Z Assis, Chiasmus in Biblical Narrative

Chiasmus in Biblical Narrative: Rhetoric of CharacterizationAuthor(s): Elie AssisSource: Prooftexts, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Fall 2002), pp. 273-304Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/PFT.2002.22.3.273 .Accessed: 28/08/2014 07:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Prooftexts.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.231.59.35 on Thu, 28 Aug 2014 07:47:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

273

***FILENAME***0002org.bbtChiasmus in Biblical Narrative:Rhetoric of Characterization

E L I E A S S I S

S ince the publication of works by Jebb, Boys, and Forbes, chiasmus hasbeen explored extensively and has attracted much attention, thanks to theresearch of Lund and the contribution of scholars associated with rhetoricalcriticism. The broadness of this phenomenon is reected in the list of biblical and

extra-biblical sources at the end of the book Chiasmus in Antiquity.

Various explanations for the purpose of chiasmus have been oered. Some

have pointed to the mnemonic function of the feature as an aid to liturgical use.

This explanation views chiasmus as a feature external to the composition, and,

although this explanation is applicable in some cases, the phenomenon of chiasmus

should mainly be regarded as a rhetorical device. Some scholars view chiasmus as an

artistic and aesthetic form. Some have pointed out that biblical authors used

chiasmus to cohere, unify, and conne the boundaries of a literary unit.

The most extensive explanation oered is that chiasmus is a rhetorical device

that focuses the reader's attention on the center of the unit, where the central idea or

turning point is situated. Awareness of chiasmus enables the reader to uncover the

meaning of the literary unit. This explanation is particularly valid in cases where

the chiastic structure organizes an entire plot, because of the conviction, following

Freytag's diagram, that every plot is structured in a pyramid shape. The introduction

is parallel to the resolution, the rising action to the falling action, and in the middle

stands the climax.

Chiasmus, however, is present in smaller literary units that are merely a

subsection of the entire plot. I propose to deal with chiastic structures in smaller

PROOFTEXTS 22 (2002): 273304. Copyright 2002 by Prooftexts Ltd.


274 Elie Assis

units that are the discourses of a character or a depiction of his acts. In these cases, as

we shall see in the examples that follow, the most common explanation is that

chiastic structure gives prominence to a central idea located in the pivotal position.

Scholars usually have not distinguished between chiasmus within a complete plot

where it is expected in accordance with plot structureand within a single

component of the sequence. Scholarly concentration on the center of the structure is

constrained in many cases and has often led to exegetical errors. The intention of

this article is to present an alternative explanation of the rhetorical purpose of

chiastic structure that will illuminate many chiastic passages.

There are two modes of characterization in narrative: direct denition and

depiction of the character's deeds, speech, appearance, and environment. Regard-

ing the second mode, the style of a character's speech and actions plays an important

role in characterization, shaping his inner life and revealing his mood. For

instance, through vocabulary, syntax, and dialect, the reader can apprehend the

origin of the character, his social class, education, and environment. A string of

verbs may express the anxiety, alertness, or determination of the character. For

example, the vulgarity of Esau and his eagerness are expressed by a string of ve

verbs (Gen. 25:34): dxekad z` eyr faie jlie mwie zyie lkìe `Ànd he ate and

drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.'' A biblical

author puts into a character's mouth a confused style in order to articulate the

character's perplexity or excitement. When Ahimaatz is asked by David about the

well-being of his son Absalom, his response is given through an incoherent sentence

(2 Sam. 18:29): `le jcar zè aèi jlnd car z` gelyl lecbd oendd izi`x

dn izrci. Archaic language is occasionally employed in the expression of an

elderly character. In his analysis of 2 Kings 910, Uenheimer points out the

distinction between an exalted style reecting the ceremonious speech of royal rite

and the everyday style characterized by brief utterance and broken and rough

language, which reect the style of military command.

Chiasmus is rst and foremost a stylistic device. Composing a unit chiastically

requires careful planning, determination of all components in advance, and word

choice that is concordant with its context while resembling the parallel component

of the chiasmus. The reader who apprehends such structures will appreciate the

skillfulness of the author and the well-planned design of the composition. Aware-


Chiasmus in Biblical Narrative: Rhetoric of Characterization 275

ness of the reader's response led biblical authors to employ chiasmus to reect the

inner world of a character. This structure was applied when the author wanted to

present the deeds or the character discourse as deliberate and premeditated.

Chiasmus appears especially where one would otherwise regard the character's

actions or discourse as spontaneous or unaccounted for. In other cases, words of

advice are formed chiastically to cast the adviser's idea in a premeditated and

convincing manner.

C H I A S M U S A S A R H E T O R I C A L D E V I C E

E X P R E S S I N G I N T E N T I O N A N D P R E M E D I T A T I O N

T h e F l i g h t o f J o n a h

Jonah ees from the presence of God, who commands him to go to Nineveh to

inform the people of their sin. The description of Jonah's ight (Jon. 1:3) is formed

chiastically:

'd i p t lN n dWi W x zY gx a l dpFi mwiI e A

Fti c x iI e B

diI p ` `v n iI e C

Wi W x z d ` aA D

Dxk U o zYiI e C'

DaA c x iI e B'

'd i p t lN n dWi W x zY m dnO r `Fal A'

A But Jonah set out to ee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.

B He went down to Joppa

C and found a ship

D going to Tarshish;

C' so he paid its fare

B' and went down in it,

A' to go with them to Tarshish, away from the presence of the Lord.


276 Elie Assis

Components A and A express Jonah's intention and are linked by the common

words ``to Tarshish, away from the presence of the Lord.'' The words ``went down''

are present in components B and B. Although a verbal link is not apparent in the C

components, there is a syntactic connection: the pronoun ``its [fare]'' (C) refers to

the object ``a ship'' (C). The core of the structure is a single component (D) that

describes the destination of the ship.

According to many scholars, the middle component D emphasizes the dis-

obedience of Jonah and his ight to Tarshish, which was in the opposite direction

of Nineveh. But this explanation is forced: rst, the middle component does not

refer to Jonah's ight to Tarshish, but to the destination of the ship. Furthermore,

Jonah's ight appears in the outer components of the structure. On the other hand,

Simon rejects this structure, stating that it overemphasizes the center of the

structure``going to Tarshish''contrary to its relatively trivial content.

Although Simon's argument is justied, the prominence of the chiastic structure

cannot be disputed.

The chiasmus here characterizes Jonah's ight as a well-planned action. One

may have interpreted his action as a result of his inability to cope with God's

command and as an irrational reaction of a perplexed man. After all, it is an absurd

step for the prophet to attempt to escape God. The author constructed Jonah's

escape in a neat and orderly form, in order to characterize it as a well-planned

action. Jonah's view is explicitly expressed later in the story (4:15). Jonah holds a

strict measure-of-justice outlook, contrary to God's conception, which holds a

merciful measure of justice. The chiastic structure expresses the idea that Jonah's

action is an ideological one, rather than the result of panic, and anticipates his

subsequent pronounced outlook.

R a h a b ' s B e l i e f i n G o d

Rahab's words expressing belief in God form a chiastic structure (Josh. 2:911):



u x ` d z ` m kl 'd o zp i kM i zY r ci A

m ki p tR n u x ` d i a W i lkM Eb np i k e Epi lr m k z ni ` dl tp i k e B

m kip tR n sEq mi i n z ` 'd Wi aFd x W ` z ` Ep r nW i kM C

mix v nO n m k z` v aA

o cC xiI d x a r aA x W ` i xn ` d i k l n ip W l m zi Ur x W ` e C'

m zY n x g d x W ` bFr lE ogi q l

m ki p tR n Wi ` aA gEx cFr dnw ` l e Ep aa l q nO iI e r n W pP e B'

z gzY n u x ` d l r e l r nO n m i nWX aA mi dl ` `Ed m ki d l ` 'd i kM A'

A I know that the Lord has given you the land,

B and that dread of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of

the land melt in fear because of you.

C For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea

before you when you came out of Egypt,

C' and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were

beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed.

B' As soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no courage

left in any of us because of you.

A' The Lord your God is indeed God in heaven above and on earth below.

