites who had intermarried into the community (Neh 13:4). It is important to notice that the rationale given for prohibiting intermarriage in MMT is not the threat of pagan influence as in Deut 7:4, that is, a moral concern, but a physical-cultic one: (1) “becoming one bone,” that is, physical conjoining, quoting the Edenic model of Eve as, in Adam’s words, “bone of my bones,” and alluding to the “one flesh” that husband and wife are to become after marriage (Gen 2:23–24).29 The other concern is, (2) protecting the sanctuary, recalling the Deuteronomic injunction not to allow certain foreigners into the assembly (B40–46). The author repeats his concern in B48–49 in summary language: “beware of any impure sexual mixture (‫)ת[ערובת ]ה[גבר‬, and be afraid of (defiling) the sanctuary (‫)יראים מהמקדש‬.”30

Covenant—An Interpretation of ‘Al Yitarev’ ” (Hebrew), in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Division D. Vol. 1. (ed. D. Assaf; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 9–15. Jesper Høgenhaven, “Rhetorical Devices in 4QMMT,” DSD 10 (2003): 187–204, interprets ‫ תערובת‬in B48 and B50 as describing sexual intermingling. 28. See Cohen, From Bible to Talmud, for a survey of ancient interpretations of this passage. 29. Cf. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 61, who notes that the intermarriage issue comes first. 30. One translation reads “Be full of reverence for the sanctuary,” but does not convey the sense of dread for defilement of the sanctuary that is implied.

262

Mixed Marriages

The term ‫ מתערבים‬is, according to the editor, also used in B80, where the author claims that the people were intermingling sexually with outsiders and so defiling Israel’s seed. The physical character of MMT’s prohibition is made explicit in the author’s citation of the Torah’s law against kil’ayim, improper intermingling of animal species, fabrics, and agricultural seeds, as an analogy for sexual relations between Jews and Gentiles (B75–82). Ezra–Nehemiah and Psalms have already introduced the verb ‫ התערב‬into a sexual context and MMT capitalizes upon it. The point seems to be that intermarriage is wrong both biblically and biologically. According to Qimron’s reconstruction of MMT B75–76, the text reads, “And concerning the practice of illegal marriage that exists among the people: (this practice exists) (‫)המה ב]ני זרע[ קודש משכתוב קודש ישראל‬ despite their being so[ns] of holy [seed], as is written, Israel is holy.” Later, he seems to claim that some of the priests and, probably laity too, are engaging in sexual relations with outsiders: (‫ומטמאי]ם [את זרע‬ ‫)]הקודש ואף[ את ]זרע[ם עם הזונות‬, “and thus defiling the holy seed and also their own seed with forbidden women” (B81–82). These lines, with their concern for holy seed, recall Ezra 9:2, which was apparently known to and used by the author of MMT. Both writers are emphasizing the nation’s holiness by virtue of genealogy. The identity of the “seeds” in this passage is unclear, but they most likely refer to intermarriage between Jews, both priests and laity, and Gentiles. Elisha Qimron, the editor of MMT, regards the issue as intermarriage between priests and laity, but several scholars have argued that this was probably not the only issue.31 According to the Torah, priests may marry women from non-priestly families; only the high priest must marry within the clan. As Christine Hayes explains,

31. But Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 65–75, surveys the proponents of both sides of this issue, including Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 85, who argues convincingly for the intermarriage concern affecting both priests and laity. She claims that priestly marriage laws (cf. Lev 21:7) have been extended to Israelite laity because they have been designated as “holy.” Loader sees kodesh Yisrael (B75) as a quote from Jer 2:3: qodesh Yisrael laYHWH (pp. 66–67). Himmelfarb, “Levi,” 8, opposes this view, arguing that intermarriage with Gentiles was not an issue in this period because the Jewish sources, for example, 1 and 2 Maccabees, do not complain of it. However, there is ample evidence of this practice and protest against it at least as early as Ezra– Nehemiah. Also, parallels in Ezek 44:33, ALD 6:3–4, 16–17, Jub. 30, and various other Qumran texts (see below) address the problem of intermarriage in terms of Jew/Gentile.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

263

For Ezra, Jubilees, and 4QMMT, the designation of Israel as holy prefaces and justifies the application of certain priestly marriage laws to lay Israelites. In 4QMMT the law in question appears to be Lev 21:7: “They shall not marry a zonah…for they are holy to their God.” …Israelite marriages with outsiders (zonot) defile the holy seed of lay Israelites as much as priestly marriages with outsiders defile their seed (i.e., the most holy seed of the priests). As holy seed and most holy seed, respectively, Israelite and priest alike are subject to the rule of Lev 21:7.32

The usage of Ezran language, “holy seed,” recalling the issue of intermarriage between Jews and outsiders, adds significant weight to this argument that this is the case in MMT as well. It may even be the case that MMT’s intermarriage issue is, like Ezra’s, not a case of completely different races, but simply of mixed heritage. While some may have considered themselves “Israel” and adopted some form of Judaism, the community of the author did not agree.33 The usage of ‫זרע‬, “seed” attested in B81 and reconstructed in B82 emphasizes the physical nature of the argument against intermarriage (cf. also 4Q271 iii 9–10). As in Ezra–Nehemiah, religious identification alone cannot bring about full acceptance of an outsider into the Jewish community. The author of MMT compares human seed to agricultural seeds and warns that different kinds of seed should not mix. In effect, he is saying that intermarriage between Jew and Gentile is contrary to nature. Israel is holy while Gentiles are profane; sexual intermingling will create invalid offspring. MMT C1–32 is an exhortation explaining the reason for the group’s separation from the larger Jewish community. Apparently, intermarriage was a significant part of the problem.34 The beginning of Section C is preserved only fragmentarily, but ll. 4–5 preserve the terms, ‫נשים‬, “wives,” ‫מעל‬, “sacrilege,” ‫חמס‬, “violence,” and ‫זנות‬, “illicit sexual relations.” An association between sacrilege and intermarriage clearly begins in Ezra–Nehemiah, as discussed above. Furthermore, Shecaniah

32. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 85–86; cf. also Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1805–6. 33. So Gudrun Holtz, “Inclusivism at Qumran,” DSD 16 (2009): 22–54 (49). 34. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 85, states: “The author shows himself as standing in a tradition reaching through Jubilees, Aramaic Levi Document, Malachi, Ezra, Psalm 106 and Numbers, which was concerned with intermarriage to Gentiles.” Both Sharp, “Phinehan Zeal,” 209–12, and Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 88, note the hint of protest against intermarriage latent in the phrase, “Imputed to him for righteousness,” which recalls Abraham and/or Phineas who were faithful and even zealous in their stand against intermarriage.

264

Mixed Marriages

confesses to Ezra on behalf of all of the offenders, ‫אנחנו מעלנו באלהינו‬ ‫ונשב נשים נכריות מעמי הארץ‬, “we have committed a sacrilege against our God and married foreign wives from the peoples of the land” (Ezra 10:2). Carolyn Sharp, on the basis of this verse, goes so far as to reconstruct MMT C4 with the addition of ‫נכריות‬, “foreign,” after ‫נשים‬, “wives,” and ‫“ באלהינו‬against our God,” after ‫מעל‬, “sacrilege” (Ezra 10:2; Neh 13:27).35 One last correlation between Ezra–Nehemiah and MMT on the subject of intermarriage concerns the word ‫תועבה‬, “abomination.” MMT C6–7 quotes Deuteronomy, “[and it is] written [in the book of Moses] that you should [not] bring any abomination [into your home, since] an abomination is a hateful thing” (cf. Deut 7:26). However, unlike in Deuteronomy, “abomination” here refers not only to an idol but also to an idolater, and, in particular, a foreign spouse. The earlier mention in C4–5 of women, sacrilege, and zenut indicates a sexual context for this “abomination.” Hayes sees a parallel in Jubilees where the author regards giving an Israelite in marriage to a Gentile as, in effect, offering a sacrifice to Molech, and hence an abomination.36 But the roots of this shift are in Ezra–Nehemiah. The writer closely associates the people themselves with abominations in the context of marriage: ‫להתחתן בעמי התעבות‬ ‫האלה‬, “to marry with these people of abominations” (Ezra 9:14). While the Torah describes various sexually illicit marriages as “abominations” (Lev 18:27–30; Deut 24:4), it never refers to the partners themselves as “people of abominations.” The practices are abhorrent but not the people (cf. Deut 13:15). In its original context, the Deuteronomic injunction (7:26) forbidding the practice of bringing idols into one’s home clearly refers to the idol and not the idolater, as the reference to metals in Deut 7:25 indicates.37 The mention of David and Solomon may bring to mind their illicit sexual alliances, especially Solomon’s intermarriage to Gentiles (C18–27).38 35. Sharp, “Phinean Zeal,” 211. Because of the references to violence in this section, Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 88, thinks the problem was “most likely to have been with Gentile wives, and may refer to captive foreign wives.” This would cohere with a second-century dating under Jonathan, as recipient of the letter, and the complaint might be against the priesthood who is allowing intermarriage. 36. Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 87. 37. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 80, sees a progression from the Temple Scroll, which imposes a longer waiting period on a foreign woman but still accepts her (63:10–15), to MMT, which refuses her altogether. But this is hardly a progression; after all, Ezra–Nehemiah agrees with MMT on this point. Also, see below for a different interpretation of the Temple Scroll’s position. 38. Ibid., 82–83.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

265

If so, this too has precedent in Ezra–Nehemiah. Nehemiah refers to the poor example of Solomon whose foreign wives “caused him to sin” (Neh 13:27). In summary, MMT utilizes both concepts and terminology from Ezra– Nehemiah to make a case against intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles. Several cultic terms found in Ezra–Nehemiah are employed to emphasize the ritual and genealogical nature of the defilement of Gentile spouses on all Jews, not just priests. For the author, the result of this impure, unnatural mixture is unholy offspring. Temple Scroll The writer of the Temple Scroll, probably a second-century B.C.E. text, does not make significant usage of Ezra–Nehemiah’s terminology with regard to the intermarriage issue. The term ‫ תערובת‬occurs twice in 11Q19, once referring to the impurity of the dead (‫תערובת המת‬, L 2) and once forbidding the ‫תערובת‬, “intermingling,” of priests (xlv 7). While both instances refer to negative intermingling, and even impurity in the first instance, there is no connection made to sexuality of any kind. There is some hint of Ezra–Nehemiah in the mention of ‫תועבות הגויים‬, “the abominations of the Gentiles”; it is because of these detestable practices that God will drive the natives out of the land (lx 16–20). However, sexual impurity does not appear on the author’s list, which includes such sins as idolatry, child sacrifice, soothsaying and necromancy. ‫מעל‬, “sacrilege,” appears nowhere in the Scroll and neither does the phrase ‫זרע‬ ‫הקודש‬, “the holy seed.” Nevertheless, the writer is influenced by earlier sources, like Ezra–Nehemiah, in his strict approach to intermarriage. William Loader argues that the writer of the Temple Scroll does not regard intermarriage as an issue at all.39 He claims that the Temple Scroll’s citation of Exod 34:15–16 (11Q19 ii 12–15) seems to reflect peaceful marriage ties, “covenant.” Aside from this simple citation, Loader does not see any concern with intermarriage elsewhere in the Temple Scroll, except in the case of the king who may not marry the ‫בנות‬ ‫הגויים‬, “the daughters of the Gentiles” (11Q19 lvii 16). Following the biblical restriction on the high priest to marry only within his clan, the Temple Scroll applies the same law to the king. Loader points to the acculturation of the captive war bride, however, as evidence that intermarriage was sometimes considered legitimate in the case of the laity.40

39. Ibid., 10. 40. Ibid., 41.

266

Mixed Marriages

However, the data can be interpreted differently. The Temple Scroll’s citation of Exod 34:15–16 (11Q19 ii 12–15) is a clear affirmation that taking a foreign spouse is detrimental to the Jew and leads to the worship of foreign gods.41 Like Ezra–Nehemiah, the author lists the various Canaanite nations which were forbidden, none of which survive in his time. The list appears to be a way of excluding all non-holy residents of the land, that is, Gentiles, and is used similarly in Ezra–Nehemiah (Ezra 9:1–2). As Schiffman points out, prohibited marriages with Canaanites were later expanded to all Gentiles.42 The language used with regard to the intermarriage restriction on the king might reflect the intermarriage restrictions of Ezra–Nehemiah. The prohibition reads, ‫ואשה לוא ישא מכול בנות הגויים‬, “and he shall not take a woman in marriage from any of the daughters of the Gentiles” (11Q19 lvii 15–16). Swanson notes that the verb ‫נשא‬, “to take,” in the sense of “marry,” appears only in Chronicles, and Ezra–Nehemiah, where it “often comes in the context of warnings against the sin of intermarriage” (cf. Ezra 9:12; 10:44; Neh 13:25). He claims that the issue of intermarriage, as it is treated in late biblical texts, “must be in mind…as one of the sins the guard keeps the king from.”43 The king is also told not to multiply wives lest they turn his heart away from God (11Q19 lvi 18–19; cf. Deut 17:17). This Deuteronomic warning is repeated in biblical literature only in 1 Kgs 11:1–4 and Ezra–Nehemiah (Neh 13:26), but in the latter the prohibition on intermarriage for the king is applied to all Israel. Although the Temple Scroll targets the marriage practice of the king, in particular, this is simply one application of his general stance against intermarriage.44 Along with his citation of Exod 34 discussed above, two other examples can be found in support: the cases of (1) the inclusion of the ger at the temple court, and (2) the captive war bride. At first glance, the Temple Scroll’s attitude toward foreigners may seem flexible since it appears even in the fragmentary text that the ger is allowed to enter the outer court of the temple after the third generation (39:5; 40:5–7).45 However, is this really an invitation to foreigners to join the community? How likely would it be for a foreigner to marry an Israelite knowing he would never be allowed, along with his descendants for three generations, 41. Lange, “Daughters,” 83. 42. Lawrence Schiffman, “Laws Pertaining to Women in the Temple Scroll,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; STDJ 10; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 210–28 (214). 43. Dwight D. Swanson, The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT (STDJ 14; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 136. 44. See Lange, “Daughters,” 83. 45. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 11.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

267

to participate in the assembly at the sanctuary? In ancient Israel, one who is excluded from the temple courts is in essence told that he is not a true member of the religious community of Israel nor an appropriate marriage partner. What then is the point of including the ger in the outer court if, in reality, this will not apply to him or his living descendants? To my mind, the answer is found in Deut 23. Loader notes that the laws regarding illicit unions and foreigners of Deut 23:1–9 are noticeably absent from the Temple Scroll, since the author treats the topics immediately following: vv. 10–11, emissions; vv. 12–14, toilets; and vv. 21–23, vows. However, in my view, the author does imply vv. 1–9 in his comment that the ger cannot come into the outer court for three generations. With this small remark, the author has expanded the three-generation constraint on Edomites and Egyptians entering the congregation (Deut 23:8) to apply to all foreigners who would seek inclusion among Israel. By inviting the ger into the Temple complex after three generations (and even then only into the outer court), the Temple Scroll is in effect excluding him from Israel. So also, Ezra–Nehemiah deletes the time restrictions for acceptance of some foreigners altogether because for all practical purposes it is a moot point (Ezra 9:1–2). According to Loader, the author of the Temple Scroll assumes that “foreign wives (like the captive wife) are a normal part of life.”46 However, the law regarding the captive war bride, like that including the ger in the outer temple court, is another legal fiction. The Temple Scroll cites the Deuteronomic law allowing a man to marry a foreign war captive (11Q19 lxiii 10–15). However, the writer adds a clause which prohibits the woman to touch her husband’s food for seven years (or 14 years).47 In my view, this addition makes the marriage a farce. To forbid a woman to eat with her spouse or even cook his food is a recipe for an impossible marriage in antiquity. The “concession” is really a legal fiction. According to Manfred Lehman, the food in question is holy contributions given to the priests, and thus the author is concerned only about priestly intermarriage.48 To be sure, in light of its cultic topics, the Temple Scroll was probably addressed to priests and the marriage practices 46. Ibid., 37. 47. For “14 years,” cf. Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll (3 vols. in 4; Jerusalem: Jerusalem Exploration Society, 1978), 1:367. 48. Manfred Lehman, “The Beautiful War Bride (‫ )יפת תאר‬and Other Halakhoth in the Temple Scroll,” in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll, Manchester, December 1987 (ed. G. J. Brooke; JSPSup 7; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989), 265–71 (267), notes the reference to the priest’s family eating terumah and shelamim.

268

Mixed Marriages

of both ordinary and high priest one of his main concerns. However, I would hesitate to argue that the intermarriage being described here is limited to priests only. Both of the underlying Torah texts are addressed to all Israel (Deut 21:10–14; 23:1–9). Also, the author’s earlier quote of Exod 34:15–16, carries no such priestly restriction. Lawrence Schiffman, in his work on women in the Temple Scroll concludes, “Relations between the sexes are, as the Torah requires, to be conducted in sanctity and holiness,” not only by priests but by “every man and woman in Israel.”49 This statement includes the prohibition on intermarriage as well, which, for the author of the Scroll, is not an option in Israel. To summarize, the author of the Temple Scroll is decidedly against intermarriage between Jew and Gentile and may have been familiar with the intermarriage crises of Ezra–Nehemiah. His almost verbatim quotation from Exod 34:15–16 leaves no doubt as to his position, yet he is careful to support biblical regulations allowing foreigners into Israel while neutralizing them with small changes in wording. His language is not overtly drawn from Ezra–Nehemiah, and his approach is more subtle, but his sentiments flow in a similar vein. Damascus Document The date of the Damascus Document continues to be argued, but most scholars recognize early sources in the document pre-dating the formation of the sect. Charlotte Hempel argues for a composite text which is finalized by the end of the second century B.C.E.50 In the Admonition, God’s purpose is presented as ‫למלא פני תבל מזרעם‬, “that the face of the earth might be filled with their seed” (2:11–12; cf. also 1QS/1Q28 iv 7). The author presents a recital of history “from ancient times until now” and points out the failures of the ancients with regard to sexual wrongdoing (2:14–3:12a). However, sexual sin is avoided by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were “friends of God” (3:3) and eternal members of the covenant. What is the sexual sin that the patriarchs avoid? In light of parallels with Jubilees, Loader thinks that the intermarriage issue is uppermost in the mind of the author of the Admonition.51 Since Simeon and Levi merit 49. Schiffman, “Laws,” 228. 50. Charlotte Hempel, The Damascus Texts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 23. 51. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 143. Cf. also p. 104, where Loader finds a hint of the intermarriage concern in the phrase, “cutting off the males,” which may refer to Num 25 where the men who had mixed with the Moabite women were killed. He

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

269

the title “friend of God” for their zeal in stopping the intermarriage of their sister by killing the Shechemites (Jub. 30), this label must have been linked with faithfulness in sexual matters, especially intermarriage. In Abraham’s case, the author must be referring to his avoidance of intermarriage with Canaanites. In the Laws section of the Damascus Document, however, Loader does not see intermarriage as a theme. The author warns of three “nets,” or sinful temptations: illicit sexual relations, wealth, and the defilement of the Temple. Although sexual sin is listed first and looms strongest in the section, sexual offenses are more “in-house” and include incestuous marriages and sexual relations with menstruants, but not intermarriage. In fact, Loader makes the claim that the writer of the Laws may even allow intermarriage.52 CD 12:10–11 discusses a situation where a master is forbidden to sell slaves who are non-Jewish in origin and have entered with him into the covenant of Abraham. Loader claims that this reflects a situation where marriage with a foreign woman who has entered the covenant of Judaism conceivable. He admits, nevertheless, that the issue is not adding a foreign concubine since the writer forbids polygyny (4:20–21), but refers rather to unmarried men marrying foreign (in origin) women (12:10–11). Loader sees further support for this flexibility in a fragment of 4Q270 containing a line of two words, one inserted by a scribe as a superscript, ‫ה[שופחה החרופה‬, “the] bondswoman who was designated.” The term “designated” sparks a possible connection with Lev 19:20 regarding sexual relations with a slave woman designated for another man. Reading two fragments of the Damascus Document (4Q266 and 4Q270) together, the phrase “seven ye[ars” appears on the next line, with something about the sacred and bread mentioned in l. 19. Cecilia Wassen makes a possible connection with the Deuteronomic captive bride discussed in the Temple Scroll.53 However, with such a fragmentary text, it is not clear that the subject is intermarriage, and, even if it is, we do not know what the author ruled. In light of other laws emphasizing the sanctity of Israel and the impurity of Gentiles (see below), caution is enjoined. As discussed above, the matter was presented in the Temple Scroll in such a way as to eradicate not support intermarriage.

also regards the mention of blood as a possible reference to eating the non-kosher food of the Moabite women. Holtz, “Inclusivism,” 50–51, who regards the Admonition as later and more separatist than the Laws, identifies the threatening outsiders as opposing Jews rather than Gentiles. 52. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 156. 53. Cecilia Wassen, Women in the Damascus Document (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 69.

270

Mixed Marriages

Is there evidence of influence from Ezra–Nehemiah in the Damascus Document on this subject? Joseph Blenkinsopp notes several areas of correspondence: returned exiles in the pre-history (D) or current history (EN) of the group; the commitment of the group to self-segregate themselves from other Jews; the reinstatement of law by the special Teacher (‫“ ;)התורה דורש‬the prohibition of irregular sexual unions, including marriage with outsiders”; support of the cult and strict observance of Sabbath; and special concern to avoid impurity.54 The Admonition, with its focus on intermarriage shares this concern with Ezra–Nehemiah. While intermarriage is not an explicit prohibition in the Laws, the protection of Jewish sexuality is a concern and it is couched in Ezran terminology. For example, ‫ולא ימעל איש בשאר בשרו‬, “and a man shall not commit sacrilege with regard to his near kin” (7:6), places the sin of incest in terms of sancta violation. The Damascus Document quotes Lev 18:8 but substitutes the term ‫תקרב‬, “approach,” with ‫ימעל‬, “to commit sacrilege,” along the lines of Ezra–Nehemiah. The term ‫יתערב‬, used for wrongful sexual liaisons which violate the sanctum of Israel in Ezra– Nehemiah, appears also in D: “Let no man engage in sexual intercourse (‫ )יתערב‬for his pleasure on the Sabbath” (4Q271 5 i 1–2).55 In each case, the author is concerned about the violation of what is holy by wrongful sexual relations. Also, the idea that marriages can simply be unfit when the partners are of two different ethnicities is reflected in 4Q271 iii 9–10 regarding a father and his daughter, “He should not give her to one unfit for her [for that is kil’ayim, (plowing with) o]x and donkey and wearing wool and linen together.” Like the hybridism of MMT and the even earlier restriction on holy seed found in Ezra–Nehemiah, the author of the Laws uses categories of nature in his argument against intermarriage. As Loader notes, “The use of Deut 22:10–11 does…suggest that the concern relates not just to individuals who are unsuitable but to categories of people. Thus it might include marriage to Gentiles, as Deut 22:9–11 is applied in 4QMMT, or marriage outside one’s kin, although the metaphor of kinds does not suit this so well.”56 Also the notion of impurity connected to Gentiles found in Ezra– Nehemiah is present in the Damascus Document. The writer rejects any 54. Blenkinsopp, Judaism, 225–26. 55. Joseph Baumgarten, ed., Discoveries in the Judean Desert. Vol. 35, Halakhic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 177, suggests the same text may also refer to the sanctity of marriage; cf. “Let no man bring [a woman into the ho]ly [covenant?]” (4Q271 3 10b–11a). Cf. also 4QpapritMar/4Q502 and 4QInst A/4Q415 2 ii 4 where ‫ קודש‬and cognates are employed in the context of marriage. 56. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 158.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

271

priest who returns from captivity among ‫גואים‬, “Gentiles,” from serving in the sanctuary because he has been profaned ‫בטמאתם‬, “with their impurity” (4Q266 5 ii 5–6; cf. also 4Q267 6 ii 5–9). These terms recall the original connection of Gentiles and impurity made by the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, who decries, ‫טמאת גויי הארץ‬, “the impurity of the peoples of the land” (Ezra 6:21). Similar to Ezra–Nehemiah, D offers no purification means for these Gentiles, nor for the priest who has been contaminated by living among them. With this attitude to Gentiles, it is hardly conceivable that they would be accepted as marriage partners. The author of the Damascus Document introduces another element into the issue of illicit sexual relations, one that is clearly not in Ezra– Nehemiah. The list of sins in ch. 7 emphasizes sexual sins, especially in its final section (7.1–4). The writer concludes the list with the exhortation, “Let a man not defile (‫ )ישקץ‬his holy spirit that God has set apart for him.” Thus, the defilement of various sins, including illicit sexual relations, is said to have internal, spiritual ramifications. The spirit God has placed within a person can become polluted (cf. ‫וגם את רוח קדשיהם‬ ‫טמאו‬, “and they also defiled their holy spirit” (CD 5.11).57 On the other hand, the promise is given that the faithful will be able to count on the covenant and live for a thousand generations (CD A 7.5b–6a; cf. “thousands of generations,” CD B 19.1–2). It is not an accident that this is a quotation from Deut 7:9 which appears in the biblical text immediately after the laws against illicit sexual relations and intermarriage (Deut 7:1–8).58 In sum, the Damascus Document does not endorse intermarriage between Jews and outsiders. The issue is explicit in the Admonition, but this should not be understood as tolerance for it in the Laws. The author protests wrongful sexual relations within the community using the Ezran concept that Jewish bodies are sancta which can be desecrated by marriage with the wrong category of person and that Gentiles generate impurity. Terminology used in D on this topic recalls the cultic language of Ezra–Nehemiah, especially the terms ‫ מעל‬and ‫טמאת גויי הארץ‬. As in Ezra–Nehemiah, the author of the Damascus Document applies holiness to a larger constituency than the priesthood and places strict marriage restrictions on all Jews. In fact, sanctity reaches into the very spirit of every true member of Israel. 57. According to Loader, ibid., 128, the defilement here “almost certainly includes reference to sexual wrongdoing.” Cf. also the Treatise of the Two Spirits which includes ‫רוח זנות‬, “a spirit of sexual wrongdoing,” in a list of sins deriving from Hos 4:12 (1QS 4.10). 58. According to Jub. 23:28–29, sexual wrongdoing reduces the human lifespan.

