Mosesʼ Cushite Wife

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

As the story stands, Miriam is still the leading complainant; her name precedes Aaron's in 12:1, though elsewhere Aaron's comes first (12:4-5).

“As the story stands, Miriam is still the leading complainant; her name precedes Aaron's in 12:1, though elsewhere Aaron's comes first (12:4-5).”

• cites 12:1Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites 12:4-5Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The biblical adjective Cushite can relate to the land of Cush, located south of Egypt, namely Ethiopia, or to Cushan as a region of or alternate name for Midian.

“The biblical adjective Cushite can relate to the land of Cush, located south of Egypt (e.g., Ezek 29:10), namely Ethiopia, or to Cushan as a region of or alternate name for Midian (Hab 3:8).”

• cites Ezek 29:10Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Hab 3:8Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The story is composite.

“The story is composite (Römer).”

• cites RömerNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Both of these interpretations are found in Jewish exegesis.

“Both of these interpretations are found in Jewish exegesis.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The exact reason behind Miriam's complaint is no longer clear, but it seems to be personal.

“The exact reason behind Miriam's complaint is no longer clear, but it seems to be personal.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Perhaps Num 12 avoids Zipporah's name because of its stress on her non-Israelite ethnicity, which is the concern of Miriam's and Aaron's complaint about Moses' fitness for leadership.

“Perhaps Num 12 avoids Zipporah's name because of its stress on her non-Israelite ethnicity, which is the concern of Miriam's and Aaron's complaint about Moses' fitness for leadership.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Though Artapanus omitted the story of the Ethiopian princess in his account of the war, Josephus may have chosen to include it in his work wishing to lend some Hellenistic flavor to Moses' life and prove to his gentile audience that their claim of Jewish amixia, non-assimilation, was incorrect, since Moses himself had married a non-Jew.

“Though Artapanus omitted the story of the Ethiopian princess in his account of the war, Josephus may have chosen to include it in his work wishing to lend some Hellenistic flavor to Moses' life and prove to his gentile audience that their claim of Jewish amixia, non-assimilation, was incorrect, since Moses himself had married a non-Jew (Schalit: lxxi).”

• cites Schalit: lxxiNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Similarly, TPsJ (ad loc.) understands the Cushite woman to be an Ethiopian queen, focussing on Moses having separated from her.

“Similarly, TPsJ (ad loc.) understands the Cushite woman to be an Ethiopian queen, focussing on Moses having separated from her (cf.BHM 2:6-7).”

• cites TPsJNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites BHM 2:6-7Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The tale begins with Moses in his youth as an Egyptian prince, leading the Egyptian army in a battle against the Ethiopians.

“The tale begins with Moses in his youth as an Egyptian prince, leading the Egyptian army in a battle against the Ethiopians (cf.Eusebius, Praep.ev.9.27; see Wendland: 18).”

• cites Eusebius, Praep.ev.9.27Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Wendland: 18Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

It was likely a Judean legend popular among Hellenized Jews in the diaspora.

“It was likely a Judean legend popular among Hellenized Jews in the diaspora.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Commentators have suggested two possible answers to the question of the woman's identity: this is either a reference to a second wife or to Zipporah herself.

“Commentators have suggested two possible answers to the question of the woman's identity: this is either a reference to a second wife or to Zipporah herself.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

If the Cushite woman was from Nubia, she would have been a different person than Zipporah, who was from Midian in northern Arabia; in this case, the Cushite was Moses' second wife, whether after Zipporah or simultaneously is not clear.

“She would also have been a different person than Zipporah, who was from Midian in northern Arabia.In this case, the Cushite was Moses' second wife, whether after Zipporah or simultaneously is not clear.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

This connection enables us to identify Moses' Cushite woman with Zipporah - Moses' Midianite wife.

“This connection enables us to identify Moses' Cushite woman with Zipporah -Moses' Midianite wife (Exod 2:21).”

• cites Exod 2:21Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

The problem with the former interpretation is that the Torah never mentions Moses marrying anybody other than Zipporah.

“The problem with the former interpretation is that the Torah never mentions Moses marrying anybody other than Zipporah (see the commentary of Bekhor Shor).”

• cites Bekhor ShorNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

YHWH's declaration that he speaks mouth to mouth to Moses contrasts with the means used to communicate with prophets, although it no doubt came to be interpreted to mean that Moses was the preeminent prophet, along the lines espoused by Deut 34:10.

