Female Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible: A Phenomenon Present at Prominent Points and in All Categories of Prophetic Activity

Abstract

Although several articles and books on the prophecy of women and LGBTIQ* persons in the Ancient Near East and the Old Testament have been published in recent decades, their outcomes have scarcely been received in traditional research on prophecy. This article will deal with female prophecy, traces of which we find in all parts of the canon: the Torah (Miriam), the Nebiim Rishonim (Deborah and Huldah, the first and last in the succession of Moses), in the prophetic books (the nameless prophetess to whom Isaiah goes in Isa 8, as well as the prophetic daughters in Joel 3), and also in the Ketubim (Noadiah in Neh 6 and the versions of the Chronicler). However, there are also false female prophets like the Women of En Dor (1 Sam 28) and the prophesying daughters in Ezek 13. Prophetic women such as Noadiah, and those in Ex 38:8 and 1 Sam 2:22, and, in the same tradition, Hannah in the New Testament, are also present in cultic places. Additionally, women are also found among the group gathered around a central prophetic figure, such as the women of Shunem. This article, on the one hand, reveals the gender bias in traditional semantic and grammatical analysis, and on the other hand, will show the importance of the stylistic features of the few texts under discussion (e.g., inclusions, exposed positions in compositions), which may provide illuminating conclusions for the whole phenomenon of prophecy.

1. What Is Prophecy?

Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible is of the greatest significance for Christianity in so far as it, with the scheme of promise and fulfillment, attempts to interpret the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, unknown to the ancient (Jewish) societies, by using the known text of the Jewish Holy Scripture. Prophecy is, therefore, a prediction given by God of events that occur only centuries later. For those of us today, this is a really peculiar understanding of revelation when those who hear the message cannot understand it at all because this message acquires meaning only much later in other contexts.

The two-part Christian Bible receives its Old Testament by interpreting it in light of the New Testament. This exegetical practice, which served to provide proof of Jesus’ divine mission and of his relevance for salvation as the (eschatological) Messiah, was read at the latest from the point of the dominance of Christianity over Judaism along with a hermeneutics of expropriation, which is to be qualified as anti-Jewish, that deprives the Jewish Bible of its original and autonomous meaning and permits from then on only the Christian reception of the same as legitimate. The arrangement of the Christian Bible canon, which places the books of prophecy1 directly before the Gospels and thus tells of the fulfilment after the Promise, makes this understanding visible.

The Hebrew Bible, however, has a considerably larger prophetic canonical component that directly follows the Torah. It sees Joshua to 2 Kings as Early Prophecy and Isaiah to Malachi as Later Prophecy. On the canonical level, how the Torah defines prophecy in the law of offices in Deut 18:9–22 is thus visualized2: Prophecy is founded on Horeb (Deut 18:16; cf. 5:23–30) and is understood as a mediatory office between God and God’s people. With the exception of the Decalogue revealed directly to the entire assembly (Deut 5:1–22), Moses imparts all the further laws to the people and brings the people’s answer to God on the mount of revelation. Prophecy becomes the only office that is instituted directly by God, is not transferrable by human beings, and does not have an unbroken continuity. YHWH lets prophetically-gifted people such as Moses “arise” as needed (Deut 18:15, 18), in whose mouths God puts his words. Every instance of prophecy is thus placed in the succession of Moses (“one like me/you” 18:14, 18).

Moreover, the means of determining the future are laid down by Deut 18:9–22. All practices of exorcism or divination are forbidden (18:9–14a), whether they be magical or (necro-)mantic. The Word that is put into the mouth of the prophetically-gifted human being by YHWH Himself is established as a characteristic of true prophecy. What is meant by this, of course, is not only the new prophetic Word spoken in each case, but rather also the Word per se, the Torah (cf. Ps 119). Since Moses is the mediator of the Torah, every prophecy is the actualization of it for the changed times and circumstances, and it must lead to Israel’s deity and must not lead away from it to other deities (cf. Deut 13:3, 7, 14).

This understanding of prophecy as laid down in the law of offices is transported gradually also into other later books that became biblical through the Deuteronomistic theology inspired by Deuteronomy. Even if texts from the books of prophecy are considerably older than this concept of prophecy inspired by Deut, and when these books provide evidence of a social criticism directed against the hierarchy as well as also of political advice, this concept still becomes decisive on the canonical level and establishes the sequence of Torah and Prophecy.

2. Prophets—Only Men? Female (and Queer) Prophecy

Whoever reads the Christian prophetic canon with its four major and twelve minor prophets receives the impression that prophecy was transmitted exclusively through men, and that YHWH has called only human beings of masculine gender to this highest of offices.3

In the Ancient Near East (=ANE), though, prophecy is not an exclusively masculine phenomenon (cf. Gafney 2008, pp. 49–73; Stöckl 2012). Prophecy as an interpretation of the present and a determination of the future is already substantiated in considerably earlier Near Eastern cultures, whereby the boundaries with magic and divination are often fluid.4 Contemporary with the oldest texts of biblical prophecy are those from the Neo-Assyrian Empire. In these texts, women frequently transmit the oracles of various female and male deities in an articulation clearly typical for the entire ancient oriental prophecy: There is, for example, the emissary’s formula (“so says the deity …”), the self-presentation formula (“I am + name of the deity”), or also the oracle of salvation (“Do not be afraid!”) and the promise of support (“I am with you!”), as these are known as well from biblical contexts.5

When one reads the prophetic canon of the Hebrew Bible, it then becomes clear that a woman stands in the direct succession of Moses, and that a prophetess concludes the section of Early Prophecy: Deborah is the first prophetic figure (Judg 4:4) who appears after the death of Moses, and Huldah is the last before the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 22:14–20). In this way, this entire canonical part is framed by prophetesses6 and, therewith, it is shown that it is not exclusively the male gender that is called to prophecy. In the Hebrew language, the grammatical masculine plural signifies not only male subjects, but rather any group that does not consist exclusively of women. Through the inclusion placed around Early Prophecy that envisages the first and the last prophetic figure as feminine, it becomes clear that the frequently used designation “the prophets” is to be translated today so that non-masculine subjects also are included. For this reason, I suggest speaking about “prophetic people” or “prophetically-gifted persons”, by which the androcentrism of the traditional translations, which present exclusively masculine subjects, is broken up.

