Celebrating Victory from the Sea of Reeds to the Eschatological Battle Field: Miriam’s Timbrels and Dances in Exodus 15 and Beyond

“Strokes and Wounds” or “Timbrels and Dances”?

The question of who puts whom to death is settled, but the last two lines (i.e., lines 5–6) of 4Q285’s fragment 7 remain very much unsettled (image: PAM 43.325; cf. Eisenman and Robinson 1991: pl. 1352; Vermes 1992b: 87 fig. 1). Vermes and his Oxford Forum (Vermes 1992b: 88) translated: “by stroke]s and by wounds. And a priest [of renown(?)] will command [ … the s]lai[n] of the Kitti[m ….” In the more recent DJD volume (Alexander and Vermes 2000: 239), the translation remains essentially the same: “[by stroke(?)s and wounds(?). And a priest [of renown(?)] will command ⁶ [the s]lai[n] of the Kittim.”

I suspect Alexander and Vermes added parenthetic question marks following “strokes” and “wounds” because of the proposal made by Martin Abegg in 1994. Abegg (1994: 90) and Evans (1994: 553–54) suggest that instead of reading “by strokes and wounds,” one read “with timbrels and dances.” Abegg and Evans believe that 4Q285 has alluded to Miriam’s celebration of the destruction of the Egyptian army in the sea: “Then Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and dancing” (Exod 15:20, RSV; KJV, ASV, and ERV, among others, translate “with dances.”) The Hebrew text of Exodus 15:20 preserved at Qumran corresponds with the later Masoretic Text (cf. Ulrich 2010: 65; see also Judges 21:23 “the dancers”; Ps 87:7 “singers like dancers”).

In the notes following their translation, Alexander and Vermes (2000: 240) explain that the words “by strokes and wounds” could allude to Isaiah 51:9, where the prophet asks Yahweh, “Was it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the dragon?” (RSV). But is there anything mythic or primordial in 4Q285? Although the setting is eschatological, what seems envisioned is a military defeat of the Kittim (i.e., the Romans) and the slaying of their leader (i.e., the emperor). Nothing in 4Q285 or the related 1QM prepares readers for mythic images of God slaying a dragon (as in Job 26:13). Rather, the complete rout of the Roman army described in 4Q285 seems to find a parallel in the complete destruction of the army of Pharaoh described in Exodus 14. To say that the leader of the Kittim is put to death and then say something like “by strokes and by wounds” seems redundant and out of place. It is hard to see why strokes and wounds should be mentioned following the death of the leader of the enemy. Surely the death of the leader means the battle has been won and celebration (and cleanup) can now begin. The allusion to Exodus 15:20 makes more sense.

Others have accepted Abegg’s proposal. Schiffman (1994: 346) translates “the Prince of the Congregation will kill him … with drums and with dances.” Vander-Kam and Flint (2002: 342) read, with some restoration: “The Prince of the Congregation, the Branch of David, will have him put to death. And all Israel will come out with timbrels and dancers.” In view of the probable influence of Exodus 15:20, it probably would be better to restore the text to read, “And all the women went out with timbrels and dancing.” The men, under the direction of the high priest, will be busy disposing of the corpses of the slain, which is required, given the purity concerns of Deuteronomy 21:23. Abegg (1994: 91) also suggests restoring “chief priest” (as in 1QM 2:1 (= 4Q494 4); 15:4; 16:13; 18:5; 19:11), instead of “priest of renown” (as in Vermes 1992b: 88). Once again, a number of scholars agree (Bockmuehl 1992: 158–59; Schiffman 1994: 346; García Martínez and Tigchelaar 1998: 642–43; Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook 1996: 293).

The extant materials in fragment 7 suggest that in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (i.e., Isa 10:34–11:1), the Branch of David, a.k.a. the Prince of the Congregation, will put to death the king of the Kittim, thus bringing the great battle to a successful conclusion. When this happens, the women will come out with timbrels and dances (or dancers) and the chief priest, concerned with the purity of the land, will command the men to bury the corpses of the slain Kittim. This understanding correlates well with what is said at the end of 1QM 13 and beginning of col. 14:

… ¹⁴ … you appointed for yourself a day of gre[at] battle […] … ¹⁶ … to annihilate all the Sons of Darkness … ^14:1like the fire of his fury against the idols of Egypt. (vacat) ²After they have withdrawn from the slain to return to the camp, all of them shall sing the hymn of return. In the morning they shall wash their clothes, cleanse themselves ³of the blood of the sinful bodies, and return to the place where they had stood, where they had formed the battle line before the slain of the enemy fell. There they shall all bless ⁴the God of Israel and joyously exalt his name together [1QM 13:14, 16; 14:1–4; Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook 1996: 162–63].

