In die Skriflig / In Luce Verbi
ISSN: (Online) 2305-0853, (Print) 1018-6441
Page 1 of 8
Original Research
A silent unheard voice in the Old Testament:
The Cushite woman whom Moses married in
Numbers 12:1–10
Author:
David T. Adamo1
Affiliation:
1
Department of Old
Testament and New
Testament, University of
South Africa, South Africa
Corresponding author:
David Adamo,
adamodt@yahoo.com
Dates:
Received: 03 Apr. 2018
Accepted: 18 June 2018
Published: 17 Oct. 2018
How to cite this article:
Adamo, D.T., 2018, ‘A silent
unheard voice in the Old
Testament: The Cushite
woman whom Moses
married in Numbers 12:1–10’,
In die Skriflig 52(1), a2370.
https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.
v52i1.2370
Copyright:
© 2018. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creative Commons
Attribution License.
Most of the time, women’s names are not mentioned, words are not put in their mouths or
they are not allowed to say a word, and their achievements are behind the scene in the
narratives. Passages that mention the presence and contribution of African women in the
Bible are especially neglected, perhaps because there are few African women biblical
scholars and also deep prejudices against women. References to the African wife of Moses
(Numbers 12) are so scanty in the Bible that very few critical biblical scholars noticed
them. The purpose of this article is to discuss critically the narrative of the Cushite woman
whom Moses married and her marginalisation by the author of the story in Numbers
12:1-10. The narrator of the text did not only refuse to give her a name, there is no single
word put in her mouth despite the dominant and significant role her presence played in
the narrative. Why is she silent and what does her silence mean? The answers to these
questions are discussed in this article.
Introduction
The Hebrew Bible and culture is male-oriented in authorship, subject matter, and perspectives
(Ebeling 2010:8). This androcentric nature of the Hebrew Bible is clear from the account of the
names in the texts. It seems that ‘the men who compile these texts are majorly concerned about
the world of the male urban elite’ (Ebeling 2010:8).
The Bible, like many other Ancient Near Eastern documents, treat women stories as part of
someone else’s stories (Schneider 2008:10). Most of the silent unheard voices and the unnamed
characters in the Bible are women (Brenner 1993:13; Reinhartz 1998:11).
According to Reinhartz (1998:5) there is a general assumption that unnamed characters in the
biblical texts are not important and therefore not given prominent attention, thus ignoring
or downplaying them. According to Trible (1984:80–81), anonymity is not only a symbol of
unimportance but also of a ‘lack of power and personhood’. According to Brenner (1993:13), ‘the
absence of proper name not only effaces narrative identity but also symbolises the suppression of
women in Israelite society’. Natanson (1986:164, 168) thinks that despite all the attempts to veil or
efface the identity of women by not giving them voices or names by the narrators in the Scripture,
their personhood still emerges. The distinctiveness and identities of the unnamed are clear from
the specific circumstances that surround them (Reinhartz 1998:4).
The Cushite wife of Moses is one of the minor figures in the book of Numbers, whose stories
occupy little scriptural space and receive less attention in the biblical materials. She is one of the
women who are on the margin of Israel, mainly as foreigners who came to be included in the story
of ancient Israel. Little is known or talked about these women in the Scripture (Hawkins &
Stahlberg 2009:xi). However, Mirriam’s stories, unlike the Cushite woman’s, occupy a lot of space
and attention in the Bible.
Read
Read online:
online:
Scan
Scan this
this QR
QR
code
code with
with your
your
smart
smart phone
phone or
or
mobile
mobile device
device
to
to read
read online.
online.
The purpose of this article is to examine the biblical narrative of the Cushite woman whom Moses
married and her marginalisation by the author or narrator of Numbers 12:1–10. No name and no
word were put in her mouth despite the significant role her presence played in the narrative.
Many modern scholars do not even recognise her to be an African woman despite that she is
referred to as a Cushite, which literally means black. This article will also discuss her identity,
reasons for the objection of Miriam and Aaron, and the meaning of her silence in African and
semiotic context.
http://www.indieskriflig.org.za
Open Access
Page 2 of 8
Various terms used to refer to Africa
and Africans in the Old Testament
Cush, Cushite and Cushi
This term is one the most important terms used in the Hebrew
Bible to refer to Africa and Africans. Ancient Egyptians seem
to refer to black Africans in their southern border as ‘Kushu
or Kush’ (Oswalt 1980:435). They used it to refer to a very
limited area of land or tribe beyond Semna and Kerma
(Adamo 1986:164, 168), that was later extended to include all
the lands further south (Adamo 1986:19; Maspero 1968:488).
According to Lepsius’ theory, the Cushites in the land south
of Wawat originally came from Asia between the time of Pepi
I (2000 bce) and Amenemhat I (1700 bce). They drove back
the Africans who occupied the place (Maspero 1968:488 cited
Lepsius). Baldwin’s theory of the origin of the Cushites as
Arabia, before they later settled throughout Africa nearby the
Cape of Good Hope, is reasonable (Baldwin n.d.:245). The
ancient records of the Egyptians, although sometimes vague,
maintain the fact that Cush is located to the south of Egypt.
Although there is yet no certainty as to the exact geographical
limit of the Kingdom of Cush, ‘the brick castle and the great
tumuli’ uncovered during the excavation at Kerme on the
east bank above the Third Cataract, is an evidence that ‘the
seat of the Kings of Kush’ was there and became the place
from where the whole ‘Kingdom of Kush’ was ruled at least
from the seventeenth and early sixteenth centuries bce
(Adamo 1986:20; Kemp 1983:71–174).