In recent years, many relevant publications dealing with this new research question about the sexual identity of prophesying human beings in the ANE have appeared (Carvalho and Stöckl 2013; Nissinen 2021, pp. 75–109). They show, on the one hand, that women appeared frequently in this function, above all in Neo-Assyrian prophecy. This already prompted Spiekermann to understand a prophetess such as Huldah in this contemporary context (Spickermann 1982, p. 302). On the other hand, it also turns out that the presence of queer and non-binary human beings does not represent a new phenomenon in the twenty-first century, but that they were visible also in the cultures of the ANE and, in the case of appropriate conduct of life, were held in just as high regard as were binary heterosexual persons.7

3. Female Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible

The different divisions of the canon shown at the outset influence the perception of female prophecy considerably. While a single nameless woman is cited as a prophetess in the Christian prophetic canon (Isa 8:2), the situation is essentially different in the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible through the inclusion already described. In the following, the few texts about prophetesses, prophesying women, and also those women who possibly carried out prophetic tasks are considered with the brevity necessary for this article.

3.1. The Prophetess Miriam at the Side of Her Siblings Moses and Aaron

Miriam is the only prophetess mentioned in all three canonical divisions of the Hebrew Bible and is certainly the most well-known of all. The Bible tells of Miriam even before prophecy is established and, thus, before Moses is appointed as a prophet:

(20) Then Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out behind her with timbrels and dancing. (21) Then Miriam answered for them (masc. pl.): Sing (masc. pl.) to YHWH, for He is highly exalted, highly exalted indeed; He hurled the riders and their chariots into the sea!

(Ex. 15:20f.)

Of all the texts that mention Miriam, only this famous song, that for a long time was considered in the historical-critical tradition of research as one of the oldest texts of the Bible, characterizes her as a prophetess. In the narrative context, the introduction to the song links directly with 14:29:

14:29 And the children of Israel walked on dry land through the midst of the sea. And the water [was] for them a wall, to the right and to the left. 15:19 When Pharoah’s riders and their chariots and his horsemen came into the sea, then YHWH let the waters of the sea return over them. And the children of Israel walked on dry land through the midst of the sea.

This logical sequence, though, is no longer recognized in today’s final text because of the interpolation of 14:30–15:18, for the later and disparately longer song of Moses is much too dominant for this short hymn intoned by a woman to be perceived as an original reaction to YHWH’s act of salvation. In today’s context, Miriam’s song is seen as a derived experience8 and for this reason is left out in many liturgical contexts.9

In the law of prophecy in Deut 18:14–22, prophecy is defined, with reference to the Horeb revelation, as a mediatory office between God and His people. What Miriam does here corresponds exactly to this understanding: She “answers for them” (ענה-ל), for the entire folk community, for the masculine plural stands for the entire people and not only for the women, as translations in many languages which do not differentiate in the third person plural according to gender and in biblical-pastoral actualizations then make distinct. The text, though, is frequently corrected following LXX, in which Miriam “sings” and thereupon becomes the leader of a women’s chorus. In this interpretation, Moses’ song is seen as the “official” thanks to the deity; only afterwards do the (not so significant) women under Miriam’s leadership then get to sing, too. According to the Hebrew text, though, the prophetess answers on behalf of all the people for the wondrous salvation just experienced at the Sea of Reeds, and therewith brings thanks to God, who she praises not for the reason that dead enemies are washed ashore (cf. 14:30; 15:4f.), but rather for the reason that God has destroyed the heavily armed military forces of the pursuers.

Miriam becomes not only a prophetess through this initiative in the mediation of communication between God and the people, but she also becomes one of the three leading personalities in the Exodus along with her two brothers. Remarkable is the fact that Miriam is presented here as Aaron’s sister—but not as Moses’ sister. Whether her connection with the priestly class is intended to be emphasized10 in this way is anyone’s guess, for Miriam, alone through her presence during the events at the Sea of Reeds, is connected with Moses, the leadership personality who leads Israel up out of Egypt, while nothing is told here of Aaron. It thus absolutely could be that this sibling relationship was intended to write the otherwise uninvolved Aaron into the Exodus event.

That the sister of Moses mentioned in Ex 2:1–10 is to be identified with Miriam is suggested by the genealogy in Num 26:59; she still remains nameless in the so-called childhood history of her brother. Striking also in this narrative of the saving of the new-born son, however, is that the obviously already older girl is not presented as a daughter (subject to the directives) of her parents from the tribe of Levi, but rather—as in all other texts, too—as in a sibling relationship. Genealogical texts, on the one hand, give information about connections among social groups but, on the other hand, they reflect the power structure: In the hierarchy of societies structured as a patriarchate, men stand above their wives, and parents above their children and grandchildren. A sibling relationship in the genealogical context indicates equal status, which is evident, for example, among the founders of the egalitarian constitution of the twelve tribes of Israel. When, thus, Num 26:59 presents Aaron and Moses as sons, but Miriam as their sister, then her parity is emphasized in this text, too. Only in 1 Chron 5:29 are all three leadership figures of the Exodus and of the period in the desert designated as the “children of Amram” in an agnatic genealogy of the tribe of Levi.