What we have here seems to match what we have in 4Q285 frg. 7. It is also interesting to note the reference to God’s “fury against the idols of Egypt.” It is unfortunate that we have lost the last two lines of col. 13, which might have mentioned the plagues and perhaps the destruction of Pharaoh’s army in the sea. (These lines are also missing in the parallel 4Q495 frg. 2.) In any event, the references in 1QM 13–14 to the idols of Egypt, withdrawing from the slain to return to the camp, singing a hymn, the victorious Israelites cleansing themselves “of the blood of the sinful bodies,” and then returning to the scene of battle and blessing God correspond closely with what can be read in 4Q285 frg. 7. The correspondence between these related War traditions suggest that the eschatological battle, in which the Roman army is destroyed, ends in celebration of singing and dancing, even as there was celebration following the defeat of the Egyptian army. The first celebration was on the occasion of Israel’s successful casting off Egyptian bondage; the second celebration will be on the occasion of Israel’s successful casting off Roman dominance. The first victory created the nation; the second will restore it. The authors of Qumran’s War materials may have sensed a typology in Israel’s glorious past and in the nation’s anticipated glorious future.

A Miriam Typology

If a typology was perceived, then it seems Miriam, the sister of Moses, has played a part. Her role in the first defeat of an oppressive power is, however, somewhat ambiguous, both with respect to the development of the tradition and with respect to interpretation of the form of the material that we have.

Although we are not told much about Miriam, what we are told is impressive (Rapp 2002). Miriam is said to be Aaron’s sister (Exod 15:20), which puts her into elite company. Even more important, she is introduced as “Miriam the prophetess”—not a prophetess, but the prophetess implying a well established reputation. John Durham (1987: 209) believes that Miriam is known as a “prophetess” and so is introduced accordingly. Only secondarily is she identified as “Aaron’s sister.” Miriam’s prophetic status qualifies her for uttering sacred speech, in this case the song celebrating what God has done: “Sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea” (Exod 15:21). We are told that “all the women went out after her with timbrels and dancing.”

Early commentators sought to explain cultural and social aspects of the actions of Miriam and the women. For example, James Murphy (1881: 102–03) speculated that while most of the Israelite women would have been attending the flocks when the pursuing Egyptian army attempted to cross the sea, Miriam and “a few of the females of higher rank” may have been near the sea when the Egyptians perished and so could take up timbrels and begin to dance. “Miriam,” Murphy adds, “led the way with the timbrel in the dance, and all the women followed.” Samuel Rolles Driver (1911: 140) repeats some of what Murphy says, adding that beating a timbrel (or hand-drum, as Driver prefers, which is probably correct, for the LXX translates to tumpanon, which means “the kettledrum”; cf. Dozeman 2009: 326) was common during religious and joyous occasions (cf. Gen 31:27; Judg 5:1–31; 11:34; 1 Sam 10:5–6; 2 Sam 6:5).

Later interpreters take greater interest in the development of the tradition. Martin Noth (1962: 121, 123) believes vv. 20–21 is the oldest part of Exodus 15. (A footnote in the Annotated RSV says the same; cf. May and Metzger 1977: 87.) The longer version of the song (vv. 1–19) is “a relatively late piece” and was probably inspired by the earlier, shorter song of Miriam. He suspects (1962: 122), too, that in the oldest tradition Miriam and Aaron might not have been known as the sister and brother of Moses. After all, in Exodus 15:20, the first time Miriam is named, she is described as the prophet-ess and sister of Aaron. Why was she not called the “sister of Moses”? George Coats (1969: 13) thinks Miriam’s Song is “the oldest recounting of the event of the Sea in the OT.” Bernhard Anderson (1987: 11) agrees. Brevard Childs (1974: 245–46) agrees that elements of the song are old, but he thinks they have been incorporated into a longer version that presupposes the crossing of the Jordan River and the conquest of the Promised Land. Childs says little about Miriam’s song. Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman (1975/1997: 31) designate the hymn in Exodus 15 the “Song of Miriam,” even if the words attributed to her appear at the end. Cross and Freedman (1975/1997: 32–33) also emphasize the antiquity of the song: “The poem is not archaizing, but archaic … the Son of Miriam is the oldest of the extant sources for this event in Israelite history.” Freedman (1999) himself argues for a connection with Sinai. Barbara Schmitz (2016) assesses the paradigmatic impact of the sea event.