272

Mixed Marriages

Genesis Apocryphon The Genesis Apocryphon, dating from the late first century B.C.E., centers likewise on correct genealogy, but from a different perspective than Ezra–Nehemiah.59 The author is influenced heavily by the Watchers Myth, with its notion that heavenly beings had sexual relations with women resulting in illegitimate offspring. George Nickelsburg argues that the author of the Genesis Apocryphon is “concerned about some kind of miscegenation. The sexuality of Israelite women is seen to constitute a danger.”60 He admits that the precise nature of this danger is not clear, however he notes that in both stories of Lamech and Abraham there is “anxiety that his wife has been or will be drawn into a sexual relationship with a ‘stranger.’ ” As in 1 En. 6–11, the issue is women having illicit relationships with forbidden others. And, given the similarities between the Apocryphon and Jubilees, the latter’s concern over mixed marriages may also be represented in the former. Criticism that the Watchers are not a human partner, and thus their miscegenation not parallel to human intermarriage, is reduced by the concern over Sarah’s defilement by the Gentile Pharaoh.61 Thus, the Watchers Myth provides ripe material for combating intermarriage: like the Watchers and the women, Jews and Gentiles are illmatched because of their separate origin. As in Ezra–Nehemiah, the term, “seed,” is utilized once again by the author to emphasize proper genealogy. Noah’s mother, Bitenosh, insists to her husband, Lamech, “this seed is from you; from you is this conception, and from you the planting of [this] fruit […], and not from any stranger, or from any of the Watchers, or from any of the sons of hea[ven” (1Q20 2.15–16). The 59. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I (1Q20): A Commentary (BibOr 18/B; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2004), 28, dates the original text to the first century B.C.E. 60. George Nickelsburg, “Patriarchs Who Worry about their Wives: A Haggadic Tendency in the Genesis Apocryphon,” in Neusner, ed., George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective, 177–99 (193). 61. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 297, 345, disagrees, finding no evidence of the use of the Watchers Myth in subsequent tradition to target intermarriage. Eileen Schuller, “Response to ‘Patriarchs Who Worry about Their Wives: A Haggadic Tendency in the Genesis Apocryphon,’ ” in Neusner, ed., George W. E. Nickelsburg in Perspective, 200–212 (208–9), hesitates to connect the Apocryphon’s recital of history with the author’s social reality. Nevertheless, she does agree that there are “general statements of concern with purity and familial line”; she notes also the lack of preservation of the ends of the Scroll which might have revealed the author’s main purpose.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

273

writer is influenced no doubt by Jubilees where Shem maintains purity of line uncontaminated by intermarriage. Noah is a model father who arranges appropriate marriages for his sons as opposed to others who indiscriminately marry Gentiles. It is also noted that Abraham continues faithfulness to his race by avoiding Canaanite women. Passing Sarah off as his sister to the Egyptian Pharaoh, however, placed her in jeopardy. Had Pharaoh consummated sexual relations with Sarah, according to the Apocryphon, she would have been “defiled” (Gen. Apoc. 20:30; cf. Jub. 33:9). Thus, the emphasis on genealogy with the term “seed” found in Ezra–Nehemiah and the concern for its defilement by intermarriage continues in the Apocryphon. 4QFragments Many fragments of texts from Cave 4 supply additional information relevant to our discussion of intermarriage and the ways in which the Qumran authors have been influenced by Ezra–Nehemiah. They are organized below in the following categories: Law, Liturgy, Wisdom, and Eschatology. Law 4QOrdinancesb introduces the issue of the food of the priests, referring to it as the “food of angels.” It cannot be shared with any profaned woman, ‫בעלות לבני הנכר‬, “wives (or mistresses?) of foreigners” (4Q513 2 ii 2), even if they are members of the priest’s household. One is reminded of Nehemiah’s claim that he had purged all of the ‫נכר‬, “foreignness,” out of the priesthood (Neh 13:30; cf. also the separation of the seed of Israel from all ‫ בני הנכר‬as well, Neh 9:2). It is unclear if 4Q513 refers to priests’ daughters who have been given to foreigners or if priests have married foreign women. In any case it is wrong, according to the author, ‫להאכילם‬, “to feed them,” with the holy food set apart for the priests’ families. Similar to MMT, the author compares foreigners eating sacred food to zenut, illicit sexual relations; both actions result in profanation (‫בחללם‬/‫החל‬, 4Q513 2 ii 5–6) of what is holy. Similarly, 4QHalakha A is concerned about who may eat terumah, sacred food contributed to the priests but not offered on the altar. Following Lev 22:10–13, which states that terumah may be eaten by the priest’s whole household, the author clarifies that a woman a priest purchases (wife, slave) or a woman born in his house (daughter, slave’s daughter) can eat of the terumah but not a prostitute, a ‫( חללה‬i.e. a woman born from a sexual union between priest and a forbidden woman)

274

Mixed Marriages

or a divorcee (4Q251 16 1–3).62 These are all categories which Lev 21:7 forbids a priest from marrying. 4QHalakha A, l. 3, concluding with ‫כל‬ ‫המעל אשר ימעל‬, has been interpreted to warn against any “unfaithfulness” in the context of the marital relationship.63 Yet this misses the point so aptly presented in Ezra–Nehemiah that forbidden sexual unions cause ‫מעל‬, “sacrilege,” against God. In Ezra–Nehemiah, sacrilege is caused by the sexual conjoining of foreigners and Israelites (Ezra 9:2). In 4QHalakha A, women whom the priests are forbidden to marry cause a sacrilege not only by joining with them sexually but also by eating their sacred food. 4Q251 17 7, ‫אל יקח איש בתו נ]ערה לאיש זר‬, is confusing but seems to indicate that it is important that a man’s daughter not marry an outsider. The term ‫זר‬, “outsider, stranger, foreigner,” does not appear in Ezra– Nehemiah, but the language is reconstructed here from the parallel passage regarding priestly intermarriage in Lev 22:10–13. Since Fragment 17 deals exclusively with sexual laws from Lev 18 incumbent on all Israel, it follows that the author intended the intermarriage prohibition to apply to all Jews as well.64 These legal texts, although fragments, are primarily concerned to protect the sanctity of the priesthood and its holy food. However, in 4Q251 there is a hint that the prohibition against intermarriage extends beyond priestly families, since “no man” should marry his daughter to a foreigner (4Q251 17, 7). The use of both ‫( נכר‬4Q513) and ‫( מעל‬4Q251) in this context, reminiscent of Ezra–Nehemiah, continues here. Liturgy Like the Genesis Apocryphon discussed above, various liturgical texts, including prayers, songs, and incantations, are influenced by the Watchers Myth and may possibly carry overtones against intermarriage. In the Thanksgiving Hymns the offspring of this union are referred to as ‫ממזרים‬, “illegitimate offspring” (1QH xxiv 15 and 2 ii + 6 vi; cf. xviii 34b–36). In the Bible there is a hint that the resulting children became giants, but they are not further described (Gen 6:4), and the writer of the 62. Cf. Baumgarten, ed., Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 35:44, although in the biblical text it is most likely that ‫ חללה‬refers to a woman who has been raped; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1807. 63. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 226. 64. Ibid., 227, 359. Loader (p. 228) also notes the citation of Mal 2:10 in 4Q265 Miscellaneous Rules, “Why are we unfaithful to each other?,” as a possible reference to intermarriage; however, the text is too fragmentary to make such a conclusion certain.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

275

Hymns is influenced by the Enochic version (1 En. 15:8–9). The concern about the offspring of these illicit unions may reflect a miscegenation between human partners as well as a mythical one. In several liturgical texts, the offspring of the Watchers and the women result not only in invalid offspring, but in evil spirits. 4QShir, Songs of the Sage, alludes to the Watchers Myth by referring to spirits of destroying angels and ‫רוחות ממזרים‬, “spirits of bastards” (4Q510 i 5). According to Loader, this “allusion to ‘bastards’ reflects the Enochic tradition that the giants were bastards and their corpses the source of evil spirits” (1 En. 15:8–9); the author attributes the human condition to the “wild demonic spirits let loose on the world from the offspring of the Watchers.” But the term “bastards” also brings to mind the social issue of illegitimate children of human partners, one present in other Qumran texts in this survey. Similarly, 4QIncantation refers to ‫מ[מזרים ורוח‬ ‫הטמאה‬, “ba]stards and the spirit of impurity” (4Q444 i–iv 8; note line 11, ‫תועבה‬, “abomination”). On this view, evil spirits emerged from the bastards produced by the Watchers and the women. In line with the position and terminology of Ezra–Nehemiah, the writers of some of these liturgical texts use the word ‫זרע‬, “seed,” to emphasize holy genealogy. The 11QApocryphal Psalms pronounces judgment against the demon offspring of the Watchers and women by an angel who condemns them to darkness, ‫מי אתה ]הילוד מ[אדם ומזרע‬ ‫הקד]ושי[ם‬, “Who are you [offspring of] humankind and the seed of the h[oly one]s?” (11Q11 v 6). These texts exhibit a concern for legitimate offspring and emphasize the incompatibility of holiness and illegitimate offspring produced by sexual union with partners from the wrong category. Like the Genesis Apocryphon, intermarriage may well be a social issue behind these passages too. The Words of the Luminaries (4Q504 DibHam xvi 15–20), a fragmentary passage with only the first part of each line extant, nevertheless exhibits a concern for proper “seed.” The writer complains about some (kings?) who “marry (‫…)לקחת בנות‬and they destroyed…your covenant and…the seed of Israel (‫( ”)זרע ישראל‬ll. 17–20). In light of Ezra–Nehemiah, even these few words make a protest against intermarriage likely here. In fact, the original editor was so impressed with the similarity of language to Ezra–Nehemiah that he dated the text to that era.65 These liturgical texts from Qumran share with Ezra–Nehemiah the importance of protecting the holiness of Israelite “seed” by choosing appropriate marriage partners. Ezra–Nehemiah is not used in any direct 65. Maurice Baillet, “Un recueil liturgique de Qumrân Grotte 4: Les Paroles de Luminaires,” RB 68 (1961): 195–250 (220).

276

Mixed Marriages

quotation, yet the writers share a concern for the legitimacy of genealogy and its protection from defilement. The Qumran authors even demonize offspring which they consider illegitimate. Wisdom Evidence of the battle against wrongful sexual unions, especially intermarriage, surface in several wisdom texts from Qumran. 4QInstruction presents marriage in especially physical terms. The wife is referred to as ‫עזר בשרכה‬, “the helper of your flesh” (4Q416 2 iii 21; cf. Gen 2:20, 24). The text emphasizes the oneness of husband and wife, “You shall be made into a unity with the wife of your bosom, for she is the flesh of [your] nak[edness” (4Q416 2 iv 5). As in Ezra–Nehemiah, wrongful sexual union results in sacrilege: ‫לוא ימעל בבשרו‬, “He shall not commit sacrilege with his flesh” (4Q418 101 ii 5). Loader translates this line, “He shall not do harm to (or act unfaithfully against or inappropriately toward) his own kin,” but this misses the point about desecrating holy bodies.66 Indeed, marriage seems to be considered a holy covenant by the author, who warns against its dissolution by the interference of an outside woman, “lest you neglect the hol[y] covenant (or: the covenant of marriage) and one (a woman) hated by your soul” (4Q415 2).67 Ezra–Nehemiah’s ‫זרע הקדש‬, “the holy seed,” reappears in 4QInstruction, although the text is fragmentarily. 4Q415 2 i + 1 ii 4–6 refers to ‫זרע‬ ‫קודשכה‬, “your holy seed,” and ‫לא ימוש זרעכה מנחלת‬, “your seed will not depart from the inheritance of…” The text continues the metaphor of seed with the promise that the faithful will “rejoice in the fruit of…,” and the mention of ‫יפרח‬, “will sprout.” This may be a reference to the blessing of avoiding intermarriage and retaining purity of seed, although the text is too fragmentary for certainty.68 On the basis of the intermarriage context of the phrase, “holy seed,” found in other texts as early as Ezra– Nehemiah, discussed above, it is possible that the author of 4QInstruction is also concerned about the maintenance of holy genealogy in Israel. He not only warns against the sacrilege created by illicit sexual unions

66. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 311. 67. Loader (ibid., 301) suggests that the woman is threatening the marriage from outside. He claims that this passage refers to the holy covenant of marriage although admitting the uniqueness of this application at Qumran. 68. Ibid., 299; cf., however, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 229: “In post-exilic texts ‘holy seed’ is used predominantly in sections dealing with intermarriage, but nothing in the preserved text suggests this is the issue at stake here.”

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

277

but emphasizes as well the blessing of holy children as the fruit of a proper marriage. In two para-biblical texts, exhortations against intermarriage may reflect some Ezran influence. In Testament of Qahat, the son of Levi Qahat claims that he and his father have not [‫ער[ברוב‬, “mingled,” probably an allusion to intermarriage, (4Q542 1 i 9). Similarly to 4QInstruction, the author emphasizes the inheritance of Jewish offspring. Levi exhorts, “Do not give your inheritance away to ‫נכראין‬, “foreigners,” nor your inheritance to ‫כילאין‬, “half-breeds” (4Q542 1 i 5–6a). The terms for “mingled” and “foreigners” are the Aramaic equivalents for Hebrew terms first used in Ezra–Nehemiah to describe the woes of intermarriage (cf. Ezra 9:2; Neh 13:26). “Half-breeds” is also reminiscent of the law regarding forbidden mixtures of species, seeds and fabrics (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9) applied analogically by the writer of MMT to prohibit intermarriage. Visions of Amram extols Abraham for not taking another wife though “there were many women in Canaan” (4Q547 1–2 iii 7–8; cf. 4Q544 1 i 8). As Loader suggests, the positive example of Abraham implicitly reinforces the prohibition against intermarriage.69 It is significant that the author applies the intermarriage focus beyond priests because he references Abraham, the father of all Israel, and implicitly recalls the prohibition given to all Israel not to marry Canaanites (Deut 7:1). Thus, these wisdom texts emphasize the holiness of marriage within Israel and decry wrongful sexual unions, including intermarriage. 4QInstruction mentions the possibility of sacrilege created by wrongful sexual unions and the blessing of holy offspring. Visions of Amram, although a priestly text, applies the prohibition of intermarriage to all Israel by the example of the patriarch Abraham. Terminology from Ezra– Nehemiah surfaces in the Testament of Qahat where the author describes intermarriage as co-mingling with foreigners, and, like MMT, denounces them as inappropriate sexual partners by nature. Eschatology Two eschatological texts reveal concern about intermarriage. 4QFlorilegium envisions a future sanctuary which will be free of all illegitimate worshippers, but which probably also represents the holiness of the community itself by the phrase, ‫מקדש אדם‬, “Human Temple,” or “Temple of Adam” (4Q174 i 2b–4).70 Like Ezra–Nehemiah, the writer presents 69. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 325. 70. Joseph Baumgarten, “The Exclusion of Netinim and Proselytes in 4QFlorilegium,” in Studies in Qumran Law (ed. J. Baumgarten; SJLA 24; Leiden: Brill,

278

Mixed Marriages

the types of outcasts listed in Deut 23, but he also excludes the ben nekhar, “foreigner,” as in Ezek 44:6–9, and the ger, “resident alien.” The writer probably excludes these people from temple entry as well as from marriage within Israel. The rationale for these exclusions is “because his holy ones are there” (cf. CD 15.15–18; 1Q33 7.6; 1Q28a 2.3–9; 4QMMT B 39–49; 11Q19 xlv 12–14). In the same vein as other sectarian literature from Qumran, 4QFlorilegium carries the notion that the holy angels are present, and thus no impurity, moral or ritual, can be allowed to remain within the community. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah couches its concern about intermarriage in eschatological terms. The author prophesies that Israel will defile the Temple, profane the Sabbaths and neglect the festivals, ‫ובבני ]נכר[ יחלל]ו‬ ‫[את זר]ע[ם‬, “and with the sons of foreigners they will profane their seed” (4Q390 2 i 9–10). Although ‫ נכר‬has been reconstructed here, the reading is reasonable and reminds of its use in the context of intermarriage in Ezra–Nehemiah (Neh 9:2; 13:30) and elsewhere (Mal 2:11; cf. Ezek 44:7–9). The writer uses the term ‫ חלל‬instead of Ezra–Nehemiah’s ‫מעל‬, but the point that Israelite seed is holy and can be desecrated by foreigners is the same. Although eschatological in presentation, there is probably a current social problem underlying both of these texts, as elsewhere in the Qumran corpus, in giving Jewish offspring to outsiders in marriage. It is even likely, as in Ezra–Nehemiah, that these “foreigners” had partial Israelite heritage but their mixed race rendered them invalid spouses and their offspring illegitimate, in the eyes of the community. Conclusion The above survey of Qumran texts dealing with the issue of intermarriage in various ways reveals that Qumran authors stand in line with a strict stance against marriage between Jew and Gentile which begins early in the Second Temple period in the era of Ezra–Nehemiah. The influence of this work varies among the Scrolls but is apparent in the continuation of its innovative use of cultic terminology to target intermarriage. This language becomes a vehicle to reinforce boundaries 1977), 75–87, claims that a future sanctuary is intended, but George Brooke argues for polyvalence in the phrase and suggests that it refers to both (1) the sanctuary made up of humans as a designation of the community, and (2) a proleptic reference to the sanctuary of Adam as a restoration of what was originally intended; see George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), 193.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

279

between groups of Israelites who hold competing identities and claims to holiness. Intermarriage may not be a concern for every Qumran author, but not one of them endorses it. Most oppose it outright and deplore the inevitability of illegitimate offspring (MMT, Damascus Document, Genesis Apocryphon). The Temple Scroll uses interpretive skill to neutralize the leniencies of the Torah with regard to assimilating the resident alien and the war captive. For the Damascus Document, sexual sins defile one’s spirit, and some liturgical texts claim that mixed marriages produce evil spirits (e.g. 4QShir; 4QIncantation). Eschatological texts deplore the “future” desecration of seed (4QApocryphon of Jeremiah) and express hope for a sanctuary free of all foreigners (e.g. 4QFlorilegium). While Ezra–Nehemiah is not explicitly cited for support, nevertheless, that text represents the first Jewish text to order a full-scale reversal of intermarriage with outsiders on the basis of their desecration of the holiness of Israel. MMT reveals the strongest terminological influence from Ezra–Nehemiah and even intensifies the language. Many authors reiterate the desecration and/or defilement of holy seed by illicit sexual relations (e.g. MMT, Damascus Document, 4QInstruction). Several insist that intermarriage is prohibited beyond the priesthood to all Jews (e.g. MMT, Damascus Document, 4QHalakha, 4QVisions of Amram). In a few texts, it is apparent that Gentiles bring impurity into Israel (e.g. MMT, Damascus Document, Temple Scroll) recalling the “the impurity of the peoples of the land” in Ezra–Nehemiah. Some authors (e.g. MMT, Damascus Document, Testament of Qahat) emphasize, like Ezra–Nehemiah, the categorical, rather than moral, admixture and incompatibility of intermarriage. Others focus on the illegitimacy of offspring from intermarriage, also found in Ezra–Nehemiah, but, as a result of other influences, label them destructive and even demonic (e.g. 4QShir).

MOSES’ CUSHITE MARRIAGE: TORAH, ARTAPANUS, AND JOSEPHUS* Karen S. Winslow

Because nothing in the entire Torah narrative prepares the reader for the Num 12:1 notification that Moses married a Cushite woman, scholars have assumed that the ancient legends about Moses’ exploits in Ethiopia were invented as aggadah to explain the announcement that Moses had “indeed married a Cushite woman.” In Josephus’ first-century C.E. version of Moses’ Ethiopian campaign, this marriage is described, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Numbers alludes to it.1 However, according to Artapanus, who wrote a “Life of Moses” sometime during the late third through early second centuries B.C.E., Moses did not acquire an Ethiopian wife, even though his account of Moses’ extended siege of Ethiopia gave Moses the opportunity to marry an Ethiopian/Cushite. The fact that no such marriage is mentioned by Artapanus, the earliest extra-biblical text aligning Moses to Ethiopia, suggests that the Ethiopian Campaign Motif (ECM) emerged independently of any attempt to explain the problem posed by Num 12:1—how Moses acquired a Cushite/Ethiopian wife.2 * The present study is a reworking of the ideas published in Chapter 2 of Karen S. Winslow, Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives: Ethnicity and Exogamous Marriage (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 2005). Published with permission. 1. Josephus’ Moses agrees to marry the Ethiopian princess and consummates this marriage, but returns to Egypt without his Ethiopian wife and then flees to Arabia. There he marries the daughter of Raguel (Josephus, Ant. 2.10.1, 239–253 (trans. Thackeray, LCL). In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Num 12:1–10, this Ethiopian wife accompanied Moses to the wilderness, leading to Miriam and Aaron’s complaint. Thus, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan connects Moses’ Ethiopian “queen” wife, the tradition about Moses’ separation from his wife, and the complaint of Miriam and Aaron about Moses’ intimacy with God. Later versions of the Ethiopian Campaign Motif are represented in the Chronicles of Moses (dated by Zunz between 840– 1100), in Yalqut Shim’oni, Chronicles of Yerahmeel ben Shelomoh (probably medieval) and Sefer Ha-Yashar of the Middle Ages (1553). 2. The missing Ethiopian marriage does not appear to be the result of the fragmentary nature of the text. Cf. the discussion in Tessa Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia,”

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

281

After an overview of Artapanus’ On the Jews and recent scholarship on it, I will examine Artapanus’ “Life of Moses” in Fragment Three. I will offer reasons for the particular thrust of Artapanus’ polemic, given the politics of his own time. I will argue that conflicts over intermarriage among previously exiled Jews, as reflected in the Persian period texts of Ezra–Nehemiah, form the context for the redaction of Numbers. The story about Moses’ Cushite wife in the context of God’s affirming of Moses as his most intimate prophet would have countered Ezra, Shecaniah, and Nehemiah’s exclusivism. The reading offered in the present study supports Donna Runnalls’ proposal that the sources for Artapanus’ rewritten Exodus generated the reference to Moses’ Cushite wife in the final redaction of Numbers, as well as reformulations of the ECM by later Jews. Tales about Moses fighting Ethiopians and marrying an Ethiopian woman were produced among Persian period Jews living in Egypt. Thus, Num 12:1 is a redactional insertion reflecting a version of Moses’ relationship to Ethiopia that did include an account of his marriage.3 In other words, Persian period legends about Moses were the basis for the notice of Moses’ Cushite/Ethiopian marriage by the redactor of Numbers, not induced by it.4 1. The Fragments of Artapanus5 Fragments of Artapanus’ On the Jews are preserved in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica 9.18.1, 23.1–4, 27.1–37, written in the early fourth century C.E.6 Eusebius quoted from Alexander Polyhistor’s work, JJS 2 (1978): 111–22 (118), and Donna Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” JSJ 14 (1983): 135–56 (146). 3. Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” esp. 137. 4. The LXX of Num 12:1 translates “Cushite” of the Hebrew text as “Ethiopian.” Greeks consistently refer to the region of Cush as Ethiopia. See, for example, Plutarch, De exilio 601, and Herodotus, Historiae 2.30. The region of Cush lies south of Egypt and is also called Nubia, Meroe, Wawat, and Ta-sety (land of the bow) by historians. An analysis of Cush in ancient literature may be found in Frank M. Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970). 5. Critical editions: Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (Leiden: Brill, 1958, repr. 1969); Jakob Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Breslau: H. Skutsch, 1875); Edwin H. Gifford, Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praepartionis Libri XV (5 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1903); and Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 1, The Historians (Chico, Calif.:

282

Mixed Marriages

On the Jews, from the first century B.C.E.7 Eusebius, excerpting what modern scholars call Fragment One from Polyhistor, wrote that it was taken from Artapanus’ work Judaica, and claimed that Fragments Two and Three were taken from Artapanus’ work, On the Jews. Examiners of Artapanus, for the most part, consider the latter title to be the original title for a single work, including the portion about Abraham (Fragment One).8 The name “Artapanus” is Persian.9 The Egyptian provenance of the writing is secure in that the fragments are thoroughly concerned with Egyptian values, religion, and culture. In addition, most of the incidents take place in Egypt with particular reference to Memphis. Observing that Artapanus provides Moses with the attributes of Egyptian version of Hermes, Thot, Gruen writes, “the Egypt of the pharaohs is the only

Scholars Press, 1983). Holladay reviews the other critical editions; see especially 199 n. 1. Commentary on Artapanus may be found in Carl R. Holladay and Martin Braun, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1938); Henry St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, vol. 4 (London: Heinemann, 1928); Salomo Rappaport, Aggada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Vienna: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930); Isidore Levy, “Moĭse en Ethiopie,” REJ 53 (1907): 200–202; Carl R. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique in this Category in New Testament Theology (SBLDS 40; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977). 6. Clement’s Stromata 1.23.154.2–3 is identical to the material found in the Moses fragment, Frag. 3.23–25. 7. Alexander Polyhistor, originally of Miletus, is believed to have written over twenty-five books in Rome between 80 B.C.E. and 30 B.C.E. (John Strugnell, “General Introduction with a Note on Alexander Polyhistor,” OTP 2:777–79). Felix Jacoby has collected Polyhistor’s historical fragments in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. See also Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vols. 1–3 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1974–84). 8. Holladay, Fragmente, 205; Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 226, 227; Julio B. Trebolle, “The Greek Septuagint Version,” in The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 301–23; Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Interpretation of the Bible by the Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors,” in Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity (NTOA; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 187–219, 201 n. 76; Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 1:704 n. 177; Holladay, Theios Aner, 215–16 n. 98. 9. Holladay, Fragments, 189, 194 n. 5, 195; van der Horst, “Interpretation,” 201, 217 n. 75; Freudenthal, Polyhistor, 216. Fraser demonstrates the presence of Persians and Jews in Egypt and has found the name “Artapanus” in Egyptian papyri and epigraphy (Ptolemaic Alexandria, 2:985). He also recognizes Artapanus’ familiarity with the native life of Egypt (1:704).

