Carolyn S. Leeb Away From The Fathers House The Social Location of The Naar and Naarah in Ancient Israel JSOT Supplement Series 2000 PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
301
Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R. Davies
Executive Editor
John Jarick
Editorial Board
Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum,
John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald,
Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller
Sheffield Academic Press
This page intentionally left blank
Away from the

Father's House
The Social Location of na'ar
and na'arah in Ancient Israel
Carolyn S. Leeb
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series 301
To my daughters
May you never encounter locked gates
on the pathway to your dreams
Copyright 2000 Sheffield Academic Press

Published by
Sheffield Academic Press Ltd
Mansion House
19 Kingfield Road
Sheffield SI 19AS
England
Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

and
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain
by Biddies Ltd
Guildford, Surrey
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library
ISBN 1-84127-105-5
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
7
8
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the Word 1i?3 in the Hebrew Bible
Review of Recent Research
Distribution of the Words
11
11
15
20
Chapter 2
METHODS
Methodological Considerations
The Social World in which the Word Was Used
23
23
29
Chapter 3
SPECIFIC TEXTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE:

HOUSE BOYS AND FIELD HANDS
General Considerations
Domestic Servants
Agricultural Workers
Cultic Contexts
Conclusions
42
42
44
62
66
67
Chapter 4
FIGHTING MEN AND BATTLEFIELD ASSISTANTS

Armor-Bearers
Arrow-Fetcher
David's Band of Rogues
David
Conclusions
68
68
75
81
82
87
90
Away from the Father's House
Chapter 5
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS
91
At-Risk Individuals
Sons and Servants
Conclusions
91
112
124
Chapter 6
WOMEN: UNPROTECTED AND VULNERABLE

Women Servants
Women and Sexual Service
Women at Risk
Legal Material
A Special Case: Amos 2
125
125
126
128
133
142
146
Chapter 7
OTHER USES OF nw
Fixed Expressions
Poetic and Proverbial Uses
151
151
160
Chapter 8
RELATED WORDS IN OTHER LANGUAGES

Egyptian
Ugaritic
Seals, Ostraca and Other Inscriptions
Phoenician, Aramaic, Akkadian and Greek Evidence
The Futile Search for a Root Meaning
166
166
173
182
184
188
Chapter 9
CONCLUSIONS
Social Location of the "11)3 and m#3 in Ancient Israel
Were the DnU3 the 'apirul
Implications
Appendix: Named Dm>]
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors
190
190
192
193
195
196
207
215
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The publication of this book based on my doctoral dissertation finds me

indebted to so many people that I could never mention them all. I thank
the editors at Sheffield Academic Press for including my work in this
series and for their guidance through the publication process. A few
people need to be thanked individually, beginning with the late Professor Robert Doling, a fellow Presbyterian who steered me to the doctoral
program in Biblical Studies at the Lutheran School of Theology at
Chicago. Special thanks must also go to Professor Wesley Fuerst, who
found a spot in that program for a 'walk-on' student, and to the institution for its financial support. The help of Professor David Rhoads in
alerting me to the bibliographical resources that are the methodological
basis for this book was critical; I thank him for his willingness to work
with someone in the 'other testament'. I am at a loss for words to
express my gratitude to Dean Ralph Klein, who not only directed my
dissertation but also baptized my youngest daughters, Natalie and Magdalen. He has been a teacher and mentor, pastor and friend.
Others whose support has been less obvious but just as necessary
need also to be acknowledged. For their help with myriad details involved in navigating the institutional process, I wish to thank LaVerne
Berry, Irene Connor and Magdalen Ypparila, three women of wit,
wisdom and warmth, who provided not only assistance but also words
of humor and cheer in the darkest moments of this process. My thanks
go to friends, and to two especially: to Mercedes Garcia-Bachmann, for
many conversations that helped to convince me that I was not alone in
the ways I viewed the texts, and to Peggy Hall for her unfailing belief
in me.
Finally, and especially, I thank my husband David, who periodically
beat my computer into submission. Without his monumental assistance
in ways too numerous to list, this journey could not have been completed. Without his love, the trip would not have been worthwhile.
ABBREVIATIONS
AB
ABD
AEO
AfO
AnBib
ANET
AnOr
AOAT
BA
BASOR
BOB
Bib
BibOr
BIOSCS
BN
BTB
BZAW
ETL
FF
FOTL
FRLANT
HS
HSM
HUCA
IBC
ICC
IDBSup
Anchor Bible
David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary
(New York: Doubleday, 1992)
Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onamastica. I. Text
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947)
Archivfur Orientforschung
Analecta biblica
James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1950)
Analecta orientalia
Alter Orient undAltes Testament
Biblical Archaeologist
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs,
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1907)
Biblica
Biblica et orientalia
Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and
Cognate Studies
Biblische Notizen
Biblical Theology Bulletin
BeiheftezurZAW
Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
Foundations and Facets
Forms of the Old Testament Literature
Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
Hebrew Studies
Harvard Semitic Monographs
Hebrew Union College Annual
Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching
International Critical Commentary
IDB, Supplementary Volume
Abbreviations
IEJ
JAAR
u
JANESCU
JAOS
JARCE
JBL
JNES
JNSL
JSOTSup
KRI
NCB
NICOT
OBT
OTL
ResQ
RSP
SAT
SBL
SBLDS
SWB A
ThWAT
UF
UT
VTSup
WAS
ZAW
Israel Exploration Journal

Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt
Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
Ramesside Inscriptions, K.A. Kitchen (ed.) (London:
Blackwell, 1969)
New Century Bible
New International Commentary on the Old Testament
Overtures to Biblical Theology
Old Testament Library
Restoration Quarterly
L.R. Fisher et al. (cds.), Ras Shamra Parallels (AnOr, 49-51;
3 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972-81)
H. Gunkel, W. Starck, P. Volz, H. Gressmann, H. Schmidt
and M. Haller (eds.), Die Schriften des Alien Testaments
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd rev. edn, 1921)
Society of Biblical Literature
SBL Dissertation Series
Social World of Biblical Antiquity
G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches
Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,
1970-)
Ugarit-Forschungen
C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (AnOr, 38; Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1969)
Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
Adolph Erman and Hermann Grapow, Worterbuch der
aegyptischen Sprache (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1971)
Zeitschriftfur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Understanding the Word ~1W] in the Hebrew Bible

The Hebrew noun ~IJJ] appears 239 times in the Hebrew Bible; its feminine equivalent m!J] occurs 61 times. 1 The words are most at home in
prose narrative, prominently in the Former Prophets and in the stories
of the ancestors in Genesis.2 Nearly any beginning student of the Hebrew language knows the meanings of these two words as 'boy' and
'girl', or 'lad' and 'maiden', or similar terms. The understanding is
widespread that these nouns have somehow come to mean 'servant' in a
majority of cases. The terms are generally believed to apply to persons
who are youthful, if not actually children. However, these time-honored
definitions are simply inadequate. A few examples will serve to illustrate the sorts of narratives in which these words appear, as well as the
range of circumstances which they address.
Function
In a large number of cases, the ~IU3 is without question an individual in
service to another. This service could be performed in one of several
areas. 2 Kings 4 clearly illustrates the ~iu; in household or domestic service. Gehazi, one of the few servant DHU] who are named, is Elisha's
personal attendant (2 Kgs 4.12, 25; 5.20; 8.4).3 A prosperous couple
from Shunem have a "til in their service (2 Kgs 4.22), probably the
same one who is referred to as her ~1U3 and accompanies the woman on
1. Exact count varies, depending on whether certain instances are viewed as
the noun under study, another (related) noun, or a verbal form. All occurrences of
the feminine in the Pentateuch are with the defectiva spelling (e.g. Gen. 24.12, ~IU3n);
elsewhere it is spelled plene.
2. Neither word appears in biblical Aramaic.
3. For a complete listing of D'~lUj who are given names, see Appendix A.
Among m~li?3 only Rebekah, Dinah, Esther, Ruth and Abishag are named.
12
a journey (2 Kgs 4.24). Elisha's servant is asked to prepare a pot of

stew (2 Kgs 4.38), while Abraham's ~1U] prepares meat in Gen. 18.7,
both clearly domestic functions.
In other cases, the service performed seems to be agricultural. Nabal's
D'~i>j are working as shepherds for his flocks (1 Sam. 25.8, 14, 19). In
performance of the task of tending sheep, both Joseph (Gen. 37.2) and
David (1 Sam. 16.11) are also referred to as ~1U3, although neither is a
servant at the time.4 In all likelihood, the "1W3 who accompanies Saul in
searching for Kish's lost asses (1 Sam. 9.3) is also serving as an agricultural worker, perhaps specifically in caring for livestock. Boaz employs
both D'HJJ] and m~lU3 as reapers or as supervisor to reapers (Ruth 2.5, 6,
9, 15,21).
Many, many cm}] serve in military capacities, frequently either as
personal assistants to a warrior or perhaps as mercenaries in battle
themselves. We see the word used in reference to Jonathan's armorbearer5 (1 Sam. 14.1, 6) and to the fellow who fetches his arrows, during practice if not also in combat (1 Sam. 20.21, 21, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,
40, 41). The men of David's entourage are called D'liJ], both in the
incident in which they stave off hunger by eating the 'shewbread'
(1 Sam. 21.3, 5, 6) and in the encounter with Nabal (1 Sam. 25.5, 9, 12,
25, 27). The men who kill the sons of Rimmon in 2 Sam. 4.12 are DHU],
as are the men who perform ritual combat in the presence of Abner and
Joab (2 Sam. 2.12-17). The servants in Nehemiah (4.10, 16, 17; 5.10,
16; 13.19) are armed (and thus fill a military role), while also working
on the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem. The king's ministers in
Esther (2.2; 6.3, 5) are governmental advisors, as well as having, no
doubt, domestic or military responsibilities.
Age and Marital Status
The standard lexica reflect this broad range of meanings. BDB6 suggests the following definitions for ~liJ]: boy, lad, youth, servant, retainer
(i.e. personal attendant, household servant, follower); for mW: girl,
4. Both Joseph and David are in the countryside at some distance from home,
however. Joseph is evidently under the supervision of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah,
his older half-brothers, when he is referred to in this way. At this point, he is 17
years old and probably considered a young adult, not a child.
5. Other armor-bearers serve Joab (2 Sam. 18.15) and Abimelech (Judg. 9.54).
6. F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of
the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), p. 654.
1. Introduction
13
damsel, female attendants, maid. Cited examples, for the masculine

form, rule out the possibility that age is the determinative criterion: an
unborn child (Judg 13.5, 7, 8, 12), an infant (Exod. 2.6), a just-weaned
child (1 Sam. 1.24), a youth of 17 (Gen. 37.2), a young man of marriageable age (Gen. 34.19) or of an age to be a seasoned warrior (2 Sam.
18.5, 12). Ziba, long-time servant to the house of Saul (2 Sam. 9.9,
16.1-4), remains a "ID] through many years of his adult life, and other
Q'HD] are conspicuously adult as well.
The examples for the feminine form likewise cover a wide age span,
and include both single and married females: young daughters (Job
40.29); marriageable young women (Gen. 24.14, 16, 28, 55, 57);
betrothed girls [sic] (Deut. 22.25, 27); young widows (Ruth 2.6; 4.12);
a concubine (Judg. 19.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9); even a prostitute (Amos 2.7).7
When a servant is indicated, no specificity with respect to age can be
inferred (Gen. 24.61; Exod. 2.5, 1 Sam. 25.42; Prov. 9.3; 27.27; 31.15;
Esth. 2.9; 4.4, 16; Ruth 2.5, 8, 22, 23). In each case, the mi); is
arguably a woman, not a child.8
Root
BDB distinguishes three roots: HI)] I, meaning to growl or bray; "ID] II,
meaning to shake or shake out or off; and ~1D] III, where the nouns
under study are listed, for which it reports that the meaning of the root
is unknown. The definitions given, as mentioned above, range so widely
that only maleness (or femaleness) seems to be a uniting factor. Cognates in other languages have not settled the question. BDB, while suggesting an Arabic root connected to the root for "ID] I, mentions only a
single Phoenician inscription relating to ~1DJ III, and declines to offer a
meaning for that one. The translation of related words in Ugaritic has,
of course, been influenced by the commonly accepted meanings of the
Hebrew words.9 For Ugaritic n'r, Cyrus Gordon suggested 'boy,
unmarried son'. He adds that
7. Although not all scholars believe that this nil?] is a prostitute. This remains
one of the most disputed verses of Hebrew scripture.
8. Only the "JCDp n~IJ)] of 2 Kgs 5 seems to be a girl. This phrase is discussed
in more detail in Chapter 7.
9. Cf. Koehler: 'The discovery of cognate languages affected Hebrew lexicography in a double way. It has enriched the Hebrew lexicon with many supporting
statements, with a heap of parallels. On the other side what we know today of the
Akkadian and Ugaritic lexicon would be impossible to a great extent without Heb-
14

in 2068 n'r (.3, 25) is distinguished from bn (.6, 19, 26, 27), though both
are members of households (\\att), so that n'r has some other meaning
such as 'servant'...m.pl. n'rm (113.60; 169.12): members of a certain
guild, perhaps 'servitors' or 'soldiers'
He goes on to compare them to the 'New Egyptian n'rn = - na'aruna'.10