Ancient Egyptian monuments had evidence that the Egyptian
people had several expeditions to the land of Cush as early
as the Sixth Dynasty, under Pepi II. Inscriptions of Ameni,
Carnarvon Tablet I, the annals of Thutmose III, and the
Kuban Stela, the wall of the temple of Redesiay, the stelae of
Aezanaa attest to this fact (Breasted 1906:251).
The Assyrian records relating to Africa and Africans refer
to Cush or Cusu. Some of them are annalistic texts of
Esarhaddon, the Dog River Stele, the Senjirli Stele, the
Alabaster Tablets, the Rasam Cylinder of Ashurbanipal and
others (Pritchard 1969:232). Perhaps one would be right to
say that the term Cush passed from Egypt in Africa to the
Assyrians and to the Hebrews.
The term Cush is used in the Old Testament to cover a wide
area corresponding to Ethiopia of the classical period.1 The
term Cush with its generic appears about 57 times in the Old
Testament (Oswalt 1980:435; Strong nd:312). Only a summary
of its use in the Old Testament will be given.
The Old Testament record is filled with the term Cush and
Cushites and they are unmistakably referring to Africa and
Africans (Adamo 2005:13–17; Davidson 1977:374).2 In terms
1.The term Ethiopia literally means ‘burnt-face’ and is used by the ancient Greeks to
refer to the land of Africa and all black people both at home and abroad. It is not
limited to present modern Ethiopia.
2.Davidson said that the Hebrew term כושin Arabic means terror, but in the Bible it
refers to Ethiopia and its inhabitants. (כושית
http://www.indieskriflig.org.za
Original Research
of a geographical location, it is described as the extreme part
of the world (Ezk 29:10; Is 45:14; Job 28:19). The inhabitants of
Cush were described as tall and smooth-skinned people.
Their blackness becomes proverbial (Is 18:2; Jr 13:23). Moses’
wife was from Cush (Nm 12:15). A Cushite man reported the
death of Absalom to David (2 Sm 18:21, 31–33). Ebed-Melech
was referred to as having a Cushite ancestor (Jr 38:6–14;
39:16–18). The Cushite power was comparable only to the
power of the Assyrians. They became the hope of Judah for
deliverance from the Assyrians (2 Chr 12:3–9; Is 18:2; 1 Ki
18:19–21; 2 Chr 32:9–15, 3:8).
Egypt or Egyptians
The term Egypt (Mitrayim) appears more than 740 times in the
Old Testament (Adamo 2005:26–36). Cush or Cushite and
Egypt or Egyptians were constantly mentioned together in
the Old Testament because they both belong to the ancient
African nations. This term indisputably refers to Egypt
as a country in Africa as well as to the people of ancient
Egypt in Africa. Ancient Egypt or the Egyptians were black
Africans and not from Europe or Europeans as some have
maintained (Adamo 2013b:221–248). The inscriptions of
Queen Hatshepsut attested to the fact that Punt is their place
of origin. They made several expeditions to Punt (Budge
1976:15–416; Keener & Usry1996:61; McCray 1990).
Usry and Keener confirm the Africanness and blackness of
ancient Egypt and the Egyptians. They maintain that ‘most
Egyptians were black by any one’s definition’ (Keener &
Usury 1996:61).
Punt
Maspero (1968:396) says that ‘Punt’ lies between the Nile Valley
and the Red Sea and is very rich in ‘ivory, ebony, gold, metals,
gums and sweet-smelling resins’; Budge (1976:512–513) agrees
with Maspero. He also emphasised that Punt was the original
home of the Egyptian ancestors. Punt was the place where the
Egyptians got their minerals, woods, incense and even their
hieroglyphic writings. Budge (1976:512–513) also is emphatic
that the Egyptians saw themselves as connected with the land
of Punt because they belong to the same race and that the
relationship between them was very cordial.
Rawlinson (n.d.:72) also agrees with Maspero and Budge.
According to him the location of Punt should be sought on the
African side of the gulf where the present Somali land is located.
He maintains that many Egyptian products and principal gods
came from Punt (n.d.:72–75). O’Connor (1982:917–918) says
‘Typically, the men have dark reddish skins and fine features;
characteristic negroid types … and the Egyptians have always
visited Punt from the time immemorial …’
Identification of כוׁשיתwife of
Moses
An examination of the women in Moses’ tradition shows
that women have been mentioned prominently and they
Open Access
Page 3 of 8
mostly played a role at home and in the celebration of
Israel’s deliverance (Williams 2002:259–268). The midwives
frustrated Pharaoh’s plan to kill all the newly born male
children of Israel in Egypt (Ex 2). Pharaoh’s daughter also
saved Moses on the river when his mother could not hide
him at home from the authorities and she decided to put
him on the river (Ex 2). The courageous sister of Moses,
Miriam, kept watching over him. She suggested a nurse to
the daughter of Pharaoh, namely his mother to take care of
Moses. (Perhaps this were the same Miriam and Aaron who
spoke against Moses’ authority in Numbers12:1–12, because
of the Cushite woman that Moses married).
References to Moses’ wives appear only in Exodus 2, 4, 18,
and Numbers 12 but do not reappear in any allusion to Moses
in the Jewish scriptures. Exodus 2:16, 21 and 3:22 mention the
priest of Midian, Ru’el who gave his daughter Zipporah to
Moses as a wife and Zipporah bore him a son called Gershom.