In addition to the verbal link between A and A, a clear thematic connection exists

between them: the conviction that God has given the land to Israel (A) derives from

the idea of the absolute sovereignty of the Almighty (A). Components B and B

articulate the fear that fell upon the Canaanites because of Israel. The middle

components include the source of their fear: the splitting of the Red Sea and Israel's

victories over the Transjordanian nations.

Rahab's speech reaches its peak in the nal sentence. She states that God will

give the land to Israel and speaks of the great fear that fell upon the inhabitants of

Canaan. At the end of her speech, this fear turns to complete helplessness, and the

acknowledgment of God evolves into a belief in the greatness of God and His

absolute sovereignty. The rumors of Israel's success brought Rahab not only to fear

Israel and God and to foresee the consequences of confrontation with Israel, but to a

theological conclusion: she adopts Israel's monotheistic belief.


278 Elie Assis

A second structure in Rahab's words indicate her awareness of the dual

causality principle that sheds light on the nature of the relationship between divine

assistance and Israel's actions.

A Divine: ``the Lord has given you the land'' (v. 9a)

B Israel: ``all the inhabitants of the land melt in fear because of you'' (v. 9b)

C Divine: ``the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea'' (v. 10a)

C' Israel: ``you did to the two kings . . . whom you utterly destroyed'' (v. 10b)

B' Israel: ``there was no courage left in any of us because of you'' (v. 11a)

A' Divine: ``The Lord your God is indeed God in heaven above and . . .''

(v. 11b)

The shifts between divine actions and human ones indicate an awareness of the

biblical concept that historical events are determined by divine intervention

alongside heroic human actions. Components B and B express the Canaanites' fear

of Israel, but Rahab believes that divine intervention is behind their success. Thus,

the interpretation of Israel's achievements, ``I know that the Lord has given you the

land''; and the conclusion, ``The Lord your God is indeed God in heaven above and

on earth below.'' The two events referred to in Rahab's words, the crossing of the

Red Sea and the victory of Israel over the two Amorite kings, Sihon and Og, are the

most signicant in the desert period. The rst event opens this period, and the

second closes it. The rst is a supernatural event and is attributed to divine

intervention; the second is a natural, human achievement. The reference to two

events of a dierent nature points to Rahab's deep understanding of biblical

theology.

Rahab's well-constructed speech is an example of logical thought and deduc-

tions, strengthened through the chiastic structure of Rahab's words. The casting of

Rahab's words in a deliberate design conveys the impression that Rahab's actions are

thoroughly thought out and not a result of panic. This understanding is appreciable

in light of the alternative interpretation that Rahab's actions are motivated by

despair and betrayal. Indeed, Rahab appears in the narrative in a positive light

compared with the king, his soldiers, and the Israelite spies. The positive position of



the Book of Joshua toward Rahab stands in contrast to the negative attitude toward

the Gibeonites.

M e p h i b o s h e t h ' s A c c u s a t i o n a g a i n s t Z i b a

Ziba came to David in exile while Absalom captured Jerusalem and told him that

his master, Mephibosheth, did not join him, hoping that the kingship would return

to the House of Saul (2 Sam. 16:14). After David prevailed over Absalom,

Mephibosheth came to him claiming that Ziba had deceived him (2 Sam.

19:2728). Mephibosheth's words to David appear in chiastic form:

i pnO x i cC a r j l nO d i p c ` x n Ì e A

j cC a r x n ` i kM B

j l nO d z ` j l ` e di lr a kM x ` e xFng d i lN dW aA g ` C

j cC a r g qQ t i kM B'

jipi r aA aFH d d Ure mi dl ` d j ` l n kM j l nO d i pcè j l nO d i p c ` l ` j cC a r aA l bB x i e A'

A He answered, My lord, O king, my servant deceived me;

B for your servant said to him,

C Saddle a donkey for me, so that I may ride on it and go with

the king

B' For your servant is lame.

A' He has slandered your servant to my lord the king. But my lord the

king is like the angel of God; do therefore what seems good to you.

The expression ``My lord, O king'' is common to both A components. Mephi-

bosheth's claim that Ziba deceived him in the rst component (A) is specied in the

last one (A) by the explanation that Ziba his servant slandered him. Both B

components share the words ``for your servant'' that establish Mephibosheth's status

vis-a-vis King David.

Fokkelman claims that the peak of this structure is seen through the

``lovingkindness of àccompanying the king' ''his loyalty to the king. Mephi-

bosheth's words ``Saddle a donkey for me, so that I may ride on it and go with the


280 Elie Assis

king'' are meant to convince David of his loyalty to him. Yet this idea is expressed in

the other components as well. Moreover, Mephibosheth's main concern is to

convince the king that Ziba lied to himan idea that is expressed in the margins.

The purpose of the structure here is not to emphasize the center, but to present

Mephibosheth's words in a constructive style. Mephibosheth came to David

anxious, unwashed, and with his beard untrimmed (2 Sam. 19:24). His anxiety

reects his eagerness to correct David's mistaken impression. At the same time, his

words to David are formed in a chiastic structure to indicate that his action is not the

result of hysteria in the wake of the sudden death of Absalom. Mephibosheth's

argument that he was deceived by Ziba is supported by the narrator's statement that

Mephibosheth adopted mourning customs after David left Jerusalem (2 Sam.

19:24). Thus, the chiastic structure in which Mephibosheth's words are formed is

part of the rhetoric of persuasion, giving the impression that Mephibosheth is

sincere. The wordplay ``my servant''``your servant''``my Lord'' is part of the

rhetoric of persuasion of Mephibosheth. He opens, ``My lord, O king,'' thereby

establishing the position of David as his master, contrary to the way Ziba had

presented him. Mephibosheth's next words, ``my servant deceived me,'' express his

own loyalty to the king, in contrast to Ziba's disloyalty toward him. After claiming

twice that he is the servant of the king (B, B) and stating his good intention to

accompany him (C), Mephibosheth presents the relationship between the three

characters as absurd. Mephibosheth presents Ziba as a traitor to his master (``He has

slandered your servant'') while he shows his loyalty to David his master (``to my lord

the king''). This irony reects a latent criticism against David: that he did not punish

the real traitor.

N a a m a n ' s A p o l o g y

Following the advice of a young maiden from the Land of Israel, Naaman turns to

Elisha to heal him of leprosy (2 Kings 5:3). At rst, Naaman disregards Elisha's

advice to immerse himself seven times in the River Jordan, but ultimately accedes to

the prophetic instruction following the insistence of his servants. This experience

has a great impact on Naaman, and the physical change generates a spiritual one,

reected in his declaration that from now on he will worship Israel's God alone: ` `for



your servant will no longer oer burnt oering or sacrice to any God except the

Lord'' (2 Kings 5:17). Yet immediately, Naaman apologizes for the fact that he must

worship at the temple of Rimmon while accompanying his king and asks the Lord

to forgive him (2 Kings 5:18). Naaman's apology is formed chiastically:

d fG d xacC l A

j cC a r l 'd g l q i B

dnOW z e g zY W d l oFO x zi a i pc ` `Fa aA C

i ci l r or W p `Ed e D

oO x zi aA i zie g zY W d aA o O x zi aA i zi e g zY W d e C'

j cC a r l 'd [`p] g l q i B'

d fG d xacC aA A'

A In this matter

B may the Lord pardon your servant:

C when my master goes into the House of Rimmon to

worship there,

D leaning on my arm (hand),

C' and I worship in the House of Rimmon, when I bow

myself in the House of Rimmon,

B' may the Lord pardon your servant

A' in this matter.

Cohen claims that the narrative presents Gehazi in contrast to Naaman: Naaman,

the Gentile, expresses his belief in God and apologizes for showing loyalty to his

own god; Gehazi criticizes God for not providing Elisha with wealth, while at the

same time he himself disobeys Elisha. The purpose of the chiasmus, according to

Cohen, is to emphasize its center, which points out a contrast to Gehazi's behavior.