The three siblings are found again, then, in the textually difficult narrative in Num 12, where the focus is again Miriam and Moses, and where Aaron appears as a hanger-on. The subject of the narrative is a conflict that, at first sight, has two different causes:11

(1) And Miriam– and Aaron—spoke with Moses because of the Cushite woman that he had married. For he had married a Cushite woman. (2) And they said: “Has perhaps YHWH spoken only with Moses. Has He not spoken also with us?” And YHWH heard [this]. (3) The man Moses was exceedingly more humble than all the people on the earth. (4) Then YHWH suddenly said to Moses and to Aaron and to Miriam: “Come out you three to the tent of meeting!” And the three went out. (5) There, YHWH came down in a pillar of cloud that stood at the entrance to the tent. Then He called Aaron and Miriam. And both went out. (6) And He said: “Hear my words: When it happens [that] your prophetic person [is] one of YHWH’s; I make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream! (7) But it is not so with my servant Moses! He is trustworthy in my entire house! (8) I speak with him from mouth to mouth and through visions, but not in riddles. And he sees the form of YHWH. For what reason do you not fear to speak with my servant, with Moses?” (9) Then the wrath of YHWH burned against them (masc. pl.). And He left. (10) And the cloud disappeared from the tent. And see: Miriam was leprous like snow! Aaron turned to Miriam. And see: leprous! (11) Then Aaron said to Moses: “Please, my Lord! Do not lay this sin upon us that we foolishly have committed and that we have sinned! (12) Do not let her be like a dead person whose flesh, in her departure from the womb of her mother, is half decayed.” (13) Then Moses raised his lamentation to YHWH by saying: “No don’t! Heal her after all!” (14) Then YHWH said to Moses: “If her father would have spit in her face, then would she not have been ashamed for seven days? She shall be shut out from the camp for seven days. Afterwards, though, she should [again] be included.” (15) And Miriam was shut out from the camp for seven days. But the people did not migrate further until Miriam was included [again]. (16) After this, they wandered, the people, away from Hazeroth and they camped in the desert of Paran.

Most translations smooth out the grammatical incongruence that two subjects, Miriam and Aaron, do not “speak”, but rather lets only Miriam speak in the singular feminine form. I translate here with help of an interpolation in order to let it become visible that the text thus sees Miriam as the driving force, to which Aaron, who, however, is not JHWH’s prophet but rather Moses’ (Ex. 7:1), joins himself. The second textual problem is shown in the translation of דבר piel + preposition ב, which is translated in most cases differently throughout the text when once it is translated with “speak about” and at another place with “speak with”. The law of prophecy employs, as here, the verb for prophetic speech, while the communication among human beings is expressed through אמר. Thereby, the object of debate in Num 12 is whether Miriam—and also Aaron—are charged by JHWH with proclamation of the Word or not.

The second cause is sparked by Moses’ Cushite woman that he has taken to wife. In the texts, though, one seeks for such a wife in vain; only Zipporah is mentioned in this position (Ex 2:21f.; 4:18–26). About her, though, it is said that Moses “sent [her] away” (Ex 18:2). אִִשָָּׁה שׁלח (pi.) is, however, a legal term for divorce that emanates from the husband, and the Jewish interpretation understands this in the same way. If one applies this interpretation to Num 12:2, then Miriam—and also Aaron—are not against marriage with foreign women,12 but rather Moses has acted according to the conceptions of Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. Ezra 10 and Neh 13) and has separated from his foreign wife. Since prophecy is also the actualization of the Torah, the two certainly post-Exilic centers of conflict thus could be interpreted as a single one: Neh 13:3 refers explicitly in its position against mixed marriages to Deut 23:4–6, while at the same time the book of Ruth narratively and totally without polemic lets a foreign woman become the progenitor of the Judaic royal line. When then, in verse 4, JHWH summons all three involved persons out to the tent of revelation and again speaks with them, then this means that he very well speaks with Miriam—and also Aaron—but with Moses from mouth to mouth (v. 3). Miriam is thus confirmed as a prophetess and her position in the marriage question is not declared to be wrong. Since Moses is a quite extraordinary human being, his conduct cannot be cited as a precedent for all the members of the people.

In the concrete matter, Miriam won, but only she is punished, not Aaron,13 who evidently moved over to Moses’s side in the nick of time. To be sure, the wrath of God burns against both, but only she becomes leprous and must be ashamed (vv. 9–14). This discrepancy naturally may be connected with the impossible conception of a leprous High Priest, but it shows gender discrimination in any case. It is explicitly emphasized, however, that the people do not turn away from Miriam, but rather wait for her until she can be re-integrated. Deut 24:8–9 definitely refers to this narrative. Miriam here is seen as an admonitory example for the instruction that, in case of leprosy, one has to comply strictly with the directives of the Levitical priests.14

According to the chronology of the Pentateuch, all three leadership figures died in the last year before entry into the Promised Land. Miriam dies first. Her death and burial are localized by Num 20:1 in Kadesh; that of Aaron in Transjordan (Num 20:22–29). After his farewell address, Moses dies in Moab on the Nebo within sight of the Land (Deut 34:1–8). Research in the last century had identified notes about burial places as especially old traditions; in the meantime, though, opinion has moved away from this.15 In the cases of Moses and Aaron, their death before passing over into the Land is explained with their disobedience toward the divine instructions (Num 20:24); whether for Miriam the narrative in Num 12 assumes this function is unclear.

The only text in the prophetic canon that speaks about Miriam is found in the Book of Micah. Miriam is presented explicitly as a leading figure along with Aaron and Moses:

(4) Indeed, I brought you up from the land of Egypt and ransomed you from the house of slavery. And I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

(Mic 6:4)

In the context of a fictive legal dispute between JHWH and His people, the deity poses the rhetorical question of what it might have done to the people or might have neglected to do (6:3–5). In reference to the prophetess Miriam, Mic 6:4 is of great significance in so far as it retrieves, so to speak, her calling that is not narrated in the Pentateuch, for the act of “sending” is an integral component of the prophetic authorization in the calling narratives (Isa 6:8; Jer 1:7; Ezek 2:3ff; cf. Hag 1:12; Zech 2:12f; Mal 2:23).