Evidently he was cognizant of some range and variability, even in its
limited occurrences in the Ugaritic texts. Clearly, the traditional understandings lack specificity and consistency.
Each of the possible English terms that have been suggested as definitions could be rendered by other well-known Hebrew words: ~DJ) or
PICK for servants, DÛ or nnbu (young man or young woman), 2TK or
nSTK (man or woman), iV' or m'/1 (boy or girl), even rVnrQ (traditionally rendered 'virgin') or H31T (prostitute). The choice of the term ~IU] (or
mi)]) by various biblical authors suggests that the term carries connotations that these other words do not. The intent of the proposed
investigation is to discover what common threads connect this word in
all its varied uses in the Hebrew Bible.
The contribution of an adequate definition for these words is clear.
Broad, flexible, generic definitions for ~)JJ] and mu] conceal the social
realities that the stories can reveal. Alongside the historical/critical task
of discovering the political situation of the biblical narratives (the rulers,
the geography, the dates) is the sociological/anthropological task of discovering the social world of pre-exilic Israel, the society's structure and
the identity, that is, social location, of the various 'ordinary folk' of the
biblical narrative. Both set the stage for the story and fill in the details
that bring the story to life.
The planned research will contribute an understanding for these terms
that explains the social location of the ~li53 and mi)], suggesting why
these words and not one of the others available were used in each specific case. The final product will be a definition that coheres, encompassing all (or most) of the occasions when it is used in the Hebrew
scriptures. The result will be a more nuanced understanding of some
rew' (L. Koehler, 'Preface to the Hebrew Part', Introduction, in Koehler and
W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [revised
by W. Baumgartner and J.J. Stamm; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995], pp. Ixviii-lxxii [IxxJ).
10. UT, p. 445, no. 1666. See Chapter 8 for a discussion of the Egyptian evidence and how misunderstanding it has introduced misperceptions into our understanding of the Hebrew, both directly and via the Ugaritic evidence.
1. Introduction
15
well-known narratives and a more nearly adequate comprehension of

certain problematic passages.
Review of Recent Research
Two major studies of the Hebrew word ~liJ3 have appeared in the last
two decades. A number of lexica have been updated in recent years, and
their entries on this word rely heavily on these two studies.11 Additionally, a brief treatment of the word in Stager's seminal article on the
ancient Israelite family has drawn the attention of the wide readership
of that article to the meaning and significance of the term.'2 Aspects of
each of these three works will be covered briefly.
Hans-Peter Stahli
Twenty years ago, Hans-Peter Stahli published his dissertation on the
Hebrew word "ID;. This is a masterpiece of philological study, and his
attention to the history of scholarship on each pericope is quite thorough.13 In the final analysis, Stahli distinguishes two semantic domains
for the word. For neither of these is the principal distinguishing feature
'young-ness', since he proposes that they represent legal or social states
rather than phases of life. One is a category of 'servant' in which he
includes cultic functionaries and 'Elitekampfern' along with more ordinary servants.14 The other is a category of dependent persons whose
common characteristic (at least in the case of the males) is the fact of
being unmarried and thus under the power of the head of the family,
whom Stahli refers to as the paterfamilias.15 (The females, in his view,
remain mil)} after marriage owing to their generally more dependent
11. Sec, for instance Koehler and Baumgartner, Lexicon of the Old Testament,
s.v. 1133.
12. L.E. Stager, The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel', BASOR 260
(1985), pp. 1-35.
13. The present study has not attempted to duplicate Stahli's work in this area,
but rather to explore what newer methods offer in the way of insight into the
meaning of this word. For the history of the study of "!!?] using traditional methods,
especially for source-critical analysis, the reader is referred to Stahli's excellent
footnotes.
14. Stahli, Knabe-Jungling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum BegriffNa 'ar im Alien
Testament (ed. Jiirgen Becker and Henning Graf Reventlow; BBET, 7; Frankfurt:
Peter Lang. 1978), pp. 135-217.
15. Stahli, Knabe, pp. 96-100.
16
status in Israelite society.) This dependency (and the status of ~li?]) ends,
according to Stahli, upon marriage. This conclusion perhaps accords
more with late-twentieth-century European and American expectations
of achieving independence upon marriage than it does with a world in
which each nuclear family cell of an extended family remained under
the control and oversight of the family's head. Stahli fails to discover a
common thread that links these two different uses of the word (servant
and unmarried male), nor does he offer any explanation of the fact that
some biblical authors use the word with both meanings in close proximity in the texts.16
John Macdonald
In contrast to the methodical approach of Stahli, John Macdonald (in
some cases in collaboration with B. Cutler) has taken an eclectic
approach to the investigation of the terms, inspired by his work with the
Mari letters:
When I first realised that the traditional rendering of the term suharu
'young men, servants' frequently did not meet the requirements of the
various contexts, my thoughts immediately turned to the term ne'arim
(ne'drim) in the Israelite literature. After a careful study of this latter term
I realised that the Israelite na 'ar (young man) was a very different figure
from that normally understood.17
Having been captivated by the happenstance that this etymologically

unrelated word from the Mari correspondence is conveyed in translation
by the same two English terms, Macdonald goes on to investigate the
n 'r of both ancient Israel and of Ugarit. His conclusions owe more to
Mari, perhaps, than to Israel:
Na 'ar undoubtedly means a young male, whether he is a babe-in-arms or
a young man. What seems not to have been realized till now is that he is
a young male of high birth.18
16. Stahli, Knabe, pp. 275-76.
17. J. Macdonald, 'The Role and Status of the Suharu in the Mari Correspondence', JAOS 96.1 (1976), pp. 57-68 (57). A comprehensive analysis, using sociological methods, has not to my knowledge been done for this word in its Mari contexts. Such an investigation is beyond the scope of the present study, but would
clearly add a great deal to our knowledge of the ancient world. In general, social
science methodologies have not been systematically applied to the other Semitic
literatures.
18. J. Macdonald, 'The Status and Role of the Na'ar in Israelite Society', JNES
1. Introduction
17
He focuses principally on military contexts, and eventually settles on

a definition of 'squire' or 'young knight'.19 The examples he suggests
as evidence of 'high birth'for instance, Ishmael (Gen. 21.12, 17, 18,
20; 22.12), Esau and Jacob (Gen. 25.27), Joseph (Gen. 37.2), Shechem
(Gen. 34.19), Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 48.16), Moses (Exod. 2.6),
Samson (Judg. 13.5-7, 12, 24), Ichabod (1 Sam. 4.21), Samuel (1 Sam.
1.22, 24-25)are, with the exception of Joseph, not in positions of
service, either military or domestic. Whenever persons are referred to as
the D"HU3 ofsomeone, the reference is to the individual whom they
serve, not to their father. By combining the 'noble' status of the individuals named above with the occupational roles of others referred to in
the Hebrew scriptures as D"7"^], he creates a far-reaching, but ultimately
untenable, definition.20
Lawrence Stager
Citing both of these authors, Stager connects the "lift to
firstborn males waiting for the paterfamilias to 'pass on' or of younger
sons who had difficulties establishing themselves as heads of household,
35.3 (1976), pp. 147-70 (147). The notion that the word "UH denotes some sort of
elite status can be traced back ultimately to Meyer's handling of the Egyptian cognate, for which see Chapter 8. Macdonald repeatedly uses the adjective 'high' without any systematic study of status and values in the societies to which he applies the
term.
19. Macdonald, 'Status and Role of the Na'ar', pp. 169-70. Even in a European
context, 'high birth' might be an inappropriate designation for a knight. 'The nobiles
were wealthy hereditary landholders exercising broad jurisdictional powers. The
knights were their military retainers, usually of humble means, defined by their military vocation rather than their lineage'. C. Warren Hollister, 'Knights and Knight
Service', in American Council of Learned Societies', Dictionary of the Middle
Ages. VII. Italian Renaissance-Mabinogi (Joseph R. Strayer ed. in Chief; New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986), pp. 276-79 (276).
20. In his expositions of this definition, Macdonald includes outdated assumptions as well as errors of fact. He assigns a date (and presumably therefore historical
authenticity) to Abraham: 'no later than the 18th century'. He identifies 'the Israelite na'ar Jeroboam, son of Solomon' in 1 Kgs 11.28, although v. 26 clearly states
that Jeroboam was the son of Nebat, Solomon's servant (~ni>), whose mother was
now a widow. Obviously, whether this ~l!)] can be subsumed under the category of
'high-born males' is more tenuous if he is a servant's son than had he been the
king's son (B. Cutler, 'Identification of the Na'ar in the Ugaritic Texts' [collaborator J. Macdonald], f/F8 [1976], pp. 27-36 [31]; Macdonald, 'Role and Status
of the Suharu', pp. 57-68 [58]).
18
A way from the Father's House

with sufficient land and wealth. In ancient Israel, as in medieval Europe
and many other cultures, this 'safety valve' for young, unmarried males
involved careers in the military, government, or priesthood.21
Stager goes further by making specific comparisons to the aristocratic