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

283

ostensible canvas.”10 Although Artapanus’ methods diverged wildly from those used by other Jewish “biographers” of Moses, his presentation of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses as heroes without blemish and benefactors of Egypt implies that the author was a Jew of mixed descent, familiar with folk tales and popular Egyptian religion. There is broad scholarly consensus that he wrote in Greek during the Ptolemaic period, toward the end of third or in the early second century B.C.E., not necessarily from Alexandria, but from another center, perhaps Memphis. Students of Artapanus also agree that he knew Moses’ story in its Septuagintal form.11 The three fragments attributed to Artapanus describe, respectively, Abraham’s twenty-year sojourn into Egypt, during which he taught the pharaoh astrology, Joseph’s stellar administration in Egypt, throughout which he instituted a land reform and gave land to the priests, and Moses’ heroism and munificence on behalf of the Egyptians. In the latter, Fragment Three, Artapanus rewrote the Exodus account of Moses, beginning with his birth to Jews and adoption by a pharaoh’s daughter, selecting several other subsequent elements of the traditional account of Moses’ life to embellish. He assigned cultural and religious heroics to a young Moses, exceeded only by his military exploits against Ethiopia and utter loyalty to Egypt. Artapanus portrayed Moses as the author of Egyptian culture and religion, and also as the one who brought circumcision to the Ethiopians. Fragment Three concludes with Moses’ marriage to Raguel’s daughter, meetings with Aaron and the Pharaoh, plagues and the release of the Jews by way of the Red Sea. Because Polyhistor wrote his On the Jews, in which he “quotes” and paraphrases Artapanus, around the middle of the first century B.C.E., the latest possible date for the origin of Artapanus’ writing is early to midfirst century B.C.E. Based upon the date, Artapanus’ apparent knowledge of the LXX and Manetho (280 B.C.E.), as well as internal allusions to incidents of the Ptolemaic period, these writings are dated toward the end of the third century B.C.E.12 The most convincing of these is the 10. Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 159. 11. Numerous descriptions of Artapanus were directly lifted out of the Greek version of the Torah. See Freudenthal, Polyhistor, 152, 215–16; John J. Collins, “Artapanus,” OTP 2:889–903 (890); van der Horst, “Interpretation,” 188; Holladay, Fragments, 1, 4, 192, 197 n. 19. 12. See the preceding note. Although the origins of the LXX have been disputed, most scholars remain convinced that mid-third-century B.C.E. Alexandria, Egypt, is the provenance of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch. For a review of the literature, see Julio T. Barrera, “The Greek Septuagint Version,” in The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 301–23.

274

Mixed Marriages

or a divorcee (4Q251 16 1–3).62 These are all categories which Lev 21:7 forbids a priest from marrying. 4QHalakha A, l. 3, concluding with ‫כל‬ ‫המעל אשר ימעל‬, has been interpreted to warn against any “unfaithfulness” in the context of the marital relationship.63 Yet this misses the point so aptly presented in Ezra–Nehemiah that forbidden sexual unions cause ‫מעל‬, “sacrilege,” against God. In Ezra–Nehemiah, sacrilege is caused by the sexual conjoining of foreigners and Israelites (Ezra 9:2). In 4QHalakha A, women whom the priests are forbidden to marry cause a sacrilege not only by joining with them sexually but also by eating their sacred food. 4Q251 17 7, ‫אל יקח איש בתו נ]ערה לאיש זר‬, is confusing but seems to indicate that it is important that a man’s daughter not marry an outsider. The term ‫זר‬, “outsider, stranger, foreigner,” does not appear in Ezra– Nehemiah, but the language is reconstructed here from the parallel passage regarding priestly intermarriage in Lev 22:10–13. Since Fragment 17 deals exclusively with sexual laws from Lev 18 incumbent on all Israel, it follows that the author intended the intermarriage prohibition to apply to all Jews as well.64 These legal texts, although fragments, are primarily concerned to protect the sanctity of the priesthood and its holy food. However, in 4Q251 there is a hint that the prohibition against intermarriage extends beyond priestly families, since “no man” should marry his daughter to a foreigner (4Q251 17, 7). The use of both ‫( נכר‬4Q513) and ‫( מעל‬4Q251) in this context, reminiscent of Ezra–Nehemiah, continues here. Liturgy Like the Genesis Apocryphon discussed above, various liturgical texts, including prayers, songs, and incantations, are influenced by the Watchers Myth and may possibly carry overtones against intermarriage. In the Thanksgiving Hymns the offspring of this union are referred to as ‫ממזרים‬, “illegitimate offspring” (1QH xxiv 15 and 2 ii + 6 vi; cf. xviii 34b–36). In the Bible there is a hint that the resulting children became giants, but they are not further described (Gen 6:4), and the writer of the 62. Cf. Baumgarten, ed., Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 35:44, although in the biblical text it is most likely that ‫ חללה‬refers to a woman who has been raped; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1807. 63. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 226. 64. Ibid., 227, 359. Loader (p. 228) also notes the citation of Mal 2:10 in 4Q265 Miscellaneous Rules, “Why are we unfaithful to each other?,” as a possible reference to intermarriage; however, the text is too fragmentary to make such a conclusion certain.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

275

Hymns is influenced by the Enochic version (1 En. 15:8–9). The concern about the offspring of these illicit unions may reflect a miscegenation between human partners as well as a mythical one. In several liturgical texts, the offspring of the Watchers and the women result not only in invalid offspring, but in evil spirits. 4QShir, Songs of the Sage, alludes to the Watchers Myth by referring to spirits of destroying angels and ‫רוחות ממזרים‬, “spirits of bastards” (4Q510 i 5). According to Loader, this “allusion to ‘bastards’ reflects the Enochic tradition that the giants were bastards and their corpses the source of evil spirits” (1 En. 15:8–9); the author attributes the human condition to the “wild demonic spirits let loose on the world from the offspring of the Watchers.” But the term “bastards” also brings to mind the social issue of illegitimate children of human partners, one present in other Qumran texts in this survey. Similarly, 4QIncantation refers to ‫מ[מזרים ורוח‬ ‫הטמאה‬, “ba]stards and the spirit of impurity” (4Q444 i–iv 8; note line 11, ‫תועבה‬, “abomination”). On this view, evil spirits emerged from the bastards produced by the Watchers and the women. In line with the position and terminology of Ezra–Nehemiah, the writers of some of these liturgical texts use the word ‫זרע‬, “seed,” to emphasize holy genealogy. The 11QApocryphal Psalms pronounces judgment against the demon offspring of the Watchers and women by an angel who condemns them to darkness, ‫מי אתה ]הילוד מ[אדם ומזרע‬ ‫הקד]ושי[ם‬, “Who are you [offspring of] humankind and the seed of the h[oly one]s?” (11Q11 v 6). These texts exhibit a concern for legitimate offspring and emphasize the incompatibility of holiness and illegitimate offspring produced by sexual union with partners from the wrong category. Like the Genesis Apocryphon, intermarriage may well be a social issue behind these passages too. The Words of the Luminaries (4Q504 DibHam xvi 15–20), a fragmentary passage with only the first part of each line extant, nevertheless exhibits a concern for proper “seed.” The writer complains about some (kings?) who “marry (‫…)לקחת בנות‬and they destroyed…your covenant and…the seed of Israel (‫( ”)זרע ישראל‬ll. 17–20). In light of Ezra–Nehemiah, even these few words make a protest against intermarriage likely here. In fact, the original editor was so impressed with the similarity of language to Ezra–Nehemiah that he dated the text to that era.65 These liturgical texts from Qumran share with Ezra–Nehemiah the importance of protecting the holiness of Israelite “seed” by choosing appropriate marriage partners. Ezra–Nehemiah is not used in any direct 65. Maurice Baillet, “Un recueil liturgique de Qumrân Grotte 4: Les Paroles de Luminaires,” RB 68 (1961): 195–250 (220).

276

Mixed Marriages

quotation, yet the writers share a concern for the legitimacy of genealogy and its protection from defilement. The Qumran authors even demonize offspring which they consider illegitimate. Wisdom Evidence of the battle against wrongful sexual unions, especially intermarriage, surface in several wisdom texts from Qumran. 4QInstruction presents marriage in especially physical terms. The wife is referred to as ‫עזר בשרכה‬, “the helper of your flesh” (4Q416 2 iii 21; cf. Gen 2:20, 24). The text emphasizes the oneness of husband and wife, “You shall be made into a unity with the wife of your bosom, for she is the flesh of [your] nak[edness” (4Q416 2 iv 5). As in Ezra–Nehemiah, wrongful sexual union results in sacrilege: ‫לוא ימעל בבשרו‬, “He shall not commit sacrilege with his flesh” (4Q418 101 ii 5). Loader translates this line, “He shall not do harm to (or act unfaithfully against or inappropriately toward) his own kin,” but this misses the point about desecrating holy bodies.66 Indeed, marriage seems to be considered a holy covenant by the author, who warns against its dissolution by the interference of an outside woman, “lest you neglect the hol[y] covenant (or: the covenant of marriage) and one (a woman) hated by your soul” (4Q415 2).67 Ezra–Nehemiah’s ‫זרע הקדש‬, “the holy seed,” reappears in 4QInstruction, although the text is fragmentarily. 4Q415 2 i + 1 ii 4–6 refers to ‫זרע‬ ‫קודשכה‬, “your holy seed,” and ‫לא ימוש זרעכה מנחלת‬, “your seed will not depart from the inheritance of…” The text continues the metaphor of seed with the promise that the faithful will “rejoice in the fruit of…,” and the mention of ‫יפרח‬, “will sprout.” This may be a reference to the blessing of avoiding intermarriage and retaining purity of seed, although the text is too fragmentary for certainty.68 On the basis of the intermarriage context of the phrase, “holy seed,” found in other texts as early as Ezra– Nehemiah, discussed above, it is possible that the author of 4QInstruction is also concerned about the maintenance of holy genealogy in Israel. He not only warns against the sacrilege created by illicit sexual unions

66. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 311. 67. Loader (ibid., 301) suggests that the woman is threatening the marriage from outside. He claims that this passage refers to the holy covenant of marriage although admitting the uniqueness of this application at Qumran. 68. Ibid., 299; cf., however, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmentary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 229: “In post-exilic texts ‘holy seed’ is used predominantly in sections dealing with intermarriage, but nothing in the preserved text suggests this is the issue at stake here.”

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

277

but emphasizes as well the blessing of holy children as the fruit of a proper marriage. In two para-biblical texts, exhortations against intermarriage may reflect some Ezran influence. In Testament of Qahat, the son of Levi Qahat claims that he and his father have not [‫ער[ברוב‬, “mingled,” probably an allusion to intermarriage, (4Q542 1 i 9). Similarly to 4QInstruction, the author emphasizes the inheritance of Jewish offspring. Levi exhorts, “Do not give your inheritance away to ‫נכראין‬, “foreigners,” nor your inheritance to ‫כילאין‬, “half-breeds” (4Q542 1 i 5–6a). The terms for “mingled” and “foreigners” are the Aramaic equivalents for Hebrew terms first used in Ezra–Nehemiah to describe the woes of intermarriage (cf. Ezra 9:2; Neh 13:26). “Half-breeds” is also reminiscent of the law regarding forbidden mixtures of species, seeds and fabrics (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9) applied analogically by the writer of MMT to prohibit intermarriage. Visions of Amram extols Abraham for not taking another wife though “there were many women in Canaan” (4Q547 1–2 iii 7–8; cf. 4Q544 1 i 8). As Loader suggests, the positive example of Abraham implicitly reinforces the prohibition against intermarriage.69 It is significant that the author applies the intermarriage focus beyond priests because he references Abraham, the father of all Israel, and implicitly recalls the prohibition given to all Israel not to marry Canaanites (Deut 7:1). Thus, these wisdom texts emphasize the holiness of marriage within Israel and decry wrongful sexual unions, including intermarriage. 4QInstruction mentions the possibility of sacrilege created by wrongful sexual unions and the blessing of holy offspring. Visions of Amram, although a priestly text, applies the prohibition of intermarriage to all Israel by the example of the patriarch Abraham. Terminology from Ezra– Nehemiah surfaces in the Testament of Qahat where the author describes intermarriage as co-mingling with foreigners, and, like MMT, denounces them as inappropriate sexual partners by nature. Eschatology Two eschatological texts reveal concern about intermarriage. 4QFlorilegium envisions a future sanctuary which will be free of all illegitimate worshippers, but which probably also represents the holiness of the community itself by the phrase, ‫מקדש אדם‬, “Human Temple,” or “Temple of Adam” (4Q174 i 2b–4).70 Like Ezra–Nehemiah, the writer presents 69. Loader, Dead Sea Scrolls, 325. 70. Joseph Baumgarten, “The Exclusion of Netinim and Proselytes in 4QFlorilegium,” in Studies in Qumran Law (ed. J. Baumgarten; SJLA 24; Leiden: Brill,

278

Mixed Marriages

the types of outcasts listed in Deut 23, but he also excludes the ben nekhar, “foreigner,” as in Ezek 44:6–9, and the ger, “resident alien.” The writer probably excludes these people from temple entry as well as from marriage within Israel. The rationale for these exclusions is “because his holy ones are there” (cf. CD 15.15–18; 1Q33 7.6; 1Q28a 2.3–9; 4QMMT B 39–49; 11Q19 xlv 12–14). In the same vein as other sectarian literature from Qumran, 4QFlorilegium carries the notion that the holy angels are present, and thus no impurity, moral or ritual, can be allowed to remain within the community. The Apocryphon of Jeremiah couches its concern about intermarriage in eschatological terms. The author prophesies that Israel will defile the Temple, profane the Sabbaths and neglect the festivals, ‫ובבני ]נכר[ יחלל]ו‬ ‫[את זר]ע[ם‬, “and with the sons of foreigners they will profane their seed” (4Q390 2 i 9–10). Although ‫ נכר‬has been reconstructed here, the reading is reasonable and reminds of its use in the context of intermarriage in Ezra–Nehemiah (Neh 9:2; 13:30) and elsewhere (Mal 2:11; cf. Ezek 44:7–9). The writer uses the term ‫ חלל‬instead of Ezra–Nehemiah’s ‫מעל‬, but the point that Israelite seed is holy and can be desecrated by foreigners is the same. Although eschatological in presentation, there is probably a current social problem underlying both of these texts, as elsewhere in the Qumran corpus, in giving Jewish offspring to outsiders in marriage. It is even likely, as in Ezra–Nehemiah, that these “foreigners” had partial Israelite heritage but their mixed race rendered them invalid spouses and their offspring illegitimate, in the eyes of the community. Conclusion The above survey of Qumran texts dealing with the issue of intermarriage in various ways reveals that Qumran authors stand in line with a strict stance against marriage between Jew and Gentile which begins early in the Second Temple period in the era of Ezra–Nehemiah. The influence of this work varies among the Scrolls but is apparent in the continuation of its innovative use of cultic terminology to target intermarriage. This language becomes a vehicle to reinforce boundaries 1977), 75–87, claims that a future sanctuary is intended, but George Brooke argues for polyvalence in the phrase and suggests that it refers to both (1) the sanctuary made up of humans as a designation of the community, and (2) a proleptic reference to the sanctuary of Adam as a restoration of what was originally intended; see George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context (JSOTSup 29; Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), 193.

HARRINGTON Intermarriage in Qumran Texts

279

between groups of Israelites who hold competing identities and claims to holiness. Intermarriage may not be a concern for every Qumran author, but not one of them endorses it. Most oppose it outright and deplore the inevitability of illegitimate offspring (MMT, Damascus Document, Genesis Apocryphon). The Temple Scroll uses interpretive skill to neutralize the leniencies of the Torah with regard to assimilating the resident alien and the war captive. For the Damascus Document, sexual sins defile one’s spirit, and some liturgical texts claim that mixed marriages produce evil spirits (e.g. 4QShir; 4QIncantation). Eschatological texts deplore the “future” desecration of seed (4QApocryphon of Jeremiah) and express hope for a sanctuary free of all foreigners (e.g. 4QFlorilegium). While Ezra–Nehemiah is not explicitly cited for support, nevertheless, that text represents the first Jewish text to order a full-scale reversal of intermarriage with outsiders on the basis of their desecration of the holiness of Israel. MMT reveals the strongest terminological influence from Ezra–Nehemiah and even intensifies the language. Many authors reiterate the desecration and/or defilement of holy seed by illicit sexual relations (e.g. MMT, Damascus Document, 4QInstruction). Several insist that intermarriage is prohibited beyond the priesthood to all Jews (e.g. MMT, Damascus Document, 4QHalakha, 4QVisions of Amram). In a few texts, it is apparent that Gentiles bring impurity into Israel (e.g. MMT, Damascus Document, Temple Scroll) recalling the “the impurity of the peoples of the land” in Ezra–Nehemiah. Some authors (e.g. MMT, Damascus Document, Testament of Qahat) emphasize, like Ezra–Nehemiah, the categorical, rather than moral, admixture and incompatibility of intermarriage. Others focus on the illegitimacy of offspring from intermarriage, also found in Ezra–Nehemiah, but, as a result of other influences, label them destructive and even demonic (e.g. 4QShir).

MOSES’ CUSHITE MARRIAGE: TORAH, ARTAPANUS, AND JOSEPHUS* Karen S. Winslow

Because nothing in the entire Torah narrative prepares the reader for the Num 12:1 notification that Moses married a Cushite woman, scholars have assumed that the ancient legends about Moses’ exploits in Ethiopia were invented as aggadah to explain the announcement that Moses had “indeed married a Cushite woman.” In Josephus’ first-century C.E. version of Moses’ Ethiopian campaign, this marriage is described, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Numbers alludes to it.1 However, according to Artapanus, who wrote a “Life of Moses” sometime during the late third through early second centuries B.C.E., Moses did not acquire an Ethiopian wife, even though his account of Moses’ extended siege of Ethiopia gave Moses the opportunity to marry an Ethiopian/Cushite. The fact that no such marriage is mentioned by Artapanus, the earliest extra-biblical text aligning Moses to Ethiopia, suggests that the Ethiopian Campaign Motif (ECM) emerged independently of any attempt to explain the problem posed by Num 12:1—how Moses acquired a Cushite/Ethiopian wife.2 * The present study is a reworking of the ideas published in Chapter 2 of Karen S. Winslow, Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives: Ethnicity and Exogamous Marriage (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 2005). Published with permission. 1. Josephus’ Moses agrees to marry the Ethiopian princess and consummates this marriage, but returns to Egypt without his Ethiopian wife and then flees to Arabia. There he marries the daughter of Raguel (Josephus, Ant. 2.10.1, 239–253 (trans. Thackeray, LCL). In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Num 12:1–10, this Ethiopian wife accompanied Moses to the wilderness, leading to Miriam and Aaron’s complaint. Thus, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan connects Moses’ Ethiopian “queen” wife, the tradition about Moses’ separation from his wife, and the complaint of Miriam and Aaron about Moses’ intimacy with God. Later versions of the Ethiopian Campaign Motif are represented in the Chronicles of Moses (dated by Zunz between 840– 1100), in Yalqut Shim’oni, Chronicles of Yerahmeel ben Shelomoh (probably medieval) and Sefer Ha-Yashar of the Middle Ages (1553). 2. The missing Ethiopian marriage does not appear to be the result of the fragmentary nature of the text. Cf. the discussion in Tessa Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia,”

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

281

After an overview of Artapanus’ On the Jews and recent scholarship on it, I will examine Artapanus’ “Life of Moses” in Fragment Three. I will offer reasons for the particular thrust of Artapanus’ polemic, given the politics of his own time. I will argue that conflicts over intermarriage among previously exiled Jews, as reflected in the Persian period texts of Ezra–Nehemiah, form the context for the redaction of Numbers. The story about Moses’ Cushite wife in the context of God’s affirming of Moses as his most intimate prophet would have countered Ezra, Shecaniah, and Nehemiah’s exclusivism. The reading offered in the present study supports Donna Runnalls’ proposal that the sources for Artapanus’ rewritten Exodus generated the reference to Moses’ Cushite wife in the final redaction of Numbers, as well as reformulations of the ECM by later Jews. Tales about Moses fighting Ethiopians and marrying an Ethiopian woman were produced among Persian period Jews living in Egypt. Thus, Num 12:1 is a redactional insertion reflecting a version of Moses’ relationship to Ethiopia that did include an account of his marriage.3 In other words, Persian period legends about Moses were the basis for the notice of Moses’ Cushite/Ethiopian marriage by the redactor of Numbers, not induced by it.4 1. The Fragments of Artapanus5 Fragments of Artapanus’ On the Jews are preserved in Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica 9.18.1, 23.1–4, 27.1–37, written in the early fourth century C.E.6 Eusebius quoted from Alexander Polyhistor’s work, JJS 2 (1978): 111–22 (118), and Donna Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” JSJ 14 (1983): 135–56 (146). 3. Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” esp. 137. 4. The LXX of Num 12:1 translates “Cushite” of the Hebrew text as “Ethiopian.” Greeks consistently refer to the region of Cush as Ethiopia. See, for example, Plutarch, De exilio 601, and Herodotus, Historiae 2.30. The region of Cush lies south of Egypt and is also called Nubia, Meroe, Wawat, and Ta-sety (land of the bow) by historians. An analysis of Cush in ancient literature may be found in Frank M. Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970). 5. Critical editions: Felix Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (Leiden: Brill, 1958, repr. 1969); Jakob Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Breslau: H. Skutsch, 1875); Edwin H. Gifford, Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praepartionis Libri XV (5 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1903); and Carl R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Vol. 1, The Historians (Chico, Calif.:

282

Mixed Marriages

On the Jews, from the first century B.C.E.7 Eusebius, excerpting what modern scholars call Fragment One from Polyhistor, wrote that it was taken from Artapanus’ work Judaica, and claimed that Fragments Two and Three were taken from Artapanus’ work, On the Jews. Examiners of Artapanus, for the most part, consider the latter title to be the original title for a single work, including the portion about Abraham (Fragment One).8 The name “Artapanus” is Persian.9 The Egyptian provenance of the writing is secure in that the fragments are thoroughly concerned with Egyptian values, religion, and culture. In addition, most of the incidents take place in Egypt with particular reference to Memphis. Observing that Artapanus provides Moses with the attributes of Egyptian version of Hermes, Thot, Gruen writes, “the Egypt of the pharaohs is the only

Scholars Press, 1983). Holladay reviews the other critical editions; see especially 199 n. 1. Commentary on Artapanus may be found in Carl R. Holladay and Martin Braun, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1938); Henry St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, vol. 4 (London: Heinemann, 1928); Salomo Rappaport, Aggada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Vienna: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930); Isidore Levy, “Moĭse en Ethiopie,” REJ 53 (1907): 200–202; Carl R. Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique in this Category in New Testament Theology (SBLDS 40; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977). 6. Clement’s Stromata 1.23.154.2–3 is identical to the material found in the Moses fragment, Frag. 3.23–25. 7. Alexander Polyhistor, originally of Miletus, is believed to have written over twenty-five books in Rome between 80 B.C.E. and 30 B.C.E. (John Strugnell, “General Introduction with a Note on Alexander Polyhistor,” OTP 2:777–79). Felix Jacoby has collected Polyhistor’s historical fragments in Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. See also Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vols. 1–3 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1974–84). 8. Holladay, Fragmente, 205; Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 226, 227; Julio B. Trebolle, “The Greek Septuagint Version,” in The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 301–23; Pieter W. van der Horst, “The Interpretation of the Bible by the Minor Hellenistic Jewish Authors,” in Essays on the Jewish World of Early Christianity (NTOA; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 187–219, 201 n. 76; Peter M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 1:704 n. 177; Holladay, Theios Aner, 215–16 n. 98. 9. Holladay, Fragments, 189, 194 n. 5, 195; van der Horst, “Interpretation,” 201, 217 n. 75; Freudenthal, Polyhistor, 216. Fraser demonstrates the presence of Persians and Jews in Egypt and has found the name “Artapanus” in Egyptian papyri and epigraphy (Ptolemaic Alexandria, 2:985). He also recognizes Artapanus’ familiarity with the native life of Egypt (1:704).