In Exodus 4:24–26, Zipporah circumcised her son to save
the life of her family. She personally spoke herself, ‘You are
a bridegroom of blood’. Reference to Moses’ wives has not
reappeared in any other passage except in the Greek
translations of the above passages. Jewish writers (Demetrius,
Artapanus, and Ezekiel) of the third, and second centuries
bce remembered to mention Moses’ wives.
Like other passages where the exact geographical
identification of the term Cushite was not given by the
Hebrew writers, scholars have spent much energy trying to
identify the Cushite woman Moses married. Many scholars
identified her with Zipporah, the Midianite (Ex 21:7; Plant
1979:116–117; Winslow 2004:61–73). According to Demetrius,
the Chronographer and Ezekiel, the Tragedian, the Cushite
wife of Moses in Numbers 12:1–16 is Zipporah (Winslow
2004:61–73). Ibnu-Ezra and Augustine (Bugner 1976:13) are
the early scholars who did this. Owen (1970:118–119)
compares the Cushite in Numbers 12:1 with ‘Cushan’ in
Habakkuk 3:7 which he identifies with Midian and concluded
through parallelism that the Cushite woman in Numbers
12:1 must be Zipporah. Binns also identifies the Cushite
woman with Zipporah. He (Binns 1952:75–76) said probably
Miriam was jealous because when Zipporah was away to
Midian there was no challenge, but when she returned,
Miriam’s prestige diminished. This appears to have no basis
whatsoever. Even though Marsh (1952:200–201) admits the
difficulty involved with the identification of the Cushite
woman with Zipporah, he is emphatic that the Cushite
woman cannot refer to an African, but Zipporah. Martin
Noth denies that the Cushite woman refers to an African or
the Midianite because Egypt is far removed from Moses’
sphere of activity and that the woman belongs to the
confederacy of tribes parallel to Midian (Noth 1975:94).
However, what the name of the tribe or confederacy is, he
does not say. G.B. Gray (1910:121–122) does not even attempt
to identify the Cushite woman because he thinks that the
verse is an editorial insertion. What is shown above is the
evidence of de-Africanisation of the Cushite woman by most
Euro-American biblical scholars.
http://www.indieskriflig.org.za
Original Research
A close examination of this passage (Nm 12:1–16) and other
related passages which mention the Cushit, Miriam and
Midian show that the Cushite woman cannot be Zipporah,
but an African woman, for the following reasons:
• There is no evidence of association of the Cushite woman
with Zipporah or a Midianite in the passage or other
passages related to Moses’ wife, therefore such should
not be assumed.
• Midian and Zipporah were never referred to as Kush or
Cushite in all the biblical records. Midian and Kush or
Midianite and Cushite were never used interchangeably
in either the biblical, the Egyptian, or the Assyrian
records. Jethro was never called a Cushite. Josephus
differentiated between Midian and Kush (Book II:10–1).
• It does not make sense for Miriam to speak against Moses
because of a wife (Zipporah) whom Moses had married
for about 40 years.
• The Hebrew clause ,ּשָה ֻכׁשִית
ׁ ִא- ּכִי:ּשָה ַה ֻּכׁשִית ֲאׁשֶר ָלקָח
ׁ א ֹדֹות ָה ִא-עַל
ָלקָח. (‘because of the Cushite woman which he married’
(literally took), ‘for he had married a Cushite woman’)
strongly implies a recent marriage. Therefore, the Jewish
tradition of equating the Cushite woman with Zipporah
has no basis. It was probably an apologetic device to keep
Moses a monogamist (Gray 1910:121–122; Noth 1975:77).
There are four reasons to believe that the Cushite wife of
Moses is a black African woman.
Firstly, the article author has personally spent years studying
references to Cush, Egyptians and Assyrian in the Old
Testament, consulting Egyptian and Assyrian documents
and can say with all certainty that in every reference in the
biblical, Egyptian and Assyrian records where the word
‘Kash’, ‘Kush’, or ‘Kushu’, are used with a clear geographical
or personal identification, it always refers to Africa (Adamo
1986; 2001; 2013a:409; 2013b:4–20; 2013c; 2014; 2018:1–9). An
Egyptian inscription as early as the Sixth Dynasty, under Pepi
II has the earliest reference to ‘Kush’. This monument, the
inscription of Ameni, tells us that the king travelled south,
overthrew his enemies, ‘the abominable Kash, and obtained
tributes, past the boundary of Kush, to the end of the earth’
(Breasted 1906:251). King Ahmose, who reigned just before
the Eighteenth Dynasty, says in the Carnarvon Tablet I:
Let me understand what this strength of mine is for! (One) Prince
is in Avaris, another is in Ethiopia (Kus), and (here) I sit associated
with an Asiatic and a Negro (Nehesi)! Each man has his slice of
this Egypt, dividing up the land with me. I cannot pass by him as
far as Memphis. (Pritchard 1969:232)
Another Egyptian monument relating to Kush is the annals of
Thutmose III at Karnack, which had three lists of the Cushite
cities under his domain. These three lists contain 17, 15 and
400 names respectively. Assyrian documents referred to
Africa and Africans as ‘Kush’ or ‘Kusu’. The annalistic texts
of Esarhaddon say:
In my tenth campaign I directed my march I ordered …) toward
the country which is Nubia (Kusu) and Egypt (Musur) … In my
campaign, I threw up earthwork (for as against Ba’lu, king of
Open Access
Page 4 of 8
Tyre who had put his friend Tirhakah (Tarqu), king of Nubia
(against called … course of siege) trust upon (Kusu) …. (Pritcard
1969:292)
The Rasam Cylinder of Ashurbanipal, found in the ruins of
Kuyunjik, also referred to Tirhakah as the king of Kusu and
Egypt (Luckenbill 1968:294). 2 Chronicles 12:2–3 mentions
Shishak who invaded Judah with twelve hundred chariots
and 60 000 horsemen as the king of Egypt. Among his military
men were Cushites, Egyptian and Sukkim. 2 Kings 19:9
mentions King Tirhakah as the king of Cush. As far as
scholars and ancient records are concerned, Tirhakah is
unquestionably from Africa.