'youth' of twelfth-century France:
This was a stage in the life of the noble male, beginning when he became
a knight and ending when he put down roots, married, became head of a
household, and started to rear a family. It was a turbulent period of knight
errantry, when fighting in battles, competing in tournaments, and court99
ing fair maidens were the primary concerns.
Stager's suggestion that the D"HJ?] were unable to establish themselves as heads of households is probably quite accurate, although the
servanthood in which most of them are found can hardly be understood
as a 'career path', but rather as hiring themselves out. Most often the
DHI?] are found in the humbler roles, tending livestock and carrying
weapons. Only occasionally do we see them in any real governmental
role, and only one ~l0 chooses the priesthood.23 None of the biblical
D"""!!?] can be identified as first-born sons; most are later-born sons who
may never achieve the status of 'head of household'. Furthermore, the
social structures of pre-exilic Israel (especially early monarchic Israel)
were not identical with those of an ancient Canaanite city-state nor of
medieval Europe. The aristocratic French youth shared with the D'HI?]
of early Israel a penchant for 'getting into trouble' when they were away
from home, but the carefree high jinks of knighthood are probably not
the best analogy for the hard physical labor that most of the D'Hi?]
endured. Conditions favoring knighthood, with its complicated code of
chivalry (or some roughly equivalent institution), require a highly
organized, highly stratified society, a situation that obtained least during
the pre-monarchic and early monarchic periods, when the majority of
the narratives containing the DHU] are set.24
21. Stager, 'Archaeology of the Family', p. 25.
22. Stager, 'Archaeology of the Family', p. 25.
23. I.e., the Levite of Judg. 17-18. Samuel and Samson are both dedicated to
the Nazirate prior to birth.
24. The distinction is clearly drawn by C.J.H. Wright: 'Palestine before Israel
was a city-state culture, with a very stratified social and economic hierarchy, topped
by the local kings and their elites, supported by the mass of taxpaying tenant peasants... By contrast, Israel emerged as a social system based on a broad equality of
kinship groups, initially without a centralized, elite power base' (C.J.H. Wright,
1. Introduction
19
The principal shortcoming of all three of these approaches is their

adoption, with little examination, of the notion that ~l0 was a term that
carried 'high status' or 'high position'. In order to assign high status to
a role within a society, we must first examine the values of that society
to determine what attributes it considers important.25 Such a value-laden
assessment must be couched in terms of those elements that the society
in question most values. In the case of early Israel, the values most
cherished by society included possession of land, male progeny and
respect within the community. From the beginning of its existence,
these were the things that brought a man status.26 These were also
manifestly out of the reach of the individuals in the Hebrew texts who
are called DHI)]. Serving in the court of the king, working in another
man's fields or household, fighting the battles of a chieftainall of
these are ways to build up another man's 'house', not one's own. A few
of these individuals (the minority whose names are provided by the
narrator) may have come initially from high-status families, but in the
case of the majority, we know nothing of their father's houses except
that the individuals referred to as DHI?] were away from them.
Walter Mayer and R. Mayer-Opificius
More recently, these two authors have completely rejected this notion
of 'noble birth' for the ~l0, demonstrating from the Egyptian evidence
of the accounts of the Battle of Qadesh that the na 'aruna (as well as the
n 'r of the Ugaritic materials) are better understood as servants and
camp followers.27 While these authors do not explore the ramifications
of their work for understanding the social location of the DHU3 of early
Israel, their research is vital to our understanding of the way in which a
'Family', ABD, II, pp. 761-69 (762). Cf. also N.K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C. (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books, 1979), pp. 321-23.
25. 'Values are shared ideas about what is socially desirable.' Our own society,
for instance, values affluence and material comfort. Thus, to us, a bureaucratic position in close attendance on those in power might be highly valued (W.E. Thompson
and J.V. Mickey, Society in Focus: An Introduction to Sociology [New York:
HarperCollins College Publishers, 1994], p. 72).
26. Cf., e.g., the Call of Abraham (Gen. 12) and the Covenant with Abraham
(Gen. 15) in which progeny, land and 'name' are clearly the highest rewards for
faithfulness.
27. W. Mayer and R. Mayer-Opificius, 'Die Schlacht bei Qades: der Versuch
einer neuen Rekonstruktion', UF 26 (1994), pp. 321-68.
20
misreading of the Egyptian evidence has encouraged the proliferation

of analyses that suggest a 'high-born' status for the "1173. Accordingly,
their work will be covered at length in Chapter 8.
Distribution of the Words
Pentateuch and Former Prophets
With two arguable exceptions, the appearances in the Tetrateuch ("1^3
31 times, miJ3 9 times) all come from material which is 'non-P'.28 The
words are not found in Leviticus at all. Within the Former Prophets ("1173
142 times, mi?3 14 times), the words occur exclusively in material
drawn from Dtr's sources rather than from apparent expansions and
insertions by the editor(s) themselves. Deuteronomy 28.50, which is the
sole appearance of HI73 in Deuteronomy itself, is drawn from the blessings and curses section of old treaty material, while m#3 shows up 13
times in a block of legal material in Deuteronomy 22. The masculine
and feminine terms frequently occur together,29 both exhibiting 'clusters' in Ruth, Esther and the Elijah-Elisha stories, as well as in Judges
and in stories about Saul and David. The pattern of distribution leads to
the conclusion that these words were used by the earliest 'tellers of
tales' rather than by compilers and editors.
Postexilic Writings
Neither word appears in Daniel or Ezra, and their occurrence in other
indisputably postexilic writing is scarce. The feminine occurs in postexilic writings only in Esther (13 times). The masculine, in addition to its
4 uses in Esther, appears 5 times in Chronicles and 8 times in Nehe28. As delineated in M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B.W.
Anderson; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), translator's Supplement, pp. 261-76.
Noth considers Gen. 37.1-2 to be P. However, Gottwald places these two verses in
question in 'non-P' material. I will avoid wading into the scholarly fray regarding
the boundaries and existence of 'E', but the interested reader should see Stahli for
discussion of this topic using traditional categories (N.K. Gottwald, The Hebrew
Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], pp. 15153, 182-87).
29. For example, Itf] in Gen. 34.19, iTIJH in 34.3, 12; 1U] in Exod. 2.6, mifl in
2.5; -Ii>3 in Judg. 19.3, 9, 11, 13, 19; mil] in 19.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9; -|B3 in 1 Sam. 9.3, 5,
7, 8, 10, 22, 27; mitt in 9.11; nitt in 1 Sam. 25.5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 19, 25, 27; mw in
1 Sam. 25.42; -]JH in 2 Kgs 5.14; mi in 2 Kgs 5.2, 4; 1U] in Ruth 2.5, 6, 9, 15, 21;
miH in Ruth 2.5, 6, 8, 22, 23; "1^3 in Est. 2.2; m:J] in 2.2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13.
1. Introduction
21
miah. Clearly, late in Israel's history "1173 and mi?] were words that were
not in vogue, either because the social reality they indicated was no
longer extant or because other words had been taken over to describe it.
Poetry
Non-prophetic poetic materials contain "II?] a mere 15 times (excluding,
for the moment, the 1 in the aphorisms of Proverbs). Of these, fully 9
reflect the stereotyped pairing of ]pT-"lI?l The words are rare in Psalms,
Proverbs and Job: the Psalmists use the masculine 3 times, the feminine
not at all. ill I?] appears in 3 places in Proverbs, while ~ll?] appears 1
times. Job accounts for one example of the feminine, 7 of the masculine, but 4 of those occur in the prose prologue. Lamentations uses "II?]
just twice. For the feminine form, then, we find only a single poetic
occurrence (in Job 40.29), in addition to 3 mentions in Proverbs.
Prophets
The entire corpus of the writing prophets contains the word "II?] only 16
times, and 1 of those is a verbatim parallel with an occurrence in the
Former Prophets (Isa. 37.6, 2 Kgs 19.6). The celebrated 'girl' of Amos
2.7 is the cameo prophetic appearance for the feminine form, although
this may well be a verbal form.30 The meanings that these texts appear
to reflect are consistent with, but less differentiated than, those that are
apparent from the narrative texts.31
The general pattern seems to be that the words designate a quite precise social location in the oldest material, while in later, especially
poetic, texts a more generalized youthfulness seems to be designated.
This 'semantic drift' over time may well have occurred by means of a
kind of pars pro toto mechanism. The role and status of "II?] was indeed
30. See Chapter 6 for Marvin Chaney's suggested solution to this crux.
31. In fact, the situation is quite analogous to that found by Katharine D. Sakenfeld in her study of 10PI: 'The understanding of hesed which can be gleaned from
the texts to be discussed here [Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and hymnic passages from
other books] accords well with what has been said of hesed in the foregoing chapters [on narrative materials] and the picture is enhanced and enriched. Yet, because
of the difficulty of dating and absence of concrete contexts, these examples cannot
in themselves provide an independent basis for establishing the parameters of
hesed. There are additional difficulties. Many of these passages do not in themselves give any clue as to the content of the word' (K.D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of
Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry [ed. P.M. Cross; HSM, 17; Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1978], p. 214).
22
most often occupied by a person who was relatively young, and in time
the word came to connote that general young-ness rather than the more
specific features of being a ~)JJ1 In particular, it would be easy to see
how the specificity might be lost if the social realties changed in such a
way that most males, upon reaching adulthood, had to leave their ancestral lands and indenture themselves or seek employment away from
home. An inescapable situation for young adults might become synonymous with that stage of life. Certainly, what is known about the
economic life of ancient Israel, beginning with the demands of the
indigenous monarchy and continuing through the period of domination
by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires, suggests that the security of tenure of the patrimonies became steadily
more tenuous.
Chapter 2
METHODS
Methodological Considerations
Lexicographical Method
The principal method to be employed in this investigation will be a
close reading of the Hebrew texts, resulting in what could be called
'argued lexicography', or perhaps 'definitions from within narrative'.
The contexts in which the words appear will be examined for the elements that are consistent between one pericope and the next. Those
threads will then be woven into a definition that will fit the full range of
the situations in which the words are used. Although it is tempting to
believe that it is possible to get 'behind' the texts in order to discover
some pure definition that is not tainted by the inherently circular reasoning of contextual studies, the reality is that all study of language is
contextual.
Some studies by researchers from prior generations of biblical
scholars have exhibited keen enthusiasm about the information provided by etymological studies, an enthusiasm that Barr considered
overblown:
Etymology...is concerned with the derivation of words from previous
forms. It must be emphasized that this is a historical study. It studies the
past of a word, but understands that the past of a word is no infallible
guide to its present meaning. Etymology is not, and does not profess to
be, a guide to the semantic value of words in their current usage, and
such value has to be determined from the current usage and not from the
derivation... Nevertheless there is a normative strain in the thought of
many people about language, and they feel that in some sense the
'original', the 'etymological meaning', should be a guide to the usage of
words, that the words are used 'properly' when they coincide in sense
with the sense of the earliest known form from which their derivation can
be traced; and that when a word becomes in some way difficult or
24