Thus, whoever reads the text closely learns quite a few things about the prophetess Miriam that are ignored up to the present day in the history of reception.16

3.2. Deborah in the Direct Succession of Moses

We hear about Deborah in Judg 4 in a prose text, as well as in Judg 5 in a long hymn. Both texts have been elaborated on extensively in the meantime in the academic literature under several aspects.17

Deborah, from the context, but also based on her deeds, is primarily a figure among the Judges who is framed with the typical elements of the Book of Judges: she brings about the liberation from highly armed oppressors after a period of twenty years, and, after her, the people have forty years respite from its enemies (5:31). She is presented, though, with an abundance of diverse information:

(4) Deborah, a woman, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth; but she judged Israel in these times. (5) She used to sit under the Deborah palm between Rama and Bet-El in the mountains of Efraim. The children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Remarkable is the very first closer description of her as a woman, for it would have been clear already alone through her designation as a prophetess that Deborah is feminine. The designation as a wife of Lappidoth can provide information about her personal status as a married woman, but also, with “woman of the torch”, could mean just as well a woman burning (for the matter at hand) (Exum 1997, p. 24). Most of the information concerns her activity of judgment, which, however, is not in accordance with the leading military figures in Judges but rather refers to the administration of justice. She has her permanent seat of judgment under a palm tree in the mountains of Efraim and one goes there when one has a legal dispute, in order to submit to her judgment. In this legal function, she resembles Moses, to whom, according to Ex 18:13–16, the people in the same way make pilgrimage in order to claim their rights before him as a judge. But she is also the first prophetic figure after Moses who appears in the narrative history of prophecy and, therewith, in his succession—quite so as the Deuteronomic law of prophecy provides. Thus, the woman Deborah stands in the direct succession of Moses, and not Samuel (Rendtorff 1997, pp. 27–36).18

A calling as prophetess is not mentioned; much more, she, in her function, calls Barak, so that he as military commander might free Israel from twenty years of oppression (Judg 4:6). The form of the rhetorical question “Has not JHWH, the god of Israel, commanded: ‘Go, …!’” suggests that the prophetess does not communicate with the man for the first time. He is ready to do this, though, only under the condition that Deborah goes with him (4:8). When she definitely promises him to do so (see the figura etymologica), she once again is placed in parallel with Moses, who, in the battle against Amalek, also does not take part in the fighting, but from a commanding height directs or influences the events of the conflict (Judg 4:14; cf. Ex 17:8–16). Therewith, Deborah possesses the fullness of her offices; she is judge, prophetess, and leadership figure, without, however, descending from a priestly house.

The announcement that her support of the events of the war will deprive Barak of his glory because he will give himself into the hand of a woman (Judg 4:9) is not yet clear in this passage: Will it be the hand of Deborah or of Jael—or will the glory belong to both? The battle—as already predicted before—is decided by JHWH, who negates the maneuverability of the completely superior military equipment of the chariots through a cloudburst, but for the final victory uses, in fact, the hand of Jael, who ends the military commander’s life by using a civilian tool and therewith disperses the army now become leaderless (Judg 4:17–22). In Deborah’s song, she is celebrated in detail for this heroic deed of tyrannicide (Judg 5:24–27). Yair Zakovits already long ago has described this verse as a literary deposit of a reversal of the rape so often suffered by women in war (Zakovitch 1981, pp. 364–74).

In the narrative, Deborah no longer appears after she has announced the point in time for the conflict, since she directs the battle from afar. The readers, though, go with Barak, who no longer must bring about the end of the battle through the death of the commander, but rather only confirm it.

In the subsequent song, though, similar to that by Moses and Miriam in Ex 15, which looks back on what has happened in the form of a hymn, the prophetess assumes a central role:

“And Deborah sang—and also Barak, the son of Abinoam—on that day in the following manner: …”

Judg 5:1

Here, as in Num 12:1, a shared action of a prophetess with a man is described through the grammatically feminine form, and the man is added in parenthesis. Many Bible translations assimilate the plural already read in the Septuagint and thereby once again dispossess a woman of a leading role, in which a man also has a part. In addition, the first-person singular in Judg 5:7 is changed19 into the second person, whereby Barak is presented as the singer who praises Deborah. The Hebrew text, though, records the first person and lets Deborah speak about herself:

7 The inhabitants of the land ceased, in Israel they ceased, until I, Deborah, arose, I arose, a mother in Israel.

When the same word is found here for Deborah’s action as it occurs in Deut 18:14, 18 for the calling of a prophet, the grammatical form is nevertheless not the passivum divinum, as assumed by the Septuagint, but rather the qal form. Deborah stands up autonomously; the act of salvation thus cannot coincide with her calling, but the echo of the law of prophecy is without doubt assumed here through the double emphasis, which is given further dynamic force through the repeated exhortation by Deborah (4xע֖וּרִי, “arise”) as well as by Barak (1xק֥וּם, “stand up”) to stand up in 5:12. When Deborah characterizes herself as a “mother in Israel”, then she is, of course, as the Church Fathers later desire to interpret it in emphasis of gender stereotypes, not present in her role as a mother, but bears an honorific title, such as Elijah and Elisha bear it similarly in 2 Kgs 2:12; 2:13–14: “My father, my father, chariot of Israel and its driver”. Of course, no exegete has ever had the idea of seeing Elijah and Elisha as the biological fathers of the speaker; when, however, the title stands before the name of a woman, then this interpretation, even without the possessive pronoun, is apparently obligatory. The woman with the fullness of the offices of Moses simply becomes Barak’s mother (cf. Siquans 2011, p. 209 and following).

3.3. The False Prophetess from En Dor

The detailed narrative in 1 Sam 28 goes in exegetical literature under the title “The Witch of En Dor” because this woman at the place with the expressive name “Source of the Generations” undertakes necromancy. Since the law of prophecy in its first part (Deut 18:9–14a) also lists necromancy under the condemned methods of divining the future and forbids them in the Promised Land, it must be reckoned that such practices were accounted as a phenomenon of prophecy until into the period of the late monarchy. The nameless woman who serves as a medium for summoning Samuel up from the realm of the dead thus can be seen on the basis of these circumstances as a false prophetess.