“YHWH's declaration that he speaks mouth to mouth to Moses also contrasts with the means used to communicate with prophets, although it no doubt came to be interpreted to mean that Moses was the preeminent prophet, along the lines espoused by Deut 34:10.”

• cites Deut 34:10Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

From the Second Temple period on, Jewish authors and sages have debated who this woman was and why Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses.

“From the Second Temple period on, Jewish authors and sages have debated who this woman was and why Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Some connected the adjective Cushite to the nation of Cushan in parallel to Midian (as in Hab 3:7) on the assumption that Cushan is the archaic name of Midian.

“Some connected the adjective Cushite to the nation of Cushan in parallel to Midian (as in Hab 3:7) on the assumption that Cushan is the archaic name of Midian.”

• cites Hab 3:7Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Cush is the name in the HB/OT for Nubia, the area south of Egypt.

“Cush is the name in the HB/OT for Nubia, the area south of Egypt (Jer 13:23; 2 Chr 12:3).”

• cites Jer 13:23Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites 2 Chr 12:3Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

The story's present purpose is related to its inclusion of Aaron; it affirms Moses' leadership and seems to promote Moses' line of Levitical priesthood over that of Aaron, perhaps against claims that the Mushite line was compromised by non-Israelite blood.

“The story's present purpose is related to its inclusion of Aaron.It affirms Moses' leadership and seems to promote Moses' line of Levitical priesthood over that of Aaron, perhaps against claims that the Mushite line was compromised by non-Israelite blood (Cross: 204).”

• cites Cross: 204Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Jordaens, however, not only depicted Moses with an African woman, but presented the patriarch as her protector, confronting not Miriam and Aaron, but any and every viewer, in an image that seems almost designed to challenge the prejudices of his age.

“Jordaens, however, not only depicted Moses with an African woman, but presented the patriarch as her protector, confronting not Miriam and Aaron, but any and every viewer, in an image that seems almost designed to challenge the prejudices of his age.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Similarly, Moses' wife is designated as Cusitische, to be understood, we learn, not as a Cushite descended from Ham but as a Midianite.

“Similarly, Moses' wife is designated as Cusitische, to be understood, we learn, not as a Cushite descended from Ham but as a Midianite.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

It came to be assumed too that the objection of Miriam and Aaron was to do with the wife's racial origins, whether or not she was equated with Zipporah.

“It came to be assumed too that the objection of Miriam and Aaron was to do with the wife's racial origins, whether or not she was equated with Zipporah.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

SifBem 99 explains that Zipporah's unusual beauty was the reason for calling her a Cushite woman.

“Accordingly, SifBem 99, explains that Zipporah's unusual beauty was the reason for calling her a Cushite woman.”

• cites SifBem 99Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

This in turn raises questions about possible polygamy on the part of Moses, there being no reference in the Bible to the death of the Midianite wife.

“This in turn raises questions about possible polygamy on the part of Moses, there being no reference in the Bible to the death of the Midianite wife.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Differing from TO, the Palestinian Aramaic translations include abundant legendary material.

“Differing from TO, the Palestinian Aramaic translations include abundant legendary material.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Accordingly, Miriam's criticism is either of Moses' taking a second wife or his marrying a non-Israelite.

“Accordingly, Miriam's criticism is either of Moses' taking a second wife or his marrying a non-Israelite (cf.Goldenberg: 29, 229-30, n. 17).”

• cites Goldenberg: 29, 229-30, n. 17Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Onkelos maintains that Moses' separation from Zipporah was the reason for Miriam and Aaron's criticism.

“As mentioned above, Onkelos maintains that Moses' separation from Zipporah was the reason for Miriam and Aaron's criticism.”

• cites OnkelosNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Here they could follow Augustine (Quaest.Hept 4.20) who, relying on the unstable meaning of Ethiopia/Cush, claimed that the term could be used (and was so used for example at 2 Chr 14-15) for Midian.

“Here they could follow Augustine (Quaest.Hept 4.20) who, relying on the unstable meaning of Ethiopia/Cush, claimed that the term could be used (and was so used for example at 2 Chr 14-15) for Midian.”

• cites Augustine, Quaest.Hept 4.20Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites 2 Chr 14-15Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

It was at this juncture that Jacob Jordaens, a Flemish artist of Protestant inclinations though living in Catholic Antwerp, and a man familiar with the translations of Luther as well as the States Bible, produced ca.1650 an extraordinary painting of Moses and his Ethiopian Wife.