The center accentuates Naaman's supporting hand for his king at the House of

Rimmon, in contrast to Gehazi, who took from the hands of others and uses his

house to betray his God (v. 24: ``he took them from their hand, and put them in the

house''). While Cohen's explanation of the contrast between Gehazi and Naaman

is reasonable, the meaning he gives to the chiasmus is questionable. According to


282 Elie Assis

Cohen, Naaman's apology for worshiping in the temple of Rimmon despite his

belief in God is pushed aside because he overemphasized the contrast between the

word ``arm'' at the center and Gehazi's ``hand.'' Long's explanation is reasonable: he

points out Naaman's conict between his new belief in God and his diculty in

worshiping Him outside the Land of Israel, on the one hand, and his commitment

to serve the king of Aram, on the other hand. According to Long, this conict is at

the center of the structure. Though the conict is evident in the narrative, it is

hardly uttered in the sentence ``and he [will be] leaning on my arm.'' Furthermore,

the main idea is Naaman's confession that he will not be able not to worship at the

temple of Rimmon.

In this case, too, the center is not the essence of the structure. The structure

functions here to expose Naaman's inner life at this point. Naaman's confession may

have derived from his admiration and appreciation, but not from his sincere

intention to worship Israel's God. The formation of Naaman's words in a chiastic

structure characterizes him as one who speaks in a premeditated manner; the reader

realizes that Naaman is aware of the conict between belief in God and worship in

the temple of Rimmon.

E l i ' s R e q u e s t o f S a m u e l t o D e l i v e r t o H i m G o d ' s W o r d s

Eli's request of Samuel to share with him God's words (1 Sam. 3:17) is formed in a

chiastic structure:

ji l ` x aA cC x W ` xacC d dn A

i pP nO n c g k z `p l ` B

si qFi dk e mi dl ` j lN d Uri dM C

xacC i pP nO n c g k zY m ` B'

ji l ` x aA cC x W ` xacC d lkM n A'

A What was it that he told you?

B Do not hide it from me.

C May God do so to you and more also,

B' if you hide anything from me

A' of all that he told you.



1 Samuel 3 tells of the transition of prophecy from Eli to Samuel. The chapter

opens, ``The word of the Lord was rare in those days; visions were not widespread''

(1 Sam. 3:1). The words ` `at that time Eli, whose eyesight had begun to grow dim, so

that he could not see'' (1 Sam. 3:2) reect the removal of prophecy from him.

Verses 14 present Samuel as a trainee in prophecy who does not understand that

the voice calling him is God. On the other hand, Eli appears as an expert in the

eld, giving Samuel correct instructions as to how to receive God's message. The

fact that Eli knows to give Samuel the correct instructions to receive prophecy but

does not receive it himself illustrates the exposition that the word of God was

removed from Eli, and the reader expects it to befall Samuel. Samuel prophesized

that Eli and his house would be punished but does not transmit this to his master

Eli. From this reaction of Samuel, Eli understands that the prophecy anticipates bad

news. Although the reader might expect Eli to react with denial, bound with

uncalculated reactions (such as Saul's reactions to the election of David instead of

himself ), Eli responds nobly to the doom prophecy against his house, and with

justication of judgment: ``It is the Lord; let him do what seems good to him''

(1 Sam. 3:18).

The acceptance of judgment that derives from discretion and deeply meditated

comprehension is illustrated in the stylistic feature of chiasmus. Again, chiasmus

helps penetrate the inner life of a character.

Until now, we have presented examples in which a character might have acted out of

pressure, panic, or rage. By styling the words of the character or the depiction of his

deeds in chiastic form, he is seen as acting in a premeditated manner. The following

two examples deal with a corrupt act. In these cases, the purpose of the chiasmus is

to present the negative act as a deliberate and planned-out action of the character.

The character thus carries full responsibility, as opposed to the possibility that the

performance was spontaneous, thus minimizing the blame.


284 Elie Assis

T h e T h e f t o f t h e E p h o d a n d Te r a p h i m b y t h e D a n i t e s

The theft of the ephod and teraphim by the Danites from the mountain of Ephraim

is presented chiastically (Judg. 18:1617):

mzY n g l n i l kM mi xEb g Wi ` zF` n W W e A

oc ip aA n x W ` x r WX d g z tR mi avS p B

dnOW E`aA u x ` d z ` l bB x l mi k ld d mi Wp ` d z W ng El riI e C

dk qQ nO d z ` e mi tx zY d z ` e cFt ` d z ` e l q tR d z ` Eg wl

x r WX d g z tR avS p o dM d e B'

dng l nO d i l kM xEbg d Wi ` d zF` n W W e A'

A While the six hundred men armed with their weapons of war

B stood by the entrance of the gate of the Danites,

C the ve men who had gone to spy out the land proceeded to enter

and take the idol of cast metal, the ephod, and the teraphim.

B' The priest was standing by the entrance of the gate

A' with the six hundred men armed with weapons of war.

Chapter 18 of the Book of Judges opens with the story of the settlement of the

Danites in the northern territory. After their spies found a suitable land (18:7), the

Danite army marched in to capture it. En route, they steal the idol, ephod, and

teraphim from the house of Micah (18:1617). They also persuade the Levite, who

has predicted their victory and encouraged them to carry out their plan (18:6), to

join them on their trip and become priest for their entire tribe (18:19).

The seriousness of the theft is accentuated by the Danites' ingratitude toward

Micah and the Levite, who helped them in their mission. The motif of ingratitude

is further reected in the willingness of the Levite to join the Danites after he had

been welcomed kindly by Micah, who appointed him as priest. This theft is a lex

talionis for Micah's theft of his mother's money.

The presentation of the theft of the ephod and teraphim in a chiastic structure

indicates a premeditated action and that the erection of the idol was a conscious

intention. Indeed, this intention is claried in the Danites' words to the Levite:

``Keep quiet! Put your hand over your mouth, and come with us, and be to us a father



and a priest. Is it better for you to be priest to the house of one person, or to be priest

to a tribe and clan in Israel?'' (Judg. 18:19). The redactor's allusion to the temple at

Dan of the monarch period illustrates the responsibility attributed to the action of

the Danites: ``Then the Danites set up the idol for themselves. Jonathan son of

Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until

the time the land went into captivity. So they maintained as their own Micah's idol

that he had made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh'' (Judg. 18:3031). The

reader might nd the Danites' brutality no dierent from that of any common

plunderers desiring to fulll their lust; the erection of the idol here anticipates the

great transgression of the worship place at Dan during the entire period of the

Northern Kingdom, thus ascribing to them major responsibility.

S a u l ' s I n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e Z i p h i t e s t o C a t c h D a v i d

After Jonathan's encouragement to David (1 Sam. 23:1618), the Ziphites revealed

David's hiding place to Saul (1 Sam. 23:1920). Saul blessed them for this and

asked them to return to the area of David's hiding place and to inform him of his

movements (1 Sam. 23:2223). Saul's request is formed chiastically:

`p Ek l A

cFr Epi kd B

mW Ed ` x i n Fl b x d i d zY x W ` FnFw n z ` E` xE Er cE C

`Ed m x ri mxr i l ` x n ` i kM D

mW ` aA g z i x W ` mi ` a g nO d l M n Er cE E` xE C'

oFkp l ` i l ` m zY a W e B'

dcEd i i t l ` lk aA Fz` i zY U tR g e u x ` a Fp Wi m ` did e m k zY ` i zY k ld e A'

A Go, I pray you

B and make sure once more;

C and know and see his place where his haunt is, and

who has seen him there;

D for I am told that he is very cunning.

C' See therefore, and take knowledge of all the hiding

places where he hides


286 Elie Assis

B' and come back to me with sure information.

A' Then I will go with you; and if he is in the land, I will search him out among

all the thousands of Judah.

The rst and last components include the verb ``go'' (jld). Saul's words of

stimulation, ``go, I pray you'' (A) correspond to his promise ``and I will go with you''

(A). Saul asks the Ziphites to ``make sure'' that David is still at Givat Hachilah (B),

and only then should they come back to him ``with sure information'' (B).

Component C opens, ``know and see,'' and in C the words open in reverse order:

``See therefore, and take knowledge.'' Both sentences end with the word ``there,''

my. The center (D) contains the reason for the extensive search for David: his

cunningness.