The narrative is embedded in the conflict-ridden story of Saul and Samuel. Before the decisive battle against the Philistines on Mount Gilboa, Saul, who God has abandoned through the influence of Samuel (cf. 1 Sam 15), attempts to receive an oracle, but YHWH answers neither through prophetically-gifted people nor through divination by lots nor through dreams (28:16). Thus, the King in desperation seeks recourse in a female necromancer, whose practice, after all, he had forbidden in 28:3. His men have no trouble in finding such a woman (v. 6), but the King desires not to be recognized and disguises himself for the ceremony. The woman of En Dor, though, at first refuses to consider the stranger’s request by referring to Saul’s prohibition (vv. 8f.). Only when he swears by YHWH that the woman will incur no guilt is she ready to carry out an incantation (v. 10). This means nothing other than that she practices her trade in the framework of the YHWH cult, and not in the name of other gods, otherwise the vow would be counterproductive.

The false prophetess apparently has no difficulty at all in retrieving Samuel, the prophet in succession to Moses, from the realm of the dead. The narrative thereby processes not only Deut 18:9–14a, but Deut 13:2–6 just as well, a text that also reckons with the fact that false prophecy still can be efficacious. But, when she sees Samuel, it becomes clear to her who her customer is, and she shrieks with fear. The King, though, calms her down immediately, because he has no interest at all in interrupting the ritual, for he desires to query Samuel about the outcome of the imminent battle. Apparently, Saul does not see the prophet, so that the woman must describe him (vv. 11–14).

As usual, Samuel immediately assumes the discursive dominance over Saul who, as it were, excuses himself for disturbing the peace of the dead by pointing out that he has attempted to exploit all the possible legitimate practices for divining the future, but has not been successful in doing so (v. 15). Samuel, however, answers the King with nothing other than what he, as a living person, already has proclaimed: YHWH is no longer on Saul’s side and will tear the kingdom away from him (vv. 16–18; cf. 1 Sam 15:26). With the announcement that he will see Saul again in the realm of the dead on the evening of the very same day, the conversation, in which the woman plays only the role of the medium, is at an end, and Saul for himself is physically and psychologically at his own end (vv. 19f.).

Only when Samuel is no longer really mentally present does she turn to the King with the diplomatic code typical of the court and invites him to eat a meal. The question of whether this is an anticipated funeral banquet, a ritual meal for the placation of the disturbed dead, or simply something to eat that is intended to restore the King’s strength for the imminent, difficult day ahead (v. 22) really cannot be decided. Perhaps the ceremony possesses all three aspects.20

The woman of En Dor obviously has the power to determine the future through the incantation of the dead, who are, of course, no longer rooted in the present. She conducts her ritual in the context of the YHWH cult, not in the name of the gods of the underworld, and is successful in this. She can conjure up even the famous prophet Samuel. But she is clearly to be labelled a false prophetess in virtue of her practices. This narrative does not forbid the corresponding rituals, but rather reduces them narratively to an absurdity since, in the query of the dead Samuel, nothing other comes out than what he already had proclaimed in the times of his life: It is senseless to employ the incriminated practices; to hear the true prophecy when it is proclaimed is the only expedient.

3.4. The Prophetess Huldah Assesses the “Book of the Torah”

To be sure, we hear only one single episode concerning Huldah that is told two times almost identically in 2 Kgs 22:14–20 and 2 Chron 34:22–28, but she is the only prophetess from whom a detailed oracle is transmitted. In the context, a renovation of the Temple under King Josiah is described, in which the High Priest Hilkiah has found a book of the Law. Although it obviously contains cultic regulations that had not been followed previously, the priest himself does not make his own decision about its authenticity as God’s law. On the contrary, he informs the heads of state. The King, though, does not put his trust in the priestly Torah, but desires to inquire of YHWH prophetically. It is exactly this collaboration of the priesthood, monarchy, and prophecy that the law of offices in Deut 17–18 prescribes: The priest keeps the Torah roll, the king reads it (17:18f.), and prophecy, in the succession to Moses, actualizes it for the respective time. In addition, the cultic reforms that the King subsequently carries through (2 Kgs 23) realize the Deuteronomic program, for which reason 2 Kgs 22 is understood in research as the founding legend of the Book of Deuteronomy, even if the narrative clearly displays post-Exilic traces.21

(14) Then the priest Hilkiah and Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to the prophetess Huldah, the wife of Shallum, the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, the keeper of the wardrobe, who lived in Jerusalem in the New Town. And they spoke with her. (15) Then she said to them: “Thus says YHWH, the god of Israel: ‘Say to the man who has sent you to me: (16) Thus says YHWH: See, I bring evil over this place and over its inhabitants, all the words of the book that the King of Judah has read! (17) Because they have forsaken me and have burned incensed to other gods, in order to provoke me through all the deeds of their hands, my wrath will burn against this place. And it will not be quenched!’ (18) To the King of Judah, who has sent you to ask of YHWH, to him you should say this: ‘Thus says YHWH, the god of Israel: [For] the words that you have heard [this applies]: (19) Because your heart has been softened and you have humbled yourself before YHWH when you heard what I have spoken about this place and about its inhabitants, that they become a desert and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before me—but I have heard you! So says YHWH. (20) Therefore I gather you to your parents and you shall be gathered in your grave in peace. Your eyes shall not see all the evil that I will bring upon this place!’” And so they returned with the word to the King.

The legal constellation explains why the heads of state, including the highest priests, go to Huldah, who apparently has followed in the succession to Moses in this period.22 If one synchronizes the chronology of 2 Kgs 22 with that of Jer 1, then one sees that this prophet, whose calling is adapted strictly to the law of prophecy in Deut, also already operates at the same time in Jerusalem. However, Jeremiah is never mentioned in the Early Prophecy, even if the prophetic narratives in his book deal with the relationship of prophecy and monarchy in the same way, that is, not in the prescribed form in Deut as with Josiah and Huldah, but rather in rejection and conflict (Jer 36).