How the song itself originated is disputed. Rita J. Burns (1987: 40) argues that “the original Sitz im Leben for this text was not a spontaneous celebration … but a liturgical event at a Hebrew shrine.” Perhaps for this reason Burns thinks that the identification of Miriam as a prophetess is secondary. But after comparing Exodus 15 with Judges 5, where Deborah and Barak sing after their victory over Jabin, Alan Hauser (1987: 267) concludes that “both songs exude a spontaneous, irrepressible enthusiasm for Israel’s God.” Hauser’s findings are consistent with Anderson’s conclusion that Miriam and her companions responded to a deeply felt experience of God’s saving presence (1987: 1992). Walter Brueggemann wonders if the song, whatever its origin, inaugurated “a liturgical tradition” (1987: 301). He could be correct, for the archaeological record may lend support to this possibility. According to Carol Meyers (1994), the recognition of the role of women in music is now well established thanks to archaeology, especially analysis of terra-cottas. On the basis of this evidence Meyers speculates that there existed in ancient Israel professional women musicians who greeted returning warriors with drum and dance performances. It may well be that it was believed this custom originated with Miriam. It could be that there is truth in all of these suggestions, in that a dramatic experience gave rise to a spontaneous response in song and dance, which inaugurated a long-lasting liturgical tradition. (Dozeman [2009: 326–33] provides a masterful survey of the scholarly interpretations of the Song of the Sea and Miriam’s song.) After all, Israel’s liturgical traditions typically recalled special moments in the nation’s history, some of which were foundational.

The Song of Miriam inspired additional tradition and occasioned some interesting commentary. In Jubilees, one of the oldest post-biblical traditions related to the Pentateuch, Moses is told: “Your mother came at night and nursed you and during the day Miriam, your sister, protected you from the birds” (Jub. 47:4), which embellishes what is said in Exodus 2:4, where Miriam (not named) passively keeps an eye on her baby brother. Alluding to this passage, Philo says that all of this took place “by the providence of God” (Moses 1.12, 16). Allegorically interpreted, Philo adds, the sister of Moses represents “hope,” in anticipation of the life to come (Dreams 2.142). Josephus remarks that the story of the infant Moses taken in by the daughter of Pharaoh reveals the sovereignty of God which overthrows the intentions of humans (Ant. 2.221). Josephus praises Miriam (or, as he says, Mariame) for approaching the daughter of Pharaoh and suggesting that “one of the Hebrew women be fetched” to nurse the infant Moses (2.226).

Philo and Josephus also have things to say about Miriam’s role in the celebration of the destruction of the Egyptian army. According to Philo, the Israelites “set up two choirs, one of men and one of women”; Moses led the former and Miriam led the latter (Moses 1.180). Later, Philo says the two choirs blended beautifully in “sweetest harmony” (2.256). Elsewhere, Philo underscores the ecstasy of the singing, “the men led by the prophet Moses and the women by the prophetess Miriam” (Contemp. 87). Yet elsewhere the two choirs are referenced in more allegorical terms (Agr. 80–82). Four times Philo speaks of the Song of the Sea, performed in two choirs, one male and one female, the male choir led by Moses and the female choir led by Miriam. Miriam’s place in these accounts is almost equal to that of her brother.

In Josephus Miriam’s role in the aftermath of the crossing of the sea goes unmentioned. He says the Israelites “passed that whole night in melody and mirth, Moses himself composing in hexameter verse a song to God” (Ant. 2.346). Some wonder if the omission of Miriam here reflects Josephus’ misogyny. Perhaps, but the historian and apologist does pay Miriam tribute in an expanded account of her burial (4.78–81; cf. Num 20:1). Miriam is buried in solemn fashion and is mourned for thirty days. The nation is then purified through the rite of the red heifer. In Numbers, the rite of the red heifer takes place before the death of Miriam and without any connection to her death (cf. Num 19:1–10). Linking the rite of the red heifer to the death and burial of Miriam suggests that Josephus probably held the sister of Moses in high regard.

