Rereading Micah 6:4: Miriam, A Leader in Israel

Feminist hermeneutic has made an impact on biblical scholarship because it has demonstrated to interpreters that the biblical text reflects the patriarchal views of the society which gave birth to the text. In addition, feminist interpreters have shown that some of these same patriarchal values and concerns have affected biblical translations.

Feminist writers like to emphasize that the stories in the Bible were written by men for men. In many stories about women in the Old Testament, women remain nameless, as in the case of Jephthah’s daughter and the concubine that was raped and then dismembered or they remain voiceless, their voices only heard through the voice of the male redactor.

The portrayal of Miriam in the biblical text may demonstrate how the biblical writers lessened her influence as one of the leaders of the Israelite community at the time Israel journeyed through the wilderness.

The purpose of this study is to look at Miriam and how she is portrayed in the biblical text and then focus on Micah 6:4 and how the NIV portrays Miriam in its translation of that text.

Miriam appears in five books of the Old Testament: Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1 Chronicles, and Micah. Her name appears 15 times in these books, but only 13 in the NIV. On two occasions, in Numbers 12:10 and Numbers 12:15, the NIV uses the pronoun “she” instead of using Miriam’s name, as do most translations.

In Miriam’s first appearance in the biblical text, she is the nameless sister of Moses who watches him on the waters of the Nile. She is called only “his sister” (Exodus 2:4). In this text the reader can see the initiatives taken by Miriam: Miriam speaks to Pharaoh’s daughter and offers to find someone to take care of the child. Because of her, Moses lived his formative years with his own mother. Because of Miriam, Moses lives and does not die. Miriam saves her brother before he can save a single Hebrew.

In Exodus 15:20, Miriam is calledהנביאה “the prophetess.” A prophet (נביא) is a person called by God. Miriam was called by God to lead the people together with Moses and Aaron. Miriam was assigned a prophetical role because she led the community in celebrating God’s victory over the Egyptian army:

“Sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea” (Exodus 15:21).

And yet, the song of Miriam has been attributed to Moses:

“Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD, saying, 'I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea'” (Exodus 15:1).

Some scholars have proposed that Miriam’s song was a response to Moses’ song. However, a critical review of Moses’ song in Exodus 15 reveals that the song was written many years after the events. Miriam’s song may be an old composition celebrating Israel’s crossing on the sea. Moses received the credit for the song, but it was Miriam who led Israel in celebrating God’s victory.

In Numbers 12:1-15 there is a controversy over the issue of leadership. In Numbers 12:2, Aaron and Miriam asked Moses: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:12). However, Numbers 12:1 attributes the controversy to questions about Moses’ Cushite wife.

The text is not clear on the nature of the conflict, but it seems that Miriam was raising an issue that reflected a concern in the community. Although both Aaron and Miriam are involved in this controversy, only Miriam was punished as a result of this challenge to Moses’ leadership. The public nature of her punishment may indicate that the issue was of interest to the whole community.

That Miriam was a leader in Israel is clearly seen in Micah 6:4: “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (Micah 6:4 ESV).

In this text Miriam is named as one of the leaders of Israel, together with Moses and Aaron, whom God sent to lead the people out of Egypt. The prophet Micah lists Moses, Aaron, and Miriam as the three leaders of Israel.

Thus, Micah’s statement reflects an ancient tradition that affirms that Miriam had a very significant leadership role in early Israelite history, a role that in later writing was downgraded partly in order to promote Moses as the prominent leader of Israel. Although the biblical text refers to Moses and Aaron as the leaders of the community, the text in Micah 6:4 reveals that Miriam was their equal.

Anderson and Freeman acknowledge the importance of Micah’s statement. They wrote: “What makes Micah’s simple statement so remarkable, and so puzzling, is the fact that nowhere in the tradition are the three siblings presented in a shared leadership role” (p. 519).

However, the NIV’s translation of Micah 6:4 looks like an attempt to diminish Miriam as a leader in Israel. The NIV translates: “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam” (Micah 6:4 NIV). The same translation is found in the TNIV.

This translation does not reflect the biblical text. All the other translations reflect the Hebrew text: “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (Micah 6:4 ESV).

The translation of the NIV takes away the unique leadership role Miriam had in the community. By separating Aaron and Miriam from Moses, the NIV elevates Moses’ position (“I sent Moses to lead you”) and diminishes Miriam almost to an afterthought (“also . . . Miriam”).

The leadership role of Miriam is also diminished in the biblical text. In Psalm 77:20 the name of Miriam is omitted from the list of leaders in Israel: “You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.” Where is Miriam? Her position as a leader of Israel was marginalized by the Psalmist. The memory of what Miriam did for the community was forgotten, consigned to an ideology that minimized the contribution of women to their society.