Secondly, the Rabbinical interpretation of the Cushite woman
is ‘beautiful’. This was based on the proverbial beauty of the
Ethiopians (Gray 1910:121).
Thirdly, the Tarqum of Jonathan associated the Cushite wife
of Moses in Numbers 12:1 with the queen of Ethiopia:
And Miriam and Aharon spake against Mosheh words that were
not becoming with respect to the Kushaitha whom the Kushace
has caused Musheh to take when he fled from Pharaoh but
whom he had sent away because they had given him the queen
of Kush, and he had sent her away. (JERUSALEM). And Miriam
and Aharon spake against Mosheh about the Kushaitha whom
he had taken. But observe, the Cushite wife was not Zipporah,
the wife of Mosheh, but a certain Kushaitha, of a flesh different
from every creature. (Etheridge 1968:367–377)
Fourthly, there is a strong tradition which says that Moses
married an Ethiopian woman and this Ethiopian was
associated with Ethiopia, south of Egypt whose capital was
Meroe (Saba). It says that when the Ethiopians oppressed the
Egyptians, the Egyptians pleaded with Moses to lead their
army against the Ethiopians. Moses agreed, and he became
the Egyptian general. When Moses and the Egyptian army
besieged the capital city of the Ethiopians, Meroe (Saba), the
daughter of the king of Ethiopia, Tharbis, fell in love with
Moses. She asked Moses to marry her. Moses agreed on the
condition that she delivered the Ethiopians into his hand.
Tharbis did so, and after Moses destroyed the Ethiopians, he
married Tharbis (Jos 2:10). Other Jewish traditions concerning
the story of Moses’ campaign in Ethiopia in the Medieval
Jewish texts such as Sepher ha-harshar, Pasrashar Shemoth and
the Byzantine Chronicle, Palea Historical, where Moses was
described as defending the Ethiopians from a usurper named
Balaam after which he married the princess of Ethiopia
(Runnals 1983:135–156).
Although no one can be sure of the reliability of these
traditions, they should not be dismissed outrightly without
looking at the facts. One important fact in the tradition which
agrees with the biblical account is that Moses married an
African woman (Jos 2:1.1).
In the light of this, it is highly probable that after the death of
Moses’ wife or after she was divorced, or when she travelled
to his country (Midian), Moses needed another helpmate fit
for him in his leadership responsibility. The question that
http://www.indieskriflig.org.za
Original Research
arises, is why was it that of all the available women, including
Israelites, Moses chose to marry an African? The reason
may not only be because Yahweh instructed him, but also
because African women were beautiful and were held in
high esteem. In Isaiah 18:2, Africans are described as ‘tall
and smooth’. Herodotus also described Africans as the
‘tallest and handsomest men in the whole world’ (Herodotus
2:20; 3:14).
Therefore, it is relatively certain that the Cushite woman in
Numbers is an African. It is probable that she is a daughter of
one of the sympathisers of the children of Israel who left
Egypt with the Israelites (Adamo 2012:67–78).
Reasons for Miriam’s and Aaron’s
objection
At this point, it is important to ask why Miriam and Aaron
objected to Moses’ marriage with the Cushite woman. Many
scholars have suggested several reasons why Miriam and
Aaron raised an objection to Moses’ marriage to the Cushite
woman and leadership authority. Bailey (1991:179), Bellis
(1994:103), Felder (1989:135–186) and Wagenaar (2003:77)
believe very strongly that the main reason for an objection is
not to Moses’ marriage, but to his superior leadership and
privileges. A close reading of the text leaves no doubt that
superior leadership experience cannot be excluded from the
main reason why Miriam and Aaron raised an objection to
the marriage.
However, beyond the leadership authorities are the privileges
that come with such authority. These privileges may include
respect, gifts donated to authentic leaders by the people, such
as harvest and possibly worship.
Sadlers (2005:36) differs in his opinion. According to him, the
main reason for the objection to the Cushite woman was
because she was a foreigner from Cush. Although this text
raises the question of the status of foreign women in Israelite
society, this author finds it difficult to agree with the opinion
that Miriam’s and Aaron’s objection were because the Cushite
woman was a foreigner. The fact that Moses had earlier
married a foreigner from Midian, Zipporah, and there was
also no known recorded objection against the marriage,
shows that that cannot be the reason for the objection. Despite
that the text specifically repeated the phrase ‘because of the
Cushite woman whom he had married for he had married a
Cushite woman’ this does not mean that Miriam and Aaron
were criticising Moses because of her foreignness. The
assumption of Davies (1995:114–116) that Moses’ marriage
to the Cushite woman was criticised because it challenged
the normative assumptions of who is marriageable, is not
tenable.