ambiguous, an appeal to the etymology will lead to a 'proper meaning'
from which at any rate to begin.l
In laying out the present study, Barr's caveat has been duly noted. No
attempt will be made to delve as far back in time as possible to find
some sort of original meaning for "IU3 and m^l Rather, meaning will
be sought in the context of the biblical materials themselves, especially
those from earliest Israel, supplemented but not overridden by whatever
information is available from Israel's nearest neighbors. Words that
describe a social location may be expected to vary somewhat more than
more concrete words, given the differences in social structure among
the various societies whose written records contain these words. Thus
caution in the way in which data about cognates is used is particularly
appropriate in such an investigation as this one.
This commitment to privilege context over cognates is reflected in
the design of the present study. In contrast to most studies of Hebrew
words, which place comparative and etymological speculation at the
beginning, we will begin with an examination of the word in its narrative use.2 Similarly, among the extrabiblical sources greatest weight
will be given to those which are nearest in time and geography to early
Israel. Thus, the Ugaritic and Egyptian documents and inscriptions will
be carefully noted, since they come from very close by and near to the
time of Israel's origins. Documents from several centuries prior to the
beginning of the Iron Age will be considered less pertinent.3 In light of
the semantic drift that words exhibit over time (and which will be
demonstrated for "IU] in Chapter 7), and in light of the diminishing frequency of occurrence of the word in late biblical Hebrew (and its gradual shift toward an age-related meaning) as well as its absence from
biblical Aramaic, post-biblical sources will not be treated.
Narrative Method
A variety of tools exists for looking at the literary artistry that has been
employed in creating a text. The failure to make use of these methods
1. J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1961), p. 107.
2. Cf., e.g., the Tables of Contents in Sakenfeld, The Meaning ofHesed; W.B.
Barrick, The Word BMH in the Old Testament' (unpublished PhD dissertation;
Chicago: University of Chicago, 1977).
3. In point of fact, however, this is a theoretical consideration only, since no
form of n 'r has been identified in, for example, the Mari collection.
2. Methods
25
can result not only in missing the full aesthetic value of a composition,
but also in misunderstanding its meaning, as for instance when we read
a text without knowledge of its genre or without understanding that an
author intends something ironically rather than straightforwardly.4 In
the words of Eskenazi, Tut simply, literary criticism analyzes what is
said by looking at how it is said.'5 Literary methods are not a substitute
for sociological methods, nor is the reverse the case. Techniques from
both literary criticism and the social sciences must be used in tandem in
order to reveal the full import of a text.
In ascertaining such information as social location, the social scientist
would like to have a broad database resulting from controlled scientific
observation. Needless to say, in studying the ancient Near Eastern
world, and the biblical world in particular, this ideal is never closely
approximated. Narratology can be employed to gain the maximum useful information from the data that are available. Stories can be scrutinized for the details, as well as the silences, that give clues to the world
of the writer. Evidence of power within the narrative can be used to
determine the possibilities for power for such characters within the
worlds that could be imagined by the storytellers and their hearers,
although we must be on guard for the possibility that the intent of the
story is to portray a world in which power is reordered. In Darr's
words, 'Bringing, as best we are able, the ancient audience's extratextual repertoire to bear enables us to recover the meaning and import of
poems for its earliest audiences.'6
Beyond the use of narrative analysis for evidence of social structures,
societal values, and expected roles and relationships, narrative analysis
4. This last mistake is often made, for example, in the traditional readings of
the story of the breaking of the Aramean siege of Samaria, accomplished by the
'DHU] of the district governors', in 1 Kgs 20.13-21, as will be discussed further in
Chapter 8, in the discussion of Egyptian cognates.
5. T.C. Eskenazi, Torah as Narrative and Narrative as Torah', in J.L. Mays,
D.L. Petersen and K.H. Richards, Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and
Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995),
pp. 13-30(15).
6. K.P. Darr, 'Literary Perspectives on Prophetic Literature', in J.L. Mays,
D.L. Retanen and K.H. Richards, Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and
Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995),
pp. 127-43 (141).
26
can also provide clues (and protect against false assumptions) concerning the boundaries, the provenance, and the redaction history of a tale.
The use of repetition, for instance, may be seen as a tool of the artist
and not everywhere and inevitably a sign of compositeness or the use of
sources. Such information can help to identify the time and place in
history when the tale was told, when the story was written down, when
the text was edited. By relating these things to what we do know of the
social and political changes in the ancient Near East, we are provided
with additional information with which to describe a social world.
A number of authors have proposed methodologies for exploring
aspects of narrative artistry in Hebrew texts.7 In each case, they have
used those tools to look at one or more representative passages. The
present study will use the categories developed by Berlin, as well as her
appropriation of the work of William Labov, as a lens through which to
look closely at the biblical passages containing the word ~IU], because
they have proved to be relatively simple to apply and because they have
yielded fruitful results.8 Simplicity is an important consideration, given
the large number of texts to be considered, but this cursory application
of narrative methods is far from exhausting the potential. A number of
these narratives could be examined more closely and would produce
very interesting, although lengthy, results.
Berlin observes three sorts of characters in biblical narrative. First is
'the agent, about whom nothing is known except what is necessary for
the plot'. This is the character who is, so to speak, part of the background rather than foreground. Second is 'the type, who has a limited
and stereotyped range of traits, and who represents the class of people
with these traits'. Finally, the most fully developed is 'the character,
who has a broader range of traits (not all belonging to the same class of
people), and about whom we know more than is necessary for the
plot'.9 In other words, only this last sort of character has individuality
and distinctiveness. Characterization is achieved through a combination
7. See, e.g., R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books,
1981); M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985); P. Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book
of Jonah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994).
8. A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield:
Almond Press, 1983).
9. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, p. 32.
2. Methods
27
of description, inner life, speech and actions, and contrast with another
character (or with an earlier self or an expected norm).10 The degree of
character development establishes a character's power or status or
importance in the narrative world and may provide clues to the sort of
position that a similar personage might be expected to hold in the real
world as well. In particular, & pattern of minimal character development
for a particular class of persons may suggest that they are not highly
valued in the social context of the hearers of the tales.
For her examination of narrative structure, Berlin makes good use of
William Labov's socio-linguistic studies of inner-city speech and narrative patterns, and I, in turn, have borrowed her outline of his work.11 In
schematic form, Labov's sequence of well-formed narrative includes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Abstract
Orientation
Complicating Action
Evaluation
Result or Resolution
Coda
The Abstract (which is not always present) is a summary that introduces the narrative. The Orientation sets the time, place and cast of
characters of the story. The Complicating Action provides the heart of
the tale, while the Evaluation gives its point, its raison d'etre. The
Resolution informs the hearer of what finally happened, the ultimate
outcome. The Coda is the narrator's way of signalling that the narrative
has come to an end. It is a way of returning the hearers (or readers) to
the real world after their stay in the world of the story. Berlin suggests
that many biblical etiologies function as Codas: some phrase on the
order of 'and it is there to this day' takes the audience out of the story
world, while establishing the link between that world and their present
one.12 These then are the basic tools that will be used to examine the
biblical narratives in which the word "1^3 (or mi?3) appears.
10. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, pp. 34-42.

11. W. Labov, Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), quoted in Berlin,
Poetics and Interpretation, pp. 101-10.
12. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, pp. 107-109, 154.
28
Sociological Method
Use of Models. The use of models in a study of the social structure of
an ancient world is not optional; the question is only whether we will
make our models explicit so that they can be discussed and examined.13
Anthropologists have studied a number of agricultural cultures in the
Mediterranean basin and formed an understanding of the ways those
societies function.14 New Testament scholars have very productively
examined the world that gave birth to the Christian Testament in light
of those models. Certain social roles and relationships that seem strange
to twentieth-century European and American readers make sense in
light of these simplified pictures of the way some of these cultures
function. The objection is frequently raised that these cultures are many
centuries removed from the New Testament world, and that even the
New Testament world was very different from the world of ancient
Israel. Without question, these observations are accurate. Nevertheless,
preindustrial societies on the rim of the Mediterranean are demonstrably closer in many respects to the world from which the Hebrew
narratives came than is our own industrialized society.
Whenever we refuse to develop a conscious model, using the best
data that is available to us, the model that we employ is drawn from our
own experiences. Thus, when we say that a character was a 'youth', we
are apt to imagine the rather carefree, somewhat rebellious, decidedly
extended period in the life of modern 'youths' instead of the considerably harsher realities of life in an agrarian society. The final test of a
model, of course, is whether it helps to make sense of the data. An
increasing number of Hebrew Bible scholars have been putting various
social-scientific models, especially those growing out of the field of
Mediterranean anthropology, to use in examining the world that produced these texts and to the meaning of the texts themselves.
13. For a useful (and entertaining!) introduction to the use of models in socialscientific inquiry, see T.F. Carney, The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity
(Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press, 1975), esp. Ch. 1, pp. 1-43.
14. Important studies include J. Pitt-Rivers, The Fate of Shechem, or the Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge Studies in
Social Anthropology, 19; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); J. Peristiany (ed.), Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (London:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1965); J.Davis, The People of the Mediterranean: An Essay
in Comparative Social Anthropology (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977).
2. Methods
29
The Social World in which the Word Was Used

Ancient Israel as an Agrarian Society15
Premonarchic Israel emerged in the hill country of Judah and Samaria
at the beginning of the Iron Age, sometime after about 1100-1050
BCE.16 The mechanism by which this 'emergence' occurredwhether
by conquest, revolt or infiltrationis still disputed among scholars.17
Whatever the mechanism, the new entity was an agrarian society pioneering virgin sites. The ability to exploit the hill country for agriculture was dependent on finding means to collect rain water, slow run-off
and store crop surpluses, since the rainfall (and hence also harvest size)
on which survival depended is notoriously capricious in this part of the
world. This was accomplished by building terraces, hewing cisterns and
creating jars, pits, silos and buildings devoted to storage of surpluses.
15. That is, one which 'depends for its subsistence on crops raised with the help
of plows, draft animals, and intensive agricultural methods' (Thompson and Hickey,
Society in Focus, p. 106).
16. To understand the importance of the development of iron tool use, see P.M.
McNutt, The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in
Ancient Society (JSOTSup, 108; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990); J.C. Waldbaum,
From Bronze to Iron: The Transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in the
Eastern Mediterranean (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, 54; Goteburg: Paul
Astrom, 1978).
For a very helpful study of the factors involved with settlement of the hill country, see D.C. Hopkins, The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early
Iron Age (SWBA; Sheffield: Sheffield Almond Press, 1985).
For the challenges of exploiting the highlands for agricultural production, see
O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987).
For a readable comprehensive survey of issues in ancient Israel's social world,
see V.H. Matthews and D.C. Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel: 1250-587
BCE (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993).
17. For some of the now-classic formulations of these arguments, see G.E.
Wright, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1962);
G.E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973); M. Noth, The History of
Israel (New York: Harper & Row, 1958); Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh. For
overview and critiques of various aspects of these arguments, see G.W. Ramsey,
The Quest for the Historical Israel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981); M.L. Chaney,
'Ancient Palestinian Peasant Movements and the Formation of Premonarchic
Israel', in D.N. Freedman and D.F. Graf (eds.), Palestine in Transition: The Emergence of Ancient Israel (SWBA, 2; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983).
30
These activities placed a high labor demand on the community that in

turn caused reproductions that produced additional laborers, to be
especially valued.18
The structure of this collection of communities seems to have been
grossly egalitarian across families.19 Small villages were comprised of
several extended families (rTDK TO) that were in turn made up of several nuclear family units. Apparently each nuclear family lived in its
own dwelling, but the cells of an extended family might be clustered
loosely into a compound.20 Each extended family worked a portion of
land, referred to as a rfpri] or patrimony, which it controlled and from
which it retained any surplus. Whether the n^PI] was periodically redistributed or not is not certain. Community expectations backed by religious injunction dictated a system of mutual aid by which families who
were experiencing abundance provided assistance to those who were in
difficulty.
The crops produced were principally those of the 'Mediterranean triangle' : grain, olives and grapes, minimally supplemented by legumes,
fruits and vegetables. Integral to the success of this agricultural enterprise was a pastoral component, wherein flocks of small animals, principally sheep and goats, were tended for their milk, manure, fiber and
draft potential. Meat was not a frequent dietary component, but was
valued for ritual/festive observances as well as its potential as an emergency food source in times of crop failure. The wide range of animal
and agricultural products raised allowed the labor needs of the community to be spread across all segments of the population and throughout
the year.
Prosperity and even survival depended on acquiring and retaining
land and the labor necessary to make it productive. The need for community cooperation and mutual aid made it essential to maintain the
high regard and trust of one's neighbors. Accordingly, the highest val18. C.L. Meyers, 'Procreation, Production, and Protection: Male-Female Balance in Early Israel', JAAR 51.4 (1983), pp. 569-93.
19. Meyers provides a description of both families and the communities in which
they lived in C.L. Meyers, 'The Family in Early Israel', in L.G. Perdue,
J. Blenkinsopp, J.J. Collins and C. Meyers (eds.), Families in Ancient Israel (The
Family, Religion, and Culture; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1997), pp. 1-47.
20. Y. Shiloh, The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite
City', IEJ 20 (1970), pp. 180-90; Stager, 'The Archaeology of the Family', pp. 1-35.
2. Methods
31
ues of this society were land, sons and honor. The witness of the entire
biblical corpus affirms this evaluation.21
Urbanization. With the establishment of the monarchy, a layer of
control and obligation was superimposed on top of this society that
siphoned off both agricultural products and labor for the support of the
royal family and administration, for military campaigns of both expansion and defense, and for trade and traffic in luxury goods.22 Somewhat
later this society, which was in many ways a counter-formation to the
Late Bronze Canaanite cities, saw the development of its own incipient
urban centers, supported of course by the population on the land. Indeed,
one of the most common ways of defining a settlement as a 'city' is its
non-self-sufficiency with regard to food, fiber and raw materials.23 Still,
compared with the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Israel in the early
years of the monarchy had only a few modest urban centers, with the
bulk of the population living in villages and towns.24
Foreign Domination. In time yet another burdensome layer was
added, this time in the form of foreign empirical powers and their
bureaucracies. These impositions were sometimes quite harsh, other
times somewhat less so. Throughout, however, the basic structure of the
peasant social order and its values remained conservative and therefore
largely unchanged.25 Bendor's careful survey of Israel's social structure
has confirmed this observation.
We have found that society in Israel and in Judah, despite the changes it
underwent, despite the burden of the monarchy and the system of
monarchial adminstration, and despite the tempestuous developments in
the course of its history, remained in principle a society of free farmers
settled on their land and among their kinsmen.
21. Consider, e.g., the Call of Abraham (Gen. 12) and the Covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15), which emphasize land, progeny and name.
22. For a comprehensive examination of the changes in social and political
structure that accompanied the change from filiated tribes to statehood, see F.S.
Frick, The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Models and Theories (SWBA, 4; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985).
23. G. Lenski and J. Lenski, Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), p. 488.
24. Lenski and Lenski, Human Societies; L. Perdue et al. (eds.), Families in
Ancient Israel (Family, Religion, and Culture; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1997), p. 6.
25. 'Peasant' here as defined by the Lenskis as a member of the agrarian society
who actually works the land (Lenski and Lenski, Human Societies, p. 486).
32