But, at Josiah’s time, it is Huldah, who, presented as a married woman with the genealogy of her husband Shallum, who is in royal service, obviously stands in the succession of Moses. Although it is a royal delegation that speaks to Huldah, she employs no catchwords at all typical of the diplomatic code, but rather exclusively addresses the function of the one who lets the inquiry of God be carried out: the King of Judah. She uses the messenger formula with authority (22:15) and announces inevitable evil over Jerusalem which, however, will occur only after the death of the King, since his reaction to the reading of the Book of Law was agitation and mortification. In addition, he has obtained a binding word from God through prophecy, as is proper for a king according to Deut.

Huldah’s last words often have led to placing the narrative before the death of Josiah in 609 BC, since, according to 2 Kgs 23:28–30, the King dies in the course of the acts of war against Pharaoh Neco and this would have made Huldah a false prophetess according to Deut 18:22.23 2 Chron 35:20–27 remedies this problem in that the King does not die already on the battlefield, but rather in Jerusalem. In any case, it is clear in both texts that he receives a regular funeral among his ancestors (see 2 Kgs 22:20) (Edelman 1994, pp. 238–41).

Huldah is not a court prophetess and not a cult prophetess. She stands in contrast to both institutions but, like Moses, she has to do with the Law of God. She is the last prophetic figure in Early Prophecy, whereby an inclusion is formed around this entire canonical component: The first and the last human being in the succession to Moses in the Promised Land is thus a woman. In order to illustrate this clearly, the judge Deborah is introduced first as a woman and then as a prophetess. But when the first and the last prophetically-gifted figure is feminine, then it is justified to assume for all the texts in this canonical component that women are meant in the expression “the Prophets”, and that the masculine plural therefore is to be understood generically.

3.5. The Prophetess to Whom Isaiah Goes

In the canonical part of scriptural prophecy, in Isa 8:3f., we learn about a single woman who explicitly carries the title of a “prophetess”. However, she has neither a name nor a story. This short notice is found in the context of prophetic narratives around the Jerusalem Isaiah:

(1) And YHWH spoke to me: “Take for yourself a large tablet and write on it with the stylus of human beings: For Maher-Shalal-Has-Baz” [for “the booty make swift (שלל) plunder soon”]. And I will take a witness for me/And I will warn24 trustworthy witnesses: Uriah the priest, and Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah. (3) And I approached the prophetess. And she became pregnant and she bore a son. And YHWH spoke to me: “Call his name: Maher-Shalal (שלל)-Hash-Baz. (4) For before the boy knows how to cry out ‘my father’ and ‘my mother’, the abundance of Damascus and the plunder (שלל) of Samaria will be carried away before the King of Assyria.

In traditional exegesis, the episode is understood so that Isaiah writes the short message in the presence of the witnesses led to him and then goes home to his wife and fathers a child25 that YHWH subsequently would like to be called with corresponding names. This, however, does not stand in the text. In a close reading, several doubts about this interpretation are to be registered:

First of all, it is nowhere said explicitly that Isaiah obeys the divine command for a textualization of the message. His first reaction in any case is not the execution of the instruction, but rather what comes first is information about two men prominent at the court. Uriah, according to 2 Kgs 16:10–18, is apparently the chief priest in the Temple of Jerusalem at the time that Ahaz, as king of Judah, assumes the status of a vassal to the Assyrian king Tiglat Pilesar III. Without any resistance, he carries out the royal instructions to erect an altar (probably devoted to Assyrian deities) in the Jerusalem Temple and to make all offerings in the future on this altar. In addition, he passively observes a cult reform to the benefit of Assur, to which also the metal cultic laver is sacrificed that, according to Ex 38:8, was produced from the mirrors of the women performing a duty at the entrance of the tent of revelation. In any case, Uriah, on the basis of the events related, cannot be characterized as a “trustworthy witness”. Whether the Zechariah who is mentioned is meant to be the father-in-law of Hiskiah, the follower of Ahaz on the throne (2 Chron 29:1), can be surmised, but can be verified only from the later Book of Chronicles. Both men, though, on the basis of their position near the court, would have been in the position to warn the King.

Second, the approach of the prophet to the prophetess is interpreted as a sexual act that leads to pregnancy. But, a man also definitely can approach a woman with another intention, as emerges clearly, for example, in Num 5:16, 25. The narrative sequence that Isaiah desires to take witnesses thus can also be read in the sense that these witnesses go with him to the prophetess in order to have the short message written with her or by her. Ex 38:8 thus could confirm the trail to the women with the mirrors26, the more so since the writing material ordered by God in Isa 8:1, the “mirrors” (גִּלָּיוֹן), occurs in the Hebrew Bible only one other time several chapters before in Isa 3:23 as an accessory belonging to the spoiled daughters of Zion. Since mirrors in pre-Roman times27 consisted of highly polished shining metal, and not of glass, these definitely could have found use also as a writing material—written with crayon for short-term communications, engraved for permanent ones. With this interpretation, YHWH would instruct Isaiah to go to the prophetess to have his message written upon a tablet typical for cult prophetesses. The prophetess, though, is seen in the conventional exegesis as the wife of the prophet, and she is mentioned only because she must bear a son with expressive names. Unlike, for example, in the German up until half a century ago, one in Hebrew cannot infer from a feminine form of a job designation that she is a wife of a man with the same profession (Wildberger 1980, p. 318). The woman titled as a prophetess, therefore, must herself have been prophetically-gifted. The here proposed understanding of the passage does not even compel one to assume that she must be married to Isaiah. For, the prophetess could also be pregnant from another man and then bear a child that then, in response to a further divine instruction (8:4) shall bear this evil-sounding name that had to be established before in written form. If the time frame for the arrival of the catastrophe therewith is given with the circumstance that the child can call its parents, then Isaiah and the prophetess must not necessarily be meant, but rather what is meant are also the typical first babbling sounds that a small child makes when it begins to speak.