Yet, I hold very strongly that the reason for Miriam’s and
Aaron’s anger cannot be because the Cushite woman was
black, according to Knierim and Coats (2005:180–181),
Williams (2002:259–268) and Lokel (2007:93–103). Williams
emphasised the reason for the objection of Miriam and
Open Access
Page 5 of 8
Aaron as ‘racist’. To her, the reason for the objection was
because ‘she was a black African woman.’ According to
Williams (2002):
The woman from Cush was offensive to Miriam and Aaron
because she was a black African woman. We stress here a black
African woman because the Egyptian princess in whose house
Moses grew up, was an African woman. … The issue raised by
Aaron, Miriam and also the narrator of this story at this point is
not that of being anti-foreign, but anti-black. It is a racist issue.
This was not only the attitude of Miriam and Aaron. It was the
attitude of the narrator also … This clearly underlines the fact
that the Cushiteness of this woman was definitely an issue which
the narrator could understand and which the narrator expected
his readers to understand. (p. 265)
The above statement cannot be true because there is no
prejudice against black people throughout the scriptures.
Unlike the situation today when blacks and other racial
groups are openly discriminated against and oppressed,
black people were highly respected in the ancient time. What
I am trying to say, is that prejudice against black people is a
modern conception. The modern prejudice has affected their
scriptural interpretation. It has been demonstrated over and
over that the biblical people have the greatest respect for
Africa and Africans (Adamo 1986; 2014:500–530; 2018:1–9).
The prophet Isaiah was very familiar with Africans and their
land. In Isaiah 18:1–2 he described them as swift messengers
and smooth-skinned people, and people who are feared far
and wide:
Ah, land of the whirring wings beyond the rivers of Ethiopia
Sending ambassadors by the Nile
Go, you swift messengers, to a people feared near and far,
a nation mighty and conquering, whose land the rivers divide
(Is 18:1–2 NRSV).
Yahweh used foreign nations (Assyrians, the Babylonians,
and the Persians) for punishment, and salvation. He also
used Africa and Africans for punishment, salvation and
deliverance. It is important that Africa became a place of
refuge for ancient Israelites and other nations (Adamo 2018).
One will be quite correct to say that real authentic salvation
experience for the ancient Israelites started in Africa. In
Jeremiah 7:22, 25, 11:24, 16:14, 23:7, 32:21 several allusions
were made to bringing Israel’s ancestors out of Egyptbondage.
It was not only the prophet Isaiah who recognised Africa and
Africans as of great military might, the prophet Jeremiah was
emphatic about the Cushite and Egyptian military might
(Jr 46:1–12). That happened after the collapse of the Assyrian
power and Africa re-asserted her dominion over the SyroPalestinian people and forced Judah into a state of vassalage
(Adamo 2018:1–8). In the poem in Jeremiah 46 the Cush and
Put were described as gibborim.
Such passages like the above and Isaiah 18, 20, 30:1–2; 31:1, 3
recorded the prophetic struggle to fight ancient Israel’s
military and political dependence on African nations for
http://www.indieskriflig.org.za
Original Research
deliverance. The prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, and
Jeremiah would never have spent so much time prophesying
so vehemently against these African nations and their
military men if ancient Israel had not depended on them.
They must have been responsible for the ‘extremism
and bizarre quality of some of the prophets’ actions and
speeches against the African nations (Adamo 2018; Bailey
1991:165–184).
The prophet Jeremiah portrayed Africans as people of a high
sense of moral judgement (Jr 30:7–10). When king Zedekiah
evaded his responsibility and the aggressive nobles threw
the prophet Jeremiah into the pit to die, a man of African
ancestry called Ebed-Melech, was the only courageous man
who challenged king Zedekiah for inappropriate action
and then got the prophet Jeremiah delivered (Adamo
2018:6). When scholars examined Ebed-Melech’s courage,
compassion, dispatch, and ability to bring out the best in king
Zedekiah, this story is adjudged to be one of the fairest stories
in the Old Testament (Adamo 2018:6; Smith 1929:28). As far
as the identity of Ebed-Melech is concerned, the biblical
writer identifies him as of African ancestry because his
grandparents were traced to Cush (Jr 37:7–13). Africa was
used as valuation for ancient Israel (Jr 13:23).
Can Ethiopians change their skin or leopards their spots?
Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
(Jr 13:23 NRSV)
Admittedly, the reading of Jeremiah 13:23 at a glance makes
it seem as if the biblical people had the prejudice against the
African people, the Cushites. However, when the above verse
is translated and interpreted appropriately in an African
context, there is nothing like prejudice against black Africa.
What I consider to be the appropriate translation is, ‘Would
black Africans change their skin, or the leopards their spots?
So also you who learnt to do evil, could do good’.
I believe that this translation agrees with the prophet
Jeremiah’s charge that the people of Judah are doers of evil
and that black Africans and the leopard have learnt the
advantages of who they are, that is, conqueror of territories.
So also those who have learnt to sin perpetually, have learnt
the advantages of being sinners. According to the prophet
Jeremiah, it is unthinkable that black Africans and the leopard
will want to change the way they look (Adamo 2014:500–530;
2018:6–7; Bailey 1991:171). The prophet wanted Judah to use
black people as a yardstick for assessing themselves. Or
that it is very unlikely that black Africans will desire to be
white because it is unnatural (Dunston 1974:47). Since black
Africans are respected throughout the biblical period and the
colour of their skin was never a dispute, I maintain the
position that Miriam and Aaron did not object to Moses’
marriage because of the blackness of the Cushite.