“It was at this juncture that Jacob Jordaens, a Flemish artist of Protestant inclinations though living in Catholic Antwerp, and a man familiar with the translations of Luther as well as the States Bible, produced ca.1650 an extraordinary painting of Moses and his Ethiopian Wife (see / plate 13).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Calvin's interpretation had a particular influence through the Dutch Statenbijbel or Statenvertaling (States' Translation) of 1637, that landmark achievement of the new Dutch Republic.

“Calvin's interpretation had a particular influence through the Dutch Statenbijbel or Statenvertaling (States' Translation) of 1637, that landmark achievement of the new Dutch Republic.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

At the same time, by showing Moses' wife with a hat that surrounds her head like a halo and is distinguished by a red cross, he perhaps also suggests the familiar idea of the Aethiopissa as a prefiguration of The Christian church.

“At the same time, by showing Moses' wife with a hat that surrounds her head like a halo and is distinguished by a red cross, he perhaps also suggests the familiar idea of the Aethiopissa as a prefiguration of The Christian church (McGrath).”

• cites McGrathNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

What is clear is that the blackness of Moses' Aethiopissa was seized upon by the church fathers for its symbolic potential, and the association with the bride of the Song of Songs was often emphasized, notably by Origen, who took Moses as a prefiguration of Christ and the Ethiopian Wife as an image of the Church of the Gentiles (Ecclesia); Miriam, by contrast, punished by leprosy, represented the

“What is clear is that the blackness of Moses' Aethiopissa was seized upon by the church fathers for its symbolic potential, and the association with the bride of the Song of Songs was often emphasized, notably by Origen, who took Moses as a prefiguration of Christ and the Ethiopian Wife as an image of the Church of the Gentiles (Ecclesia); Miriam, by contrast, punished by leprosy, represented the”

• cites PG 13:101-9Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Ledegang: 426-30Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Johnson: 170-73Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In this context the question of Moses' marriage to a black woman took on a particular interest.

“In this context the question of Moses' marriage to a black woman took on a particular interest.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The backstory for Moses' separation from his wife is explained by R. Nathan in SifBem 99.

“The backstory for Moses' separation from his wife is explained by R. Nathan in SifBem 99.”

• cites SifBem 99Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In contrast to Josephus' reasoning for mentioning the story about Moses marrying an Ethiopian princess, some rabbinic commentators point out the problem that Moses married a non-Israelite, whether Zipporah the Midianite or an unnamed Ethiopian woman.

“In contrast to Josephus' reasoning (cited by Schalit) for mentioning the story about Moses marrying an Ethiopian princess, some rabbinic commentators point out the problem that Moses married a non-Israelite, whether Zipporah the Midianite or an unnamed Ethiopian woman (see bSan 82a).”

• cites bSan 82aNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

But the implication of the Ecclesia allegory with its focus on blackness was clear -and confirmed by the circumstance that the Aethiopissa is never identified there as Zipporah.

“But the implication of the Ecclesia allegory with its focus on blackness was clear -and confirmed by the circumstance that the Aethiopissa is never identified there as Zipporah.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

According to this interpretation, Miriam is saying that just because God speaks to Moses, Moses should not regard himself as too holy to remain married.

“According to this interpretation, Miriam is saying that just because God speaks to Moses, Moses should not regard himself as too holy to remain married.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

It continues to be understood and presented as such by liberal clerics and theologians (e.g., Wagenaar) in reaction to racist interpreters.

“It continues to be understood and presented as such by liberal clerics and theologians (e.g., Wagenaar) in reaction to racist interpreters.”

• cites WagenaarNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Onkelos suggests that Miriam and Aaron were upset because Moses separated from the beautiful woman he married.

“Onkelos suggests that Miriam and Aaron were upset because Moses separated from the beautiful woman he married (cf.Philo, Mos.1.59.See also Ezek.Trag.348 and the commentaries of Abraham Ibn Ezra [1089-1167] and Moses Alshekh [ca.1520-1593], as well as Joseph Ibn Kaspi in Matsref la-Kesef ad loc.).”