The main idea is surely not in the core of the passage. Saul's prime concern

regarding his instructions is to ensure David's location. Therefore, Bar Efrat did not

dene this structure as chiasmus, but as verbal repetition, even though this passage is

clearly arranged chiastically. Fokkelman, on the other hand, sees the concentric

structure as symbolic of the situation where David is in the center trapped by the

Ziphites mentioned in the surrounding ring. To this, he adds that the center

contains the essence of Saul's concernthe cunningness of David.

Here, too, the meaning of the structure is to characterize Saul's attempt to

catch David as premeditated maneuvering. This characterization of Saul stands in

contrast to Jonathan's readiness to accept God's will to crown David. Unlike

Jonathan, who accepts God's judgment, Saul refuses to accept it and struggles

against it.

C H I A S M U S A S A R H E T O R I C A L D E V I C E

O F P E R S U A S I O N A N D I N F L U E N C E

My thesis is that chiasmus is a stylistic technique to cast discourse or action as

planned out. In the following cases, words of advice that are meant to inuence are

formed in such a structure. In some cases, words of advice are constructed

chiastically bearing a rhetorical function of persuasion, conveying to the listener that

the advice is thoroughly considered, well meditated, and therefore worthy and



commendable. Chiasmus often directs the reader to the fact that the text is

constructed, and not necessarily to the center of the structure.

D a v i d A t t e m p t s t o P e r s u a d e S a u l N o t t o P u r s u e H i m

After David spares Saul's life for the second time and proves that he has no evil

intentions toward him, he tries to persuade him not to harm him (1 Sam.

26:1820). This speech is formed chiastically:

drx i ci aA d nE i zi Ur d n i kM FC a r i x g ` s c x i pc ` dfG dnOl x n `I e A

FC a r i x a cC z ` j l nO d i pc ` `p r n W i dzY r e B

dg p n g xi i a j zi q d 'd m ` C

mFI d i pEW xb i kM 'd ip t l m d mi xEx ` mc ` d i p aA m ` e C'

mi x g ` mi dl ` ca r j l xn` l 'd z l gp aA g tR zY q d n

'd ip tR cbpP n dv x ` i ncC lR i l ` dzY r e B'

mi xd aA ` xT d s C x i x W ` kM cg ` Wr x tR z ` W wT a l l ` x U i j l n `vi i kM A'

A And he added: ``Why does my lord hunt his servant? For what have I

done? What guilt is on my hands?

B Now therefore let my lord the king hear the words of his servant.

C If it is the Lord who has stirred you up against me, may he

accept an oering;

C' but if it is mortals, may they be cursed before the Lord, for

they have driven me out today from my share in the heritage

of the Lord, saying, `Go, serve other gods.'

B' Now therefore, do not let my blood fall to the ground, away from

the presence of the Lord;

A' for the king of Israel has come out to seek a single ea, like one who

hunts a partridge in the mountains.''

Three times in his speech David uses terms of inferiority vis-a-vis Saul: in sentence

A, he calls Saul ``my lord'' and himself ``servant''; in the last sentence (A), he

extroverts the expressions, calling Saul ``the king of Israel'' and himself ``a single


288 Elie Assis

ea.'' Component B contains David's request that the king will hear his words. In

components C and C, David oers two explanations for Saul's behavior: he is either

animated by God or inuenced by the people. The conclusion is derived in the next

component (B), that Saul should not harm him. Component B opens, ``Now

therefore,'' and David's preliminary request is expressed positively: ``let my lord . . .

hear''; component B opens similarly, ``Now therefore,'' and his main request is

expressed negatively: ``do not let my blood fall.'' David does not accuse Saul of

attempted murder, but instead gives two possible explanations for his actions: divine

or human inuence. Hence, he gives Saul an opportunity to regret his actions

without humiliating him for his evil intentions.

Here, too, the main idea is not expressed in the center. It is plausible that

these words of advice are formed in an elaborate style to intensify the rhetoric of

persuasion and to characterize an idea that is intelligent and thoroughly premedi-

tated. David here is trying to show Saul that there is no logical reason to harm him.

T h e S e r v a n t s ' A d v i c e T h a t a Yo u n g W o m a n S h o u l d W a r m K i n g D a v i d

The Book of Kings opens with David's old age and describes his inability to feel

warm. His servants advise him to warm up with the help of a young virgin lying in

his bed. Scholars have pointed out that the purpose of this unit is to illustrate the

impotence and senility of David, which is apparent in his lack of reaction to

Adonijah's claim for kingship. The servants' advice is formed in a chiastic structure

(1 Kings 1:2):

dlEz a dx rp j l nO d i p c` l EW w a i A

j l nO d ip t l dc nr e B

zp kq Fl i d zE C

j wi g a da kW e B'

j l nO d i p c` l m g e A'

A Let a young virgin be sought for my lord the king,

B and let her stand before the king,

C and be his attendant;



B' let her lie in your bosom,

A' so that my lord the king may be warm.

The phrase ``my lord the king'' is common in both A components. The rst (A)

presents the advice, and the last (A) presents its purpose. Components B and B

designate the nature of the woman's duty by two verbs in the singular form, ``stand''

and ``lie,'' which refer to the king, ``before the king'' and ``in your bosom.''

Component B refers to Abishag's duty, using the verb ``stand,'' and component B

discloses the essence of standing before the king: ``let her lie in your bosom.''

Correspondingly, David is mentioned in the distinctive third person: ``before the

king,'' the reference to him in component B, is intimate and in the second person,

``in your bosom.'' The middle component (C) denes her status: ``be his attendant.''

Unlike Adonijah, who is anticipating the end of his father's kingship, David's

servants are attempting to nd a solution for the king's problem, hoping to extend

his reign. The attitude of the servants is illustrated in their approach to their king:

``my lord the king'' (A, A).

Fokkelman argues that the essential ideaAbishag's dutyis positioned in

the core of the structure. This explanation is not accurate, since the essence of her

duty is explicit in the phrase ``lie in your bosom,'' which is not in the center.

Moreover, the aim of this passage is to illustrate David's old age, senility, and

impotence.

Here, too, the chiastic structure was adopted as part of the rhetoric of

persuasion. In the following unit, David will appear as a passive king who does not

react to Adonijah's claim for kingship until the joint maneuvering of Nathan and

Bathsheba. Only then does David announce his decision regarding his successor.

The servants, who encounter an old exhausted king who might have lost interest,

use rhetorical sophistication to motivate their king.

J o n a t h a n ' s A t t e m p t t o P e r s u a d e S a u l N o t t o H a r m D a v i d

In the conict between Saul and David, Jonathan and Michal, Saul's children, take

David's side and even assist him against their father. Michal helps David escape

from her father (1 Sam. 19:1116), and Jonathan warns him after his father


290 Elie Assis

discloses to him his scheme to harm David (1 Sam. 19:13). Moreover, Jonathan

confronts his father and attempts to prevent him from carrying out his plans (1 Sam.

19:45); he succeeds in this for a short while. Jonathan's words of persuasion are

formed chiastically:

jl `hg `Fl i kM c ec a FC a r aA j l nO d `h g i l ` A

c` n j l aFh eiU r n i k e B

i zY W l tR d z ` jiI e FR k a FW tp z ` m UiI e C

l ` x U i lk l dlFc b drEW zY 'd U riI e C'

gn U zY e zi ` x B'

mpP g c ecC z ` zi nd l i wp mc aA `h g z dnOl e A'

A The king should not sin against his servant David, because he has not

sinned against you,

B and because his deeds have been of good service to you;

C for he took his life in his hand when he attacked the Philistine,

C' and the Lord brought about a great victory for all Israel.

B' You saw it, and rejoiced;

A' why then will you sin against an innocent person by killing David with-

out cause?

Jonathan's aim is to dissuade his father, Saul, from harming David. Jonathan's

request appears at the opening of the structure and at its end (A, A). He stresses that

harming David is a sin. In the inner components, David's deeds are presented

positively: component C indicates David's self-sacrice, and parallel to this (C) it is

pointed out that David's success depended on God's assistance. In components B

and B, Jonathan reminds his father that all this is not new to him, since David has

brought comfort to him in the past.