What I consider to be the main reason for the objection to this
marriage, is jealousy. Miriam and Aaron were jealous because
Moses had two wives and because more of his attention
would have been taken by the newly married woman. It is
Open Access
Page 6 of 8
not unusual in an African setting for relatives and friends
to be jealous when husbands are too occupied with two
or three wives. Perhaps Miriam and Aaron were shocked
because Moses did not consult Miriam and Aaron before
consummating his marriage to the Cushite woman and then
claimed that Yahweh told him to marry her. Perhaps as coprophets, Moses usually consulted Miriam and Aaron before
taking such an important prophetic decision, but on this
occasion, they were not consulted. As said above, Williams’
idea as reason for the objection, is not acceptable. Unlike the
situation today when blacks and other racial groups are
openly discriminated against and oppressed, black people
were highly respected in the ancient times. What I am trying
to say, is that prejudice against black people is a modern
conception. The modern prejudice has affected their
scriptural interpretation. It has been demonstrated times and
again that the biblical people have the utmost respect for
Africa and Africans (Adamo 1986; 2014:500–530; 2018:1–9).
The meaning of the silence of the
Cushite woman
When one reads the narrative in Numbers 12:1–10 one notices
that there are about six main characters in the narrative.
These characters are Moses, the Cushite woman, Miriam,
Aaron, God and the narrator. At one point, these characters
are spoken to, except the Cushite woman. The Cushite
woman did not speak to any of the characters and none of
these characters spoke to her directly or indirectly. The
Cushite woman’s silence and the silence of other actors in
the narrative about the Cushite woman, make it difficult
to identify her or know her contribution to the entire affairs
(Williams 2002:263). To make the situation worse, the
Scripture spoke about Moses, Miriam, Aaron, and God in
other passages, but is silent about the Cushite woman alone.
That prompts scholars to ask some basic questions about her.
Why did she not utter a word herself? Or why did the narrator
not put a word in her mouth? Was she not present when the
whole episode took place? Did she deliberately keep silent
out of her own volition because she thinks that the family can
solve their own problems? Was she keeping quiet because of
her inferiority? A more important question is whether her
silence communicate some things in the whole discussion.
I believe that the Cushite woman was present during the
whole incident. As I have already said above, the ‘Hebrew
clause ָלקָח, ִאּשָׁה ֻכׁשִית- ּכִי:א ֹדֹות ָה ִאּשָׁה ַה ֻּכׁשִית ֲאׁשֶר ָלקָח-עַל. (‘because of
the Cushite woman which he married’ (literally took), ‘for he
had married a Cushite woman’), strongly implies a recent
marriage. I do not think that any wise husband will send a
newly married wife away. She was silent probably because
she was thinking that the family could sort out their problems
and therefore have confidence in her husband to defend her.
As I have said above, there is no prejudice against black
people, therefore she was not feeling any inferiority complex.
She did not keep silent because of racism.
The fact is that even though the Cushite woman was silent,
her silence was meant to communicate something. To know
what her silence means and communicates, it is important to
http://www.indieskriflig.org.za
Original Research
understand how silence conveys a message. In other words,
one must be familiar with silence as a cultural element, as
well as the conversational functions and value of silence
(Adamo 2007:91–98).
Silence as a cultural element
Because mankind is a social animal, sound and silence
are used to constitute part of culture and culture as
communication. Since a culture ‘is an immensely intricate
series of complexes, sound and silence … are the most
important complex in live culture’ (Poyatoes 1983:218). In the
study of paralinguistic phenomena many kinds of silence
have been identified. The first one is what is called ‘hesitation
phenomena’. This has to do with different utterances such
as ‘um,’ ‘ah,’ or ‘well’, and others without saying anything
further (Poyates 1983:231). Another kind of silence is what is
called ‘Psycholinguistic hesitation’ (Adamo 2007:92; Bruneau
1979:26). This is related to the encoding a decoding of speech.
This helps ‘the encoder to process mental thought into the
proper words or grammatical forms to be spoken’ (Adamo
2007:93). Another type of silence is ‘interactive silence’ which
is always longer than ‘psycholinguistic silences’ (Adamo
2007:93). Poyatoes also mentions a special category of silence
formed by ‘interactional pauses’, which includes ‘absent
turn-taking pause, turn-claiming pause, turn-ending pause,
transitional pause, task-performing pause, feedback seeking
pause and hesitation pause’ (Adamo 2007:93; Poyatoes
1983:230).
Function and value of silence
When silence is viewed semiotically and in an African
context, silence has various functions and values. Adamo
(2007:95–98) mentions the functions of values, and the
meaning of silence.
Among the Yoruba speaking people of Nigeria, silence does
not mean stupidity. Silence does not mean that one is not
communicating. Silence can mean disapproval. For example,
if a wife or a child is asking for permission to travel with her
husband and the husband does not answer her, it means
disapproval. It means that her husband has communicated
disapproval by his silence. Silence can also mean anger or
displeasure. In the absent turn-taking silence, that is, when
the other partner refuses to take his or her turn and speak, it
may mean anger or displeasure. It means that the partner
has communicated displeasure or annoyance. Displeasure
could be communicated by the refusal to take a turn. Another
meaning of silence is indifference. This can mean indifference
toward the issue being discussed. Silence may communicate
malice, contempt or jealousy. Most of the time silence may
communicate these when there is a previous quarrel. It may
be used to be ‘a marker of being agreeable in some pragmatic
situations’ (Adamo 2007:97). In this situation, it is always
accompanied with a nod of a head or smile. Silence may
mean sorrow. This usually happens in a situation of mourning
and is sometimes accompanied by sobbing. Silence can
be used to communicate confusion. For example, if a
Open Access
Page 7 of 8
co-interactant is silent, so unexpectedly it could be because of
confusion.