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

283

ostensible canvas.”10 Although Artapanus’ methods diverged wildly from those used by other Jewish “biographers” of Moses, his presentation of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses as heroes without blemish and benefactors of Egypt implies that the author was a Jew of mixed descent, familiar with folk tales and popular Egyptian religion. There is broad scholarly consensus that he wrote in Greek during the Ptolemaic period, toward the end of third or in the early second century B.C.E., not necessarily from Alexandria, but from another center, perhaps Memphis. Students of Artapanus also agree that he knew Moses’ story in its Septuagintal form.11 The three fragments attributed to Artapanus describe, respectively, Abraham’s twenty-year sojourn into Egypt, during which he taught the pharaoh astrology, Joseph’s stellar administration in Egypt, throughout which he instituted a land reform and gave land to the priests, and Moses’ heroism and munificence on behalf of the Egyptians. In the latter, Fragment Three, Artapanus rewrote the Exodus account of Moses, beginning with his birth to Jews and adoption by a pharaoh’s daughter, selecting several other subsequent elements of the traditional account of Moses’ life to embellish. He assigned cultural and religious heroics to a young Moses, exceeded only by his military exploits against Ethiopia and utter loyalty to Egypt. Artapanus portrayed Moses as the author of Egyptian culture and religion, and also as the one who brought circumcision to the Ethiopians. Fragment Three concludes with Moses’ marriage to Raguel’s daughter, meetings with Aaron and the Pharaoh, plagues and the release of the Jews by way of the Red Sea. Because Polyhistor wrote his On the Jews, in which he “quotes” and paraphrases Artapanus, around the middle of the first century B.C.E., the latest possible date for the origin of Artapanus’ writing is early to midfirst century B.C.E. Based upon the date, Artapanus’ apparent knowledge of the LXX and Manetho (280 B.C.E.), as well as internal allusions to incidents of the Ptolemaic period, these writings are dated toward the end of the third century B.C.E.12 The most convincing of these is the 10. Erich S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 159. 11. Numerous descriptions of Artapanus were directly lifted out of the Greek version of the Torah. See Freudenthal, Polyhistor, 152, 215–16; John J. Collins, “Artapanus,” OTP 2:889–903 (890); van der Horst, “Interpretation,” 188; Holladay, Fragments, 1, 4, 192, 197 n. 19. 12. See the preceding note. Although the origins of the LXX have been disputed, most scholars remain convinced that mid-third-century B.C.E. Alexandria, Egypt, is the provenance of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch. For a review of the literature, see Julio T. Barrera, “The Greek Septuagint Version,” in The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible (trans. W. G. E. Watson; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 301–23.

284

Mixed Marriages

possible connection between Artapanus’ statement that Moses’ army included farmers and Ptolemy IV Philopator’s permission for Egyptian farmers to bear arms for the first time in the battle of Raphia in 217 B.C.E.13 Modern scholars have used a variety of terms to label the genre of these fragments, including: competitive historiography, romanticized national history, popular romance literature, serious apologia, polemic, and a tale bordering on comedy created by a “tongue in cheek” style of imaginative invention.14 One term rarely used of Artapanus’ work is “exegesis.” For example, Artapanus was not concerned to solve perceived problems in the Torah’s account of Moses’ life or restrict himself to the primary text.15 In reshaping Greek and Egyptian traditions into a unique portrait of Moses, he “relativized” Egyptian religion by nearly divinizing Moses.16 In that sense, Artapanus produced a sort of JewishEgyptian-Hellenistic Midrash, if the term “midrash” is understood broadly. Related to the issues of identity, provenances, and genre, are those of Artapanus’ audience and purpose. Was he writing for Jews, non-Jews, or both? Holladay and van der Horst attribute to Artapanus the motives of “bolstering the ethnic pride” and “enhancing the prestige” of Jews living

13. Collins, “Artapanus,” 2:890–91. Also see John J. Collins, “Reinventing Exodus: Exegesis and Legends in Hellenistic,” in For a Later Generation: The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity (ed. R. A. Argall et al.; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2000), 52–62 (53); Freudenthal, Polyhistor, 143–75. For other scholars convinced Artapanus was contemporary with Ptolemaic Egypt, see Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 159; Holladay, Fragments, 1, 4, 189; van der Horst, “Interpretation,” 188. 14. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 156–58 (161), and Holladay, Theios Aner, 201–3. 15. As Shinan notes, exegesis as an attempt to make sense of the biblical text is scant, if it can be found at all. See Avigdor Shinan, “Moses and the Ethiopian Woman: Sources of a Story in the Chronicles of Moses,” in Studies in the Hebrew Narrative Art throughout the Ages (ed. J. Heinemann and S. Werses; Scripta Hierosoloymitana 27; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), 66–78 (72). 16. Moses is identified with Thoth-Hermes by Artapanus’ Egyptians and with Musaeus by Artapanus’ Greek characters (P.E. 9.27.3–6). While Holladay claims that Artapanus distances himself from claiming Moses was divine (Theios Aner, 229–32), van der Horst disagrees (“Interpretation,” 203). He claims Artapanus “relativized” Egyptian religion by pointing out the other parallels between Moses and Egyptian gods/rulers (Isis, Osiris, Sesostris etc.) and Euhemerus’ theory (ca. 300 B.C.E.) that the gods had once been human heroes of tremendous benefit to civilization.

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

285

in the “anti-Semitic atmosphere of Ptolemaic Egypt.”17 Van der Horst emphasizes Artapanus’ intention to oppose Manetho’s presentation of Moses as the embodiment of hostility to Egypt by demonstrating the dependence of Egyptian culture on the Jews.18 Thus, Artapanus targeted a mixed audience. Gruen insists that, while his work was intended for Jews, Artapanus did not intend it to be taken seriously, his humor is “mischievous, not malicious,” nor did he engage in polemics, but rather imaginative invention.19 Shinan believes Artapanus was writing both apologetically and polemically for a non-Jewish audience.20 Runnalls writes that Artapanus’ audience was Jews in need of material to defend themselves against attacks, or an apologetic directed to non-Jews, such as the Ptolemaic ruling class and Greeks of Egypt, not native Egyptians, “as the story shows considerable contempt for the Egyptians.”21 However, in the following discussion I claim that Artapanus was directing a veiled polemic against the Ptolemaic ruling class by depicting only a certain ruling Egyptian, Chenephres, in an extremely hostile way. Artapanus contrasts Moses to the jealous, ungrateful Chenephres, a ruler of a region of Egypt. Regardless of Chenephres’ treachery and abuse of Moses, Moses remained industrious, loyal, and brave. Artapanus was sympathetic to the Egyptian priests and people, and Moses was himself depicted as an Egyptian dedicated to the well being of every aspect of Egyptian life. Artapanus’ primary purpose was to extol Moses as Egypt’s benefactor; he takes no stand against Egypt and Egyptians in general. For example, Artapanus’ Chenephres conscripted farmers (implicitly as inept soldiers) for Moses’ army, hoping this would cause Moses’ death. But these Egyptian farmer generals under Artapanus’ Moses were victorious over the Ethiopians, thwarting Chenephres’ aims, which had been based upon his dim view of their abilities. Thus, in my view, Artapanus’ story is not a polemic against Egyptians in general. Egyptian priests and farmers are depicted as allied to Moses. It is an attack on jealous, ungrateful, and murderous rulers. 17. Van der Horst, “Interpretation,” 205, and Holladay, Theios Aner, 201–3. For a discussion of the range of views on the tone and purpose of Artapanus, see Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 156–58, 161. Holladay calls the work “Jewish historical romance writing,” and “popular religious propaganda [which] arose to combat ignorance about one’s own cultural tradition [and is the result of] mutual interest in other’s history and culture” (Fragments, 190–91). 18. Van der Horst, “Interpretation,” 201. For a brief discussion of scholars who see the anti-Manetho polemic in Artapanus, see Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 156. 19. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 159–60, and passim. 20. Shinan, “Ethiopian Woman,” 66–78 (see 68, 72). 21. Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 137.

286

Mixed Marriages

2. Artapanus’ Fragment Three: “Life of Moses” Resembling others who rewrote Moses’ story, Artapanus was concerned to present Moses in the best possible light to contemporary readers.22 However, Artapanus’ “Life of Moses” dips only slightly into the Torah’s narrative and is dominated by colorful—pagan—elements, all potentially more troubling to later Jewish readers than Moses’ Cushite marriage. In spite of many departures from Exodus through embellishments and excisions, there are enough points of contact to recognize his use of traditional Jewish material intertwined with Egyptian lore. Artapanus’ Moses was the son of oppressed Jews and adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter. Moses’ Egyptian mother, Merris, was barren. She was engaged to Chenephres, “a ruler of the regions above Egypt” (P.E. 9.27.3). Artapanus did not mention Pharaoh’s orders for male infanticide, or Moses’ mother and sister taking him to the river. Nonetheless, Artapanus implies “Jewish” enslavement when he says that the new king of the Egyptians “dealt meanly with the Jews” and “built cities and sanctuaries” (P.E. 9.27.2). Whereas Exodus’ portrays Moses as doing very few things before he fled Egypt—he grew up, killed an Egyptian, and tried to settle a dispute between two Hebrews—Artapanus’ Moses dazzles the reader with accomplishments. He developed agriculture, trading, military technology, and philosophy. He divided Egypt into districts and assigned animal gods to each one and gave land to the priests “for the sake of keeping the monarchy stable for Chenephres” (P.E. 9.27.4). In fact, Artapanus’ Moses was the originator of aspects of culture that the Greeks and Romans attribute to their deities and heroes. Moses’ surpassed all of them together. Named Musaios by the Greeks and pictured as the teacher of Orpheus, Moses was the source of Greek wisdom. Ultimately, Artapanus’ Moses was the originator of all the positive aspects of civilization.23 “This led to his fame among the Egyptians, for these reasons Moses was beloved of the masses…deemed worthy of divine honor by the priests, and…called Hermes because he could interpret the sacred writings” (P.E. 9.27.7). This provoked Chenephres’ conspiracy against Moses. He ordered Moses to battle the invading Ethiopians in the hope that they would kill him. The Ethiopian campaign was thus the pretense for Chenephres’ first attempt to destroy him: 22. Artapanus is among the revisionists of Moses’ story who ignore or completely rewrite it in order to justify Moses’ killing of an Egyptian (Exod 2:12). See Philo, Mos. 1.40–47 (trans. F. H. Colson, LCL). 23. This is emphasized by Holladay in Fragments, 232 nn. 45–47, and Theios Aner, 225–26.

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

287

Thus, when the Ethiopians marched against Egypt, Chenephres, supposing that he had found the opportune moment, sent Moses against them as the commander of a force of troops. He conscripted a band of farmers for Moses, rashly supposing that Moses would be soon killed by the enemy because his troops were weak. Moses came to the nome called Hermopolis with approximately 100,000 farmers, and he camped there. He commissioned generals to lay siege on the region, and they won every battle with distinction. He [Artapanus] says that the Heliopolitans report that the war lasted ten years. Those around Moses founded a city in that place on account of the size of the army, and made the ibis sacred there because it destroys the creatures that harm men. They called it Hermopolis (the city of Hermes). So then, although the Ethiopians had been enemies, they came to love Moses so much that they learned from him the practice of circumcising the genitalia—not only they but all the priests as well. (P.E. 9.27.7–10)24

For Moses’ Ethiopian campaign, Artapanus drew upon the competitive historiography that preceded him. He ascribed to Moses the same achievements credited in Egyptian legends to Pharaoh Sesostris (or Sesonchosis or Sesoosis): military success, the invention of weapons, creation of 35 districts (nomes), and the spread of circumcision. Cambyses, Sesostris, and Semiramis all undertook successful campaigns against Ethiopia.25 Just as all of Moses’ cultural contributions were intended to “keep the monarchy stable for Chenephres,” by accepting the command of farmers for his troops, he also served the interests of Chenephres and Egypt. The Ethiopians were overcome by the skill, strategy, and perseverance of Moses’ farmer generals. The entire Ethiopian segment occurred before Chenephres’ second attempt to kill Moses (by ordering Chanethothes to serve as the hit man), before Moses’ initial flight toward Arabia (during which he kills Chanethothes in self-defense), and before his subsequent arrival in Arabia. Moses’ Ethiopian campaign is an aspect of his life as a loyal Egyptian. Artapanus assures his readers that Moses remained loyal 24. Quotations here and below from Holladay, Fragments, 210–11; cf. Collins, “Artapanus,” 2:899. Adding that Moses taught circumcision to the priests as well implies that the priests were not Ethiopian, but this is not clear. Artapanus may intend that he taught circumcision to Ethiopians in general and also to the priests of the Ethiopians. 25. Braun, History and Romance, documented the parallels between Artapanus’ Moses and the heroes of Greek romances. In Herodotus (3.25), we read of Cambyses’ Ethiopian campaign. Hecataeus of Abdera, as preserved in Diodorus Siculas, Book I, wrote about Sesostris and Osiris in ways that parallel Artapanus’ Moses. Levy, “Moĭse en Ethiopie,” 207–11, has compiled these. See also Holladay, Theios Aner, 209 nn. 56–57, and Rajak, “Moses,” 116–18.

288

Mixed Marriages

to Egypt until he encountered “a divine voice” in Arabia at a later point ordering him back to fight Egypt. After Moses built a city for his army, the Ethiopians—and all the priests—learned circumcision from him “because they loved him.” Moses was not only the originator of Egyptian religion, culture, and civilization, but also the one who taught Ethiopians—and Egyptian (?) priests—the rite of circumcision. In this way, Artapanus attributed to Moses a far more active role with respect to circumcision than does Exodus. The latter associates Moses with circumcision only in Exod 4:24–26 and there Zipporah, his non-Jewish wife, performed it, while he remained the passive victim of the LORD’s attack.26 While Artapanus did not specifically claim that Moses invented circumcision, he may have intended his reader to understand that Moses transmitted this Jewish practice to the Ethiopians and Egyptians. Nonetheless, Moses’ role as teacher of circumcision is not surprising in the light of all the other phenomena Artapanus’ Moses invented and established. This portrayal of Moses teaching circumcision to Ethiopians and Egyptian priests seems intended to rebut a view represented by Herodotus (2.104) that Phoenicians and Syrians (including Jews) in Palestine received circumcision from the Egyptians. In any case, the Ethiopian campaign is the context for Artapanus’ only reference to circumcision. Artapanus’ Moses did not pass vicariously under the knife (as in Exod 4), but he taught the Ethiopians to do so. To discuss the origin of the ECM and its relationship to Num 12:1, we will deploy Josephus, whose version of the ECM claims that Moses defeated the Ethiopians because the daughter of their king agreed to turn over the city of refuge to Moses on the condition that he take her as his wife. 3. Josephus’ Version of Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign Josephus’ very different first-century C.E. version brings us to a discussion of the relationship among these texts and Num 12:1, which predates both Artapanus and Josephus. Josephus’ version of the Ethiopian campaign is also useful for examining whether his explanation of how Moses married an Ethiopian was invented subsequent to the final redaction of Numbers to explain the reference to Moses’ Cushite wife in Num 12:1, 26. Exodus, like Genesis (ch. 17), associates circumcision with Israel’s founding moments. The LORD told the sons of Israel that every slave and foreigner who would eat of the Passover must first be circumcised (Exod 12:44–49). All the more provocative, then, is Exod 4:24–26 depicting the Midianite woman Zipporah performing the excision on her son.

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

289

or if an already extant marriage motif was the source for Num 12:1— “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses on account of his Cushite wife; for he had indeed married a Cushite woman”—a remark that floats in the air,” not grounded in any other portion of the Torah. In Josephus’ version, Moses was not selected by the Egyptians to lead an army against Ethiopia as a ploy to kill him, but because God told Egypt to use Moses as an ally. His Egyptian mother reluctantly agreed to permit him to be the general. Then we learn that the Egyptians were delighted at this opportunity to do away with Moses (Ant. 2.240–43). For Josephus, Moses’ success in Ethiopia was a bloody assault; he quickly conquered Ethiopian cities and killed so many that they were in danger of total extermination (2.248). The following is the excerpt that includes Moses’ marriage to the daughter of the Ethiopian king:27 In the end [the Ethiopians] were all driven into Saba, the capital of the Ethiopia, which afterward Cambyses named Meroe after the name of his own sister, and they were besieged there.28 But the place offered extreme obstacles to a besieger, for the Nile enclosed it and other rivers…added to the difficulty of the attack for any who attempted to cross the current… The city which lies within resembles an island: strong walls encompass it and as a bulwark against its enemies it has the rivers… Moses, then, was chafing at the inaction of his army for the enemy would not venture upon an engagement, when he met with the following adventure: Tharbis, the daughter of the King of the Ethiopians, watching Moses bringing his troops close beneath the ramparts and fighting valiantly, marveled at the ingenuity of his maneuvers; and, understanding that it was to him that the Egyptians…owed all their success…and to him the Ethiopians owed their extreme danger, fell madly in love with him. Under the strength of this passion she sent to him the most trusted of her servants to make him an offer of marriage. He accepted the proposal on condition that she would surrender the town, pledged himself by oath to take her as his wife, and, once acquiring the city, not to violate the pact, whereupon their agreement took effect. After Moses defeated the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land.

27. Ant. 2.10.1, 249–53. This is largely Thackeray’s version with a few minor alterations of my own, made in consultation with Louis H. Feldman’s Flavius Josephus, Vol. 3, Judean Antiquities 1–4, Translation and Commentary by Louis Feldman (ed. S. Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 200–205. 28. Recall that Artapanus’ Moses named the city and river where he buried his Egyptian mother, “Meroe.” He does not refer to a “Saba” or Sheba tradition in association with Meroe. Nor is this found in other Greek literature; it may instead be a strictly Jewish tradition about Sheba as the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia, and “Seba” as Cush (Gen 10:7; 1 Chr 1:9).

290

Mixed Marriages

Josephus portrayed Moses without the contributions to Egyptian religion and marks of near divinity of Artapanus’ Moses. Josephus’ Moses was simply a clever general who used the ibis to defeat the serpents in his pursuit of the Ethiopians. In Artapanus, Chenephres, the ruler of one area of Egypt, was Moses’ enemy, while the Egyptian priests benefited from his policies and learned circumcision from him. In Josephus, the Egyptian priests were jealous of Moses and tried to kill him by sending him to war. In both Artapanus and Josephus, Moses fled to Arabia, where he married the daughter of Raguel. Rajak, Shinan, and Runnalls have analyzed Josephus’ version of the ECM and critiqued the conclusions of earlier scholarship on Josephus. They debate whether Josephus was dependent upon Artapanus, but added the marriage element, or whether his version (and/or his source), which includes the Ethiopian marriage, represents a far earlier Judean/Palestinian Ethiopian campaign tradition.29 As Runnalls points out, Josephus confined his version of this story to heroics that were more in keeping with traditional Judaean Judaism than was the version of the Egyptian Artapanus. In her view, Josephus wrote his account in reaction to that of Artapanus, recasting the figure of Moses from that of a near divinity whose actions paralleled Egyptian ruler/gods into that of a righteous leader and lawgiver.30 The discussion among scholars centers not only on which came first, Num 12:1 or traditions about a Moses-Ethiopian marriage, but also on whether the ECM was originally Hellenistic or Palestinian, whether Josephus knew Artapanus or used an earlier tradition than Artapanus. Shinan believes that Josephus embellished the Egyptian tradition found in Artapanus. Rappaport wrote that Josephus’ version was not dependent on the account of Artapanus, which was Alexandrian apologetic, but upon an original Palestinian version of the ECM. Vermes agrees that a Palestinian tradition was used by both Artapanus and Josephus.31 Rajak claims that the ECM is originally Egyptian, not Palestinian, given the focus on Ethiopia, “the permanent enemy on Egypt’s border.” She also claims that Josephus and the Palestinian Jewish community before and 29. An analysis of the style and vocabulary of both documents demonstrates that no dependence can be based upon linguistic features; see Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 139–40). 30. Ibid., 153–56. 31. Shinan, “Ethiopian Woman,” 68; Rappaport, Aggada und Exegese, 116; Geza Vermès, “La figure de Moĭse au tournant des deux testaments,” in Moĭse, l’ Homme de l’ Alliance (ed. A. Gelin; Cahiers Sioniens 8; Paris: Tournai, 1955), 53–92 (69 n. 27).

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

291

during his time had little interest or knowledge of Ethiopia. Runnalls disagrees with the latter claim and questions the distinctions between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism assumed by most theorists. On the other hand, Runnalls agrees with Rajak that Ethiopia had special significance to Egypt, and that Moses and Ethiopia were both especially important to Egyptian Jews living on the border of Ethiopia.32 4. Ethiopian Campaign Motif and Numbers 12:1: Runnalls’ Proposal The most common view among scholars is that the Ethiopian campaign tradition—with the marriage element—developed as early aggadah in order to explain the obscure appearance of the Cushite wife in Num 12:1. Thus, according to this view, the ECM is an interpretive response to the Torah’s story, an imaginative solution to the problem of Moses’ Cushite wife, created in response to Num 12:1 in order to answer questions about how he acquired her. Holladay, Levy, Rajak, Louis Feldman, and D. Silver all take this biblical reference to be the origin of the story. All of these scholars claim that a midrash on Exodus was developed in order to explain Num 12:1, because the ECM is depicted as occurring in Moses’ story before he killed an Egyptian and fled to Midian/Arabia (Exod 2:15).33 If Num 12:1 is the primary tradition that the ECM was created to explain, we must ask why such an elaborate story of military exploits against Ethiopia portraying Moses as a loyal Egyptian was created or selected to serve as the aggadic context for the brief notice in Num 12:1 32. Rajak, “Moses,” 116; Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 143. For a concise listing of the views of various scholars in this regard, see Feldman in Josephus, 200–202. 33. Holladay (Fragments, 235 n. 56) cites Ginzberg (Legends of the Jews [trans. Paul Radin; 6 vols.; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1911], 3:256; 6:90 n. 488), but Ginzberg does not make this claim here. Ginzberg writes that Josephus relied on Artapanus for his elaboration of the ECM. Levy also assumes that the Num 12:1 wife was the only reason for the original writer to connect Moses to Ethiopia and hence the only reason to tell about an Ethiopian campaign (“Moĭse en Ethiopie,” 201–11). Rajak writes that it is aggadah but not exegesis because, although it starts with a Bible passage, it moves far away from it (“Moses,” 112–13). Rajak (p. 118) goes on to state: “The Ethiopian wife, for whose sake [the legend] came into being, has disappeared.” Feldman (Josephus, 200) writes: “The sole biblical basis for the lengthy episode of Moses’ Ethiopian campaign is a single verse [Num 12:1].” See also Thackeray, Josephus, 4:269 n. 6; and Daniel J. Silver, “Moses and the Hungry Birds,” JQR 64 (1973): 123–53 (125).

292

Mixed Marriages

about Moses’ Cushite marriage. In addition, the claim that the ECM was aggadah formulated to shed light on Num 12:1 does not explain the sudden appearance of the Cushite wife within the world of the story in its narrative context, which is the wilderness, far removed from Moses’ Egyptian household. On the other hand, Donna Runnalls’ hypothesis that the ECM (with Moses’ marriage to a Cushite/Ethiopian) chronologically preceded the redaction of Numbers provides a potential resolution to these problems. In her article, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” Runnalls posits that the ECM, with the marriage, derives from the Persian period and underlies Num 12:1. The position is this: Persian period Egyptian Jews generated a narrative about Moses in Ethiopia that included his marriage to a Cushite/ Ethiopian, and this tradition—probably oral—was transmitted to Yehud. It was thus available to the redactor of Numbers, who used this familiarity with the notion of Moses’ “Cushite” marriage alliance to introduce the account of the dispute over prophecy at Hazeroth.34 Thus, this position states that traditions about Moses’ campaign against Ethiopia including his Cushite/Ethiopian wife are older than the Num 12:1 allusion to this marriage and the foundation for it. Although the Persian period provenance is not essential for this argument to stand—the ECM has only to precede the final redaction of Numbers and be known to the redactor—Persian period policies and practices may have led to the emergence of the ECM during that time. This will be discussed further below. While certainty regarding the original provenance of the notion of Moses’ Cushite/Ethiopian wife is unlikely (given the antiquity of these traditions, the long gaps between them, and lack of evidence concerning their transmission), the following discussion supports Runnalls’ proposal with additional arguments. The statement of Num 12:1b, “for he had indeed married a Cushite woman,” is the author’s way of assuring the audience that, although they may or may not have otherwise known this, the author himself was aware that Moses had married a Cushite woman through his acquaintance with stories about Moses’ conflict and concord in Ethiopia. “Trust me on this one,” says the author. In this way, the author intentionally acknowledges that a Cushite marriage was a crucial aspect of Miriam and Aaron’s complaint against Moses. Then, as the story unfolds, the LORD resisted any and all complaints against his servant Moses, including a Cushite wife, because of the unparalleled role 34. The Torah is usually presumed to have been redacted no later than the Persian period. Cf. the recent works of P. R. Davies, N. P. Lemche, K. W. Whitelam, and T. L. Thompson who suggest the Hellenistic era for the redaction of these materials.