Perhaps the most interesting expansion of Miriam’s story is found in Biblical Antiquities, a work composed near the end of the first century ce. Regarding the birth of Moses we are told:

The Spirit of God came upon Miriam one night, and she saw a dream and told it to her parents in the morning, saying, “I have seen this night, and behold a man in a linen garment stood and said to me, ‘Go and say to your parents, “Behold he who will be born from you will be cast forth into the water; likewise through him the water will be dried up. And I will work signs through him and save my people, and he will exercise leadership always.”’” And when Miriam spoke of her dream, her parents did not believe her [Ps.-Philo, Bib. Ant. 9:10; Harrington 1985: 316].

Miriam is cast into the role of Joseph, whose dreams portend danger and deliverance (Gen 37:5–11), while her vision of a man—probably the angel of the Lord—seems modeled after the angelic figures in Daniel (Dan 10:5–6; 12:5–7). The expansion is known to some of the rabbis. In Mekilta we are told: “Miriam had said to her father: ‘You are destined to beget a son who will arise and save Israel from the hands of the Egyptians’” (Mek. Širata §10 [on Exod 15:17–21]; cf. b. Sota 11b). Miriam’s parents view their daughter’s dream with skepticism, even as Joseph’s dreams had been viewed with skepticism. The author of Biblical Antiquities has placed Miriam in exalted company. She was a prophetess indeed.

Miriam’s singing and dancing in celebration of Yahweh’s victory over Israel’s enemies as described in Exodus 15 reflects an old custom found in the Ancient Near East and in Greece. It is interesting to observe that the oldest written tradition in Hebrew literature is believed to be Deborah’s song in Judges 5, a song that celebrated the defeat of Sisera. Although it is not clear which story is the oldest in the form we have it, the example of Miriam in all probability was precedent-setting, while the Deborah tradition testifies to the great antiquity of the tradition.

The Song of Judith (Judith 16) provides us with a third example of a woman singing after the defeat of a major enemy (Brooke 2005: 275–79; Moore 1985: 256–57; Wills 2019: 375–78). The songs of Miriam and of Deborah are echoed in Judith’s song, but the first has exerted greater influence. This is especially evident when Judith 16 is compared to the Greek version of Exodus 15:1–21. Holofernes is dead and his army has fled; Israel has been saved. We are told:

Then all the women of Israel gathered to see her, and blessed her, and some of them performed a dance for her; and she took branches in her hands and gave them to the women who were with her; and they crowned themselves with olive wreaths, she and those who were with her; and she went before all the people in the dance, leading all the women, while all the men of Israel followed, bearing their arms and wearing garlands and with songs on their lips. Then Judith began this thanksgiving before all Israel, and all the people loudly sang this song of praise. And Judith said, “Begin a song to my God with tambourines, sing to my Lord with cymbals. Raise to him a new psalm; exalt him, and call upon his name. For God is the Lord who crushes wars; for he has delivered me out of the hands of my pursuers …” [Jdt 15:12–16:3, RSVA].

Like Miriam of old, Judith “went before all the people in the dance, leading all the women, while all the men of Israel followed,” and she led the people in a new song of praise and thanksgiving. Even as Miriam commanded the people to “Sing to the Lord” (Exod 15:21), so Judith exhorts her people to “Sing to the Lord” (Jdt 16:2). Even as Miriam beat a hand-drum, so Judith exhorts her people to sing with kettledrums (tumpanon) and cymbals (Jdt 16:2). George Brooke (2005: 276–77) has noted that not only was the Song of Miriam the inspiration for Judith’s song, her song appears to have influenced the Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1–10) and the song of another Miriam—better known as Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:46–55).

The Wirkungsgeschichte of the Song of Miriam becomes even more interesting when we take into account a fragmentary text from Qumran. 4Q365 has been identified as Reworked Pentateuch^c. In fragments 6b and 6c we have what appears to be a much longer version of the Song of Miriam (Exod 15:20–21). Ariel Feldman (2013: 906–7) reconstructs the text to read as follows (cf. White 1994: 256, 269; 2014: 109):

Then [Miriam the prophetess, sister of Aaron,] took [a timbrel in her hand, and al]l the women went after her in [dance with timbrels. And she chanted for them:

  “Sing to the Lord, he He has triumphed gloriously:

   Horse and driver He has hurled into the sea …]

  you despised your enemies …

   I will sing to the Lord …]

   for he has triumphed[ gloriousl]y.

  [The Lord is my ]s[trength and might …]

   You are great, delivering [your people …]

  The enemy’s hope has perished

   and [his memory] is for[gotten …]

  Your e[emie]s perished in the mighty waters

  […]

  [Your people] will exalt you to the heights,

   [for] you gave[ a cove]nant[ to our fathers …]

   [the one do]ing glorious things]. [(4Q365].