In the light of the above, one can say that the culture of silence
in Africa (Yoruba) is probably close to that of ancient Israel,
especially when it pertains to the marginalisation of women
and when they are to keep their silence when authorities are
arguing.
One of the underlying reasons for the objection to Moses’
authority is not only that of Miriam’ jealousy, but also overprotection of Miriam over her brother whom she spent so
much time and risk for. This may be true if one remembers
the account in Exodus 2:1–10. Moses was born in dangerous
circumstances, that is, at the time when there was a decree
that all male children should be murdered. Three months
after Moses was born, Moses’ parents could not hide him
anymore. His sister, Miriam, agreed to watch over him when
he was put in the basket by the river so that nothing would
happen to him. One will be right to assume that Miriam was
the same sister of Moses in Exodus 2, because there was
no tradition that this sister of Moses was someone else
other than Miriam. If at the tender age, she was courageously
protective and using her intelligence to confront the
prestigious daughter of Pharaoh with a brilliant plan to save
her brother, it will be accurate to believe that at a grown-up
age, she continued to be jealous and protective of her brother,
Moses.3 She must be jealous not because the Cushit was black,
but because her brother would not pay enough attention
to her with two wives. Moreover, she might desire that
the prophetic duty should be consultative among her, her
brother, and Aaron.
In the light of the above semiotic meaning of silence in the
African context, it suggests that the meaning of the Cushit’s
silence can be possible the following:
• The Cushit woman was silent because she was aware that
the argument was simply a result of jealousy by Miriam
and Aaron. There is no need for her to utter a word.
• The black African woman was silent because she believed
that God would fight for her and vindicate her; for an
African woman in a polygamous house will normally
say: ‘Fi ija fun Olorun ja fowo leran’ (leave the fight for God
and watch calmly) whenever there was terrible jealousy
beyond what she could handle.
• She may be silent because she believed that her husband
would defend her.
• The black African woman might be silent as a sign of
contempt against, not her husband, but Miriam and
Aaron, as silence in African culture and tradition could
mean.
• The black African woman may be silent to convey a sign
of sorrow, anger and disapproval of Miriam and Aaron’s
objection to Moses’ marriage to her.
• The black African woman might be silent to convey
indifference to what was being discussed.
3.In the light of her previous courageous and aggressive action, Miriam might have
been bullying Moses in the presence of the Cushit woman; and because of her
aggression and shouting, the Cushit remain silent and was afraid to say anything.
http://www.indieskriflig.org.za
Original Research
Conclusion
I have discussed the fact that the Cushite wife of Moses was
a black African woman from Cush or Africa. I have also
objected to the fact that the reason for the objection of
Miriam and Aaron was not because she was black, or that she
was from a black country, Cush. The main reason for this
position is that the author of this article is aware, through
several types of research on the subject, that there has been
no prejudice against black colour or black people in the Old
Testament. The interpreters, mostly Western exegetes, were
the ones who brought modern prejudice to the interpretation
of the Bible. What appears to me to be the reasons for the
objection, is jealousy of Moses’ authority and the privileges
accorded to this authority. The over-protective spirit of
Miriam cannot be left out of this objection.
The African wife of Moses was silent not because she was a
coward or inferior, but her silence was meant to convey
some messages. These messages include indifference on her
part, sorrow, anger and disapproval of Miriam and Aaron’s
protest.
Although the Old Testament culture relegates women or
wives to the background, one will be correct to say that this
Cushite woman must have contributed to the achievement of
Moses as a law-giver, as prophet and as a deliverer, if we
apply the saying that ‘Behind any great man, there is a
woman’. It is gratifying that one of the greatest leaders of
ancient Israel has an African wife.
This has some implication to the church in Africa. It means
that Africa and Africans participated in the drama of
redemption. It means that the Christian canon, the Bible, is
not a foreign book as such as the anti-colonial agitators have
maintained. It relieves the black church and black Christians
from the inferiority complex imposed on Africa and Africans
by the Euro-American slave masters, who believe that
Africans are less than human beings.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal
relationships which may have inappropriately influenced
him in writing this article.
References
Adamo, D.T., 1986, ‘Africa and Africans in the Old Testament and its environment’,
PhD Dissertation, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Adamo, D.T., 2001, Africa and the Africans in the Old Testament, Wipf & Stock,
Eugene, OR.
Adamo, D.T, 2005, Africa and the Africans in the Old Testament, Justice Jeco, Benin.
Adamo, G., 2007, ‘Silence as a message conveying process: A study of Yoruba speakers
of English in Nigeria’, International Journal of Communication 17(1), 91–99.
Adamo, D.T., 2012, ‘A mixed multitude: An African reading of Exodus12:38’, in
G. Brenner (ed.), Exodus and Deuteronomy, pp. 67–78, Fortress, Minneapolis, MN.
Adamo, D.T., 2013a, ‘The African wife of Joseph, Asenath’, Journal of Semitics 22(2),
409–425.
Adamo, D.T., 2013b, ‘The nameless African wife of Potiphar and her contribution to
ancient Israel’, Old Testament Essay 23(2), 221–248.
Open Access
Page 8 of 8
Adamo, D.T., 2013c, ‘The African wife of Jeroboam’, Theologia Viatorum 37(), 71–89.