It would appear that during the period in question no changes took
place in the mode of production that would undermine the efficiency of
the kinship structure. Thus the structure of batei 'ab and miSpahot was
able to persist and contribute to the stability of a free productive society,
through a dynamic balancefaltering and renewing itselfbetween
trends of unity and of conflict.26
Values ofPre-exilic Israel

The categories of honor and shame in Mediterranean societies have
been studied by anthropologists and their findings have been applied
with enlightening results to New Testament texts.27 Because of the slow
rate of change in preindustrial social systems, these observations about
first-century Palestine provide a helpful model in regard to the phenomena of honor and shame for the earlier Iron Age and Exilic culture of
the area as well.28 More recently, scholars have made use of these studies for shedding new light on the Hebrew Bible.29 The precise outline of
26. S. Bendor, The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the
Family (Beit 'Ab)from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (Jerusalem Biblical Series, 7; Jerusalem: Simor, 1996), p. 280.
27. Books that have been foundational in the field are BJ. Malina, The New
Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1981), and more recently B. Malina and R. Rohrbaugh,
Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1992). The vocabulary of this field of growing importance is conveniently collected
in J.J. Pilch and B.J. Malina, Biblical Social Values and their Meaning: A Handbook (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993). For a current bibliographical survey of
the field, see R. Rohrbaugh (ed.), The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996). An excellent brief treatment is H. Moxnes, 'Honor and Shame', BTB Readers Guide, BTB 23 (1993), pp. 167-76.
28. On the slow rate of change over time of family forms and social structures,
see K.C. Hanson, 'Kinship', BTB Reader's Guide,BTB 24 (1994), pp. 183-94 (187).
29. G. Stansell, 'Honor and Shame in the David Narratives', in F. Criisemann,
Christof Hardmeier and Ranier Kessler (eds.), 'Was ist der Mensch?' Beitrage zur
Anthropologie des Alien Testaments (Munich: Chr. KaiserVerlag, 1992), pp. 94-114;
T. Laniak, 'EstherA Tale of Honor and Shame', Paper presented at SBL Annual
Meeting, Chicago, IL, 1994;; K.A. Stone, 'Gender and Homosexuality in Judges
19: Subject-Honor, Object-Shame?', JSOT 61 (1995), pp. 87-107; V.H. Matthews
and D.C. Benjamin, 'Social Sciences and Biblical Studies', in Honor and Shame in
the World of the Bible (Semeia, 68; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 7-21; R. Simkins, ' "Return to Yahweh": Honor and Shame in Joel', in Matthews and Benjamin
(eds.), Honor and Shame, pp. 41-54; K.A. Stone, Sex, Honor and Power in the
Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup. 234; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
2. Methods
33
the ways these values functioned was not constant, either through time
or from place to place, but certain common features mark these cultures
off as related to one another in certain features and as quite different
from our own with respect to these values.
A definition of honor in this context comes from Pitt-Rivers:
Honor is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his
society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride, but it is
also the acknowledgement of that claim, his excellence recognised by
society, his right to pride.' 30
The ancient Mediterranean villager viewed all people as possessing

two kinds of honor. Ascribed honor resulted from one's birth into a
particular family, nation, religious group, village, and of course gender.
It was essentially an hereditary property.
Acquired honor, on the other hand, results from the villager's success
or failure at meeting the duties and expectations of his community.
Honor is acquired at the expense of another's honor. First-century
Palestine has been described as an 'agonistic' society, and pre-exilic
Israel could probably be described in the same terms. Just as members
of an agrarian community universally experienced tangible valuables in
their world as being in limited supply, they also experienced intangibles
such as honor as being limited goods. This perception leads to neverending competition to acquire honor at the expense of one's neighbors,
a competition that plays out by the issuing of challenges and responses
to challenges.
The challenge is a claim to enter the social space of another. This claim
may be positive or negative. A positive reason for entering the social
space of another would be to gain some share in that space or to gain a
cooperative, tnutuallly beneficial foothold. A negative reason would be
to dislodge another from that person's social space, either temporarily or
permanently.31
Challenges could be either negative (an insult, a threat) or positive (a

gift, a word of praise). Both alike required a response, if honor was not
to be lost.
The parrying of challenges and responses was an interchange that
could only take place between equals. Thus every challenge presented a
dilemma of whether to respond or whether to ignore it. To be unwilling
30. Pitt-Rivers, Fate ofShechem, p. 1.
31. Malina, The New Testament World, pp. 34-35.
34
or unable to meet a challenge with an effective response caused a loss

of honor, but to respond to an inferior as if to an equal also caused such
a loss. Every social interaction outside the immediate family was
loaded in this way and required a careful evaluation of the other actors.
Both ascribed and acquired honor were inextricably bound up with
the honor of the groupings of which the individual was a part, especially the family. The honor of one's parents, siblings, children, even
servants determined one's own honor. This explains a great deal about
preoccupation with lineage and legitimacy. Unfamiliar persons had to
be carefully assessed to discover their place in the social hierarchy. A
visitor to the village could expect almost continual challenging until his
relative status was ascertained. In determining the visitor's level of
honor, as well as in finding the weak points to exploit in order to diminish it, information was essential. All of this assessing of relative position was possible in the face-to-face social world of the village in a way
that would be impossible in our own contemporary setting.
Expectations for men were different from those for women. Men were
expected to advance their own honor and protect the women of their
family. Women were to exhibit 'shame', that is to say, not shamefulness or shamelessness but a sense of shame, a sensitivity to shame. They
were to exhibit modesty and deference. In sexual matters, men were to
show virility, women to give no cause to question their chastity.
The honour of a man and of a woman therefore imply quite different
modes of conduct. This is so in any society. A woman is dishonoured,
loses her vergenza, with the tainting of her sexual purity, but a man does
not. While certain conduct is honourable for both sexes, honour = shame
requires conduct in other spheres, which is exclusively a virtue of one
sex or the other. It obliges a man to defend his honour and that of his
family, a woman to conserve her purity.32
More about gender differences in this value system (as also about other
aspects of the concepts of honor and shame) will be introduced in the
sections in which they are used in examining the biblical texts.
Social Institutions
The Family: Kinship by Birth or by Residency in the DKTP3. The family, or DK rTO, was the basic unit of production, and cooperation and
mutual assistance among families was imperative for the survival of
32. Pitt-Rivers, Fate ofShechem, p. 20.
2. Methods
35
communities pioneering the hill country.33 Furthermore, a man's ability

to exercise power and leadership within the community, and to have a
say in the administration of justice, was conditioned on his being recognized as a member in good standing of the village assembly. Therefore, how a family was regarded by its neighborswhether it was
considered to possess 'honor' or notwas an issue with ramifications
far beyond the psychological realm. The categories of honor and shame
were operative in all relational interactions, and this honor or shame
was 'corporate' as much as individual.
Since first-century societies did not consider individualism a pivotal
value as we do...collective or corporate honor was one of their focuses.
Social groups, like the family, village, or region, possess a collective
honor in which the members participate... Depending upon the dimensions of the group, which can run a replicating range from individual,
nuclear family, to kingdom or region, the head of the group is responsible for the honor of the group with reference to outsiders, and symbolized the group's honor as well. Hence members of the group owe loyalty, respect, and obedience of a kind which commits their individual
honor without limit and without compromise. 34
Although the evidence indicates that the household of residence was

limited to a nuclear family, an individual's identity and honor were
connected to the extended family (DN PPD),35 which may have lived in a
collection of connected or closely situated dwellings constituting the
33. 'In its core usage as a term for the household unit in ancient Israel pR ITQ],
it included both biologically related individuals as well as those with affinal or other
ties. It was in effect a living group as much as a kinship group. The "father's house"
achieved its basic configuration in the rural communities in which it functioned at
the time of Israelite beginnings and probably throughout much of the succeeding
centuries; and its importance was integrally related to its role as the basic economic
unit, producing virtually all of what was needed for the subsistence of its members'
(C.L. Meyers, 'To Her Mother's House: Considering a Counterpart to the Israelite
Bet 'Ab', in D. Jobling (ed.), The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor
of Norman K. Gottwald on His Sixty-Sixth Birthday (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1991), pp.
39-52 (41). See also Gottwald, Tribes ofYahweh, pp. 248, 285-92.
34. B.J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, rev. edn, 1993).
35. This term came to indicate descent from a common ancestor (real or fictive),
thus designating the patriline. In general, the extended family is indicated when the
text refers to the 'house' of a living individual, whereas speaking of the 'house' of
an individual long dead indicates that genealogy rather than residence is the issue.
36
family 'compound'.36 The household, or 'family', was comprised of

individuals who were related by birth or marriage ('kin') and those who
were associated with the family through the operation of various other
social or ritual means ('fictive kin'). Servants or slaves, for example,
were members of the household.
Leadership in Family and Community: Patriarchs and Elders. Ancient
Israel (as indeed most of the ancient Near East) was a typical agrarian
society, organized socially along patriarchal lines, and the senior male
of the extended family (the paterfamilias)had broad power to decide
issues that affected the functioning of the family. In particular, he was
responsible for retaining and advancing the family's honor (and guarding against occasions for shame) by oversight and protection37 of the
other members of the household. The conduct of both types of family
members, relatives and dependents, contributed to the assessment of
honor (or shame) by which other villagers evaluated the family. Accordingly, the patriarch could be expected to exercise vigorous supervision
and discipline over family members, whether related to or merely
dependent upon the household.
For males, honor equals precedence, and the father's task was to
provide training and resources that allowed a son to 'get on in the
world'. Included in this task seems to have been teaching work habits
and self-control and keeping the young man out of trouble. For females,
honor meant avoidance of occasions for shame, especially in the sexual
realm, where exposure even to the possibility of impropriety was a
scandalous thing. In the case of daughters, the father's principal task
was to guard against sexual impurity. This could be accomplished most
easily and most convincingly by keeping the daughter 'cloistered' in the
private spaces of the home.
Decisions that affected more than one family were reached and carried out by the community's elders.38 These appear to have been the
36. Stager, 'Archaeology of the Family', pp. 17-18.