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

293

Moses held in the LORD’s household and the intimacy the two shared (Num 12:7–8). This counters scholars’ assumptions that Josephus and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, or their source(s), invented or revised the Ethiopian campaign traditions to include Moses’ marriage to an Ethiopian in order to explain the Cushite wife of Num 12:1.35 George Gray, Jacob Milgrom, Martin Noth, Baruch Levine, and many who follow them submit that the Cushite wife was “pretext” for the “real concern” over prophecy or a later insertion reflecting “unknown historical controversies” (Noth).36 However, I posit that this passage served the Second Temple period redactor’s pro-exogamy purposes, whether Num 12:1 was a later insertion or the entire pericope of Num 12 was produced whole cloth. Noth’s “unknown” historical controversies were the conflicts over intermarriage.37 The books of Ezra–Nehemiah represent such discord that likely preceded and certainly continued well after that generation.38 This position may be clarified by Runnalls’ analysis of the Ethiopian war motif found in Artapanus and Josephus. In order to determine elements common to sources for Artapanus and Josephus, Runnalls compared the two documents. By stripping them of (what she considered to be) their apologetic interests, based upon such trends found throughout the balance of Artapanus and Josephus’ 35. The other Targums to Numbers, Neofiti and Onqelos, do not refer to the Ethiopian marriage alliance. Note Neofiti’s version of Num 12:1: “And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses concerning the Cushite woman that he had married; and behold, the Cushite woman was Zipporah, the wife of Moses…handsome in form and beautiful in appearance and different in good works from all other women of that generation.” Neofiti is here similar to Sifre to Numbers in that “Cushite” is taken to mean “different.” Compare Onqelos: “Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses concerning the beautiful woman he had married, for the beautiful woman he had married, he kept at a distance,” an allusion to the marital continence motif, which is also an aspect of Sifre’s interpretation. The Fragmentary Targums are similar to Neofiti and relate to Sifre. 36. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers (JPSTC 4; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 94; George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1903, repr. 1965), 121–22; Baruch Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 328; and Martin Noth, History of Pentateuchal Traditions (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice–Hall, 1972), 127, and Numbers: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1968), 93–98. 37. Noth, History, 127, and Milgrom, Numbers, 93. 38. See Karen S. Winslow, Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives: Ethnicity and Exogamous Marriage (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 2005), 106–11, 180–83. This chapter reflects some of the research in Chapter 4 of this earlier book: “Jewish Memories of Moses’ Wives in the Greek Period,” 167–99.

294

Mixed Marriages

writings, she identified a kernel that preceded them, one which included the notion of a marriage between Moses and an Ethiopian woman. Both Artapanus and Josephus, in Runnalls’ view, wrote about Moses as a defense to their contemporaries. Whereas Artapanus’ Moses is like an Egyptian god and deserves to be an Egyptian hero, Josephus sought to demonstrate that Moses was honorable without mentioning the achievements that related to pagan religion—his story “remains firmly within the bounds” of Pharisaic Judaism. In fact, Runnalls argues that Josephus intentionally wrote his version in order to counter that of Artapanus. Notice: Moses was the adopted son of an Egyptian princess. He led an Egyptian army against the Ethiopians. He captured the city of Meroe/Saba and married an Ethiopian princess. The Egyptian leaders were jealous of Moses’ success in Egypt and hoped he would be killed in the war. When he was not, they planned to kill him themselves. Moses fled after killing an Egyptian who tried to kill him.39

Runnalls concludes that Artapanus knew about the marriage element, but intentionally left it out of his version. This means that, in Runnalls’ view, Moses’ marriage to an Ethiopian was not invented by Josephus, or any of his sources, to supplement a tradition related to the version of Artapanus on account of Num 12:1. Neither was it dropped by Alexander Polyhistor or Eusebius when they excerpted Artapanus, or in transmission before their endeavors. In other words, it was available to, but excised by, Artapanus. Since it preceded him, but is absent from his version, Runnalls deduced that it was not useful to him. Runnalls speculated that because Artapanus’ agenda was to polemicize against Egypt, to show them in a consistently bad light, “the episode of Moses’ marriage to the Ethiopian princess would have no purpose to play.” Recall that Artapanus’ Moses was not hostile to Egyptians in general, but only to Chenephres who sought to kill him.40 Rajak also points out the elements of the Josephus account that are prior to that of Artapanus. She claims Artapanus “garbled” many of 39. Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 147. 40. A. Weideman wrote that Josephus represents the simple story and Artapanus contaminated it (“Zu den Felsgraffiti in der Gegend des ersten Katarakts,” OLZ 3 [1900]: 171–75, 173–74). Levy agreed that the Josephus version is closer to the original because he did not omit the marriage episode, but claims that both had a common source (see “Moĭse en Ethiopie,” 201–11, and also Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 140). Rajak noted that “The Ethiopian wife, for whose sake [the legend] came into being, has disappeared,” but does not attempt an explanation (“Moses,” 118).

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

295

them, that his source knew material also known to Josephus’ source. For example, Pharaoh’s daughter is named “Thermuthis” in Josephus and Jubilees, which demonstrates that Artapanus’ name, “Merris,” is later and its use arose after Moses had been linked with the city of Meroe.41 Runnalls further writes that this marriage notion was related to the tradition “underlying Num 12:1, which would appear to be from the Persian period rather than the Hellenistic period.” In other words, the tradition that Moses married a Cushite/Ethiopian woman as represented in Num 12:1 was also reflected in a pre-Artapanus ECM. Runnalls argues that an early Cushite wife tradition underlies both Num 12:1 and Josephus’ source for his ECM, “rather than [the latter being] Josephus’ explanation of that obscure reference.”42 Runnalls thus claims that the core of the story referring to Moses’ role as husband of Tharbis, the Ethiopian princess, “was older than the Hellenistic Jewish Alexandrian tradition of Artapanus.” Its origins lie with other Jews of Egypt, those of the Persian period, residing in a military colony such as Elephantine, which bordered Cush/Nubia. By the fourth century B.C.E., this story was known in both Palestine and Alexandria through normal channels of cultural transmission. Through trade between Egyptian Jewish communities and the Persian military colony of Jewish mercenaries in Elephantine, Egyptian traditions circulated in Jewish circles independent of Greek writings about the area. Against the view that circulating traditions about Moses’ Ethiopian campaign were later altered in order to accommodate the “earlier” Num 12.1 reference to Moses’ Cushite wife, Runnalls argues that Persian period legends produced by Jews in southern Egypt, not Alexandria, lie behind Num 12:1. Thus, the notion of Moses as the husband of Tharbis the Ethiopian should be associated with the tradition reflected in Num 12, as preceding or concurrent with it, not invented subsequently. If this suggestion can be sustained, we have an explanation for the abrupt and unexplained appearance of Moses’ Cushite wife in Numbers. I have already suggested a reason that her entrance into Numbers’ account of the wilderness journey was useful to the redactor of this material: to affirm Moses’ marriage to a Cushite woman to counter the exclusivist trends reflected in Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13, along with affirming his status as the intimate servant and prophet of the LORD. Let us 41. Rajak, “Moses,” 119. Rajak is among those scholars who claim that the ECM existed in various forms before both Artapanus and Josephus fixed their version of it. She stresses the importance of oral tradition and its roots in the popular imagination (122). 42. Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 144, 155.

296

Mixed Marriages

evaluate the support for the position that Jewish Egyptian traditions about Moses’ military prowess and his Ethiopian marriage from the Persian period influenced the final redaction of the Torah. It is unlikely that we would find literary evidence from this period for Persian period legends about Moses that stemmed from Jews living in an Egyptian milieu and that were influenced by their proximity to Ethiopia, because they would have been transmitted orally as part of popular culture. We are fortunate to have the information afforded to us by the Jewish Scriptures, the Elephantine papyri, the excavated queen’s temple at Abu Simbel, the late third-century B.C.E. account of Artapanus, and Josephus’ version, the latter of which represents another trajectory of the ECM outside of that transmitted by Artapanus. Evidence for Jews in Egypt before and during the Persian period is well known. We find it in the book of Jeremiah and the earliest Jewish texts outside of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Elephantine papyri, discovered between 1906 and 1911.43 After Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem in 587–6 B.C.E., Jews fled to Egypt, Jeremiah the prophet among them (Jer 40:1–7; 42:7–22; 43:8–44:30). He named the cities they inhabited, referred to their idolatrous practices, and he prophesied concerning Pharaoh Hophra (588–569 B.C.E.). The Aramaic papyri from Elephantine are dated to the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E.44 One letter, dated 407 B.C.E., sent by Jedaniah and the priests at Elephantine to the governor of Judah refers to their temple that existed before the Persian king Cambyses’ invaded this area in 525 B.C.E.45 Nonetheless, the Jewish temple to “Ya’u” was destroyed in 410 B.C.E., a destruction instigated, according to this account, by Egyptians. Eventually the Elephantine community gained the support of officials in and near Yehud to rebuild this temple, but animal sacrifice was forbidden.46 These letters are also evidence of the syncretistic nature of temple worship, offering blessings in the name of Ya’u and Khnum (the local 43. Cf. Isa 19:18 and 49:12, both of which mention Jews in Egyptian cities. The latter names “Sinim” or Syene, at the first cataract of the Nile, on the southern border of Egypt, across from the site of the Elephantine colony during the Persian period. 44. Bezalel Porten, “Elephantine Papyri,” ABD 2:445–55. 45. Ibid. 46. James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001), 6–9, 147–50. Runnalls suggests that the story, including the wife element, originated with the military and civilian colony at Elephantine during the Persian period, which functioned to protect Egypt from the Cushites or Nubians (“Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 155). Jews were hired to guard Egypt’s borders by both Persians and Ptolemies. The specific place need not be pressed.

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

297

Egyptian ram god). The documents also indicate marriages between Jews and Egyptians, and the equal rights of husbands and wives to divorce, inherit, and possess property. This is a witness to the ubiquitous tendency to adapt to surrounding culture, to which Artapanus’ “Life of Moses” also testifies.47 Significant also for our interests here is the appearance of “Cushi” (Cushite) among the documents.48 Of course, this is not surprising given the proximity of Elephantine with Cush or Nubia and the fact that the Jewish community was installed to guard this border. Another indication of Persian period Jewish interest in Cushites may be found in 2 Chr 12:2–8. This provides a Second Temple version of the invasion of Pharaoh Shishak into Jerusalem, also told in 1 Kgs 14:25. Whereas the Kings passage does not mention the presence of Cushites in Shishak’s army, the Chronicler’s account does. In addition, we know from the ruins of Abu Simel that Egyptian pharaohs married Nubian royal women in order to consolidate and legitimize their rule over Cush/Nubia.49 Thus, it is certainly feasible that tales of Moses’ marriage to a Cushite/Ethiopian woman and his military prowess were produced by Jews, who combined Egyptian hero legends and Jewish traditions about Moses. They would have enjoyed Moses’ ability to acquire a Cushite wife after the manner of Egyptian pharaohs. Artapanus’ account is evidence that Jews ascribed to their hero the attributes of Egyptian pharaohs, gods, and mighty men. Perhaps Jews located in Egyptian military colonies or elsewhere also desired to produce justification for their own intermarriage with women of nearby Cush. Their rationale for producing their tale of Moses marrying an Ethiopian within the ECM may have been similar to those I have attributed to the redactor of Num 12.

47. Elias Bickerman, “The Historical Foundations of Postbiblical Judaism,” in Emerging Judaism: Studies on Fourth and Third Centuries B.C.E. (ed. M. E. Stone and D. Satran; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 9–45. 48. Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 3, Literature, Accounts, Lists (ed. B. Porten and A. Yardeni; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 280. 49. As Runnalls notes, this sort of intermarriage would have been known to the Jewish mercenaries at Elephantine. She refers to the queen’s temple at Abu Simbel (“Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” 150). See also B. G. Haycock, “Landmarks in Cushite History,” JEA 53 (1972): 225–44 (230, 237); Snowden, Blacks, 192–93, and Snowden, Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), 95. From 4 B.C.E. to 100 C.E. the Greek “Ethiopia” and the Egyptian and Hebrew “Cush” referred to areas of the first cataract as far as Khartoum. See Dows Dunham, “Notes on the History of Kush 850 B.C.–A.D. 350,” AJA 50 (1946): 378–88.

298

Mixed Marriages

Conversely, the notion of Moses’ marriage may have had less to do with a polemic on behalf of the practice of intermarriage than it was a feature of “romantic propaganda,” with which Jews were also familiar. Consider Joseph and Asenath, another Hellenistic Jewish document, probably from Egypt and dating between 100 B.C.E. and 100 C.E. Like the Ethiopian princess, who watched Moses from her perch above the gates of her city and was filled with passion for him, Asenath viewed Joseph’s arrival from her window and was filled with admiration for him.50 This would not alter my suspicion that the motivation for selection and insertion of this notion by the redactor of Numbers related to conflicts over intermarriage in his social world. Whatever the original reason for the formulation of Moses’ marriage to a Cushite woman among the Jews of Egypt, the redactor found a way to affirm it by the words of the LORD against Miriam and Aaron in Num 12:8: “Why were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?” To summarize: the fact that Artapanus, our oldest source for the ECM, is silent about this marriage contests the view that biblical interpreters created the ECM in order to explain the Cushite wife of Num 12:1. However, we cannot be certain that the absence of the marriage element indicates that it post-dated Artapanus, because it may have originated in other circles or pre-dated Artapanus who dropped it. It is plausible that the Cushite wife tradition originated in connection with wider speculations about Moses’ Ethiopian activity, which preceded the redaction of Numbers. Artapanus’ Moses is a parallel to pharaohs known to have married Cushite women and divinized in Egyptian literature. Shinan also believes that the legend of Moses’ marriage to the Ethiopian woman was developed independently of any efforts to come to terms with Num 12:1. The verse did not produce the legend but the latter was tied to the verse through homiletical activity; or, both Scripture and legend are based upon an earlier myth that included Moses’ marriage to an Ethiopian woman.51

50. See C. Burchard, “Joseph and Asenath: A New Translation and Introduction,” OTP 2:177–247. In M. Braun’s view, the Scylla legend is the basis of a type of romance common throughout the ancient world (History and Romance, 97). 51. Shinan, Ethiopian Woman, 72. Shinan (p. 77) discusses the reappearances of Moses’ Ethiopian marriage and military campaign in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, The Chronicles of Moses, Yalqut Shim’oni 1:168 and Sefer Ha-Yashar of the Middle Ages, showing that the rabbinic sages ignored the tradition about Moses in Ethiopia (b. Mo’ed Qatan 16b identifies the Cushite with Zipporah), but the Targums (aimed at the masses) did not.

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

299

5. The Arabian Segment: Moses Kills an Egyptian and Marries an “Arabian” Near the end of Fragment Three, Artapanus loosely recalls the Exod 2:15–21 portrayal of Moses’ marriage to Zipporah in Midian. Similar to the Torah’s account, Artapanus’ Moses fled Egypt after killing an Egyptian, took up residence with “Raguel” in “Arabia,” and married his daughter. However, the similarities to the versions in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures’ end there. Artapanus’ Moses did not flee for his life after he killed an Egyptian slave-boss who was beating a Hebrew (Exod 2:15a). The “Arabian segment” of Artapanus’ tale begins after the Ethiopian campaign as Aaron, Moses’ brother, learned of Chenephres’ plot to kill Moses by shaming his henchman, Chanethothes, into this attempt (P.E. 9.27.13–18). Note especially P.E. 9.27.15–17a, which states: About this time, Merris died, and Chenephres gave Moses and Chanethothes the task of bringing the body to the regions beyond Egypt and burying it, assuming that Moses would be killed by Chanethothes. But while they were on their journey, one of the conspirators informed Moses of the plot. The latter guarded himself, buried Merris, and named the river and the city which is on it Meroë. Thus, Merris was honored no less than Isis. Aaron the brother of Moses learned about the plot and warned his brother to flee to Arabia.

On his way, Moses was approached by Chanethothes, with dagger drawn, but Moses killed him in self-defense. Chanethothes, then, was the Egyptian whom Moses killed before he fled to the hospitality of Raguel in “Arabia,” and married his daughter. The jealous Egyptian ruler, Chenephres, was determined to have Moses killed before Moses killed Chanethothes in self-defense. This picture of an innocent Moses is consistent with Artapanus’ portrayal of him throughout Fragment Three and contrasts with the ambiguity with which Moses is portrayed in Exodus. In his elaboration of Raguel’s “wage war” order, Artapanus excises the well scene, the meal, and the birth of a son found in Exod 2:15–22: He then fled into Arabia where he took up residence with Raguel, the ruler of the region, and he married Raguel’s daughter. Raguel wished to wage war against the Egyptians because he wished to return Moses from exile and thereby establish the throne for his daughter and son-in-law (gambros). But Moses would not hear of it because he had regard for his own people. With his proposal for an attack blocked, Raguel ordered the Arabs to plunder Egypt. (P.E. 9.27.19)

300

Mixed Marriages

Exodus venerates the Midianite Jethro more than Artapanus’ brief nod to Raguel, whom he depicts as an ambitious Arabian with political, military hegemony over his region, not the religious role denoted by the term “priest” in the Hebrew and Greek versions of Exodus.52 The reason he tells Moses to wage war upon the Egyptians is that “he wished to establish the throne for his daughter and son-in-law.” Artapanus uses this segment to continue demonstrating that Moses is always loyal and benevolent to the Egyptians. He refused to attack them “because he had regard for his own people.” This statement is somewhat ambiguous. Moses’ had been utterly loyal to Egypt up to this point, and “his own people” could mean the Egyptians. Soon, however, we see him praying to God on account of the Jews who were being singled out for persecution by Chenephres’ demand for them to wear linen. In addition, we know from the outset of Artapanus’ account that the king of Egypt had begun to “treat the Jews meanly.” In my view, Artapanus’ effort to demonstrate the benevolence of Moses’ toward Egypt indicates that he sought to emphasize that all of the inhabitants of Egypt were Moses’ people—Egyptians and Jews alike. It was Chenephres—the villain of his tale—who demanded a distinction, a distinction that was made by clothing, probably the first reference to such a practice. According to the next section, Artapanus’ Moses returned to Egypt alone and encountered Aaron (a second time) before his visit to Pharaoh. This meeting is the first between Moses and Aaron in the biblical version: While he was making his appeal to God [for respite from their suffering at the hands of Chenephres] suddenly, Artapanus says, fire appeared out of the earth, and it blazed even though there was neither wood nor any other kindling in the vicinity. Frightened at what happened, Moses fled, but a divine voice spoke to him and told him to wage war against Egypt, and as soon as he had rescued the Jews, to return them to their ancient fatherland. Taking courage from this, he resolved to lead a fighting force

52. The Arab setting for Moses’ marriage to Raguel’s daughter is not the first time Arabians appear in Artapanus’ account. In Fragment 2, the Arabians are portrayed as allies/relatives of Joseph. He asked Arabs to transport him to Egypt because he knew his brothers plotted against him. Artapanus’ Arabs, although again parallel to Midianites (and Ishmaelites) in the biblical account, do not buy Joseph from his brothers, but kindly grant his request to take him to Egypt because they also are descendents of Abraham. Artapanus’ Joseph is never a slave in Egypt. He immediately became an acquaintance of the king, the minister of finance, a land reformer and benefactor of the Egyptian priests (P.E. 9.23.1–2).

WINSLOW Moses’ Cushite Marriage

301

against the Egyptians, but first he went to Aaron his brother. The king of the Egyptians, upon learning of the arrival of Moses, summoned him… (P.E. 9.27.21–22, my italics)

The italicized phrase is an allusion to Exod 4:27–28 and immediately follows Artapanus’ reference to Exod 3:1–17, without any recall of the intervening Exodus material, including the circumcision by Zipporah (Exod 4:18–26). In the “Arabian segment” of Artapanus’ story, we meet Moses’ unnamed and only wife, identified as an Arab. Moses refused to participate in Raguel’s plan to invade Ethiopia on behalf of his own and his wife’s interests; he only moved against Egypt when a “divine voice,” not that of his wife’s father, ordered him to do so. 6. Conclusion Artapanus makes no connection between Moses’ wife, the daughter of Raguel, and Ethiopia—his interactions with Ethiopians do not include a marriage. Artapanus’ memory of the daughter of Raguel, who became Moses’ wife in “Arabia,” is extremely brief. He fails to recall the birth of her sons or her circumcision of one of them. Nonetheless, Artapanus’ elaborate portrayal of Moses’ Ethiopian campaign has provided a fruitful comparison to Josephus’ depiction of Moses’ ECM in which he describes Moses’ marriage to an Ethiopian princess. In each version of the legend, Moses’ stint in Ethiopian occurs while he is living among the Egyptians and before he flees Egypt for Midian. I have argued that Runnalls’ hypothesis that a version of the ECM originally included Moses’ marriage to an Ethiopian and underlies the Num 12:1 should be seriously considered for its explanatory power. Although dependence among these ancient traditions cannot be verified, I suggest that we consider that Persian period Jewish legends about Moses explain the sudden appearance of a Cushite wife in Num 12:1. The redactor, then, used this notion for his own purposes: to affirm that Moses’ marriage to a Cushite was above the censure of Israel’s prophetic and priestly leadership. The fact that the earliest extant version of the Ethiopian military campaign, that of Artapanus, does not include Moses’ marriage to an Ethiopian indicates that these legends could have emerged independent of any concern over Num 12:1. In any event, we have the indisputable fact that the notion of a Cushite wife for Moses became a part of the Torah of the Jews and was accepted in scribal circles associated with Second Temple texts. If this legend was developed in the Persian period and transmitted to inhabitants of Yehud/ Judea through normal channels of trade and cultural diffusion, then it

302

Mixed Marriages

was deployed by the redactor of Numbers to affirm Moses’ second outsider marriage by combining it with the LORD’s affirmation of Moses’ unique prophetic status. The Torah thus reflects an allusion to legends about Moses’ cultural, religious, and military prowess produced earlier by Egyptian Jews.

FEMINIST- AND GENDER-CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE BIBLICAL IDEOLOGY OF INTERMARRIAGE Claudia V. Camp

Before moving to my main argument, I would like to lay out some methodological considerations that I take as preconditions for any work I undertake in Second Temple history and literature. (1) The first concerns the dating of the literature and its relationship to any supposed historical crises involving intermarriage and identity. Texts that deal with intermarriage are probably mostly post-exilic, and they likely relate in some way to identity issues in that period.1 But it’s a long period(!)—going on 400 years if we count from the time of the first return to, say, the Maccabean revolt. A problem with intermarriage as related to identity—whether the cause of an actual crisis or merely invoked as an ideological weapon—may have come and gone over the years, and may not always have involved the same groups with the same agendas or the same power relationships. The Bible now presents us with a synchronic package that expresses contradictory views on intermarriage. While I assume that all these voices were, broadly, either produced or actively rehearsed in the Second Temple period, it is very difficult to date any of them precisely. We cannot, then, assume they were in the kind of direct conversation with each other that they now appear to be, except of course at the very end of the canonizing process. (2) Second, we must always bear in mind that we are dealing with literary texts, not ethnographic reports, whereas our questions about intermarriage often tend to be of the social scientific sort. While problematic as sources of empirical data about marriage practices, literary 1. In Claudia Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible (JSOTSup 320; GCT 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 22–24, I discuss reasons why it is unlikely that intermarriage was a significant issue, practically or ideologically, before the Babylonian exile. I apologize to my reader for the self-referencing I do in this and several other footnotes. I do not mean to cite myself as a voice of authority, but only to indicate that the rather summary observations I sometimes make here are based on more extensive argument elsewhere.

304

Mixed Marriages

texts may nonetheless help us understand a great deal about (someone’s) ideology of marriage as it related to identity. But, again, we have to recognize that the reasons these texts—and not perhaps others—were preserved, in the combinations we now have, may reflect different identity issues than the ones that bothered their authors. (3) From the first two points I draw the following parameters: (a) Literary considerations need to precede social-historical ones in using the biblical texts to draw conclusions about the relationship of intermarriage and identity. Further, we must be selfconscious and explicit about how we understand the relationship of literary questions and answers to social-historical ones. I suggest, for a start, that we refer to the textual trope of intermarriage, with what if any social reality it may imply always to be determined. Additionally, since the conclusions we end up drawing on the subject may be more applicable to a later age than the one described even in the later texts, I propose the use of some sort of what I might call an “imagined reader response” approach to encourage consideration of different groups who might have read and re-cycled these texts, for different reasons, up to the point they were canonically fixed.2 (b) We need some theoretical framework to account for the way myths, metaphors, and symbols work in the formation of group and individual identity. This is a large topic that cannot be addressed systematically in a short essay, but will appear in passing here.3 (c) In attempting to unpack the implicit ideology or ideologies in texts and practices centered, as marriage is, on the relationships of men and women, we need a feminist- and gender-critical perspective. This last point is the main focus of this essay. The first thing a feminist might notice in the Bible’s projections about intermarriage is the degree to which women, and not men, are the problem. This fact is the first obstacle to any easy assumption that these texts are transparent accounts of some real threat posed by intermarriage. 2. See ibid., 19–21, for further discussion of the different sets of ancient readerly eyes, those of priests and of wisdom tradents, that I imagine encountering, probably sometimes creating, and deploying texts containing the trope of intermarriage and, more broadly, the feminized trope of strangeness. The larger argument of the book concerns the various ways the metaphor of the Strange Woman figure is deployed in the identity rhetoric of different Second Temple contexts. 3. Again, the discussion draws on work done in Camp, Wise, where I use the metaphor theory of George Lakoff and a structuralist analysis of myth.