Adamo D.T., 2014, ‘The portrayal of Africa and Africans in the pentateuch and the
major prophets: Implication for Christianity in modern Africa,’ Theologia Viatorum
38(1), 63–77.
Adamo, D.T., 2018, ‘The portrayer of Africa and Africans in the book of Jeremiah’,
In die Skriflig 52(1), a2259. https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v52i1.2259
Original Research
Lokel, P., 2007, ‘Moses and his Cushite wife reading Numbers 12:1 with undergraduate
student of Makerere University’, in K. Holter (ed.), Interpreting classical religious
texts, pp. 93–103, Acton Publishers, Nairobi.
Luckenbill, D., 1968, Ancient records of Assyria and Babylonia, vol. 2, Greenwood,
New York.
Maspero, G., 1968, The dawn of civilization, vols. 1 & 2, transl. M.L. McClure, Frederick
Ungar Publication, New York.
Bailey, R., 1991, ‘Beyond identification: The use of Africans in the Old Testament
poetry and narratives,’ in C. Felder (ed.), Stony the road we trod: African American
interpretation, pp. 165–184, Fortress, Minneapolis, MN.
Natanson, M., 1986, Anonymity: A study of the philosophy of Alfred Schutz, Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, IN.
Bellis, A.O., 1994, Helpmates, heroes: Women’s stories in Hebrew Bible, Westminster,
Louisville, KY.
Noth, M., 1960, A history of Israel, transl. P.R. Ackrod (rev. eng. transl.), Harper,
New York.
Binns, E., 1952, The book of Numbers, Methuen, London
Noth, M., 1975, Numbers: A commentary, transl. J.D. Martin, SCM, London.
Breasted, J., 1906, Ancient records of Egypt, vol. I, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
O’Connor, D., 1982, ‘Egypt 1552–664 bc’, in J.D. Cleric (ed.), Cambridge History of
Africa, pp. 917–918, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brenner, A., 1993, Introduction: A feminist companion to judges, Sheffield Academic
Press, Sheffield.
Oswalt, J.N., 1980, כושin Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2, R.L Harris,
G.L Archer Jr & B.K. Waltke (eds.), p. 435, Moody Press, Chicago, IL.
Bruneau, T., 1979, ‘Communication silences: Forms and functions’, The Journal of
Communication 23, 117–146.
Owen, J.J., 1970, Leviticus, Ruth: The Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 2, Broadman
Press, Nashville, KY.
Budge, C., 1976, The Egyptian Sudan, vol. 1, Arno Press, New York.
Plant, G.P., 1979, Numbers, The Torah: A modern commentary, vol. 4, Union of
American Hebrew Congregations, New York.
Bugner, L., 1976, The image of the black in western art, William Morrow, New York.
Davidson, B., 1977, שוכAnalytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, MI.
Poyates, F., 1983, New perspective in nonverbal communication’, Pergamon, New York.
Pritchard, J. (ed.), 1969, Ancient near Eastern text relating to the Old Testament,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Davies, E., 1995, Numbers: The road to freedom, Sheffield Phonix Press, Sheffield.
(Phoenix Guide to the Old Testament).
Rawlinson, G., n.d., History of ancient Egypt, vols. 1 & 2, Clarke, Chicago, IL.
Dunston, A, 1974, The black man in the Old Testament and its world, Dorrance,
Philadelphia.
Reinhartz, A., 1998, ‘Why ask my name?: Anonymity and identity in biblical narrative’,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Ebeling, J.R., 2010, Women’s lives in the biblical times, Clark, New York.
Runnals, D., 1983, ‘Moses’Ethiopian campaign’, Journal of the Study of Judaism in the
Persian 14, 140–142.
Etheridge, J.W., 1968, The targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the
pentateuch, KTAV Publication House, New York.
Felder, C.H., 1989, Troubling biblical waters: Race, class and family, Orbis, New York.
Gray, G.B., 1910, A critical and exegetical commentary on the book of Numbers,
Charles Scribner, New York. (The International Critical Commentary).
Sadlers, R.S., 2005, ‘Can a Cushite change his skin? An examination of race, ethnicity
and othering in the Hebrew Bible, Clark, New York.
Schneider, T., 2008, Mothers of promise, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI.
Smith, N., 1929, Jeremiah, 4th edn., Harper & Row, New York.
Hawkins, S. & Stahlberg, L. (eds.), 2009, From the margins 1: Women of the Hebrew
Bible and their afterlives, Sheffield Phoenix, Sheffield.
Strong, J., n.d., Ethiopia, Dugan, Gordonsville, VA. (Strong’s exhaustive concordance of
the Bible).
Herodotus, II, 2:137–140; 2:152–154.
Trible, P., 1984, Text of terror: Literary feminist readings of biblical narrative, Fortress,
Philadelphia, PA.
Keener, C. & Usry, G., 1996, Black man’s religion, Intervarsity Press, Downer’s Grove.
Kemp, B.J, 1983, ‘Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and Second Intermediate
Period 2686–1522’, In B.G Trigger, B.J Kemp, D. O’Connor & A.B Lloyd (eds.),
Ancient Egypt: A social history, pp. 71–174, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Knierim, P. & Coats, G., 2005, Numbers, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
http://www.indieskriflig.org.za
Wagenaar, H., 2003, ‘White as snow: Numbers 12 from an African perspective’, Africa
Theological Journal 1(26), 75–87.
Williams, J., 2002, ‘And she became Snow White: Numbers 12:1–16’, Old Testament
Essays 15(2), 259–268.
Winslow, K., 2004, Proceedings Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Open Access