37. Which is to say that in the proper course of events, the paterfamilias is the
'patron' and his dependent family members are his 'clients'. When a person
becomes a na 'ar(ah), he is forced to become dependent on another patron.
38. For full discussions of the role of 'elder' in early Israel, see J.L. McKenzie,
'The Elders in the Old Testament', Bib 40 (1959), pp. 522-40; V.H. Matthews and
D.C. Benjamin, 'The Elder', Bible Today 30 (1992), pp. 170-74; H. Reviv, The
2. Methods
37
heads of the various families, quite likely the senior male or patriarch of
each extended family. To become an elder was the highest status to
which one could aspire in early Israel, since these were the men to
whom the well-being of the community was entrusted. Conversely, to
have no hope of attaining this status was a condition to be avoided. In
most cases, only one surviving son (generally the oldest) of one of the
component nuclear families became the new 'father' of the 'father's
house' when the patriarch died. In the process, he likely also became an
elder in his community.
When Kinship Fails: Patronage in Early Israel. The ideal of independent subsistence of the extended family required hard work and cooperation from all family members, but when external factors made
survival difficult, the family sometimes had to resort to outside help.
The iinSCdQ was the next more inclusive level of societal organization,
and apparently it existed in part as a 'protective association of families'
to provide such assistance.39 Mutual aid also occurred at the level of the
enttf or tribe.
Another strategy for dealing with adversity was to seek help from
someone with more resources, more power, more status than oneself,
which is to say to seek a patron and become a client.40 Even this was
conceived in terms of family imagery:
The patron-client relationship is a social, institutional arrangement by
means of which economic, political, or religious institutional relationships are outfitted with an overarching quality of kinship or family feeling. The word 'patron' derives from the Greek and Latin word for father,
pater. In the Bible, anytime anyone is called a 'father' who is not a biological father, the title refers to the role and status of a patron... The
patron is like a father, and clients are like loving and grateful children,
no matter what their age. The client relates to his patron according to the
social norms of child relations to actual parents, while the patron is
expected to relate to clients as a parent would to his.. .actual children.41
Elders in Ancient Israel: A Study of a Biblical Institution (trans. L. Plitmann;
Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989).
39. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, pp. 315-18.
40. 'Patronage provides an alternative or a supplement to reciprocity within kinship groups and between status equals. In fact, it is hard to imagine a peasant society surviving without both lateral and vertical support systems' (A. Wallace-Hadrill
[ed.], Patronage in Ancient Society [London: Routledge, 1989], p. 157).
41. Pilch and Malina, Biblical Social Values, pp. 133-34.
38
Two things about such a relationship should be obvious. The first is that
the client in such an arrangement suffers a loss of autonomy and honor
in taking on what is essentially the role of a child. The second is that
such relationships are facilitated by stratification within a society,
whereby there is a class of potential patrons with excess resources that
they offer in exchange for power over other persons. The complex systems of patronage that existed in the Roman empire had not yet developed in early Israel, but as we examine biblical passages, we will see
many in which the dynamic which is described can best be understood
in terms of client-patron relationships.42
Slavery and Wage Labor. At times, the family's survival might depend
on goods or money which various family members could bring in by
work as day laborers. This was a fateful step to take, however, because
the diversion of labor away from the primary agricultural operation
placed a burden on the whole enterprise from which it might be difficult
to recover. The family with high reproductive success might be in a
position to take advantage of opportunities for paid labor, but most
would be hard pressed to lose productive hands. A more severe crisis
might require taking steps more binding (and more humiliating) than
placing oneself under another's patronage or hiring out oneself (or
one's children). A family member might become an actual dependent of
42. For background on client-patron relationships as they developed in various
parts of the Mediterranean world, see R.P. Sailer, Imperial Patronage under the
Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); D. Chinchen, The
Patron-Client System: A Model of Indigenous Discipleship', Evangelical Missions
Quarterly 31 (October 1995), pp. 446-51; J.K. Campbell, Honour, Family and
Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967); H. Moxnes, 'Patron-Client Relations and the
New Community in Luke-Acts', in J. Neyrey (ed.), Social World of Luke-Acts
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 241-68; P. Garnsey and R. Sailer, The
Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1987); J.K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in
Corinth (JSNTSup, 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); S.N. Eisenstadt and L.
Roniger, 'Patron-Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange',
Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (1980), pp. 42-77; BJ. Malina,
'Patron and Client: The Analogy behind Synoptic Theology', FF 4.1 (March 1988),
pp. 2-31; L. Roniger, 'Modern Patron-Client Relations and Historical Clientelism:
Some Clues from Ancient Republican Rome', Archives of European Sociology 24
(1983), pp. 63-95; J.H. Elliott, 'Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian Society:
A Short Reading Guide', FF 3.4 (December 1987), pp. 39-48.
2. Methods
39
another household, as an 'indentured servant' or 'supplementary

worker' ,43
Dependency and clientage are not the same thing, although there are
obvious points of contact and real similarity. Dependency relations are
links between members of different status groups, but unlike clientage
they are not entered into voluntarily and are backed up by legal and
extra-legal sanctions.44
The commonest mechanisms for the establishment of dependency

relations was the pledging (as surety for a loan) or the outright sale of
persons from the family.
Debt slavery, one of the many forms of slavery, has various facets. Debts
or crop failure or other factors leading to naked hunger can drive the free
man, stripped of his possessions, to indenture himself as a last resort,
simply to survive. The creditor can try, by distraining the debtor, to
extract the debt from his clan as 'ransom.'... The creditor can exploit the
debtor's manpower but also has the option of selling him to another as a
slave.45
The end result was the same in either case: slavery or servanthood, as
part of another's household.
At every level, the master-servant relationship evinces identical characteristics: regulation under law and custom, with mutual rights and
responsibilities. Service and unconditional allegiance are demanded of
the servant. The master provides sustenance and protection. He replaces
the bayit (the clan, the family) as the source and focus of the servant's
life.446
Israel's earliest history was marked by various structures that worked

to prevent social stratification, but with the development of the monarchy, they proved less and less effective.47 As the economic demands on
43. G. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East
(JSOTSup, 141; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 51; Meyers, 'Family in Early
Israel', p. 17.
44. Wallace-Hadrill, Patronage, p. 158.
45. K. Baltzer, 'Liberation from Debt Slavery after the Exile in Second Isaiah
and Nehemiah', in P.D. Miller Jr, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds.), Ancient
Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1987), pp. 477-84 (481).
46. Baltzer, 'Liberation from Debt Slavery', p. 478.
47. '[W]ith the advent of the monarchy and its respective state-controlled economy social stratification increased, particularly during the eighth century BCE and
40
families became greater in response to the needs of the monarchy, more

households became indebted and slid into clientship or dependency. This
increased the gap between rich and poor and further accelerated the loss
of the potential for independent subsistence.
From an economic point of view, therefore, social stratification can be
seen as the result of a process by which free citizens eventually lost control over their means of production, on account of their growing dependency upon the large landowners (and merchants) and state for resources.
Once this dependency was established the small landowners were often
forced into procuring loans which often included high interest rates. If
their crop(s) failed or was below expectation, then the debtor would be
hardpressed to pay back the loan. Therefore, many of these small
landowners were likely to become insolvent, since they were able to
engage only in subsistence farming. As a result of their insolvency farmers were forced to sell or surrender dependents into debt-slavery. Furthermore, they would eventually be forced to sell their land (means of
production), themselves and their families.48
The process was a self-perpetuating spiral, which the ethical demands of

the prophets were not able to slow.
Social Location
Status means 'a socially defined position in a social structure', whereas
a role 'is a set of expectations, rights, and duties that are attached to a
particular status'.49 As the sociologist Linton has observed, we occupy
statuses, but we play roles.50 Depending on an individual's status and
role in a society, he or she will have more or less power to accomplish
goals, whether those goals include simple survival or ruling the world.
later... However, during the early Monarchic period there was an active suppression of social stratification by both the secular and sacral league authorities, who
continued to exert pressure on the king throughout the period (cf. 1 Sam. 8; 10.1727; 11.12). Nevertheless, the history of Israel is characterized by various periods of
increased social stratification, although it is likely that Israel did not develop into as
highly a stratified society as those in the states of Mesopotamia and Canaan (Coote
and Whitelam 154-9; de Vaux, Ancient Israel 164-5). Therefore, only two social
classes can be clearly distinguished in Israel: (1) free citizens; (2) chattel-slaves.
However, it is likely that some segments of the foreign population that were used as
labour by the Israelite kings occupied a social position equivalent to that of semifree citizens' (Chirichigno, Debt Slavery in Israel, pp. 139-40).
48. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel, pp. 50-51.
49. Thompson and Hickey, Society, pp. 72, 94.
50. R. Linton, The Study of Man (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1936).
2. Methods
41
These three, thenpower, status, rolemust be considered in assessing an individual's social location. In our efforts to discover the social
location of the ")0 and !l"ll?] in early Israel, we will examine these three
attributes, to the extent that the text gives information about them, being
careful to consider the indigenous values of the society that created and
preserved the narratives.
Working Hypothesis
This study will demonstrate that the common social location that these
characters all share is neither age nor marital status nor 'social class'
(i.e. 'high-born' or noble). Their function or role is not always as a servant, whether domestic, military, agricultural or governmental. Rather,
what these characters share is the situation of being 'away from their
father's house', beyond the protection and control of their fathers, while
not yet master or mistress of their own households. Most often this
results from being literally 'away from home', but the orphan and the
'virtual orphan' are also called "IU3 or !TIU3 by the biblical writer when
the normal relationship between them and their fathers is severed in
some other way, as for instance by the father's death or absence or by
grave illness, from which the father is powerless to protect them. Frequently the stories will show DHl^ seeking a substitute father in the
form of a 'master' or patron.
Chapter 3
SPECIFIC TEXTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE:
HOUSE BOYS AND FIELD HANDS
By far the most frequent role in which to find the "IU3 (or rni?3) in the
biblical texts is that of a servant of some sort. The overall impression is
of a retainer or personal attendant, serving in domestic, agricultural or
even cultic contexts. The various roles are, in fact, not distinct, with
individual D1*"!!?] apparently functioning in more than one capacity.
These functions are also closely associated with the military roles for
DHI7] which will be treated in Chapter 4.
Several interesting observations can be made about D'HI?] as servants
generally. Perhaps the most important is how seldom the biblical text
actually reports them doing anything. The most prominent feature of
their activities seems to be their presence: they are 'with' other characters, they are taken along, they are sent and left behind, they speak and
are spoken to, but often the real work of the narrative is performed by
other characters. A most conspicuous example of this phenomenon is
the two D'H^] whom Abraham takes along on the journey to Mount
Moriah in Genesis 22. Abraham cuts the wood and saddles the donkey
(v. 3), while the servants are simply 'taken' (rip1?) on the trip. Once they
have reached the mountain, the servants stand by, presumably tending
the donkey (v. 5), until the drama has unfolded and our two principal
characters return (DIE?, v. 19). Then all arise (Dip) and go ("f^H) together
(v. 19). This narrative is one of the best known in which DHI?] appear
and the fact that these servants have no obvious function in the story is
significant, but it is by no means exceptional in this regard. Compare,
for instance, the episode in 1 Sam. 25 when Abigail loads her donkeys
with gifts and sends her "1I?3 ahead of her when she sets out. The narrative gives us no further clue to the importance of this individual. In fact,
a survey of the places where D'Hi?] appear reveals that this lack of
3. Specific Texts in the Hebrew Bible
43
specified activity is the rule rather than the exception.