This passage, along with 4Q546 frg. 12, lines 2–4, which reads in part “and the secret [rāz] of Miriam he made for [them …],” leads Sidnie White Crawford (2003) to conclude that in the Qumran Scrolls the reputation of Miriam as prophet and as an important member of the family of Amram is significantly enhanced. I agree with this assessment. If the reconstruction of 4Q285 fragment 7 recommended above is correct, then Miriam’s actions following the destruction of the Egyptian army will be emulated by the women of Israel following the future defeat of the Roman army. If so, then in the Qumran Scrolls the reputation of Miriam is indeed a significant one.

Concluding Comments

More than thirty years ago Phyllis Trible (1989: 18) lamented that “Patriarchal storytellers have done their work well. They have suppressed the women—yet without total success. Bits and pieces from the buried story surface at the conclusion of the Exodus narrative.” Is this a fair description of what we find in the sources and what we may infer from them? I am not so sure. The tendencies strike me as much more complex.

As for the ancient tradition itself, if Miriam really wasn’t the sister of Aaron, or of Moses, and wasn’t a prophetess (as Burns 1987, denies), then what the tra-dents have done can scarcely be described as suppression. Miriam has been elevated—made into the sister of Aaron, Israel’s first high priest, and of Moses, Israel’s great liberator and lawgiver. Not only that, Miriam has been elevated to the status of prophet, not just charismatic leader (on the importance of Miriam in early tradition, see Ackerman 2002; Calduch-Benages 2016; García Bachmann 2011). This can hardly be described as suppression. Moreover, if ancient tradents (or the final Priestly redactor) wanted to suppress Miriam’s role in the celebration of victory at the sea, then why have her appear at all? The final redactor seems to have gone out of his way to bring Miriam into the picture, linking the singing, dancing, and the all-important refrain in Exodus 15:21 (see Childs 1974: 248; as well as a very appreciative review by Sanders 1976). Indeed, the composition of Exodus 15:1–21, as it stands, gives Miriam the last word. If patriarchal storytellers intended to suppress Miriam’s place in the sacred story, they failed.

As for the subsequent history of interpretation, the prophetic status of Miriam is enhanced still further. She is explicitly identified as the unnamed sister in Exodus 2:4 who watches over the infant Moses along the bank of the River Nile. She prophesies the birth of Moses and the role he will play in leading Israel out of Egypt. Her actions at the sea, following the destruction of the Egyptian army, become paradigmatic, as seen in the later actions of notable women like Deborah and Judith. Philo makes very positive use of Miriam in his allegorical writing. Although Josephus minimizes Miriam’s role at the sea, he greatly lionizes her in the story of her death and burial, even linking her death and funeral to the rite of the red heifer, which given the cultic importance of this rite is an astonishing honor. Miriam’s prophetic powers are enhanced in Biblical Antiquities and in 4Q546. As also noted, a lengthier version of her song at the sea seems to be attested in 4Q365. The men of Qumran were not exactly egalitarian; yet they appear to have held Miriam in high regard.

Even the Rabbis were willing to lionize Miriam (Steinmetz 1988). In addition to the already mentioned recognition of her prophetic powers, Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Yehudah, alluding to Micah 6:4 (“I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of bondage … I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam”), said: “Three good leaders had arisen for Israel, namely, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (b. Ta‘anit 9a). That Miriam is named as one of the “three good leaders” in the history of Israel is a great honor. Rabbi Yose goes on to say that Israel received three good things on account of these three people. Thanks to Miriam, says the rabbi, Israel had a well of water (the so-called “Well of Miriam”) that sustained the people for the forty years that they were in the wilderness (cf. Num. Rab. 1.2 [on Num 1:1]: “the well was due to the merit of Miriam, who sang by the waters of the Sea of Reeds”). It was only at her death that the well dried up. Not too many figures in Israel’s sacred narratives can match Miriam.

And, as already noted, the precedent-setting actions of Miriam will play a role in the final eschatological battle, when Israel and the nation’s Messiah defeat the Roman emperor and his army. Like Miriam of old, the women of Israel will take up timbrels and sing and dance. Miriam’s actions celebrated the creation of the nation and her actions will celebrate the final redemption of the nation. Somehow that only seems right; and I suspect James Sanders, master of comparative midrash and the hermeneutics of canon, would have heartily agreed.