The prophetess to whom Isaiah goes in order to record his message stands in any case with the figuratively-speaking names of her child in good company with masculine prophets28, from whom, however, research never has claimed that they might be significant, only as the fathers of their children.

3.6. False Prophetesses in the Book of Ezekiel

There is an example for false prophetesses not only in the canonical component of the Early Prophets, but also in that of the Later Prophets. Ezek 13 is formed as a diptych: in 13:1–16, false prophets are reprimanded because of their machinations and practices; in 13:17–23, prophetically-speaking daughters experience the same. The two upbraiding passages are to a great extent structured in parallel through messenger formulas (vv. 3, 8, 10, 18, 20). Prophesying people of both sexes are accused of prophesying from their own hearts, not on the basis of the bestowal with the divine word (vv. 2, 17). For this reason, an exclamation of woe is given to both (vv. 3, 18) since they spread lies and deception. YHWH proclaims an end to this business in order to lead them to the knowledge of God (vv. 9, 14, 21, 23).

The prophetic women are characterized as “daughters of your people”, which makes clear that those meant are not foreign women or foreign cults. The practices for which the prophetesses use textile objects for binding or certainly also for loosing are incriminated. Now, there are in Judaism to the present day fully orthodox symbolic practices of binding, as, for example, the laying on of the tefillin. One thus must definitely not conclude that when a reference is made to the binding of the hand or the head (vv. 18, 20f.) that this means purely magical practices. For these rites, the women, to be sure, demand ridiculously small gifts in return (v. 19), but they lead the people astray with their empty visions and oracles. For this reason, YHWH desires to destroy these vain revelatory practices and to free His people from the power of these false prophetesses (v. 23).

In this text, too, as in the case of the woman from En Dor, the subject obviously is the undesired practices of the interpretation of the present and the divining of the future. Even if the prophesying daughters do not fail to produce either oracles of the word or visions, both of which belong to true prophecy, these still are not regular means of revelation, since they are evoked through rites that are to be rejected, and the commissioning for them through YHWH is lacking.

3.7. The Prophetically-Gifted Daughter in Joel

In Christianity, the most well-known text that speaks about prophetic women is the proclamation of the pouring out of the Spirit in Joel 3. It is cited in Acts 2:17–21 in full and not in excerpts, as is usual in so-called textual proofs, as an explanation of the Pentecost event. Yet, this text has had hardly any effect in the history of exegesis on the perception of the phenomenon of feminine prophecy. The gift of the Spirit for all people, a gift that paved the way for mission in the Roman world, became too powerful for this gender-specific aspect to have been perceived as significant.

While in Ezek 13 the prophetically-speaking daughters were presented as false prophetesses, this is in no way a general phenomenon or even one that is connected with gender. The concept of daughters stands metaphorically for free, independent women, especially when they function as personifications of peoples or cities:

• And it will happen after this: Then I will pour out my ruach over all flesh: Then your sons and your daughters will speak prophetically,
• Your old people will dream dreams, your young people will see visions.
• And also upon the male slaves and upon the female slaves
• I will in those days pour out my ruach.

In this text, the deity proclaims an event in the more distant future. The concept of pouring out is associated not with a trickling dispensation, but rather much more with a complete discharge of the envisaged allowance of God’s spirit upon “all flesh,” that is, upon everything that lives. This spirit of God brings about prophetic abilities among God’s people (four suffixes, third person plural) in all genders and all ages that are characterized more closely as prophetic speech with dreams and visions. In v. 2a, the divine action obviously once again has a universalist dimension as in v. 1a, since those in slavery are not described as members of the people. In addition, v. 2b together with v. 1a forms an inclusion around the passage through the exact date and time and the proclamation of the pouring out of the spirit.

When the day of YHWH is described with elements of a theophany (vv. 3f.), then this revelation does not, however, take place on Sinai, but rather on Zion, which therewith becomes the mountain of revelation for the people. On this mountain, Israel becomes collectively prophetic through the gift of the spirit—for all of humanity. Jerusalem and Zion are therewith given relevance for the salvation of all peoples who hear YHWH’s call (v. 5) through the mediatory function of Israel.

In Israel itself, through the collective gift of the spirit, no prophetic office of course is needed any longer. Thereby, what is fulfilled in Joel 3 is Moses’ wish in Num 11:29 that all may be given the spirit so that all members of the people might be prophetically-gifted. In Num 11:10–30*, the concern is above all competence for the leadership that Moses no longer is capable of bearing alone. It is the spirit, then, that gives rise to prophecy among the seventy elders, to which it is to be given. This collective leadership body of the people is accessible, though, only to free men with the status of the first-born. Joel here consequently goes further by following Moses’ conception that the entire people should be prophetic, through which itself no longer has any need for prophecy. But, precisely because of this, the people, men as well as women, the old as well as the young, will be free to assume its task assigned by YHWH for the peoples.

3.8. The Prophetess Noadiah as Cult Prophetess?

Among the prophetesses of the Hebrew Bible, Noadiah certainly is the least well-known. The reason for this lies, first of all, in the fact that she is mentioned only in a single sentence in Neh 6:14, and also in the insufficient history of reception, since the Septuagint and also, in its wake, the Vulgate have made this woman into a man.

As good as nothing is known about Noadiah, only that Nehemiah, delegated by the Persian central government, sees in her an adversary for whom he wishes YHWH’s retribution.