The narratives of the Hebrew Bible are generally compact and wellcrafted, and the presence of characters who seem not to play a role in
the action of the stories suggests that they serve some other function.
One way that they enrich the narratives is as 'status indicators': any
character who is shown by the writer to possess one or more DHIJ3 is
clearly a person of some substance.1 These are persons with land and
power, whom other characters, not just DHU3, frequently address with
the deferential term "J"QD, 'your servant'.
From the point of view of narrative art, the DHD3 often serve as foils
for monologue, without requiring that the author depict a character
talking to himself. Not infrequently, the only apparent job of a "IJJ] is to
be someone for the main character to talk to: an offended Ahasuerus
(Est. 2.2), a sleepless Ahasuerus (Est. 6.3, 5), a tormented Saul (1 Sam.
16.18). These troubled characters find just the person to use as a sounding board or informant in the "IJJ3 who happens to be 'standing by' at
the critical moment. Within this category of DHU] who are servants, the
verbs used most commonly are those of address: they are called (N"")p,
2 Sam. 13.17; 2 Kgs 9.4), commanded (ms, 2 Sam. 13.28; Ruth 2.9, 15),
told ("130, Gen. 41.12) or asked (^2?, 1 Sam. 25.8), but mostly spoken
to OQK, Gen 22.5; 2 Sam. 13.17; 1 Kgs 18.43; 2 Kgs 9.4; Est. 6.3;
1 Sam. 9.7, 10, 27; 25.19; Judg. 19.11; Ruth 2.5). What is said to them
is only occasionally imperative, requiring action. More often, they
answer (TO, 1 Sam. 9.8; 16.18; Ruth 2.6), report ("133, 1 Sam. 25.14;
Num. 11.27), or say OQK, 1 Kgs 18.43; 2 Kgs 9.4; 1 Sam. 2.15, 16; 9.6;
16.18; 25.14; Judg. 19.11; Est. 2.2; 6.3, 5). Thus the pre-eminent verb
of which the DHU3 are both subjects and indirect objects is "IQK.
They often function as 'anchor points' for the point of view of the
narrative, allowing the scene of the story to be viewed from a distance
(as, for instance, in Gen. 22), or carrying the eye of the reader back and
forth between characters (2 Kgs 4.2, 6; 1 Kgs 18.43), giving a sense of
distance and of time. They are taken, left, returned to, functioning
almost like a camera left running on a tripod that records a scene from
close up or from far away as the characters move in and out of its range
(1 Kgs 19.3).
1. Some of the characters who have a "!!?] are Abraham, the brothers of Joseph,
Pharaoh, Moses, the 'sons of Israel', Elijah, the priest (Eli), Elisha, the wealthy Shunammite, Nabal and Abigail, Amnon, Absalom, Kish, the king, Saul, the Levite,
Micah (Micaiah), David, Boaz and Job.
44
Notwithstanding the fact that the main actions of the biblical narratives are most frequently carried on by characters other than the D"*"^],
these servants function in certain specific contexts. We will look at each
of these contexts individually, including a detailed examination of a few
of the more fully developed characterizations in each type.
Domestic Servants
In a number of cases, D"*"!^] seem to function in the domestic sphere,
whether as household servants or valets or in other forms of personal
service. We can assign them to the domestic sphere more by the location in which the narratives place them than by the tasks that they perform. Abraham's servant, one of the few specifically involved in food
preparation, is near or in the tent of Abraham (Gen 18.7). Another cook
is the unnamed "IU3 of Elisha (2 Kgs 4.38, probably not Gehazi), who is
directed to put the kettle on to make stew for the 'sons of the prophets'.
Joseph, in Genesis 39, serves in the house of Potiphar (v. 4) after he has
been imprisoned, although he is not identified as "IJ)3 until 41.12. The
DHU] who respond to Saul (1 Sam. 16.18) and Ahasuerus (Est. 6.3) in
their insomnia are working in the sleeping quarters of the royal household. In 1 Sam. 9.22, Samuel brings both Saul and his "II?3 into the dining hall at the shrine, thus presumably allowing the servant to continue
to attend Saul during the meal. A word used frequently in connection
with these D"7"!!)] is D127Q, a participle often translated as minister or ministering, which conveys a sense of the breadth of the services performed. (Thus, for example, Joseph is called both "II?3 [Gen. 37.2;
41.12] and mtfQ [Gen. 39.4; 40.4]. Similarly, both terms are used for
Amnon's servant [2 Sam. 13.17], King Ahasuerus's servants [Est. 2.2;
6.3] and Joshua [Exod. 33.11, inter alia]. Even a m>3 can be both, as is
the case with Abishag [1 Kgs 1.4, 15]).
These characters also serve as conduits for information about the local
scene. In all servant-holding societies, information is shared between
resident servants or slaves and visitors of the same status when they
share meals and quarters, while their masters attend to whatever business has required travel. Often this gossip is useful later to the masters,
whose own conversations may have been more circumspect. A servant
can increase his value to his master by giving him reports on the local
state of affairs. So, for instance, Boaz expects his D'HJJ] to know
the identity of the young woman who is new in the 'neighborhood'
45
(Ruth 2.5), and Saul's ")#] knows of the presence of a 'man of God' in
the vicinity and is able to suggest the appropriate 'gift' to be offered in
exchange for a consultation (1 Sam. 9.6, 7). These characters serve as
messengers, go-betweens, even informants or tattle-tales. Joseph carries
a report on his half-brothers to his father (Gen. 37.2). A "113] reports to
Moses that Eldad and Medad are prophesying (Num. 11.27). Elijah sent
his ~)JJ] back and forth to provide weather updates when he was demonstrating for Ahab his ability to bring an end to the drought (1 Kgs
18.43).
Dialogue between the Levite and his ~l0 (Judg. 19) allows us to
'listen in' on the master's thoughts as he ponders the lateness of the
hour and the various options for insuring his party's safety overnight.
The ~UJ]'s suggestions, which reveal that he has some knowledge of the
local scene, are ultimately rejected. The ~1U] is mentioned once more
when the Levite assures the old man that he will not need to provide
anything except a roof for the travelers. After that he serves no further
purpose for the narrator, and he disappears, playing no part in the perilous events of that night or of the next few days.
Frequently, the "II?] serves at the margin of the domestic sphere, at the
threshold of the tent, house or palace, as something of a doorkeeper
(Joshua in Exod. 33.11; Amnon's ~ll>] in 2 Sam. 13.17). They are also
the persons who traverse the threshold, functioning both within and outside of the household. They are, for instance, sometimes the individuals
who are drawers of water (Gen. 24.20; Ruth 2.9; 1 Sam. 9.11), which
would involve a daily trip to the community water source, at least in
those places where families did not have individual cisterns. Their presence at these community gathering spots allows them, even when not
traveling abroad, to gather the information that so often is valuable to
their masters.
Many of these facets of the role of the D"H0 can be illustrated by
looking at a few of the texts that feature them in narratives of some
length. Two in particular, Gehazi and Ziba, are not only given names,
which is somewhat unusual, but also play featured roles in the narratives of which they are a part.
Gehazi
One of the most extensive portraits of a "1IJ3 in the Hebrew Bible is that
of Gehazi in 2 Kings. An extended narrative (2 Kgs 4.8-37; 5.1-27; 8.16) follows this character through Elisha's encounter with the wealthy
46
woman of Shunem; the birth, death and resuscitation of her son; the
healing and bilking of Naaman; and the restoration of land to the Shunammite woman after her absence during a famine. This narrative is
intertwined with other stories of Elisha, including many which include
reference to a ~l^]2 serving the prophet (2 Kgs 4.38; 6.15, 17), but we
will focus on the story that names Gehazi explicitly. Most D"1"")^] are not
given names; of those that are, only a few, such as Gehazi, Ziba and
Joseph, for example, function in servant capacities.3 These then might
be expected to be more fully characterized, and thus their portraits may
give us important information about what it means to be a servant ~l!?l
Within 2 Kings, three types of narrative can be discerned in which
Elisha is involved: stories of Elisha and the company of prophets, stories
of Elisha and the great leaders of his time, and stories of Elisha and his
servant Gehazi. The possibility of one or more collections of traditional
stories about Elisha is acknowledged by most commentators.
This unit [Elisha's succession of Elijah, 2 Kgs 2.1-25] stands at the head
of what may have originally been one or more cycles of Elisha traditions
(H.-Chr. Schmitt), or even part of a pre-Dtr 'prophetic record' still visible in 1 Sam. 1.2-2, Kgs 10.28... Now intertwined with accounts of various royal affairs in 2 Kings 3-13, the prophetic career of Elisha lives in
material of diverse character, genre, and ageincluding brief legends of
the prophet's miracles (e.g., 2 Kgs 2.19-22, 23-25; 4.1-7, 38-45), and
more artistically developed but hardly less legendary narratives (2 Kgs
3.4-27; 4.8-37; 5.1-27...).4
Although most scholars agree that these stories are older than the material into which they have been incorporated, little headway has been
made into discovery of their earlier history, other than to acknowledge
the 'obscure origins and history of this prophetical tradition'.5 The occasion for the events of the narratives seems to have been the reigns of
2. Indeed, 2 Kgs 4-6 contain examples of almost all types of D'HW and min
3. Most D"")U] who are given names by the narrator, such as Absalom, David,
Ichabod, Esther, are not servants at all. Rather they are at risk or in danger in some
way, and they become DHI)] by virtue of their imperilment. This phenomenon is
the subject of Chapter 5. (Joseph, too, falls into this category.) For a complete list of
named D"HU3 and rrni>], see the Appendix.
4. B.O. Long, 2 Kings (FOTL, 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 19. See
also A.F. Campbell, SJ, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document
(1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10) (CBQMS, 17; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association,
1986).
5. Long, 2 Kings, p. 19.
47
Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz and Jehoash, but they were written down in
the form we have them by the 'Deuteronomistic historian' at a time near
the exile.6
Past scholarship on Elisha traditions has valued principally accounts
of historic personages and been less interested in the social world
depicted in them. Montgomery divides this Elisha material into two
portions: political narratives, which he praises for 'authentic details'7 or
for being 'stories of early origin, historically authentic',8 and the stories
of the prophets, which encounter a much more mixed reception. 'For
the North the political history was embalmed in lengthy narratives proceeding from the schools of the Sons of the Prophets'9 (of which Elisha
is the head).10 'The most striking story in this cycle is that of Jehu's
revolt (II. 9, 10), a brilliant political narrative, in which Elisha appears
only in the preface as inceptor of the uprising. Within this complex are
inserted, with historical justification, two brilliant stories, connected
with otherwise unknown prophets',11 namely the defeat of Ben-Hadad
at Aphek, and the story of Micaiah and of Ahab's death. 'The remaining Prophetical Stories of the North are midrash in the current sense of
the word, of dubious historical value.'12 These stories he dismisses by
merely enumerating them.
Gray, likewise, contrasts the material in which Elisha deals with the
great men of history and the remaining portions of the prophetic
narrative:
Together with this matter, which is of real historical value, there is
included in the record of the times, solely on grounds of contemporaneity, a mass of prophetic tradition concerning Elijah and Elisha of quite a
different order... Most of these incidents are quite trivial and indicate an
authority of little discrimination. They are, in the case of Elisha, associated for the most part with prophetic, or dervish, communities of various
localities, and it is possible to see a certain local rivalry in claiming
association with the great prophet. This is the breeding-ground of
6. Long, 2 Kings, p. 19.