• cites Philo, Mos.1.59Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Ezek.Trag.348Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

These interpretations seem to avoid or ignore the issue of whether the Cushite woman, referred to simply as uxor Moysi Aethiopissa (the Ethiopian wife of Moses), is a different character from Zipporah (Sephora in the Vg.), the Midianite whom the patriarch meets and marries at Exod 2:11-21 and who is last heard of by name at Exod 18:14.

“These interpretations seem to avoid or ignore the issue of whether the Cushite woman, referred to simply as uxor Moysi Aethiopissa (the Ethiopian wife of Moses), is a different character from Zipporah (Sephora in the Vg.), the Midianite whom the patriarch meets and marries at Exod 2:11-21 and who is last heard of by name at Exod 18:14.”

• cites Exod 2:11-21Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Exod 18:14Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The river Gihon of Gen 2:13, for example, is simply described as encircling Cus, which, the commentary tells us, should not be understood here as Moorenlandt, but rather as Arabia.

“The river Gihon of Gen 2:13, for example, is simply described as encircling Cus, which, the commentary tells us, should not be understood here as Moorenlandt, but rather as Arabia.”

• cites Gen 2:13Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Luther, on the other hand, had felt no inclination to dissociate Cush/Ethiopia from black Africa.

“Luther, on the other hand, had felt no inclination to dissociate Cush/Ethiopia from black Africa.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Already in the 17th century, Moses' marriage to the Ethiopian woman was cited as an encouragement to cross-cultural marriage by writers as diverse as the Colombian Jesuit Alonso de Sandoval and the Dutch poet Jacob Cats.

“Already in the 17th century, however, Moses' marriage to the Ethiopian woman was cited as an encouragement to cross-cultural marriage by writers as diverse as the Colombian Jesuit Alonso de Sandoval and the Dutch poet Jacob Cats .”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Aaron and Miriam, who represent logic and perception, cannot understand how this is so and lash out at this more perfect form of knowledge.

“Aaron and Miriam, who represent logic and perception, which contrasts sharply with Moses' perfect unique perception of God, cannot understand how this is so and lash out at this more perfect form of knowl-1158 edge.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Moreover, Josephus records (Ant.2.243-53) that, in his youth in Egypt, Moses fought with the Egyptians against an Ethiopian city and captured it with the help of an Ethiopian princess, Tharbis, whom he then gratefully married.

“Moreover, Josephus records (Ant.2.243-53) that, in his youth in Egypt, Moses fought with the Egyptians against an Ethiopian city and captured it with the help of an Ethiopian princess, Tharbis, whom he then gratefully married.”

• cites Ant.2.243-53Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

That story, which was available in Latin from the time of Cassiodorus (6th cent.), was taken up by medieval chroniclers and featured in Petrus Comestor's influential Historia scholastica (written ca.1170), a standard resource and supplement to the Bible which was translated and eventually printed in many editions up to 1500.

“That story, which was available in Latin from the time of Cassiodorus (6th cent.), was taken up by medieval chroniclers and featured in Petrus Comestor's influential Historia scholastica (written ca.1170), a standard resource and supplement to the Bible which was translated and eventually printed in many editions up to 1500.”

• cites CassiodorusNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Petrus Comestor's Historia scholasticaNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Until modern times no artist followed Jordaens in his representation of the Aethiopissa as an African; and biblical commentaries and interpretations of the 18th and 19th centuries only demonstrate how the idea of Moses' marriage with a black African became increasingly unthinkable on socio-political rather than any theological grounds.

“Until modern times no artist followed Jordaens in his representation of the Aethiopissa as an African; and biblical commentaries and interpretations of the 18th and 19th centuries only demonstrate how the idea of Moses' marriage with a black African became increasingly unthinkable on socio-politicalrather than any theological -grounds.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

For many familiar with that tale, then, Tharbis was the Ethiopian wife, and, since her supposed marriage to Moses preceded the encounter with Zipporah, the evidence pointed to two wives, existing concurrently.

“For many familiar with that tale, then, Tharbis was the Ethiopian wife, and, since her supposed marriage to Moses preceded the encounter with Zipporah, the evidence pointed to two wives, existing concurrently.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The Statenbijbel was produced just at the time when the Dutch were embarking on a colonial adventure in Brazil and becoming entangled with the growing Atlantic slave trade.

“The Statenbijbel was produced just at the time when the Dutch were embarking on a colonial adventure in Brazil and becoming entangled with the growing Atlantic slave trade.”