CAMP Feminist- and Gender-Critical Perspectives

305

Negotiations regarding actual intermarriage would be difficult to pursue if only a one-way exchange of women was involved. What group would offer their sons as marriage partners without an expectation that the other group would reciprocate? In this sense, Deut 7:3, which prohibits both giving your daughters to their sons and taking their daughters for your sons, has a greater ring of authenticity to it than most texts dealing with intermarriage, though whose voice this is or when it spoke is hard to determine.4 The texts of both Ezra (9:12) and Nehemiah (10:31; 13:25) seem to cite the mutual prohibition of Deuteronomy but, as the rhetoric (including the description of purported events) unfolds, only the marriage and concomitant divorce of foreign wives is at stake (Ezra 9:2; 10:1–44; Neh 13:23–24, 26–28). But historians are rightly wary of the historicity of other aspects of the Ezra story, at least. If he was not an entirely legendary figure, he was well on his way to becoming one by the time the text of Ezra–Nehemiah was composed.5 The folkloric scale of the silver he brought back to Yehud6 is matched by the fairytale quality of an announcement made throughout the land that brought together within three days all the men of Judah and Benjamin who agree in a flash to the essentially illegal7 divorce of their “foreign” wives (10:7–12). An intermarriage crisis in 458 B.C.E. associated with Ezra? I’m a skeptic. Maybe we could begin to talk about such a situation a bit later, associated with Nehemiah, but I suspect the account of Ezra’s marriage reform should be understood as a retrojection of a later day, connecting what became a big idea to one who became a legendary figure, rather than something we can assume as an historical point of departure. This historical suspicion means we have to look closely at the rhetoric of the text. Scholars now commonly assume that “foreignness” is a construct in the book of Ezra, an attribution of definitive difference in group 4. Likewise, the deceptive deal made by Dinah’s brothers with the Shechemites mentions a mutual exchange of daughters (Gen 34:15, 21), while addressing a situation that, unusually, foregrounds a strange man rather than a strange woman as the problematic marriage partner. The Dinah story is rife with ideological issues, however, and needs a detailed analysis of its own. But see, briefly, below and also ibid., 279–322, for a fuller discussion. 5. See Lester L. Grabbe, Ezra–Nehemiah (OTR; London: Routledge, 1998), 187–89, for discussion of the Ezra material as one of three cult and city “founder legends.” Grabbe continues to make cautious use of these books as a source for the governorship of Nehemiah (p. 197). 6. Cf. ibid., 140–41. 7. As argued by Joseph Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 69–70.

306

Mixed Marriages

identity assigned by the golah group to the “people of the land” who were probably not so different at all, save for their lack of the exile experience.8 I do not question that there is identity construction through name-calling going on here, but that recognition still takes at historical face value the textual claim that the problem lies only with foreign wives.9 Identity is being constructed here not simply by rejecting (socalled) foreign marriage but by rejecting (so-called) foreign women, with all the rhetorical baggage of perverse sexuality they bring along: oxymoronically, marriage to them is unfaithfulness (‫)מעל‬10 and results in mixing the holy seed (9:2). The Israelite identity being created, then, is Israelite male identity. One could arguably say that the very idea of patrilineage as identity is itself being created by means of the trope of intermarriage, defined as the rejection of Strange Women who are themselves defined in terms of strange sex which itself stands for strange religion. We are in the world of metaphor. The biblical proclivity for constructing Strange Women is widespread and the text of Ezra–Nehemiah, at different stages of its transmission, likely both draws on and contributes to the force of the image. Notably, 8. Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Social Context of the ‘Outsider Woman’ in Proverbs 1–9,” Bib 72 (1991): 457–73; Tamara C. Eskenazi and Eleanore P. Judd, “Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9–10,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), 266–85; Harold C. Washington, “The Strange Woman of Proverbs 1–9 and Post-Exilic Judean Society,” in Eskenazi and Richards, eds., Second Temple Studies 2, 217–42. 9. For the sake of argument, let me take a counter position and imagine that a 458 B.C.E. marriage crisis should be given more historical credence than I give it. As I have observed, any real practice of intermarriage would have to involve a mutual exchange of sons and daughters. In this case, the implication would be that Ezra deliberately ignores the fact that Judahite daughters were being given in marriage to outsider men, as well as the other way round. Whatever historical judgment we make, then, there is a patrilineal rhetoric at work that discounts the identity-value of these daughters. It is precisely the gendered nature of this identity-shaping rhetoric that I wish to account for. 10. Although ‫ מעל‬means “sin, trespass” in a more general sense, it is used almost exclusively in Ezra–Nehemiah in relation to marriage to “foreign” women (Ezra 9:2, 4; 10:2, 6, 10; Neh 13:27). The only exceptions are Neh 1:8 and 9:35, texts that refer to events of the past rather than the current situation. ‫ מעל‬also refers to a form of marital unfaithfulness in the ritual prescribed for the (possibly) adulterous wife who has “transgressed” against her husband (Num 5:12, 27). Here the reference is to the sexual aspect of female “strangeness,” rather than the political/religious aspect found in Ezra–Nehemiah. One might wonder, however, whether in this late literature one if not all of the usages of this word has condensed around the Strange Woman figure.

CAMP Feminist- and Gender-Critical Perspectives

307

biblical Strange Women are never strange just because they are foreign. Rather, the image is a site at which a variety of forms of strangeness mix, match, and reinforce each other, making it available for deployment by writers with a possible range of agendas.11 I regard the Strange Woman of Prov 1–9 as an archetype (though not necessarily the origin) of this sort of construction of female danger or, to read it in the other direction, expression of male fear. She is not explicitly said to be of foreign nationality or a worshipper of foreign gods; her main danger is her adulterous nature: bad sex (which is to say autonomous female sex) is the problem. A whiff of bad religion (whether the worship of “foreign” gods or a violation of Yahwistic cultic regulation) may be sniffed in the accusation that the Strange Woman “forgets the covenant of her god (or: gods)” (Prov 2:17) and also in the possibility that she violates the cult with sexual activity (Prov 7:14–18), but faithless faith is a metaphorical extension of faithless sex rather than the main issue. For this reason, I do not think a direct line can be drawn from Proverbs’ Strange Woman to the nokriyyot in Ezra–Nehemiah, and it is simply circular to argue that the Proverbs figure can contribute to a re-construction of a post-exilic foreign marriage crisis associated with Ezra (or anybody). One may have contributed to the development of the other, but we have no way of determining the point of departure. A later reader of Ezra–Nehemiah and Proverbs together, however, would have available a female figure of doubled force, with her sexual danger emphasized in the one text and her threat to religious/political identity emphasized in the other. I am arguing, then, that the trope of intermarriage depends on the construction of Strange Woman. Such a construction does imply an identity issue, but the identity problem is at base one of gender identity, male identity in particular, rather than political/religious identity. The Strange Woman is an expression of men’s fear of being unable to control the sexuality of their women and, thus, in this culture, the fear of being unmanned. The power of the intermarriage issue for creating group identity rests ideologically on the anxiety-producing role of women’s sexuality in creating masculine identity.12 Insofar as men create and 11. Cf. Camp, Wise, 21–29. 12. Thus, even in a supposedly “pro-intermarriage” text like Ruth, the danger of the Strange Woman lurks: even this “good” Moabite is verbally and sexually too clever by half. See Danna N. Fewell and David M. Gunn, Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990), for a less romanticized reading of the relationships depicted in this story than is usually done. Whether the book of Ruth celebrates or simply acknowledges the presence of strangeness within “Israelite” identity, it does not eliminate the anxiety about it.

308

Mixed Marriages

understand their masculine identity over against women as Other, this gender opposition becomes the basis for all other identity-creating oppositions. The intermarriage issue is inseparable—and gains its symbolic, identity-creating force—from this deep-structural, androcentric dynamic. Although this reality operates on an unconscious rather than conscious level, it means that, for men, all marriage is a form of intermarriage. Let me unpack this notion a bit and, in the process, show its relevance for a crucial aspect of the intermarriage and identity connection in the Second Temple period, the problem of priestly identity. There are two other features of this cultural time and place that accentuate the androcentrism I have been describing. They involve social practices but also have a mythic dimension that is my interest here, taking “myth” in a structuralist sense, that is, as a cultural narrative that both expresses and covers up some fundamental contradiction in ideology or social norms.13 The first of these biblically specific permutations of androcentrism lies in the ideology and practice of patrilineality. Patrilinealism is one aspect of the larger kinship system that became definitive in the Second Temple period for those who returned from exile. It received special emphasis from the priestly group who took the trouble to construct the biblical genealogies and who adopted male circumcision, a symbol of patrilineal descent, as the sign of the covenant. While genealogy became “an important idiom in the self-definition of the priestly community,”14 how strictly it was practiced may be questioned.15 However that may be, it certainly became the dominant ideology of both property and identity for the compilers of what became the Bible. Patrilinealism puts a particular spin on a kinship-based society.16 It socially disempowers women, of course, 13. See Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structuralist Anthropology (trans. C. Jacobson and B. G. Schoepf; New York: Basic, 1963), 224–30, and, for an application of this theory that relates to the present discussion, Seth D. Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology (JSOTSup 185; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995). 14. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1990), 165; and see 164–73 for a full discussion of the importance of descent, symbolized by circumcision, in priestly self-legitimation and community definition. 15. The episodes involving Zelophehad’s daughters clearly show debate on the matter (Num 27:1–11; 36:1–12), while the need to legislate a preference for the right of the firstborn son (Deut 21:16–17) suggests that other practices were not uncommon. 16. There is nothing in the economics of a kin-based system (one, that is, in which the means and outcomes of production remain under the control of those engaged in it, rather than supporting a non-producing class) that demands a patrilineal identity

CAMP Feminist- and Gender-Critical Perspectives

309

but the ideological ramifications go deeper than this. For writing women out of the identity-creating ideology of a kinship system has the profound effect, on the mythic level, of denying their inevitable and necessary role in that system, that is, in terms of the kin relations that make them (socially) real. A daughter is just as likely to be born of a pregnancy as a son, yet she remains, ideologically speaking, uncoded. Likewise, though wives may be socially and economically important to their husbands, and mothers emotionally important to their sons, as far as group identity goes, they are kin yet not kin, for patrilineal Israel is a family of men. The two-sided emblem of this reality appears in what Eilberg-Schwartz calls “the gender of blood” in priestly thought: the genital blood shed by men in circumcision signifies covenant-making while women’s menstrual blood is polluting.17 Further, “since circumcision binds together men within and across generations, it also establishes an opposition between men and women.”18 It is, then, both a mark of gender identity over against the Other and, along with the absence of women in most of the genealogies, also an assertion of a male procreative capacity independent of women. Sex is inherently polluting because it is inherently mixing: the impossible ideal of patrilineally defined identity would be female-free procreation.19 A mythic contradiction to be sure! and inheritance system. For a cross-cultural example of the possible complexities one might find, see Christine W. Gailey, Kinship to Kingship: Gender Hierarchy and State Formation in the Tongan Islands (Texas Press Sourcebooks in Anthropology 14; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987). 17. Eilberg-Schwartz, Savage, 177–82. 18. Ibid., 171. 19. Helpful interlocutors in the session where I first presented this study raised questions that complicated this contention. One issue is the fact that the very priests who regard sex as polluting are also those whose creation myth demands that humans “be fruitful and multiply.” A second is the fact that genital-related pollution does not require the sex act, or even the presence of a woman: any emission of semen is also polluting (Lev 15:16–17). I am indeed following one thread among many here, and a much longer discussion would be needed to show how and with what implications the various components interweave. Briefly, I might say that the connection with Gen 1 is interesting because it highlights yet another ideological contradiction that needs resolution or, as Eilberg-Schwartz himself puts it, “[f]rom the priests’ perspective, Israelites are damned if they do and damned if they don’t” (Eilberg-Schwartz, Savage, 194). The issue of the polluting quality of non-sexual seminal emissions, on the other hand, introduces a different “domain of significance,” that of fluids in themselves, one that does not depend on radical gender differentiation. As Eilberg-Schwartz points out, however, cultural symbol systems are never perfectly systematized (p. 182). I am not suggesting, then, that men and women were always consciously regarded as in every way different, or that aspects

310

Mixed Marriages

The second aspect of biblical androcentrism intensifies this contradiction and further problematizes women’s place in the identity-creating marriage and kinship system. This is the biblical myth of male Israelite descent from a common ancestor when combined with the prohibition against marriage to non-Israelite women (whoever those “foreigners” may be!). If exogamy is disallowed for the sons of Israel, where did the wives come from? The metanarrative of endogamy for families claiming a common ancestor would seem to require a considerable amount of incest, at least in the first few generations, a fact that seems to go unnoticed by this narrative. Or does it? Taking a structuralist perspective, Seth Kunin has argued that the peculiar run of wife-sister stories in Genesis plays a mythic purpose in the narrative, both presenting “real” marriages between the patriarchs and their wives within allowable (nonincestuous) boundaries while at the same time intimating a closer, socially forbidden relationship between them.20 The new myth of the wife-sister, the myth of incest, to use Kunin’s title, in effect resolves, or at least covers over, the contradiction between the assertion that “we are all children of common parents” and the prohibition of the exogamic marriage practices that such an assertion would seem to necessitate. The problem of the women fit to marry intertwined with the problem of the women who are Israelite kin also comes to the fore in stories dealing with characters I have called “e-stranged women.”21 Dinah and Miriam are sisters to important male characters whom the narrative casts as outsiders, in the one case through her sexual contact with a foreign man and, in the other, by her rebellion and the impurity of a skin disease. These stories are interesting for our present discussion for two reasons. Both narratives, first of all, express the full debate over intermarriage rather than simply representing one side or the other, and both leave the matter peculiarly inconclusive. In Gen 34, Dinah’s father Jacob supports her marriage to Shechem for what seem like good, pragmatic reasons, while her brothers, most notably Levi and Simeon, put up a bloody resistance to the possibility. The episode ends with what might appear to be narrative approval of the brothers. They are given the last, scathing

of sexuality always meant exactly the same thing within the biblical symbol system. The presence of some beliefs or practices that qualify or compete with others does not, though, cancel out the profound identity-creating effects of any one of them. Identity, whether individual or cultural, is always constituted by a complex interplay of elements, some mutually reinforcing, others in notable tension, and many unconscious. 20. Kunin, Logic, passim. 21. Camp, Wise, 191–322.

CAMP Feminist- and Gender-Critical Perspectives

311

word here—“Should he treat our sister like a whore?”—but the incident is reprised in Jacob’s curse of Simeon and Levi in Gen 49:5–7. Numbers 12 seems intentionally ambiguous about the reason for Miriam and Aaron’s rebellion against Moses, but it has something at least to do with Moses’ marriage to a Cushite woman, which is itself a narrative doubling of or substitution for his earlier, equally foreign marriage to Zipporah the Midianite. The lack of negative comment on either marriage, combined with God’s vindication of Moses’ authority over against Miriam, especially, could be taken as an affirmation of, or at least unconcern about, marriage to foreign women. Again, though, the larger narrative returns to problematize the matter: in Num 25:10–18, the Simeonite Zimri is executed by Phinehas, Aaron’s grandson, for marrying Cozbi, a Midianite woman. The otherwise unnecessary identification of Cozbi as a “sister” of the men of Midian (Num 25:18) ties this episode back to the conflict between sister Miriam and the intermarrying Moses, thereby subverting an easy pro-intermarriage reading of the latter. A second point of interest in the Dinah and Miriam stories is the fact that both these women are presented as sisters of the putative forebears of the priestly lineage, Levi and Aaron, respectively. These stories make foreign, estrange, women who are among the closest kin to the men who are, as I have suggested above, most invested in an identity that is all male all the time. Both stories express the priestly fantasy of female-free reproduction—here, in the denial of sisters in the lineage—and thus of the ultimate form of endogamy: that which excludes marriage to nonmen. The notion that all marriage is intermarriage for men bent on constructing and validating their identity as men is in one sense a highly theoretical one. But it comes remarkably close to conscious acknowledgment with the estrangement of the sisters, without whom there would not be any un-strange women to marry. So it is worth a moment’s attention to the priestly view of marriage, en route to consideration of how the priests’ sisters’ stories further complicate the identity-constructing work of marriage. Deborah Ellens has shown how the more socially pragmatic construction of women as men’s property in the Deuteronomic laws shifts to a more symbolic conceptuality of women as boundary markers in the classification scheme that constitutes the priestly purity legislation in Leviticus.22 Priestly holiness, which is to say priestly identity, depends on marrying a woman untouched by any other man. For most priests, this 22. Deborah L. Ellens, Women in the Sex Texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy: A Comparative Conceptual Analysis (LHBOTS 458; New York: T&T Clark International, 2008).

312

Mixed Marriages

means she must be neither divorced nor a prostitute (Lev 21:7); for the “priest who is greater than his brothers” (the high priest?), the standards are a bit higher yet: his wife must be a virgin, neither divorced nor widowed nor prostitute, lest his seed be profaned (Lev 21:14–15). It is not the priest’s sexual ownership of his woman that is at issue but the symbolic weight of his own sexual relations for his identity. To have sex with a woman who has had sex with another man would defile his holiness by contaminating his identity with that of a man not of his family.23 This, I would argue, is the line of thought that connects the Dinah story to the priestly logic of intermarriage, narrativized through the focus on her brother Levi. Mythically speaking, the larger story of the sons of Jacob, about to become the forebears of the tribes of Israel, comes very close to normalizing incest, as endogamy carried to its logical conclusion in a situation where “not foreign” can only mean “sister.” This mythic impulse comes closest to full expression where the priests are concerned. Dinah is her anti-exogamy brothers’ only choice for marriage, the ultimate wife-sister. But for the priestly brother Levi she is now defiled— made into a virtual prostitute according to his as much self-interested as anguished cry24—and thus unavailable, to him if not to his brothers.25 The larger point here is how intermarriage or the resistance to it— whether what is resisted is non-Israelites, non-priests, or non-men— becomes a touchstone of multiple levels of identity, not simply of “Israelites” against foreigners, but of priestly Israelites over against 23. The priestly narrative experimentation with the mythic contradiction of common descent and prohibited exogamy is, to be sure, balanced by a more pragmatic and socially normalized approach in the law: even for priests, wives must be had and sisters not among them. Even in the midst of pragmatism, though, we may see a further indication that the foremost identity boundary line for the priest is his body, which can be contaminated through sex itself, and even more so through sex that connects his identity with that of any other man through union with a nonvirgin woman. The virgin woman, though from a Deuteronomic perspective part of her father’s family, is in the priestly view a cipher as far as identity goes, waiting to have her identity created through sex with a man. The fact that Ezekiel (perhaps also for pragmatic reasons?) allows priests to marry the widows of other priests (Ezek 44:22) is simply the exception that proves the lineage rule: once it is established that all priests are of one family, the question of identity contamination—which is to say intermarriage—becomes moot: it’s all in the family. 24. In one sense, Dinah’s sexual defilement could be seen as more important than the fact that the defiler was a non-Israelite. As so often, however, the Bible’s gender ideology conflates and reinforces “bad sex” and “bad nationality,” enhancing the force of one with the other. 25. According to one rabbinic text, Dinah does marry Simeon (Gen. Rab. 80:11).

CAMP Feminist- and Gender-Critical Perspectives

313

non-priestly ones. Let me return to Num 12 and 25 as key texts in this process. These two episodes, involving first an Israelite sister and then a Midianite sister, in effect form bookends to Aaronite, or perhaps better, Phinehasite priestly self-definition and self-authorization by means of gender relations. No reader fails to note the arbitrariness of the fact that both Miriam and Aaron rebel against Moses, but only Miriam is punished. This is not, I would argue, simply because he is a man and she is a woman but because he is a priest and she is the priest’s sister. The unnatural arbitrariness of her punishment is a narrative analog to the unnatural arbitrariness of a lineage in which sisters do not exist. In telling the tale, however, the story naturalizes the unnatural. Aaron’s path to full priestly authority, including his now unique kin relationship with his brother Moses, begins with his “divorce” from his sister. Challenges to Moses and Aaron persist nonetheless throughout most of Numbers, including the rebellion at Meribah, where God condemns the brothers to death outside the promised land (Num 20:2–13). Only after Aaron’s death is the full and henceforth unquestioned authority of the priestly lineage established, as the outcome of Phinehas’ assassination of Cozbi and Zimri in Num 25. Only now, as a result of Phinehas’ “zeal for his God,” does God make his “covenant of peace,” the “covenant of everlasting priesthood” with Phinehas and “his seed” (25:12–13). Now what’s going on here? Few would deny, I think, that the descent from Aaron through Eleazar to Phinehas is artificially constructed (in a way not dissimilar to the father to son linkage of Abraham to Isaac to Jacob). These were, surely, the eponyms of three different priestly families who wrote their way to this compromise of power and consolidation of identity. What I find striking is their use of gender in doing so. The estrangement of the priestly sister was the ideological starting point for purifying, that is, de-womanizing the male lineage. And Phinehas’ assassination of Zimri and Cozbi is the coup de grace that seals the deal, symbolically tying the anti-intermarriage trope that, in this view at least, has come to define all Israelites to an intervention by the priest.26 Thus the possibility—or, if you like, the sin—of intermarriage that marks Moses’ leadership, and thus the ambiguous identity of all Israelites, “in the wilderness” is nullified even as the priestly covenant of the land is 26. One sees the full power of the trope deployed when the Phinehas episode is read in sequence with the story of the sin of Baal Peor that immediately precedes it. Here foreign women lead Israelite men into foreign worship, which is metaphorized in the same terms as the forbidden priestly marriage in Lev 21, as “profaning” themselves by “prostitution” with the Moabite women whose call to sacrifice to Baal they answer.

314

Mixed Marriages

established. At the same time, the validity of the Phinehasite claim to true priestly identity is asserted by his demonstrated mastery over the boundaries of Israelite identity. For Aaron, too, dies in the wilderness. He is an eminence grise who must be given his narrative due, but he is also distanced from the priesthood that establishes itself in the land, on whom YHWH confers the eternal priestly covenant. To draw some conclusions, let me turn with this analysis to a question posed by Christian Frevel, “whether the marriage restrictions react on a real threat to Judean society or represent rather a theoretical ideology of small groups taking part in a discourse on identity after exile.”27 A feminist- and gender-critical perspective leaves no doubt about the highly ideologized aspect of the issue. First, we should view the often one-sided prohibition of Israelite men marrying “foreign” women with ideological suspicion. The degree to which the Strange Woman is rhetorically associated with other binaries valued as good and evil—the constant rhetorical collapsing of adultery (mainly) and prostitution with deceitful speech, foreign nationality, and worship of foreign gods— makes clear that whatever real identity problems related to intermarriage may have existed have come to us blown canonically out of proportion to on-the-ground issues, but nonetheless ideologically powerful for that. Feminist and gender criticism also points to the common thread throughout what looks like a debate, namely, the androcentric dynamic whereby male identity is constructed over against Woman as Other, as it is shaped by the particulars of biblical identity ideology, the myths of patrilineage and descent from a common ancestor. Combined with the priestly abhorrence of mixing, these gendered ingredients create a complex mythic web, including both the myth of incest and the fantasy of a lineage that is all-male in both cause (female-free reproduction) and results (brothers but no sisters). The anti-intermarriage ideology that appears in many texts is, then, but a surface manifestation of these deeper struggles with the construction of identity, all hinging on the androcentric construction of gender. Because the mythic pieces could be put together in different ways, the trope of intermarriage was probably deployed in different ways by different groups at different times. Even in a text as tightly joined as Ezra–Nehemiah, Nehemiah’s problems with children speaking a foreign language do not match up with Ezra’s issue of mixing the holy seed. I doubt these textual voices speak from the same socialhistorical context.

27. Frevel formulated this question in the proposal for the international SBL sessions that led to the present volume. I use it here with his kind permission.