The function of David's deeds at the center of the structure is to establish

Jonathan's chief message to his father: that he should not harm David. This message

appears in the margins of the structure; therefore, the purpose of the chiasmus

cannot be to stress the center.

The chiastic structure here is part of the rhetoric of persuasion. Jonathan's

advice is formed chiastically, thus typifying it as a premeditated and logical



suggestion and a change that Saul must make in his attitude toward David to avoid

iniquity. Furthermore, the formation of Jonathan's words against his father in a

constructed style casts him as one who has accepted God's decree to remove the

kingship from the House of Saul and to pass it on to David, contrary to the reaction

of his father.

The previous examples are cases of an adviser's speech that is formed chiastically, as

part of the rhetoric of persuasion, to present the advice as a contemplated and

premeditated matter, and thus to inuence others. The following example deals

with the speech of a military commander that is formed chiastically and delivered to

his soldiers before battle.

J o s h u a ' s C o m m a n d b e f o r e t h e A i B a t t l e

Joshua's command to the ambush is formed chiastically (Josh. 8:48):

E` x xn` l mz ` e v i e A

c` n xi rd o n Ewi g x zY l ` xi rd i x g ` n xi rl mi a x ` m zY ` B

:mi pFk p m k lN kM m zi i d e

E` vi i kM did e xi rd l ` a x w p i zY ` x W ` mrd lk e i p ` e C

m di p t l Ep q p e dp W` xaA x W ` kM Ep z`x w l

mi qp Ex n `i i kM xi rd o n mzF` Epi wi zY d c r Epi x g ` E` vi e C'

m di p t l Ep q p e dp W` xaA x W ` kM Epipt l

:m k ci aA m ki dl ` 'd Dpz pE xi rd z ` m zY W xFd e a xF`d n En wzY m zY ` e B'

EUr zY 'd x a c kM W ` aA xi rd z ` Ezi vS zY xi rd z ` m k U tz kM did e (g)

m k z ` i zi eE v E` x A'

A And he commanded them, saying, See,

B you shall lie in ambush against the city, behind it; do not go very far

from the city, but all of you stay alert.

C I and all the people who are with me will approach the city. When

they come out against us, as before, we shall flee from them.


292 Elie Assis

C' They will come out after us until we have drawn them away from

the city; for they will say, `They are eeing from us, as before.'

While we ee from them,

B' you shall rise up from the ambush and seize the city; for the Lord your

God will give it into your hand. And when you have taken the city, you

shall set the city on re according to the commandment of the Lord shall

you do;

A' see, I have commanded you.''

Joshua's command opens and ends similarly, giving his speech a frame (components

A and A). Component B is the instruction for the ambush to be situated west of the

city, and component B is the instruction to attack the city from the ambush.

Component C depicts the action of the main force to approach the city and its

deceiving action to ee from them. Component C describes the response of the

soldiers of Ai to the main force's escapetheir detachment from the city.

Following God's command to Joshua to capture Ai by means of an ambush

(Josh. 8:12), it is said in v. 3, ``So Joshua and all the ghting men set out to go up

against Ai. Joshua chose thirty thousand warriors and sent them out by night.'' The

placement of this verse is strange, because it announces the locality of the ambush

before the instructions are delivered (vv. 48). It is probable that the inversion is

meant to juxtapose the execution of the ambush with God's command regarding it

(v. 2: ``Set an ambush against the city, behind it''), to characterize Joshua as a

submissive subject. On the other hand, verses 48 characterize Joshua as a talented

military leader with initiative, and the formation of Joshua's command in a chiastic

structure reinforces this impression. The seeming contradiction between sub-

missiveness and initiative in the gure of the leader is compulsory for an Israelite

leader in the Bible. Indeed, the two themes juxtapose in v. 8: (1) ``according to the

commandment of the Lord shall you do''; and (2) ``see, I have commanded you.''

Moreover, after the rst defeat at Ai, it is necessary for the leader to show condence

and to oer the soldiers a plan that is under his full control.



E P I L O G U E

We have presented another explanation for the use of chiasmus in biblical narrative

and have demonstrated that chiasmus in a character's discourse or in the depiction of

his deeds contributes to the characterization of his inner life. The chiastic structure

gives an impression of carefully contemplated planning and thus is meant to

illustrate the character or his discourse in such a manner.

Chiasmus is sometimes used in cases in which a character is in a situation of

pressure (Jonah, Mephibosheth) and in cases in which there is doubt regarding a

character's intentions (Rahab, Naaman). In cases in which the reader might expect

the character to act spontaneously and without a plan, because of confusion (Jonah,

Samuel), anger, or denial (Eli), chiasmus contributes to characterize the action as

premeditated. Chiasmus is used to characterize responsibility for negative deeds (for

example, the statue of Micah and Saul's instruction to the Ziphites to capture

David). Chiasmus illustrates a ruler's control in a dicult situation (Joshua's

command concerning the ambush prior to the conquest of Ai). A major device of

rhetoricians is the stylistic features employed to convince and inuence others. It is

therefore not surprising that chiasmus is found in the discourse of advisers or in

cases where the object is to inuence others. The use of chiasmus in such cases is

meant to convey the impression that the message of the adviser is well thought out

and worthy of acceptance (for example, Gideon's words to the Ephraimites; David's

attempt to persuade Saul not to pursue him; the servants' advice that a young

woman warm David; and Jonathan's advice to his father not to harm David).

Contrary to the common conviction of biblical scholarsthat chiasmus is

largely a schematic phenomenon that indicates the main ideaI claim that

chiasmus is a stylistic phenomenon that must be considered in a comprehensive

literary analysis.

Department of Bible

Bar-Ilan University


294 Elie Assis

N O T E S

I wish to thank Prof. Yair Zakovich from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem forreading this article and oering his valuable comments. I greatly appreciate hisexpert advice. Thanks are also due to my friend Joshua Berman, who helped inproofreading the article.

1 J. Jebb, Sacred Literature (London, 1820), 5374; T. Boys, Tactica Sacra: An Attempt toDevelop, and Exhibit to the Eye by Tabular Arrangements a General Rule of Composi-tion Prevailing in the Holy Scriptures (London, 1824) and Key to the Book of Psalms:Being a Tabular Arrangement, by which the Psalms Are Exhibited to the Eye accordingto a General Rule of Composition Prevailing in the Holy Scriptures (London, 1825);J. Forbes, The Symmetrical Structure of Scripture, or the Principles of ScriptureParallelism Exemplied in an Analysis of the Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount,and Other Passages of the Sacred Writings (Edinburgh, 1854), 3546, Studies on theBook of Psalms: The Structural Connection of the Book of Psalms, Both in SinglePsalms and in the Psalms as an Organic Whole (Edinburgh, 1888), and AnalyticalCommentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Tracing the Train of Thought by the Aid ofParallelism (Edinburgh, 1868).

2 N. W. Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in Formgeschichte (Chapel Hill,N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1942); ``The Presence of Chiasmus inthe Old Testament,'' American Journal for Semitic Languages 46 (192930):10426; and ``Chiasmus in the Psalms,'' American Journal for Semitic Language 49(193233): 281312.

3 See, e.g., J. R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (WinonaLake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997); P. Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method,and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); O. S. F. S. Ceresco, ``A Rhe-torical Analysis of David's `Boast' (1 Sam. 17:3437): Some Reections onMethod,'' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47 (1985): 5874; I. M. Kikawada, ``TheShape of Genesis 11:19,'' in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilen-burg, ed. J. J. Jackson and M. Kessler (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974), 1832; G.Ridoud, ``The Rape of Tamar: A Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Sam. 31:122,'' in Rhe-torical Criticism, 7584; M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zachariah,Journal for the Study of the Old Testament sup 130 (Sheeld: Sheeld AcademicPress, 1992).

4 J. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim: Ger-senberg, 1981). See also A. di Marco, ``Der Chiasmus in der Bibel: Ein Beitrag zurstrukturellen Stilistik,'' Linguistica Biblica 36 (1975): 2197; 37 (1976): 3168;John W. Welch and D. B. McKinlay, eds., Chiasmus Bibliography (Provo: ResarchPress, 1999).