Reading and interpreting the biblical text is not easy. At times, a translator, in order to make sense of a text, applies methods of interpretation that may reflect cultural and theological biases.

The NIV diminishes Miriam by omitting her name twice. Furthermore, the addition of the word “also” by the translators of the NIV and TNIV gives a slant to the text that serves to undervalue the role of Miriam as a leader in Israel. I do not know whether this addition to the text was intentional. However, the resulting translation has a strong theological overtone, one which may reflect an undercurrent of patriarchy.

In my judgment, the translation of Micah 6:4 in the NIV and the TNIV is not acceptable.

Reference: Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Aaron, Femenist Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Micah 6:4, Miriam, Moses, Translation

Non-Aaronite Priesthood

Darrell Pursiful has written a post “Melchizedekian (and Other) Priesthood” in response to my post on Jesus and Melchizedek. In his post, Darrell introduces several ideas worthy of consideration. In this post, I would like to join Darrell in his discussion of non-Aaronite priesthood and pursue some of his suggestions.

In his post, Darrell wrote: “There are, in fact, several hints in the Bible about a non-Aaronic priesthood associated with the tribe of Judah in general and the Davidic line in particular.” As an example of a non-Aaronite priesthood, he mentions the Levite in Judges 17:7. He wrote:

In Judges 17:7, there is mention of a Judahite who was also a Levite: “Now there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah, of the clan of Judah. He was a Levite residing there.”

The key factor in this verse is the expression “residing there.” These words mean that the Levite was a ger, a resident alien who was living in Judah. Thus, the text may be understood in two different ways:

First, since Levites did not possess land of their own, they would live within the territory of other tribes as resident aliens (gerim). For this reason, the Levite mentioned in Judges 17:7 may not have been a man from the tribe of Judah, but a man from the tribe of Levi who was living in Judah.

Second, it is possible that a Levite was a person who dedicated himself to the service of Yahweh irrespective of tribe affiliation. Thus, a Levite could be from the tribe of Judah, as Judges 17:7 indicates. Samuel functioned as a priest and later is called a Levite even though his family are said to be Ephraimites (1 Samuel 1:1).

Since Micah, a man from Ephraim, appointed his son to be a priest of his idol (Judges 17:5), it is very possible that one did not have to be a Levite to be a priest. These references to Levites may indicate that in pre-monarchic Israel, the Levites and the tribe of Levi were two different groups.

Another point Darrell raises in his post is the issue of David’s priesthood. Darrell quotes 2 Samuel 6:17, a text which declares that “David offered burnt offerings and offerings of well-being before the Lord.” The evidence that David acted as a priest is found in the next verse, 2 Samuel 6:18: “When David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the offerings of well-being, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts.” In Israel, one of the functions of the priests was to bless the people (Numbers 6:22-27).

Solomon also acted as a priest. During the dedication of the temple, Solomon prayed before the altar of the Lord (1 Kings 8:54), blessed the people (v. 55) and offered peace offerings before the Lord (v. 63). In the post-exilic period, at the time when only priests could offer sacrifices before the Lord, Solomon’s altar becomes a platform (2 Chronicles 6:13) and the mention of the peace offerings is removed from 2 Chronicles 7:5.

On the significance of the omission of the words that said that Solomon “sacrificed peace offerings to the Lord” in 2 Chronicles 7:5, Gray (232, note a) wrote:

“This phrase of MT is omitted from the parallel version in II Chron. 7:5 in accordance with the view of the late priestly writer that sacrifice was the monopoly of the priests.”

So far Darrell and I agree. There were priests in Israel who were not descendants of Aaron. Levites from different tribes exercised the duties of the priesthood. In addition, before the Josianic reforms, other people could offer sacrifice, and Elijah is a good example (1 Kings 18:30-38).

Darrell and I differ on two small points: I do not think there is evidence of numerous examples of intermarriage between the descendants of David and the descendants of Aaron. It is true that the case of Joseph and Mary in the New Testament could be cited as an example, but off hand, I do not remember many examples in the Old Testament.

Second, I do not believe the Rechabites were priests. The Rechabites were the descendants of Jehonadab, the son of Rechab (2 Kings 10:15-17). The Rechabites had made a commitment to keep the desert way of life because they believed that was the best way to worship the God of Israel. Although their practices were similar to the Nazarites, the Rechabites lived nomadic lives that were characterized by the rejection of sedentary life. Jeremiah used the Rechabites as an example of a people dedicated to the Lord.

As for Zechariah 6:13, that is a problematic text that deserves a post all of its own. I may return to the issues raised by Zechariah 6:13 at a later time.

I want to thank Darrell for his very stimulating post.

Reference:

John Gray, I & II Kings. Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Aaron, David, Levites, Priesthood, Rechabite