CAMP Feminist- and Gender-Critical Perspectives

315

Further, the co-opting of the intermarriage trope by the Phinehas group suggests there may have been a point when one particular group of what would become the “Aaronite” priesthood took it on as their own, presumably because it gave them some sort of larger leverage on power or authority, which is to say that the trope was widely enough owned to have some social force. This does not mean that there was at that time (when?) an “intermarriage crisis,” any more than there is a “gay marriage” crisis in the U.S. today, despite the hysterical rhetoric. It nonetheless bears repeating that to call this “mere” rhetoric would be a misnomer. Because gender identity itself is built in part through whom one marries, and allows others to marry, the trope retained (and retains!) powerful political force. Despite the surface variations, though, it is the multiply paradoxical combination of the androcentric mythologic of identity—that male identity depends on sex with a non-male—and the patrilineal mythologic of identity—that male identity depends on some combination of incest or no sex at all—that makes the trope of intermarriage so enduringly powerful, no matter how widespread it was as an on-the-ground social issue. For this ideological nexus ultimately becomes a cultural artifact embedded in identity more deeply than the functional level. The group identity constituted by the Bible is itself constituted by the ideology of intermarriage writ large, even when there are opposing views about how to actualize it, for the biblical ideology of intermarriage in fact works by a single ideologic. Constructing maleness over against femaleness is fundamental to the construction of identity in the biblical world, and it pervades all the other aspects of identity construction in those texts, whether religious, national, or priestly.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 2:20 276 2:23–24 261 2:24 276 4:8 157 4:19 186 4:20–22 157 4:26 157 6:1–4 216, 219 6:1–2 14 6:4 274 9:21 165 9:22–27 162 10:7 289 12:13 192 12:19 186 15:19–21 52, 189 16 92 16:1–16 14, 182 16:2 152 16:3 137 16:15 157 17 95, 230, 288 17:15–27 182 19:30–38 14, 105 19:30–35 162 19:31–35 165 19:36–37 157 20:1–18 14 20:3 181 20:4 152 21:1–21 182 21:9–21 14 21:13 138 21:18 138

21:23 22:1 24

24:1–67 24:3–4 24:3 24:4 24:7 24:10 24:12–14 24:34–48 24:37 25 25:1–6 25:1–4 25:1 25:2 25:16 25:20 25:21 26–28 26:10 26:34–35

26:34 26:35 27–28

23 147 7, 8, 10, 12, 42, 90, 96, 97, 100, 106, 108, 135, 150, 221 14 96, 224 23, 96, 193, 235 96, 186 97 97 97 97 235 92 14 156 186 160 138 92 92 7, 10, 93, 97 14 8, 12, 14, 42, 90, 91, 94–96, 100, 106, 221 92, 94, 216 8, 15, 97 138

27 27:1–45 27:1 27:13 27:46–28:9

27:46

28–33 28 28:1–9 28:1–5 28:1–2 28:1 28:4 28:6–9

28:6–8 28:6–7 28:6 28:7 28:8–9 28:8 28:9 28:12–26 29–30 29:1–31 29:1–13 29:19 29:21–27 30

91 91, 93 91 162 8, 11, 12, 14, 42, 91, 93, 95, 96, 100, 106, 221 8, 15, 90, 91, 93–96, 235 227 95, 96 97 8, 91 93, 95, 96, 228 91, 95 94 8, 43, 90, 91, 102, 216 94 91 91, 95 91 91 91, 93, 95, 97 92, 94 185 92 150 96 14 140 249

Index of References 30:19 30:24 31:20 31:51–54 31:53 32–33 32 32:24 33:18–34:29 34

34 LXX 34:1–31 34:2 34:3–4 34:5

34:7–12 34:7 34:8–10 34:9–10 34:9 34:10 34:11–12 34:11 34:12 34:12 LXX 34:13–17 34:13–16 34:13 34:14–24

240 138 141 139 23 143 142 142 215, 216 12, 36, 44, 90, 100– 104, 106– 8, 136, 139, 165, 215, 216, 218, 221, 223, 224, 227–31, 233–35, 239, 241– 43, 249, 250, 310 248 14 101, 102, 229 232 100, 229, 232, 234, 240 216 100, 229, 232, 235 229 240 71, 101, 232 101 232 216 101 232 101, 240 216 100, 234, 240 229

34:14–17 34:14 34:15 34:19 34:21 34:22–24 34:23 34:25–29 34:25 34:27–29 34:27 34:29

34:30 34:31

36 36:2–12 36:12 38 38:1–30 38:1–10 38:2 38:2 MT 38:5 38:24 39:6–19 41:37–57 41:44 41:45–52 41:45 41:50–52 41:50 46:9 46:10 46:12 48 48:3–6 48:5

233 239 305 21 232, 240, 305 240 101, 232, 240 101, 229 240 101 100, 234, 240 139, 230, 231, 233, 241 139, 228, 229 101, 165, 229, 233, 235 221 14 157 133, 135, 221 14 184, 185 216, 254 180 185 224, 225 156 89, 102 133 14, 43 135, 216 135 141 156 14, 139 135, 139, 185 43 14 140

317 48:8–22 48:20 49:4 49:5–7 49:10 49:22 50:23 Exodus 1:12 1:22 2 2:1 2:12 2:15–22 2:15–21 2:15–17 2:15 2:16–22 2:21–22 2:21 2:22 3:1–17 3:1–2 3:8 3:13–14 3:17 4

4:18–26 4:18–25 4:18 4:20–26 4:23–25 4:24–26 4:25–26 4:26 4:27–28 6–18 6:15–20 6:23 7:5

135 140 256 139, 241, 311 177 140 185

93 168 102, 133 14 286 89, 160, 299 96, 299 141 291, 299 150, 155 14, 141 216 151 301 157 52, 170 157 52, 170 102, 133, 142, 145, 288 89, 142, 144, 301 14 141, 151 144 161 142, 143, 288 142, 161 143 301 153 14 185 144

Index of References

318 Exodus (cont.) 7:17 9:16 9:29 12:44–49 12:48 12:49 15:23 18 18:1–3 18:1 18:2 18:5–12 18:5–6 18:5 18:11 18:13–16 19:6 21:3 21:22 22:15–16 23:20–33 23:31–32 24:14 31:1–2 31:12–17 32:1–29 33:2 34

34:11–16 34:11 34:12–16 34:14–16 34:14 34:15–16

144 144 144 288 256 75 92 133, 140, 144 14 151 144, 151, 166 158 167 151 144 151 55, 236, 243 181 181 101, 230, 232 71 25 185 185 62 164 52, 170 10, 11, 136, 149, 266 71, 140, 179, 189 23, 52, 170 224, 242, 243 216 35, 99 9, 14, 15, 25, 35, 38, 39, 42, 69, 98, 106,

34:16 35:1–3 39:5 40:5–7 Leviticus 4:27 5:3 5:14–16 7:20–21 10:10 11:44–45 11:47 12:2 13:48 13:49 13:51 13:52 13:53 13:56 13:57 13:58 13:59 14:19 15:3 15:16–17 15:19–24 15:24 15:25–27 15:25 15:26 15:30 15:31 15:33 16:16 16:19 17:15–16 18

200, 221, 226, 227, 230, 247, 254, 265, 266, 268, 104, 180 62 266 266

74 73 257 73 27, 74, 105 243 74 73 57 57 57 57 57 58 58 58 58 73 73 309 73 73 73 73 73 73 27, 73, 237 73 73 73 256 7, 27, 33, 68, 105, 128, 135,

18:1–5 18:3 18:6 18:8 18:17 18:19 18:20 18:21 18:21 LXX 18:22 18:24–30 18:25 18:26 18:27–30 18:27 18:29 18:30 19:2 19:9–10 19:19 19:20 19:29 19:33–34 20

20:1–5 20:2–5

20:2–5 LXX 20:2 20:3 20:4

218, 247, 249, 254, 274 74 105 105 270 105 73 246 217, 244– 47 248 105 74, 105, 128 105 105 264 105, 255 105 105 55, 124, 243 75 57, 58, 136, 277 269 224, 234 75, 155 105, 218, 258, 241– 43, 246– 50 39 224, 235, 238, 239, 242–44, 246–49, 255 248 74, 235, 244, 248 244, 248 74, 244, 248

Index of References 20:5 20:7 20:11–21 20:14 20:18 20:22–23 20:23 20:24–26 20:24–25 20:24 20:25 20:26 21 21:1–5 21:4 21:7

21:9

21:13–15 21:14–15 21:14

22:9–11 22:9 22:13 22:16 23:22 24:10–23 22:10–13 24:10 24:22 Numbers 1:5–15 1:7 1:51

246, 248, 249 243 246 224, 225 73 74 93, 247 234 74 74, 247 74 74, 243, 247 37, 218, 313 234 181 14, 42, 58, 221, 236, 257, 262, 263, 274, 312 14, 221, 224, 225, 235, 236 14, 131, 209, 216 58, 312 16, 19, 20, 42, 76, 129, 234, 257 58 124 58 58 75 14, 75 273, 274 216 75

178 185 124

2:3–31 2:3 3–4 3:10 5:11–31 5:12 5:27 7:12–83 8 9:6– 14 9:13 9:14 9:17 10:29–32 10:31 12

12:1–10 12:1

12:1 LXX 12:2 12:6–10 12:6–8 12:7–8 12:8 13:6 14:6 14:30 14:38 15:16 15:31 16–17 18:19 19 19:9 19:10–22 19:13 19:20 20:2–13

178 185 33 124 224 306 306 178 33 117 116 256 117 146 151 136, 147– 49, 293, 295, 297, 311, 313 280 14, 43, 89, 147, 148, 166, 254, 280, 281, 288–95, 298, 301 281 147 167 147 148, 293 148, 298 185 185 185 185 256 69 124 35 33 73 73 237 237 313

319 20:10 20:24 22–24 22:3 22:4 22:7 24:20–22 24:20–21 25

25:1–18 25:1–15 25:1–5

25:1–3 25:1–2 25:1 25:2 25:3 25:4 25:5 25:6–18 25:6–15 25:6–13 25:6–9

25:6

25:7–8 25:8 25:10–18 25:10–15 25:11

92 92 154 93 157, 159 157, 159 152 160 3, 12, 16, 35–41, 44, 102, 146, 149–51, 154, 159, 160, 164, 227, 239, 249, 313 14, 36 153 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 43, 151, 152, 154, 155 3 35, 163, 167 35, 38, 101, 156 11, 38, 227 35, 38, 207, 208 38 38 4, 35–37 156 221 151, 152, 154, 216, 234 3, 11, 35, 37, 152, 156 233 35 311 151, 154 35

320 Numbers (cont.) 25:12–13 20, 35, 313 25:12 36 25:13 33, 36, 239 25:16–18 36, 151, 154, 233 25:17–18 167 25:18 37, 156, 159, 163, 311 25:19 155 26:5 156 26:19–21 185 26:19 185 26:20 187 26:65 185 27 11 27:1–11 308 31 36, 101, 136, 146, 149–51, 153–55, 160, 164, 168, 230 31:1–7 153 31:7–12 233 31:7 101 31:9–18 14 31:9 101 31:13 154 31:16 159, 163, 167, 233 31:17 168 31:18 140, 155, 168, 233 31:19–24 154 31:23 73 31:25–54 154 32:39–40 185 32:41 185 36 11 36:1–13 14 36:1–12 308

Index of References Deuteronomy 1:8 3:14–15 3:14 4:1 4:3 4:5 6:15 6:18 7

7:1–8 7:1–6

7:1–5

7:1–3 7:1

7:2–5 7:2–4 7:2–3 7:3–5 7:3–4

7:3

71 185 185 71 153 71 99 71 10–12, 25, 42, 55, 69, 71, 104, 136, 149, 171, 194, 241, 254 271 14, 26, 33, 98, 106, 179 193, 221, 224, 242, 243 71 23, 52, 71, 93, 99, 101, 170, 193, 194, 277 193 9, 69 139 25, 230 21, 38, 98–102, 106, 107, 135, 156, 217, 226 9, 13, 15, 21–23, 26, 27, 30, 42, 43, 55, 70, 83, 92, 93, 98, 99, 104, 136, 140, 180, 216, 217,

7:4–5 7:4 7:5 7:6

7:9 7:25 7:26 8:1 9:4 9:5 10:11 11:8–10 11:8 11:10 11:29 11:31 12:29 14:2 14:21 17:14 17:17 18:9–14 18:9 20:10–14 20:14 20:17 20:18 21 21:10–14

21:10–13 21:13 21:16–17

221, 232, 239, 305 55 7, 217, 254, 261 247 42, 43, 55, 70, 99, 170, 243 271 264 264 71 71 71 71 83 71, 72 71 71 71 71 243 243 71 266 83 27, 33, 105 241 140, 233, 241 52, 170 255 136 10, 14, 101, 102, 136, 140, 155, 216, 230, 231, 233, 241, 254, 256, 268 168 137, 181 308

Index of References 22:9–11 22:9 22:10–11 22:21 22:22 22:23–24 22:24 22:28–29 22:28 23

23:1–9 23:1 23:2–9 23:3 23:4–9 23:4–7 23:4–5 23:4 23:6 23:7 23:8 23:10–11 23:12–14 23:21–23 23:21 24:1 24:3 24:4 25:5–10 26:1 26:14 26:19 28 28:57 30:5 30:16 32:16–21 32:17 33:2 33:9

270 136, 277 270 100, 224, 230, 232 181 224 224 101, 230– 34 241 24, 29, 149, 254, 267 267, 268 261 14, 136 52 24, 52 69 254 21 52 72, 83, 254 267 267 267 267 71 181, 199 199 25, 181, 264 14 71 227 243 71 143 71 71 99 227 158 158

Joshua 1:11 2:9–13 3:10 6 7 7:1 7:1 MT 7:2 7:18 7:18 MT 7:20 MT 7:24 7:24 MT 7:24–26 7:24–25 8:30–35 12:17 15:16–19 15:17 15:61 18:3 22:16 23 23:5–12 23:7–13 23:7–12 23:7 23:11–13 23:12–13 23:12 23:15–16 24:8 24:11 Judges 1:11–15 1:13 2:14 3 3:5–6

321 3:5

71 144 170 144 139 184, 185 184 124 185 184 184 100 184 185 184 139 153 185 185 160 71 25 9, 42, 71, 171 189 98 98 9, 14, 15, 42 72 14 9, 15, 21, 42 180 71 170

185 185 158 171 9, 14, 15, 42, 98, 189

4:17–23 4:17–21 5:2 5:4–5 5:14 6–8 6:1–5 8:20 8:21 8:24–27 8:31 12:9 13 14–16 15:6 17:3 18:9 18:30 21:12–14

23, 52, 170 235 185 185 151, 156, 160, 166 156 163 123 158 185 154 159 160 155 160 14 14 92 14, 42 225 162 71 167 168

Ruth 1–4 2–4 3:7 3:8 3:14 4 4:8 4:12 4:13–22 4:16 4:17 4:19–22

14 150 143 143 143 155 185 135 76 165 165 185

1 Samuel 1 8:13 11:1 LXX 13:14

92 245 52 177

3:6 3:9 3:11 4:11

Index of References

322 1 Samuel (cont.) 15:6 156 16:1–23 185 17:1–51 185 17:24–25 185 18:21 21 18:22 21 18:23 21 18:26 21 18:27 21 25:30 177 25:43–44 183 27:3 183 30:5 183 30:15 23 2 Samuel 2:2 2:9 2:18 3:2–5 3:3–5 3:3 5:5 5:13 5:14–16 11–12 11 11:26 13:1 13:12–13 16:22 17:25 17:25 LXX 17:25 MT 21:1–11 1 Kings 1:17 1:30 2:23 3:1 3:4–14 5:11 5:25 6:36

183 183 185 183 185 183 183, 185 185 185 14 145 181 185 232 163 182 182 182 152

23 23 23 21, 71, 136, 186 189 185 112 112

7:8 7:14 7:15–51 8 9:16 9:24 10:23–24 11

11:1–13 11:1–8

11:1–4 11:1–2 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:8 11:18 11:33 14:21 14:24 14:25 16:28–22:51 16:31–32 16:31 18:18 2 Kings 8:27 12:22 14:16 15:26 15:30 15:34 16:2 16:3 17:16 17:31 21:2 22 22:1–23:25

186 114 113 83 186 186 189 9, 11, 25, 42, 136, 171, 185, 226 98, 99 9, 14, 15, 22, 30, 31, 39, 42, 98, 156 266 187, 235 23, 52, 186 9 11 23 160 11 14 72 297 136 39 14, 23, 42 69

71 166 25 25 25 25 25 72 69 244 72 185 126

22:11 22:19 23–25 23:2 23:3 23:4 23:6 23:10 24:13 24:14 25:15 1 Chronicles 1–9 1:1–2:2 1:1 1:9 1:17 1:27 1:34 1:35–2:2 2 2:1–55

2:1–2 2:3–4:23 2:3–55 2:3–4 2:3 2:4–5 2:4 2:5 2:6–8 2:7 2:9 2:10–17 2:10 2:13–15 2:16 2:17 2:18–20 2:19–20 2:21–24

125 125 185 127 126 128 128 248 111 157 111

173 175, 177 174 289 174 174 174 174 44 14, 176, 178, 179, 185 177 173, 175, 178 179 178, 179 178, 180, 184, 185 182 185 178, 185 178, 185 184 178, 182, 185 178, 185 185 185 185 182 178 185 178

Index of References 2:21 2:22 2:24 2:25–33 2:34–41 2:34–35 2:35–41 2:38 2:41 2:42–50 2:46 2:49 2:50–55 2:52 3:1–24 3:1–3 3:1–2 3:1 3:4 3:5–8 3:9 3:10–14 3:15–19 4:1–23 4:1 4:2 4:4 4:5 4:13 4:15 4:17 4:18–19 4:18 4:21–23 4:21–22 4:21 4:22 4:22 MT 4:23 4:24–5:26 5:1–2 5:1 5:2 5:6 5:22

185 185 179 178 178 182 182 189 189 178 156 185 178, 179 179 176, 179, 182, 185 185 183 178 185 185 185 185, 187 185 176, 179, 185 178 179 179 179 185 185 156, 186 186 186 179 180 185 181 181 181 175 177 177 177 175 175

5:24 5:25–26 5:25 5:26 5:27–6:66 5:27–41 6:1–81 ET 7:1–40 8:1–40 8:8–12 8:29–40 9:2–34 9:2 9:3–4 9:5–6 9:17–32 9:19–20 9:35–44 15:8 16:8–36 16:34 22:4 22:15 23:4 24:5–18 25:8–31 26:13–16 27:25–31 27:30 29:5 29:6 29:9 29:14 29:17

160 175 25, 175 175 175 182 175 175 175 181 182 175 120 175 187 120 164 182 120 113 113 112 112 113 123 123 123 183 183 123 123 123 123 123

2 Chronicles 1:18 2:1 2:3 2:4 2:6 2:9 2:12 2:16–17 2:16 2:17 2:34–35

114 114 114, 208 114 114 112 114 114 112 208 208

323 3:1–2 3:1 3:2 3:3–5 3:4–4:22 4:22 5:11 5:13 7:3 7:6 7:19 8:11 11:22 12:2–8 18:1 22:10 23:4 24:13 24:26 26 28:3 28:20 29–34 29:3–36 29:4 29:5–11 29:5 29:6 29:10 29:16 29:18 29:33 30:1–31:1 30:3 31:14 33:2 34 34:13 34:19 34:29–33 34:29–30 34:30 34:31 34:32 35:1–19 36 36:14

208 114 114 112 113 208 113 113 113 113 69 186, 187 177 297 21, 71 114 120 120 166 124 72 175 125 126 127 127 128 127 126 128 128 128 116 116 120 72 126 120 125 126 127 127 126 127 116 111 72

Index of References

324 Ezra 1–6

1 1:1–3 1:1 1:2–3 1:5 1:6 1:7–11 2 2:1–67 2:59–62 2:61–63 2:61 2:62 2:63 2:64 2:66–67 2:68 3:1–3 3:1 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8–12 3:8 3:10–13 3:11 3:12 4–6 4:1 4:2–6 4:3–4 4:3 4:9–11 4:12–24 4:12–16 5:17 6:1–5 6:3–5 6:9–10 6:16–17 6:17–22 6:17

27, 81, 112–15, 126, 171 111, 119 110 111 110 115 123 111 33, 122 111 14 260 16 20 41 29 194 112, 123 85 114 112 123 85 112 112 112–14 112, 113, 121 113 111 104 115, 194 251 256 121, 130 251 119 119 251 251 112 85 85, 115 115, 121 115

6:18 6:19–22 6:19 6:20–21 6:21

7–10 7–8 7 7:1–5 7:1 7:6 7:7 7:8 7:10 7:11–23 7:13 7:14 7:15–16 7:17–18 7:24 8 8:15–33 8:15–20 8:24 8:29 8:30 8:33 8:35–36 8:35 9–10

87 85, 117 117 116 14, 56, 70, 116, 117, 254, 255, 260, 271 66, 78, 81, 103, 172 66, 81 38 38 81 81, 125 87 81 38, 125 118 87, 123 125 123 85 87, 125 81, 88 118 87 56, 87 87 87 87 85 115 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 22, 25–28, 30–34, 36–41, 43, 44, 46, 53, 55, 56, 65–67, 70–72, 74, 76, 80, 82, 90, 100, 103–8, 133, 144, 154, 171, 172, 194,

9

9:1

9:1 MT 9:1–10:1 9:1–2

9:2

9:3 9:4 9:5–7 9:5 9:6–15

9:6–7 9:7 9:8–9 9:8 9:10–15

209, 247, 295 2, 7, 11, 33, 68, 80, 82–86, 104, 127, 128 21, 27, 30, 38, 51, 52, 56, 70, 81, 83, 86, 104, 105, 128, 170, 194 52 67 9, 32, 33, 69, 135, 136, 188, 266, 267 11, 16, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 43, 53–55, 58, 67, 70, 83, 84, 105, 129, 130, 170, 171, 194, 221, 235, 243, 253, 256, 260, 262, 274, 277, 305, 306 30, 83, 124, 125 30, 67, 85, 105, 306 83 30, 125 27, 30, 31, 105, 118, 125 58, 67 127 130 117 189

Index of References 9:10–14 9:10–13 9:10–12 9:10 9:11–12 9:11

9:12

9:13–15 9:13–14 9:13 9:14

9:15 10

10:1–44 10:1–8 10:1

10:2

10:3

10:4–10 10:4–6 10:4 10:5–44

67 83 27, 83 69, 73 67–69, 72 27, 67–69, 71, 73, 105, 128, 254–56 27, 30, 33, 52, 67, 71, 72, 104, 105, 235, 254, 255, 266, 221, 305 83, 84 58 58, 67 21, 55, 58, 69, 83, 85, 105, 128, 221, 264 67, 83 27, 31, 33, 80, 82, 104, 105, 126, 127, 249 305 86 29, 52, 67, 81, 83, 84, 86, 117, 127 25, 30, 31, 67, 81, 128, 129, 264, 306 33, 44, 67, 81, 85, 124, 128, 144 87 67 81, 87 126

10:5 10:6–9 10:6

10:7–12 10:7–9 10:8–12 10:8 10:9 10:10–14 10:10–12 10:10–11 10:10

10:11 10:12 10:13 10:14 10:15 10:16–17 10:16 10:17–44 10:17–18 10:17 10:18–44 10:18–24 10:18–22 10:18 10:19

10:20–22 10:25–43 10:44

13:23–29 20–44

30, 31, 87, 127 85–87 30, 31–33, 67, 86, 104, 105, 117, 124, 306 305 67 127 29, 52, 56, 86, 127 117, 127 81 67 221 30, 31, 38, 58, 67, 87, 125, 127, 306 31, 56, 70 29, 52, 67 67 29–31, 52, 127 67, 85, 87 38, 81 38, 56, 67, 85, 104 28 67 30, 104 33 33 30 30, 31, 87 30, 58, 67, 125, 128, 129, 131, 257 67 67 30, 31, 44, 67, 104, 266 31 87

325 Nehemiah 1–6 1:3 1:5–11 1:8 2:10 2:17 2:19 2:20–4:17 2:20 2:65 3:1 3:3 3:6 3:14–15 3:33 3:34 3:35 3:36–37 4:1–17 4:1 5:13 6 6:1–19 6:1 6:2 6:5 6:10–14 6:12 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:17–19 6:17–18 6:17 6:18

6:19 7 7:1 7:5 7:6–69 7:6–68

28, 104, 122 125 83, 118 306 17, 29 125 17 120 121, 130 41 121 121 121 251 17 17 17, 29 121 120 17, 24, 120 29 22 18 17 17 17 21 17 17, 21, 25 18 21, 25, 120 14, 18 18 17, 121 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 33, 62, 71, 106 17–19 33 120 122 111 111

326 Nehemiah (cont.) 7:61–65 14 7:62–63 17 7:62 17 7:63 16, 17 7:64 20 7:66 29 8–11 124 8–10 122, 127 8 38, 66, 78, 81, 82, 103 8:1 81 8:2 29, 81 8:3 81 8:7 87 8:9 81, 87 8:10 81 8:11 87 8:12 81, 87 8:13–17 85 8:13 87 8:17 29 8:18 85 9–10 87 9 122 9:2 14, 56, 70, 243, 273, 278 9:3 154 9:4–37 83 9:6–37 118 9:8 123 9:9–11 122 9:10–12 70 9:12–21 122 9:22–26 122 9:26–31 122 9:34–35 122 9:35 306 10 17, 127 10:1–40 118 10:1–28 127 10:28 56 10:29 70 10:31–40 17, 123

Index of References 10:31

10:32 10:34–40 10:35 10:36–40 10:39 10:40 11 11:1–18 11:1–2 11:1 11:2 11:4 11:5 11:6 11:10 11:18 11:24 12:27–43 12:30 12:43 12:44–47 12:44 12:45 13

13:1–13 13:1–3

13:1 13:3 13:4–31 13:4–9

14, 16, 33, 209, 235, 305 254 124 123 130 123 118, 130 121, 122 121, 123 122 122 122 175, 187 187 187 253 122 187 121 117, 121 29 29, 130 29 120 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25–33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 80, 104, 125, 128, 136, 171, 172, 295 24 14, 21, 24, 28–30, 32–34, 52, 70, 254 28, 29, 52 28, 29, 70, 154 28, 29 18, 19, 21, 22, 26, 35, 255

13:4 13:7 13:8–9 13:8 13:9 13:10–14 13:12 13:13 13:14 13:15–22 13:15 13:16 13:17 13:22 13:23–31 13:23–30 13:23–29

13:23–27

13:23–26 13:23–24 13:23

13:24 13:25–27 13:25

13:26–28 13:26–27 13:26

13:27

17, 19, 29, 261 17, 19 29 17 19, 128 26 29 56 20, 28 21, 24, 26 29 29, 254 29 20, 28, 120, 128 80 14, 33, 154 16, 28, 30–33, 37, 63, 106, 209 22–27, 33, 43, 52, 188 171 22, 24, 63, 305 22–24, 29, 30, 124, 129, 188 23, 29 23 22, 25, 30, 235, 266, 305 305 189 22, 25, 31, 256, 266, 277 25, 30, 31, 221, 256, 264, 265, 306

Index of References 13:28–29

25:6–19 29–30

18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39 17, 19–21, 26, 71 260 20, 33, 36, 37 28 20, 25, 26, 29, 33, 128, 255, 273, 278 40 127

Esther 2:5–20

14

Job 40:30

180

13:28 13:29–30 13:29 13:30–31 13:30

Psalms 46 48 68:8 76 83:11 87 96 105 106 106:1 106:28–36 106:28–31 106:28 106:35–37 106:35–36 106:35 110:3 115:4–8 119:38 132 135:15–18 136:1

119 119 158 119 159 119 113 113 113 113 14 153 227 227 247 58, 70, 261 123 227 257 119 227 113

Proverbs 1–9 2:1–22 2:17 5:1–23 6:20–35 7:1–27 7:14–18 12:4 30:23 31:11 31:23 31:28