5 C. H. Talbert, `Àrtistry and Theology: An Analysis of the Architecture of Jn 1, 195,47,'' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970): 34166, esp. 36063; Lund, ``The Pres-ence of Chiasmus in the Old Testament,'' 112.

6 See, e.g., Jebb, Sacred Literature, 60.

7 In a critical review of Lund's Chiasmus in the New Testament, T. W. Manson arguesthat ``chiasmus is an art form and the name should be reserved for literary struc-tures which are thrown into that form for artistic reasons. . . . [T]his means thatwe must treat with greatest reserve all cases of chiasmus claimed in narrative orlegal parts of the Bible and restrict the eld to prophetic and poetical types,'' in``Review of Lund, Chiasmus,'' Journal of Theological Studies 45 (1944): 8184.Similarly, M. Dahood says, ``Biblical writers used chiasmus extensively to lendvariety and charm,'' in ``Chiasmus,'' The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Sup-plementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 145. J. L. Myres applies asimilar explanation to a chiastic structure in Herodotus, chaps. 79, Herodotus,Father of History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1953), 6264.

8 H. Van Dyke Parunak, `Òral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure,'' Biblica62 (1981): 15368, esp. 15663; I. H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters,Journal for the Study of the New Testament sup 111 (Sheeld: Sheeld Aca-demic Press, 1995), 35.

9 See, e.g., Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament, 4047; G. P. Ridot, ``Prose Com-positional Techniques in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 920, 1 Kings 12)''(diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1971), 49; Welch, ed., Chiasmus inAntiquity, 10; Y. T. Radday, ``Chiasmus in the Hebrew Biblical Narrative,'' in Chi-asmus in Antiquity, 51; D. N. Freedman, in Chiasmus in Antiquity, 7; J. Breck, TheShape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond (New York: St.Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994), 1719. Interestingly, Jebb, who was one of thepioneers in the research of chiasmus, claims the opposite: `Ìts rationale may bethus explained: two pair of terms, or propositions, conveying two important, butnot equally important notions, are to be distributed, as to bring out the sense inthe strongest and most impressive manner: now, this result will be best attained bycommencing and concluding with the notions to which prominence is to be given;and by placing in the center the less important notion, or that, which from thescope of the argument, is to be kept subordinate'' (60).

10 This generalization is mainly true in studies that are devoted to ``chiasmus.'' But inliterary analyses, occasionally scholars have discussed the signicance of the phe-nomenon for the composition. See, e.g., Y. Zakovitch, `` Every High Ocial Has aHigher One Set over Him'': A Literary Analysis of 2 Kings 5 (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv:Am Oved, 1985), 86.


296 Elie Assis

11 For Freytag's pyramid, see R. Murn and S. M. Ray, The Bedford Glossary of Criticaland Literary Terms (Boston: Bedford, 1997), 135; F. Polak, Biblical Narrative:Aspects of Art and Design (Hebrew), Biblical Encyclopedia Library (Jerusalem:Mosad Bialik, 1994), 214. On narrative structure, see op. cit., 118.

12 According to Klaus, chiasmus is normally designed to focus attention on the center ofthe structure, but in some cases, he claims that the main idea is expressed in theextremities. N. Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets, JSOT sup 247 (Shef-eld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1999), 25356. Such an approach lacksmethodological consistency.

13 Chiasmus in biblical parallelism is a separate phenomenon; on this issue, see F. I.Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (The Hague, 1974), 11940, 140 n. 1;A. R. Ceresko, ``The A:B::B:A: A Word Pattern in Hebrew and Northwest Semi-tic, with Special Reference to the Book of Job,'' Ugarit-Forschungen 7 (1975):7388, ``The Chiastic Word Pattern in Hebrew,'' Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38(1976): 30311, and ``The Function of Chiasmus in Hebrew Poetry,'' Catholic Bib-lical Quarterly 40 (1978): 110; G. E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in ClassicalHebrew Verse, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament sup 170 (Sheeld:Sheeld Academic Press, 1994), 31191.

14 J. T. Shipley, Dictionary of World Literature (Totowa, N.J.: Writer, 1966), 5152. Atlength, see J. Ewen, Character in Narrative (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Poalim,1980), 45135; S. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (Lon-don: Methuen, 1983), 5970. For direct characterization, see U. Margolin, ``TheDoer and the Deed: Action as a Basis for Characterization in Narrative,'' PoeticsToday 7 (1986): 20525. For characterization in biblical narrative and the charac-ter's inner life, see M. Sternberg, ``The Truth vs. All the Truth: The Rendering ofInner Life in Biblical Narrative'' (Hebrew) Hasifrut 29 (1979): 11046; R. Alter,The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981), 88113; M. Sternberg,``Language, World, and Perspective in Biblical Art: Free Indirect Discourse andModes of Covert Penetration'' (Hebrew) Hasifrut 32 (1983): 83131; S. Bar Efrat,Narrative Art in the Bible, Bible and Literature Series 17 (Sheeld: Almond,1989), 4792; J. L. Ska, `` Our Fathers Have Told Us'': Introduction to the Analysis ofHebrew Narrative, Subsidia Biblica 13 (Rome: Ponticio Instituto Biblico, 1990),8792; Polak, Biblical Narrative, 255301.

15 According to H. Gunkel, biblical writers were not capable of describing the inner lifeof their characters and did not realize that the interior emotion of the hero couldbe a suitable subject in art; therefore, they restricted themselves to the narration ofperceptible plots and events. ``Die israelische Literatur,'' in Die Orientalischen Liter-aturen, ed. E. Schmidt (Berlin: Teubner, 1906), 51102, esp. 72. Many followedthis concept; see, e.g., R. E. Scholes and R. Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (New



York: Oxford University Press, 1966), 166. In principle, Simon and Arpali agreewith Gunkel but claim that the lack of expression of inner life is characteristic ofbiblical narrative. B. Arpali, ``Caution: A Biblical Story! Comments on the Storyof David and Bathsheba and on the Problems of the Biblical Narrative'' (Hebrew)Hasifrut 2 (1970): 58097, esp. 585; U. Simon, `Àn Ironic Approach to a BibleStory: On the Interpretation of the Story of David and Bathsheba'' (Hebrew)Hasifrut 2 (1970): 598607, esp. 600601. In response to these two scholars,Sternberg and Perryand A. Berlin in a separate articlestrongly argue thatbiblical narrative frequently expresses the character's inner life; M. Perry andM. Sternberg, ``Caution: A Literary Text! Problems in the Poetics and theInterpretation of the Biblical Narrative (a Reply to B. Arpali and to U. Simon)''(Hebrew) Hasifrut 2 (1970): 60863, esp. 61826; A. Berlin, Poetics and theInterpretation of Biblical Narrative, Bible and Literature Series 9 (Sheeld:Almond, 1983), 3342.

16 Bar Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 6468; Polak, Biblical Narrative, 273.

17 See C. Brooks, J. T. Purser, and R. P. Warren, An Approach to Literature (New York:Appleton Century Crofts, 1964), 2021; Murn and Ray, The Bedford Glossary ofCritical and Literary Terms, 83 (decorum).

18 This rhetorical device is called `àsyndenton''; see A. Preminger, Princeton Encyclopediaof Poetry and Poetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), 56. This deviceis widespread in biblical narrative. By means of a string of three verbs, the peopleof Ai are presented as brisk and determined to face war against Israel, Josh. 8:14:dnglnl l`xyi z`xwl xird iyp` e`vie enikyie exdnie ird jln ze`xk idieenr lke èd. A string of six verbs presents Israel's reaction as courageous and con-dent, Josh. 8:19: decklie xird eàie eci zehpk evexie enewnn dxdn mw axe`deyà xird z` ezivie exdnie. For a discussion of these examples, see E. Assis,``The Literary Structure of the Conquest Narrative in the Book of Joshua (Jos111) and Its Meaning'' (diss., Bar-Ilan University, 1999), 231. Abraham isdepicted as eager to welcome his guests in Gen. 18:28, through the placement ofconsecutive actions in a short text. See Perry and Sternberg, ``Caution: A LiteraryText!'' esp. 62324. After Gideon destroyed the Baal's alter at Ofra (Judg.6:2527), the eagerness of the people of Ofra to nd the oender is expressed bythree consecutive verbs, v. 29: eyxcie dfd xacd dyr in edrx l` yi` exnìedfd xacd dyr yèi oa oercb exnìe eywaie.