(10) Then I came into the house of Shemaiah, the son of Delaiah, the son of Metabel, who, though, was confined29 [there]. He spoke: “Let us meet together in the house of God, in the middle of the Temple; let us close the doors of the Temple, for they will come in order to kill you! They will come in the night, in order to kill you!” (11) Then I said: “Should a man like me flee? And could one such as I go into the Temple and remain alive? (12) And then I perceived, see: God has not sent him! For he has spoken his prophecy against me because Tobiah and Sanballat had bought him. (13) Because he was bought so that I might be afraid and might sin, so that it might contribute to a bad reputation for me among them, because they wanted to make me contemptuous. (14) Remember, my God, Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their deeds and also Noadiah, the prophetess, and the other prophetically-gifted who tried to frighten me.

This short notice is found in the narratives connected with the controversial building of the city wall, which Nehemiah initiated and is reported as concluded immediately after the wish for revenge against Noadiah in Neh 6:15. With the re-fortification of Jerusalem, Nehemiah is charged with creating the conditions for a revolt, in which he could proclaim himself as King of Judah. For the governor Nehemiah, this is nothing less than high treason. His opponents Tobiah, Sanballat and Delaiah have more varied reasons: Up to now, they dominate in Jerusalem and through the strategies that are reflected in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are in danger of losing their privileges. Because they cannot trace their genealogies back to pre-Exilic Judah, and thus, as members of an alien tribe, do not belong to the community in Judah (Ez 2:59f. and Neh 7:61f.), they run the danger of being marginalized through Nehemiah’s innovations. Therefore, they attempt to negotiate with Nehemiah, who refuses repeatedly to go to a personal meeting, and also does not let himself be influenced by a written document that charges him with high treason (Neh 6:2–9).

(5) Then, according to this word, Sanballat sent me his young man a fifth time. He had an open letter in his hand. (6) In it stood written: “Among the peoples one has heard and Geshem also said it: You and the Jews are plotting a revolt. For this reason you are building the city wall! And you desire to become a king for them according to these words. (7) Also, you have employed prophetically-gifted people so that they proclaim the following about you in Jerusalem: ‘King over Judah!’ Now it will be heard certainly also by the King according to these words. So come now and let us take counsel together!”

What is at debate here is a royal anointing as it is testified to for the beginning of the monarchy and which reflects the constellation wished in the Deuteronomic law of prophecy: The prophetically-gifted anoint the king who by this is divinely legitimated. After Nehemiah ignores this letter, too, with its unfounded accusations, the prophetically active Shemaiah, the son of Delaiah, sets a trap for him (6:10–14). He claims that an attack is planned upon Nehemiah and that he should flee from this into the Temple building and shut the doors. But, since this location is reserved for the members of the priestly caste, he senses in the insinuated infringement of accepted limits that Shemaiah does not have a word from God for him, but rather that he was bought by Nehemiah’s opponents. When he then asks his God for retribution for Tobiah and Sanballat as well as for the prophetic people, of who he mentions only Noadiah by name, then it becomes clear that the prophetess leads this prophetic group and apparently was active as a cult prophetess in the Temple. Whether Noadiah was involved in the intrigue is not mentioned; Nehemiah simply assumes this. The intrigue, however, could also be so understood that it was intended that Nehemiah be caught in flagranti with Noadiah in the Temple. Whether a royal anointing was intended or not and whether Noadiah was involved or not, the scene was intended to be compromising.

Since the mention of “Noadiah, the prophetess, and the other prophetically-gifted” clearly indicates a power differential and sets off Noadiah as a prophetess from all the others, it becomes clear that she holds the position as the leader of this group. The prophetic Shemaiah, thus, could not undertake a royal anointing; for this, she was needed. May the information about Noadiah be ever so sparse, with her a woman in the highest of offices and as a leader of a prophetic group also is written into history in the post-Exilic period.

4. Results: Prophetesses of the Hebrew Bible—Few References in Prominent Passages

To be able to see into the future in order to make better decisions in the here and now and to be able to weigh the consequences correctly is a deeply human wish that prophetically-gifted people in the Ancient Orient fulfilled, with reference to deities and with the aid of every kind of ritual. Biblical prophecy provides a contrast to this with the Deuteronomic law of prophecy at the latest. It focusses above all on the word given by the deity YHWH, which actualizes the Torah in each time period and culture, and which must be heard.

While in the ANE in that epoch, in which the pre-Exilic, later biblical texts originate, a balanced relationship among the sexes in regard to the activity of determining the future is verified, the Bible tells quite little about women in this area, but what it does tell occurs in prominent passages and in almost all prophetic areas. Miriam, the prophetess of the Torah, stands on the same level with the leading personalities of the Exodus, her brothers Moses and Aaron, and takes over prophetic functions even before Moses becomes the epitome of the Prophets.30 Deborah, seen in the literary-historical view originally as a figure among the Judges31, is placed as a prophetess in the direct succession to Moses, and, together with Huldah, the last prophetic figure in the Land before the Exile, frames the canonical component of Early Prophecy. Therefore, it becomes clear that in all the cases where “prophets” are mentioned in the generic masculine plural, women are to be thought of, too.

Prophetesses, like their masculine colleagues in the succession of Moses, are active in several offices at the same time (Deborah, cf. Samuel) and they counsel the leaders of the state (Huldah, Nathan, cf. Isaiah in Isa 36–39). Women, like men, are verified in false prophecy (woman of En Dor, cf. Hananiah in Jer 28; Ezek 13). Cult prophetesses who perform their service in the Temple are also probably to be proven (Noadiah; presumably Ex 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22 and the nameless prophetess in Isa 8:3, as well as Hannah in Lk 2:36–38). But women also are verified in prophetic groups that gather around a masculine figurehead, illustrated clearly by the nameless woman from Shunem, who is still present as a narrative figure in several texts and apparently spends all the feast days with Elisha and his entourage (2 Kgs 4:23).

Even if this literary manifestation is quite sparse, it is to be assumed that the phenomenon of female prophecy standing behind it was essentially more significant. In the ability necessary in all times for the interpretation of the present and the determination of the future resting upon it, women consequently were given this gift by YHWH just as well as men.