307 14 307 14 14 14 307 181 181 181 181 181

Isaiah 2:2–3 2:6 6:13 7:26 9:3 19:18 44:17 49:12 50:1 52:1–8 54:1 54:5 54:11–17 56:1–8 56:6–7 59:3 60:14 62:4 62:5 63:3 65:4 66:21

155 14, 42, 44 136, 256 143 159 296 157 296 199 119 181 181 119 62 155, 257 20 119 181 181 20 227 257

Jeremiah 2:3 2:27 3:8 3:9 7:31 10:3 10:5 10:15

262 227 199 227 244 227 227 227

327 19:5 22:11 23 25:20 28:4 29:2 29:6–7 32:35 35:6 35:8 39:35 40:1–7 42:7–22 43:8–44:30 50:37 52:17–23

244 185 57 70 185 185 14 244 62 62 248 296 296 296 70 111

Lamentations 1:17 73 4:14 20 Ezekiel 7:19 11:14–21 13:9 14:7 16:3–45 16:3 16:25 18:6 22:10 22:26 30:5 36 36:17 44:6–9 44:7–9 44:9 44:22

44:33 47:22

73 57 57 75 156 14 143 73 73 74 70 68 68, 73 278 278 35 14, 16, 42, 58, 209, 312 262 75

Daniel 1:8 9

20 83

Index of References

328 Hosea 2:18 4:12 5:7 9:10

181 271 14 153, 154

Amos 5:26

248

Micah 5:1

177

Habakkuk 3:7

166

Zephaniah 1:11 3:1

180 20

Haggai 1:14 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:20–23 2:21

115 115 112, 113 69 115 115

Zechariah 1–8 2:14 4:1–14 6:9–14 7:5

113 257 115 115 69

Malachi 1:4–5 1:7 1:12 2 2:4–5 2:10–16 2:10 2:11–16 2:11–12 2:11 2:15

52 20 20 44, 234 20 14, 221 274 136 209 44, 154, 181, 278 58

APOCRYPHA/DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS 1 Esdras 4:45 52 4:50 52 8:66 52 8:67 201 Judith 5:5–12 9:2 14:5–10 14:10 1 Maccabees 1:11–15 1:11 1:15

Sirach 45:23–26 47:19–20 Tobit 1:9 2:12 3:2 3:15 4:12–13 4:12 6:12–13 6:16 7:5–6 7:10–11 7:13

172 239 172 257

206 172, 208 206–8, 210, 219

208 208

209 257 257 209 209 257 209 209 193 209 199

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1:5 136 5:26 226 Mark 7:3–4

260

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Enoch 6–36 209 6–11 212, 272 9 212 15:8–9 275 83–90 206, 210, 211 83:3–4 211 84:3 212 84:4–6 210–12 84:4–5 212, 213 86–88 212 86:1–88:1 210 86:5–6 212 87–88 212 90:6–19 211 91–105 206 91:11–17 206 93:1–10 206 106–107 209, 210 Arist. Exeg §§310

199

Joseph and Asenath 23:14 239 Jubilees 1:9 3:9–11 3:10 3:31 4:5 4:29 4:32 5–6 5:1–11 5:13–14 5:13 5:15 6:17 6:28–29 6:30–35 7:21–22 15:11–14

247 238 238 238 238 214 238 234 210, 215, 216 238 238 238 238 238 238 226 240

Index of References 15:25–26 15:25 16:3–4 16:7 16:9 16:14–15 16:17–18 16:18 16:19 16:26 17:17 18:19 19:9 19:11 19:19 20–22

20 20:2–5 20:2 20:3 20:4–6 20:4–5 20:4

20:6 20:7 21 21:4 21:10 21:15–31 22:16–21 22:16–18 21:16 21:21–23 21:21 21:23 22 22:7–8 22:12 22:13 22:14

238 238 238 226 238 240 226 236 226 226, 240 240 238 224, 238 138 239 223, 229, 237, 242, 250 224, 227, 229, 237 237, 242 224 240, 242 221, 242 226, 227 210, 215, 224, 225, 235 225 225 226 225 238 226 242 247 226, 227, 242 226 242 242 227–29 226 226, 227, 237 227 228, 242

22:16 22:17–18 22:19 22:20–22 22:20 22:21–22 22:25 22:27 22:30 23 23:2 23:28–29 23:32 24–29 24:33 25 25:1–3 25:1–10 25:3–10 25:4 25:5 25:12 25:18 27:7–10 27:8–10 28:6 30–32 30

30:1–32:9 30:1–17 30:1–4 30:2 30:3 30:4–5 30:4 30:5–23

13 227 227, 242 221 210, 215, 228 228 227 226, 237 228 219 228 271 238 227 238 227, 228 228 210, 215 221 226 228 226 226 228 221 238 214 39, 154, 215, 222– 25, 227– 29, 234, 239, 241– 44, 246– 50, 262, 269 257 214, 215 215, 216, 234 215, 239, 240 215, 235, 240 241 240, 241 242

329 30:5–17 30:5–7 30:5 30:6–22 30:6 30:7–17 30:7–9 30:7

30:8

30:9

30:10

30:11–16 30:11–22 30:11 30:12 30:13–15 30:13 30:14 30:15

30:16 30:17 30:18–20 30:19–22 30:19 30:20 30:22 30:23–26 30:23 30:24 30:25

215, 216 217 215, 217, 235, 240 234 215, 217, 235, 240 210, 214, 215, 221 238 225, 235, 236, 240, 243 217, 236, 237, 240, 243 217, 237, 238, 240, 243, 247 217, 218, 237–40, 242, 248, 258 137 239 216 238, 240, 241 217, 218 217, 239, 240 217, 238 217, 226, 237, 239, 24 217, 238, 240 237, 241 239 238 238, 239 238 238, 240 234 228, 241 240, 241 228, 241

330 Jubilees (cont.) 31 228 31:32 238 32:10–15 238 32:16 238 32:21–22 238 32:21 238 32:27–29 238 32:28 238 33 236 33:7–18 256 33:7–9 228 33:9 273 33:10–12 238 33:20–21 226 33:20 236 34:20–21 139, 221 35:14 221 35:15 226 41:17 225 41:25–27 236 41:25–26 225 41:28 225 49:8 238 50:13 238 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 18:13 139 21:1 139 30:1 139 44:7 139 45:3 139 Testament of Judah 9:1 139 Testament of Levi 6 222 6:3 239 6:8 240 9:9–10 236, 257, 259

Index of References QUMRAN 1Q28a 2.3–9

4Q267 6 ii 5–9

271

4Q271 iii 9–10 3 10b–11a 5 i 1–2

263, 270 270 259, 270

4Q390 2 i 9–10

278

278

1Q33 7.6

278

1QGen20 2.15–16

272

1QH 2.15

239

4Q394 3–7 i 11b–12a 260

1QS iv 7 3.13–4.26 4.10 9.21–23

268 206 271 239

4Q395 3–7 i–ii 3b

260

4Q415 1 ii 4–6 2 2i

276 276 276

4Q416 2 iii 21 2 iv 5

276 276

4Q418 101 ii 5

276

4Q444 i–iv 8

275

1QapGen ar V.27 ar VI 20 ar VI 6–9 20.30

209, 210 209 209 273

4Q174 i 2b–4

277

4Q201–206 1 Hen. 6–11 222 4Q203 8 12–15 8 7–12 89

210 210 210

4Q504 DibHam xvi 15–20 275 xvi 17–20 275

4Q213a 3–4

236

4Q510 i5

275

4Q251 16 1–3 17 7

274 274

4Q266 5 ii 5–6

4Q513 2 ii 2 2 ii 2 2 ii 5–6

236 259 273 273

271

Index of References 4Q542 1 i 5–6a 1 i 8–9 1i9 4Q543 i 5–6 4Q544 1i8

277 209 277

209

277

4Q547 1–2 iii 7–8

277

4QH 2 ii 6 vi xviii 34b–36 xxiv 15

274 274 274 274

4QHalakha A 3 274 4QInstA 2 ii 4 4QMMT B8–9 B8 B8 3 B8 4 B39–49 B39–41 B42 B48–49 B48 B75–82 B75–76 B75 B81–82 B81 B82 C1–32 C1–32 4–5 C4–5 C4

331

C6–7 C18–27

264 264

12.10–11 15.15–18

269 278

11Q11 v6

275

TARGUMS Neofiti Lev 20.2

245

11Q19 L2 ii 12–15 lvi 18–19 lvii 15–16 lvii 16 lx 16–20 lxiii 10–15 xlv 11–12 xlv 12–14 xlv 7 63.10–15 63.14–15 11QT II 11–15 LVII 15–17 LXIII 10–15

265 265, 266 266 266 265 265 267 259 278 265 264 10

209 209 209

Pseudo–Jonathan Lev 18.21 246 MISHNAH Megillah 4.9

137, 244, 245

BABYLONIAN TALMUD Mo’ed Qatan 16b 298 b. Shabbat 87a

148

b. Yebamot 62a

148

270

260 260 260 260 278 261 260, 261 261 260 236, 262 262 259, 262 262 260, 263 263 263 263 264 264

Aramaic Levi Document 1 6.1–5 6.3–4 6.16–17 11–12 17–18

209 209 262 262 209 257

CD A 7.5b–6a B 19.1–2 2.11–12 2.14–3.12a 3.3 4.20–21 5.11 7 7.1–4 7.6 12.1–2

271 271 268 268 268 269 271 271 271 270 259

MIDRASH Genesis Rabbah 80.11 312 Midrash Tan. Deut 21.13 137 Sifre Deuteronomy 213–14 137 Sifre Numbers, Baha’aloteka 99–103 148 PHILO De Vita Mosis 1.40–47 286 De specialibus legibus 3.29 202, 257

Index of References

332 JOSEPHUS Antiquities 2.10.1, 239–253 2.10.1, 249–53 2.240–43 2.248 4.8.2 8.5.191–93 11.297–312 11.321–25 20.7.1

280 289 289 289 257 257 172 172 257

JEWISH AUTHORS Yalqut Shim'oni 1.168 298 CLASSICAL Artapanus (Preserved in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica) 9.23.1–2 300 9.27.3–6 284 9.27.3 286 9.27.4 286 9.27.7–10 287

9.27.7 9.27.13–18 9.27.15–17a 9.27.19

286 299 299 299

Clement Stromata 1.23.154.2–3

282

Eusebius Praeparation evangelica 9.18.1 281 23.1–4 281 27.1–37 281 Herodotus Historiae 2.30 2.104 3.25 Plutarch De exilio 301

OSTRACA, PAPYRI AND TABLETS

Aramaic Ostraca 283.1 203 283.2 203 283.3 203 283.5 203 Elephantine Papyri TAD A4.1 196 B2.3, 1–2 195 B2.6 195 B3.1, 3 195 B3.3 194 B3.6, 2 195 B3.6, 3 195

281 288 287

P. Grenfell I.1.1

207, 208

281

P. Polit Iud 1.17–18 4.22–24

199, 200 199

Moses Fragment 3.23–25 282

INSCRIPTIONS CPJ 128 197–99

INDEX OF AUTHORS Abraham, K. 172 Abramsky, S. 157, 159 Achenbach, R. 43, 178 Ackroyd, P. R. 69, 70, 111, 176 Adams, J. W. 5, 60 Aharoni, Y. 161, 181 Albertz, R. 2, 20, 61–63, 112, 158 Allport, G. W. 46 Alter, R. 150 Anthias, F. 64 Aufrecht, W. E. 173 Baillet, M. 275 Banks, M. 46, 48, 50 Banton, M. 48 Barrera, J. T. 283 Barth, F. 47, 61, 190 Bartlett, J. R. 52 Batten, L. W. 64, 65 Baumann, M. 63, 64 Baumgarten, J. 236, 270, 274, 277 Bautch, R. J. 123, 180 Bechtel, L. M. 230 Becker, J. 70, 222 Becking, B. 58, 172 Bedenbender, A. 243 Bedford, P. R. 110 Bell, D. 48 Bellers, J. 200 Ben Gad Hacohen, D. 159 Ben Zvi, E. 113 Ben-David, H. 157, 160 Benzinger, I. 181 Berger, K. 222, 226, 235–37, 240 Berghe, P. L. van den 48 Berjelung, A. 119 Bernstein, M. J. 243 Berquist, J. L. 2 Berthelot, K. 254 Bertholet, A. 69, 75 Bertman, S. 207 Beyer, K. 24 Bickerman, E. 297

Blackman, P. 245 Blenkinsopp, J. 1, 2, 25, 30, 35, 52, 69, 103–5, 110, 111, 113, 118, 120, 121, 123, 126, 158, 194, 236, 252, 253, 256, 270, 305, 306 Blum, E. 90, 92, 100 Boda, M. J. 17, 118, 121, 252 Böhler, D. 118, 123, 124 Böttrich, C. 222 Braulik, G. 172 Braun, M. 282, 287, 298 Braun, R. L. 181 Brett, M. G. 134 Brockington, L. H. 65, 66 Bromley, Y. 48 Brooke, G. J. 278 Brudner, L. A. 6 Brueggemann, W. 193 Büchner, D. 245, 249 Bultmann, C. 75 Burchard, C. 298 Burney, C. F. 167 Camp, C. 303–5, 307, 310 Carroll, R. P. 114 Carter, C. E. 23, 190 Cazelles, H. 65 Chapman, M. 46 Charlesworth, J. H. 251 Clines, D. J. A. 69, 70, 119, 121, 123, 127 Cohen, A. P. 47, 50, 57, 61 Cohen, J. S. 135 Cohen, S. J. D. 6, 54, 135, 190, 198, 200, 254, 261 Collins, J. J. 206, 283, 284, 287 Conczorowski, B. 1 Conrad, J. 123 Cowey, J. M. S. 198, 199 Crawford, S. W. 221 Cross, F. M. 172 Davies, P. R. 2 Dillard, R. B. 127, 189

334

Index of Authors

Dittenberger, W. 199 Doering, L. 223, 237 Dommershausen, W. 123, 208 Dor, Y. 155, 156, 166 Douglas, M. 49, 155 Drawnel, H. 209 Duggan, M. W. 78 Dunham, D. 297 Edelman, D. 112 Eilberg-Schwartz, H. 308, 309 Ellens, D. L. 311 Emerton, J. A. 65 Endres, J. C. 217, 218, 236 Engel, H. 206 Epstein, A. L. 47 Epstein, L. M. 134 Eriksen, T. H. 47, 49–51, 53, 54 Eskenazi, T. C. 1, 2, 16, 56, 78, 103, 110, 115, 118, 120–22, 306 Esler, P. F. 53 Fabry, H.-J. 70 Fechter, F. 76 Feldman, L. H. 289, 291 Fensham, F. C. 66, 70 Fewell, D. N. 307 Field, F. 207 Finkelstein, I. 161 Fishbane, M. 90, 128, 129, 170, 194 Fitzmyer, J. A. 221, 272 Fortes, M. 193, 194 Fowler, J. D. 186 Fraser, P. M. 282 Freudenthal, J. 281–84 Frevel, C. 1, 20, 33, 34, 36, 76, 95, 113, 225, 230, 244 Fried, L. S. 79, 122 Friedlander, G. 138 Fuchs, E. 141 Gailey, C. W. 309 Galizia, M. 62 Galling, K. 65, 66, 181 García Martínez, F. G. 238 Gass, E. 196 Geertz, C. 48 Gellner, E. 50 Gerhards, M. 166 Gesenius, W. 192

Giddens, A. 4, 6 Gifford, E. H. 281 Ginat, J. 152 Ginzberg, L. 291 Goldingay, J. 146 Goldstein, J. A. 208 Goodblatt, D. M. 53 Grabbe, L. L. 2, 17, 30, 118, 120, 126, 254, 305 Grätz, S. 34 Gray, G. B. 152, 154, 293 Greenfield, J. M. 222 Greenspahn, F. E. 184 Grenfell, B. P. 207 Grosby, S. 48 Gruen, E. S. 282, 284, 285 Guillaume, P. 90, 94, 95 Gunn, D. M. 307 Gunneweg, A. H. 24, 30, 53, 69 Hackstein, K. 61, 63 Hall, J. M. 190 Halligan, J. M. 2 Halpern, B. 183 Hamilton, V. P. 134 Hänel, J. 176 Harrington, H. 2, 58, 117, 124, 125, 128, 223, 236 Haycock, B. G. 297 Hayes, C. 2, 54, 103, 107, 129, 135, 209, 214, 218, 223, 236, 241, 252–54, 257, 260, 262–65 Heckl, R. 201 Hempel, C. 268 Hendry, J. 4 Hengel, M. 198 Hess, R. S. 184 Hettlage, R. 64 Hieke, T. 5, 6, 112, 120, 122, 173, 174 Hillmann, K.-H. 4 Himmelfarb, M. 215, 221, 244, 258, 262 Hoffman, L. A. 146 Høgenhaven, J. 261 Holladay, C. R. 282–87, 291 Hölscher, G. 66 Holtz, G. 263 Hoop, R. de 177 Horbury, W. 199 Horst, P. W. van der 282–85 Houten, C. van 75, 155

Index of Authors Houtman, C. 162 Hurowitz, V. 114 Hutchinson, J. 49, 50 Ilan, T. 198 Jacoby, F. 281 Janowski, B. 119 Janzen, D. 103, 111, 116, 122, 126, 129 Japhet, S. 54, 65, 76, 115, 154, 166, 175–77, 184 Jenkins, R. 50, 53 Johnson, M. D. 173 Joisten-Pruschke, A. 196 Jonker, L. C. 190 Joosten, J. 74, 75 Judd, E. P. 1, 56, 103, 306 Kaiser, W. 196 Kapelrud, A. S. 65, 114 Kappler, W. 207 Karrer, C. 63, 65, 66, 69, 115, 118, 126–29 Karrer-Grube, C. 120 Kartveit, M. 103, 173, 184 Kasakoff, A. B. 5, 60 Kaufmann, Y. 256 Keel, O. 118, 119, 127 Kellermann, U. 65 Kibria, N. 4, 6, 7 Kittel, R. 181 Klawans, J. 2, 222, 223, 254 Klein, R. W. 180, 182, 184, 186 Klingbeil, G. A. 152 Kloner, A. 202 Knauf, E. A. 196 Knohl, I. 158, 161 Knoppers, G. N. 2, 18, 23, 42, 98, 155, 156, 171, 173–81, 183, 184, 186–91 Koch, K. 76 Köckert, M. 193 Koschnick, W. J. 4, 6 Kottsieper, I. 24 Kratz, R. G. 2, 125 Kropat, A. 177 Krupp, M. 245, 246 Kugel, J. L. 215, 258 Kühlewein, J. 19 Kunin, D. 308, 310

335

Lamberty-Zielinski, H. 70 Lange, A. 103, 129, 205, 206, 220, 222, 243, 252, 257, 258, 266 Leach, E. 49, 56 Leeuwen, M. H. D. van 5 Lehman, M. 267 Lehmann, G. 5 Lemaire, A. 202, 203 Lemche, N. P. 52 Levenson, J. D. 133, 183 Lévi-Strauss, C. 308 Levin, Y. 2, 23 Levine, B. A. 152, 154, 164, 293 Levine, E. 3 Levy, I. 282, 287, 291, 294 Licht, J. 151, 164 Lipiński, E. 65, 172, 195 Lipschits, O. 2, 23, 190 Liver, J. 161 Loader, W. 209, 210, 214, 226, 252, 259– 64, 266–72, 274, 276, 277 Luz, U. 226 Maas, I. 5 Maass, F. 100 Machiela, D. A. 210 Machinist, P. 133 Malkin, I 173 Malul, M. 165 Marböck, J. 100 Maresch, K. 198, 199 Marshall, G. 5 Mayer, R. 63, 64 McCarter, P. K. 182 McDonald, M. 46 McFall, L. 65 McLoughlin, S. 64 McNutt, P. 157, 158 Mèlèse-Modrzejewski, J. 197, 199 Melamed, A. 166 Merton, R. K. 5 Milgrom, J. 55, 73, 93, 124, 125, 152, 154, 155, 163, 164, 223, 225, 236, 256, 263, 274, 293 Milik, J. T. 209, 214, 222 Mittmann, S. 18 Moore, G. F. 151 Mowinckel, S. 66

336

Index of Authors

Mullen, E. T., Jr. 133, 134, 145, 146 Muraoka, T. 207 Myers, J. M. 69, 176 Na’aman, N. 158, 161 Nauerth, T. 91 Newsom, C. 252 Nicholson, E. W. 158 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 206, 209–12, 251, 252, 272 Niemann, M. 5 Noth, M. 152–54, 158, 162, 293 Noy, D. 199 Nutkowicz, H. 195, 197 Oeming, M. 2, 23, 173 Olyan, S. M. 2, 20, 56, 128, 129, 171, 172, 254 Oorschot, J. van 119 Oppenheimer, A. 53, 69 Orywal, E. 61, 63 Pakkala, J. 17, 24, 28, 30, 32, 68, 70, 72, 79–83, 88, 104, 105 Pardes, I. 142, 162 Patrich, J. 158 Pavlovský, V. 65 Payne, E. J. 160 Plum, K. 138 Pohlmann, K.-F. 127 Porten, B. 172, 195, 196, 296, 297 Preisigke, F. 199 Preuss, H. D. 194 Puech, E. 209, 214 Pury, A. de 93, 95, 183 Qimron, E. 260, 261 Rajak, T. 280, 287, 291, 294, 295 Rappaport, S. 282, 290 Ravid, L. 222, 223 Redditt, P. L. 17, 112, 252 Redford, D. B. 159, 186 Reinmuth, T. 98 Rendsburg, G. A. 96 Richards, K. H. 2 Ringgren, H. 67, 116 Robinson, B. 141, 143 Rofé, A. 96, 102 Rothenbusch, R. 3, 60–62, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72

Rothstein, W. 176 Rowley, H. H. 65 Rubenberg, C. A. 133 Rudolph, W. 63, 66, 69, 181, 187 Runnalls, D. 280–82, 285, 290, 291, 294–97 Ruppert, L. 230 Ruwe, A. 230 Schiffman, L. 221, 266, 268 Schmidt, L. 38 Schneider, H. 66, 69 Schorch, S. 232 Schubert, F. 214 Schuller, E. 272 Schwarz, E. 220, 222, 236 Schwienhorst, L. 92 Schwimmer, B. 5 Scott, J. 5 Seebass, H. 36, 67, 90, 92, 96, 100, 230 Segal. M. 220–22, 236, 238 Seidl, T. 244 Seymor-Smith, C. 4–6 Sharp, C. 260, 263, 264 Shemesh, Y. 100 Shils, E. 48 Shinan, A. 284, 285, 290, 298 Siegfried, C. 69 Silver, D. J. 291 Silverman, M. H. 195 Smart, N. 64 Smith, A. 132, 133 Smith, A. D. 49, 50, 53, 55 Smith, D. L. 64 Smith, R. W. 168 Smith-Christopher, D. L. 1, 6, 56, 70, 84, 103 Smitten, W. T. in der 66 Snaith, N. H. 65, 168 Snowden, F. M. 281, 297 Snyman, G. F. 188 Soggin, J. A. 92, 96, 160, 161 Southwood, K. 56 Sparks, K. L. 57, 133, 173, 190 Spickard, P. R. 3, 6 Stager, L. E. 153, 158, 159 Standhartinger, A. 223 Stegemann, H. 214 Steinberg, N. 90 Steins, G. 16, 22, 28, 29 Stern, E. 183

Index of Authors Stern, I. 186 Stern, M. 201, 282 Stiegler, S. 66 Strugnell, J. 260, 282 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 206, 209, 210 Sturdy, J. 154 Swanson, D. D. 266 Talshir, Z. 52 Tan, N. N. H. 52, 58 Taubenschlag, R. 197 Tcherikover, V. A. 197, 198, 201, 202 Tetzner, L. 245 Thackeray, H. St. J. 282, 291 Thomas, R. 173 Thompson, R. H. 190 Thon, J. 22, 24 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 276 Tiller, P. A. 211 Tonkin, E. 46 Toorn, K. van der 62 Trebolle, J. B. 282 Turner, V. 49 Van Seters, J. 184, 230 VanderKam, J. C. 211, 212, 214, 221–24, 226, 237, 240, 243, 296 Veijola, T. 98 Venter, P. M. 243 Vermes, G. 243–46, 290 Vertovec, S. 63 Wander, N. 138 Washington, H. C. 306 Wassen, C. 269

337

Weeks, S. 53 Weideman, A. 294 Weimar, P. 91 Weinberg, J. P. 173 Weinfeld, M. 98, 253, 254 Wenham, G. J. 90, 92, 93, 96 Werlitz, J. 127 Werman, C. 137, 214, 217, 221–23, 237, 248, 257 Werrett, I. C. 2 West, M. L. 173 White, D. R. 6 Willi, T. 66, 177, 182 Willi-Plein, I. 103, 172 Williamson, H. G. M. 2, 30, 53, 58, 69, 70, 72, 104, 105, 113, 120–22, 126, 127, 129, 177, 181, 184, 255 Wilson, R. R. 173 Winslow, K. S. 293 Wintermute, O. S. 216–18, 224 Wolde, E. van 100 Wonneberger, A. 63, 64 Wright, D. P. 73 Wright, J. L. 17, 18, 24, 28, 30, 104, 121 Yadin, Y, 267 Yamada, F. M. 100, 230 Yardeni, A. 297 Yaron, R. 195 Zadok, R. 203 Zehnder, M. 128, 129 Zeitlin, S. 53 Zenger, E. 95 Zlotnick-Sivan, H. 102

338