19 Bar Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 6566. Another example of a speech thatexpresses confusion is found in Micah's confession to his mother that he stole hermoney, Judg. 17:1. The lengthy and confused response of the girls to Saul's ques-tion ?dèx dfd yid reects their excitement and desire to help him (1 Sam.9:1113). The runner's words to Eli regarding the tragedy at Eben Ha'ezer are


298 Elie Assis

blurred and fragmented: meid izqp dkxrnd on ipè dkxrnd on àd ikp`(1 Sam. 4:1617).

20 E.g., the use of the form oilhwz in the Book of Ruth (2:8; 3:4, 18). See E. F. Camp-bell, Ruth (AB) (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 97; J. M. Myers, The Linguistic andLiterary Form of the Book of Ruth (Leiden: Brill, 1955), 17.; Polak, Biblical Narra-tive, 273. For the use of this form, especially in the older books, see Gesenius'Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1910), 47 m, o.

21 B. Uenheimer, Ancient Prophecy in Israel (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973),25358.

22 See N. Lohnk, ``Jona ging zur Stadt hinaus (Jona 4, 5),'' Biblische Zeitschrift NF. 5(1961): 200201. This structure is widely accepted by scholars; see the followingnotes.

23 Trible, Rhetorical Criticism, 130; T. E. Fretheim, The Message of Jonah: A TheologicalCommentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 79.

24 U. Simon, Jonah (Mikra LeYisrael) (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 21;Fretheim, The Message of Jonah, 7779. W. Rudolph argues against Lohnk that1:13 is an indivisible whole, from which v. 3 cannot be pulled out: Joel-Amos-Obadia-Jona (KAT) (Gutensloher, 1971), 338 n. 15.

25 J. M. Sasson, Jonah (AB) (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 77.

26 E. Levine views the Book of Jonah as a philosophical text that deals with the moralproblem of reward and punishment; ``Jonah, a Philosophical Book,'' Zeitschrift f urdie alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96 (1984): 23545, esp. 24345.

27 As in King James, in order to unify the translation of the word mkiptn in vv. 9 and11.

28 `Èarth'' accords with all translations in order to adapt to correct English. But theHebrew holds here and in v. 9, ux`.

29 For a similar structure, see G. Hauch, ``Text and Context: A Literary Reading of theConquest Narrative (Joshua 111)'' (diss., Princeton University, 1991), 297.Hauch sees the structure as a concentric one; however, he does not explain thefocus on the center. Indeed, the main ideaRahab's conviction that God will givethe land to Israelis placed in the margins.

30 For the dual causality principle, see I. L. Seeligmann, ``Menschliches Heldentum undgottliche Hilfe,'' Theologische Zeitschrift 19 (1963): 385411; Y. Amit, ``The DualCausality Principle and Its Eects on Biblical Literature,'' Vetus Testamentum 37(1987): 385400.



31 The unreliability of the prostitute is reected in the Babylon moral teachings. SeeW. J. Lambert, ``Babylon Moral Teachings,'' in Documents from Old TestamentTimes, ed. D. Winton Thomas (London: T. Nelson, 1958), 106:

Do not marry a prostitute, whose husbands are legion,A temple harlot, who is dedicated to a god,A courtesan, whose favours are many.In your trouble she will not support you,

In your dispute she will be a mocker,There is no reverence or submissiveness with her,

Even if she dominate your house, get her out,For she has directed her attention elsewhere.

See also Prov. 2:17.

32 See Assis, ``The Literary Structure of the Conquest Narrative,'' 11520. The negativeattitude toward the Gibeonites in comparison with the positive presentation ofRahab in chap. 2 undermines Y. Zakovitch's claim that Rahab deceived the spiesby informing the king of their actions, thus forcing them to depend on her.``Humor and Theology or the Successful Failure of Israelite Intelligence: ALiterary-Folkloric Approach to Joshua 2,'' in Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bibleand Folklore, ed. S. Niditch (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 7598, esp. 85.

33 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. 1, King David(II Sam. 920 & I Kings 12) (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981), 35.

34 Indeed, the diculty of convincing David is evident through his compromised deci-sion to divide the land that he gave to Ziba between Mephibosheth and hisservant. According to W. Brueggemann, the text does not reveal the genuinenessof Mephibosheth's words so that the reader could experience David's uncertainty.Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching First and SecondSamuel (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 327.

35 R. L. Cohn, ``Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,'' Vetus Testamentum 33 (1983):17184, esp. 17778; Many scholars see the main topic of this narrative as Naa-man's acknowledgment of Israel's God. See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings(AB) (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 67. A. Rofe sees in this story a declaration ofthe monotheistic belief, as is apparent from Naaman's pardon that only his ocialduties demand his participation in the worship of another God; The PropheticalStories: The Narrative about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible: Their Literary Typesand History (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 12728.

36 On the cult of Rammon in Aram, see J. C. Greeneld, ``The Aramean GodRamman/Rimmon,'' Israel Exploration Journal 26 (1976): 19598.


300 Elie Assis

37 For this structure, see Cohn, ``Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,'' 179; B. O. Long,2 Kings (The Forms of the Old Testament Literature) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1991), 73. For a dierent layout of the structure, see Zakovitch, `` Every High O-cial Has a Higher One Set over Him,'' 86.

38 The graphic layout of this line is not conclusive. We have followed Long's layout. Seealso Cohn, ``Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V.'' A dierent one is oered byZakovitch.

39 Cohn, ``Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,'' 180. Cogan and Tadmor claim thatNaaman's commitment to Israel's God is contrasted with the faithless actions ofthe Israelite king and of Gehazi. See Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 67.

40 Cohn, ``Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,'' 182.

41 Long, 2 Kings, 73.

42 Zakovitch sees the repetitions in the structure as an expression of embarrassment anda desperate attempt to convince Elisha. `` Every High Ocial Has a Higher One Setover Him,'' 8687. Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets, 25354. But it isodd that an author would construct words uttered in confusion in a constructedstyle. On the contrary, confusion is normally formed in a confused style; see BarEfrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 6566, and our discussion above.

43 Awareness of this structure and of its meaning avoids the attempt to emend the verse.According to Montgomery, the repetitions in this verse are a result of clumsyerrors; see J. A. Montgomery, Kings (ICC) (Edinburgh: Clark, 1951), 379. How-ever, others claim that the repetitions reect Naaman's hesitant speech, apologizingfor his intention to continue to worship Rimmon. See Cogan and Tadmor, IIKings, 67; J. Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL) (London: SCM, 1964),507; G. H. Jones, I and II Kings (NCBC) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,1984), 2:419; Zakovitch, `` Every High Ocial Has a Higher One Set over Him,'' 87.

44 For a dierent layout of the structure, see V. A. Hurowitz, ``Eli's Adjuration ofSamuel (1 Samuel 3:1718) in Light of a `Diviner's Protocol' from Mari (AEMI/1,1),'' Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994): 48397, esp. 487.

45 R. K. Gnuse, The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient NearEastern Dreams and Its Theological Signicance (New York: University Press ofAmerica, 1984), 149, 15253; M. Fishbane, ``I Samuel 3: Historical Narrative andNarrative Poetics,'' in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ed. K. R. R.Gros Louis (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982), 2:191203, esp. 19697. According toZakovitch, Eli's blindness alludes to the fact that he did not rebuke his sons. Hends the basis for this in the wordplay ma ddik `le indicating Eli's sin, and his



blindness zedk ilr ipir, ``The Pattern of the Numerical Sequence Three-Four inthe Bible'' (Hebrew) (diss., Hebrew University, 1977), 95. U. Simon rejects thisinterpretation; Reading Prophetic Narratives, tr. L. J. Schramm (Bloomington, Ind.:Indiana University Press, 1997), 6364, 284 n. 31.

46 Zakovitch, ``The Pattern of the Numerical Sequence Three-Four in the Bible,''9394. I. L. Seeligmann claims that this story arms a transition between amechanical prophecy to an intuitive one; ``Problems in the History and Characterof Israelite Prophecy'' (Hebrew) Erets Israel 3 (1954): 12532, esp. 126. See alsoY. Amit, ``The Story of Samuel's Consecration to Prophecy in Light of PropheticThought,'' in Sefer Moshe Goldstein (Hebrew), ed. B. Z. Luria (Jerusalem: Hevraleheqer hamiqra, 1987), 2936.

47 J. T. Willis, ``An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at theRamah Sanctuary,'' Journal of Biblical Literature 90 (1971): 288308, esp. 29192;L. M. Eslinger, Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 112 (Shef-eld: Almond, 1985), 15455.

48 V. A. Hurowitz is aware of the lack of spontaneity of Eli's formulated words, but heattributes this to a ritual of oath; ``Eli's Adjuration of Samuel (1 Samuel 3:1718)in Light of a `Diviner's Protocol' from Mari (AEM I/1,1),'' 48397. Simonexplains the sophisticated structure as a result of ``the internal logic of the vigorouseort of persuasion required to stir the lad from his silence and . . . also a realisticmanifestation of Eli's own excitement,'' Reading Prophetic Narratives, 285 n. 37.

49 Bar Efrat claims that the core is the vow that is positioned in the center encircled bythe demand not to conceal, 1 Samuel (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996), 84.This explanation is dicult because the main part of Eli's words is not the vow buthis request of Samuel to inform him of God's message. The attempt in this case tond the main idea in the center cannot be justied. Others present the structurebut do not explain its meaning; see J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry inthe Books of Samuel, vol. 4, Vow and Desire (I Sam. 112) (Assen: Van Gorcum,1993), 18384. W. G. E. Watson, ``The Structure of 1 Sam 3,'' Biblische ZeitschriftNF 29 (1985): 9093.

50 According to some commentators, the words oc ipan xy` are out of place and shouldbe omitted; see G. F. Moore, Judges (ICC) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 395.However, awareness of the chiastic structure enlightens this dicult phrase. Thestructure contrasts the Danites who were standing by the entrance of the gate (B)and the priest standing in the same place (B).

51 L. R. Klein points out the irony that the theft occurs at the city gate, a place that isdestined for the practice of judgment; The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges,Bible and Literature Series 14 (Sheeld: Almond, 1988), 158.


302 Elie Assis

52 Ibid., 159.

53 Scholars such as Moore, who was not aware of chiastic structures, explained the repe-titions in these verses as duplications resulted by ``an unskillful editor or scribe'';Moore, Judges, 39596.

54 See J. A. Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (OTL), tr. J. Bowden (London: SCM, 1981),278. Soggin explains the purpose of the story as disqualication of the sanctuary atDan, by associating its roots with moral corruption, and as pagan, thus explainingthe destruction of the place in 734732 b.c.

55 D. V. Edelman rightly points out that the suggestion of the Ziphites (v. 20: lka dzrejlnd cia exibqd eple cx zcxl jlnd jytp ze`) echoes David's inquiry to Godasking if the people of Keilah would betray him (vv. 1112: dlirw ilra ipxbqidle`y cxid ecia). According to Edelman, the repetition of these words establishesa ``contrastive parallel between David's ability to seek and receive divine informa-tion and Saul's inability to do so, which leads him to have to depend upon lessreliable human sources for his information''; Edelman, King Saul in the Histo-riography of Judah, JSOT sup 121 (Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1991), 189.

56 Like the King James, in accordance with the Hebrew text.

57 Like the King James, closer to the Hebrew text.

58 Like the King James, closer to the Hebrew text.

59 For the translation of this line and its anity to component C, see Fokkelman, Nar-rative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. 2, The Crossing Fates (I Sam.1331 & II Sam. 1) (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), 445 n. 17.

60 Bar Efrat, I Samuel, 299.

61 Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 2:44546. Anotherexample of the function of chiasmus is the shape of the structure that is a meta-phor to the cross and Jesus, and is identied with the letter X. G. S. Tate claimsthat this device was consciously applied in order to refer to the cross. ``Chiasmus asMetaphor: The `Figura Crucis' Tradition and `the Dream of the Rood,' '' Neu-philologische Mitteilungen 79 (1978): 11425.

62 It is ironic that while Saul is struggling to nd David and kill him, Jonathan has noproblem locating him and lending him support (23:1618). Edelman assumes thatJonathan nds him easily because of the covenant between them; King Saul in theHistoriography of Judah, 183.

63 An example of advice that is formed in a sophisticated chiastic structure and elaboratestyle is found in the rhetoric of Hushai's advice to Absalom to nullify Ahithophel's



advice. Hushai successfully convinced Absalom, not by the content of his wordsbut by their style; see Bar Efrat, Narrative Art on the Bible, 22337; Fokkelman,Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1:21722.

64 ``Hunt'' instead of ``pursue'' (as in the New Revised Standard Version and King James)to unify with v. 20, in accordance with the Hebrew text that has scx in bothinstances.

65 For an analysis of the rhetoric of David's speech, see Fokkelman, Narrative Art andPoetry in the Books of Samuel, 2:54547.

66 H. W. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel (OTL), trans. J. Bowden (London, 1964), 210.

67 Here, too, Fokkelman makes an attempt to explain the chiasmus as a focus on thecenter, which anticipates the ight of David to Phelistain in chaps. 27, 2930;Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 2:546.

68 See D. M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, JSOT sup 6(Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1978), 9091; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 88;H. Gressmann, Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann andOther Scholars 19061923, tr. D. E. Orton, JSOT sup 116 (Sheeld: SheeldAcademic Press, 1991), 53.

69 I have adopted the literal translation of King James.

70 For Abishag's duty as a healer, see Montgomery, Kings, 7172. According to Gray,Abishag's duty was to test David's virility, in line with the primitive belief that theKing's authority depended on it; Gray, Kings, 77.

71 See S. J. DeVries, 1 Kings (WBC) (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 12.

72 Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1:347.

73 For the dual causality principle, see n. 30 above.

74 For an analysis of this structure, see Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Booksof Samuel, 2:25456. Although Fokkelman speaks of a concentric structure, hedoes not explain the meaning of the focus on the center.

75 Edelman recognizes Jonathan's constructed words, which are aimed to convince Saulthat God had chosen David. This point is made by the use of the word aeh in ref-erence to David's actions. Jonathan refers to ``sin'' in his rhetorical question to Saulto remind him of the reason that God rejected him. Edelman, King Saul in theHistoriography of Judah, 145.

76 Jonathan is presented as a contrastive gure to his father. His support for Davidbegins with the remark of his love for him (1 Sam. 18:1), continues with his


304 Elie Assis

attempt to persuade his father not to harm him, and ends with his explicit supportfor David and recognition of his kingship (1 Sam. 23:1618). On the relationshipbetween Saul and Jonathan, see D. M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpreta-tion of a Biblical Story, JSOT sup 14 (Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1980),7790. It is signicant that Jonathan, the heir to the throne, recognizes David asthe next king, since this totally nullies Saul's desire to retain the kingship in hisdynasty; see Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 143.

77 For a similar structure, see R. D. Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary (OTL) (Louisville:Westminster John Knox, 1997), 113.

78 I adopted here the KJ version that follows the Hebrew syntax and added the word``look'' as a literal translation of the Hebrew e`x; see V. Firtz, Das Buch Josua,HBAT I/7 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1994), 85.

79 Some argue that the words mdiptl epqpe in v. 6 are duplicated from v. 5. Indeed, v. 6is omitted in the Septuagint. See Nelson, Joshua, 108 n. e.

80 For the tension between the role of Joshua and God in the Ai narrative, see Y. Amit,`` `And Joshua Stretched out the Javelin That Was in His hand . . .' (Jos. 8:19) 26''(Hebrew) Shnaton 56 (198182): 1126; Assis, ``The Literary Structure of theConquest Narrative,'' 21533.