7. J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of
Kings (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), p. 38.
8. Montgomery, Kings, p. 39.
48

miracle,13 and it is noteworthy that here, in contrast to the first group of
traditions of the prophets, miracles abound. The conclusion is, then, suggested that in the second group of traditions concerning Elijah and particularly Elisha the source is a concatenation of local hagiology, or folklore of the prophets.14
This concern, then, with what appears to be historiography and with a

rationalist elimination of anything that smacks of the miraculous has,
among other things, obscured the fact that the Elisha material is some
of the oldest narrative in the book of Kings and can be, on the basis of
the cast of characters present, divided into the three types of narrative
mentioned above.15 On that basis, the existence of an extended 'Gehazi
narrative'16 is not so difficult to see, interbraided as it is with material of
the other two types. The intent of this weaving of strands is no doubt to
try to give some chronological coherence, while preserving all of the
(then) extant traditions.
The plot of the Gehazi story is masterful, and interest is maintained
by the contrasting actions of a series of characters whose statuses occur
in pairs of opposites. In fact, it can be viewed as a drama in three acts,
each with four episodes, plus a final epilogue or coda. Act One concerns the Shunammite woman (2 Kgs 4.8-37), Act Two is about Naaman
(5.1-14), Act Three centers on reward and punishment (5.15-27), and
the Epilogue restores all characters to their proper places (8.1-6).
13. Note the assumption that stories of the miraculous are a pestilence to be
eradicated.
14. J. Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1963), pp. 32-33.
15. See p. 46 above.
16. The attempt by Rofe to eliminate 8.1-6 as secondary is misguided, in my
view. He cites the king's request of Gehazi to tell him about Elisha's great deeds as
evidence that this pericope is 'still within the oral stage of the legenda\ In this, he
mistakes orality in the narrative for the oral stage of the composition. As we saw
above, it is this telling and being told that characterize the role of a ~IU] in the biblical narrative (A. Rofe, 'The Classification of the Prophetical Stories', JBL 89
[1970], pp. 427-40 [434]).
Nor is it necessary, contra Gressmann (H. Gressmann, Die dlteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetic Israels [SAT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1921]), to call this a literary secondary accretion. In its current position, these
verses serve no obvious function, and it is difficult to imagine the intent of an
author who inserted them here. On the other hand, they serve perfectly well as a
coda for the whole narrative, bringing the hearer/reader up to date on the current
status of the characters (A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation), pp. 107-10.
49
In Act One, the first episode (2 Kgs 4.8-17) orients us to the characters, identifies a need (at least from the point of view of Gehazi and
Elisha) and promises the birth of a son. Elisha travels through Shunem
with his ~l0 Gehazi, who functions in the various roles pointed out in
the general discussion above as he accompanies his master on a journey.
A wealthy woman (n^ll] rTON, v. 8) prevails on him to accept favors,
first of meals, then of lodging. In other words, she takes the initiative to
become a patron of this holy man. Eventually, Elisha seeks to return the
favor, and become patron rather than client by finding a need that he
can supply. Elisha (v. 11) is lying pD2?) in the chamber that the woman
had prepared for him, and directs his "!#] Gehazi to summon her. She
stands before him (T]S^ "IQU, v. 12),17 but Elisha does not address her
directly. Instead, he tells Gehazi what to say to her, using his "l#] as a
go-between or intermediary, perhaps even interpreter.18 Her response, 'I
live among my own people' (v. 13),19 not only indicates that she feels
no need of Elisha's assistance, but also helps to complete the contrast
with the rtEp mi?]20 of 5.2, who lives among her captors.
Not satisfied, Elisha asks Gehazi for a suggestion, relying on him for
knowledge of her situation, which perhaps he has through interaction
with the local servants. Gehazi is once more ordered to summon the
woman, and this time she stands specifically 'at the door' (v. 15). At
this point, Elisha provides for her a favor that she has not sought from
him, and which she in fact tries to discourage him from giving (v. 16).21
Episode Two (4.18-25a) creates complications by the loss of the
promised son. After the birth of her son (p, v. 17), the child ("l^Tl,
v. 18) is with his father at the harvest, and he becomes suddenly ill. A
"!0 (evidently performing agricultural work, but perhaps as a personal
attendant or companion on a journey22) carries him home, where he dies
17. Standing before and sitting or reclining are another set of contrasts in this
narrative, and seem to reveal dependency or status.
18. We assume that all these characters shared a common language, but this is
not inevitably the case.
19. All English translations come from the NRSV, except when indicated.
20. An insignificant serving girl is the perfect opposite of the grand dame in
terms of status and opportunities, although the ironic reversal in the narrative makes
the former dependent, while the latter possesses wisdom.
21. The granting of a child removes her from the unusual (for a woman) role of
religious patron and restores her to the more 'normal' ideal of Israelite womanhood,
that is, mother of a son.
22. See below, p. 63.
50
in his mother's arms (v. 20). She sets out with a "lG and a donkey to see
the'man of God'.23
Upon seeing her, Elisha dispatches Gehazi, the "II?], to inquire about
her well-being (serving as a go-between), but she refuses to be diverted
from seeking Elisha himself. Gehazi attempts to bar her access (functioning as doorkeeper), but she succeeds in addressing her accusations
to Elisha.
Episode Three (vv. 25b-31) relates the unsuccessful restoration or
healing attempt of Gehazi. Gehazi is sent ahead with the prophet's staff
and directions for its use: he is to lay it on the face of the ")>].24 Gehazi
returns to Elisha to report that he has been unable to restore the child.
Episode Four (vv. 32-37) depicts how Elisha, with prayer and ritualistic
actions, accomplishes the resuscitation himself and returns the 'son'
("pD, v. 36) to the Shunammite woman.25
Act Two is the story of Naaman, commander of the Aramean army,
whose need for restoration is part of our first introduction to him as a
great man (*71"f2 2TN, 'great man', v. I). 26 The first episode of this act
(5.1-7), in reverse order to the first act above, chronicles the inability to
heal. The great man, who has power and success, needs the advice of a
captive Israelite serving girl to begin his quest for healing. This man,
who would ordinarily be a patron himself in most circumstances, goes
to his king, who agrees to function as a broker to facilitate Naaman's
plea for help to the king of Israel, offering a selection of gifts to seal the
transaction (vv. 5-6). The king, acknowledging that he is not God (v. 7)
and has no power to bring about wholeness, suspects that this interchange is some sort of trap. The second episode of this act (vv. 8-10),
which brings a promise of healing, begins by reminding us that Elisha,
by contrast to the king, is a 'man of God' and can provide instructions
for a healing ritual.
23. According to the text, she saddles the donkey, but the "!!)] handles it (v. 24).
The DH>] are frequently associated with donkeys in various narratives.
24. During the entire period when the child is endangered, he will be referred to
not as 'child' or 'son', but as 117], a phenomenon that will be discussed more fully
in Chapter 6.
25. The seven sneezes of the ~IU3 parallel the seven times Naaman immersed
himself in the Jordan.
26. This phrase forms a brilliant series of contrasts: the Shunammite woman
(n^~I3 TON), the Israelite captive maiden (PIMp mtf3), Naaman (^TH 2TN) and the
flesh of a jtDp ~l>]. Of course all of these characters, who suffer a lack of one kind
or another, are contrasted to the tZJnp DTI^K 2TN, who is able to restore.
51
In Episode Three (vv. 11-14), we encounter a refusal to be healed.

The great man's pride causes him to refuse healing at first (compare the
great woman's initial refusal to identify her lack), but ultimately, upon
the urging of his servants (VQU),27 he performs the sevenfold washing
in the Jordan that restores the condition of his skin to that of a ]CDp II?].
In this episode, as in Act One, Episode Three, Elisha works through an
intermediary, this time an unnamed messenger (v. 10), who we have no
reason to believe is Gehazi, and this time he is successful, in v. 14,
which constitutes a brief fourth episode.
Act Three might be subtitled 'Reward and Punishment'. The episodes
are: (1) Refusal of deserved reward (5.15-19a); (2) Procuring undeserved reward (19b-24); (3) Health taken away (25-37); and (4) the corresponding Health restored. In the first episode, the intent of the entire
narrative is revealed: Naaman acknowledges that there is no God anywhere but in Israel. Using the language of a grateful client,28 he offers
gifts. In the second, Gehazi fabricates a story about visitors from the
hill country of Ephraim, two D'HU] of the D^^D'^D, and this unsuccessful healer procures the reward for the successful healing.29
The third episode of Act Three sees Gehazi's health taken away. The
flesh of the HJJ] Gehazi becomes white as snow, as Naaman's affliction
is transferred to him.30 Gehazi, who like all D"HJJ] should have been a
source of information to his master, does not provide the truth when
asked where he has been (v. 25). Episode Four is present in the narrative only as an ellipsis. The careful symmetry of the story up to this
point requires a matching scene in which Gehazi's health is restored. Its
absence from the account makes a powerful statement.
The final sequence of the narrative, 8.1-6, is an abbreviated account
that functions as a coda for the entire story, updating us on all the characters, breaking off the narrative and bringing us to the present.31 The
assistance that the Shunammite woman did not need from Elisha in the
27. Once again, the information or exhortation necessary for successful restoration is mediated to the powerful through low-status persons, just as when the original advice was given through the Israelite captive.
28. In just four verses (15-18), he self-refers as "]"QD five times.
29. Which is carried by two D"1")^] (v. 23), probably of Naaman rather than
Gehazi, although the antecedent of the pronomial suffix is ambiguous.
30. Theories of contagion from the handling of contaminated gifts, while intriguing, are not necessary to understand this event.
52
first act, she now needs because of the famine. The word to the king
that was offered in 4.13 is provided by Gehazi, and results in the restoration to her of her land, which had been lost through a seven-year
sojourn in the land of the Philistines.32 Gehazi, the 1JJ3 of the man of
God, is able finally to accomplish a restoration, this time relying on the
power of Elisha's past deeds. No mention is made of leprosy, and indeed
all finally appear to be whole.
The character portrayals in the story of Gehazi are especially interesting and varied. The child born to the Shunammite is a mere agent, with
no development at all.33 Similarly, the Shunammite's "IJJ3, as well as
other groups of D*1"!!?] andDHD^, are simply props for the story. Another
group of characters are 'flat' or 'types', displaying only a 'stereotyped
range of traits'. These include the miJ3 (who is described as i!3tDp and
Israelite, and functions like the typical "]!?] in knowing the inside information about a healer-prophet), and the husband of the Shunammite
(who is described as ]pT, and who appears briefly with his harvesters
and with his son). The major characters in this storythe Shunammite,
Naaman, Elisha and Gehaziall receive much richer portrayals. They
are full-fledged, rounded characters, although in the case of Gehazi perhaps less fully than a cursory examination would seem to suggest.
The Shunammite woman is described as 'wealthy' (or 'grand' or
'important'), a description that is reinforced by the presence of livestock and DHI?] at her disposal, not to mention the means to provide
room and board for an itinerant prophet. She takes initiative, acts,
speaks, and is at times the focalizer for the narrative. We know her
actions from her direct discourse with her husband, and we know something of her inner life from her discussion with her "I!?]: her sense of
urgency is clearly conveyed by her command to him not to slow the
pace of the trip on her behalf.
Naaman is described rather more extensively than biblical characters
usually are: he is a great man, in favor with his master, a victorious
commander, a mighty warrior, and leprous. From his reaction to Elisha's
suggestion to wash in the Jordan, we learn that he is proud and perhaps
a little disdainful (although not too proud to follow the advice of a serving girl or ultimately to yield to the urgings of his servants). From his
32. The loss through seven years' absence is the mirror image of the restorations
through seven (sneezes, immersions) of the prior scenes.
33. See the discussion on the three character subgroups suggested by Berlin in
Chapter 2 above.
53
offer to Elisha of gifts after his cleansing we learn that he is grateful

and also pious and dutiful. His inner life is revealed (v. 15) when he
says, 'Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel',
and he is the focal point of the narrative through a substantial section of
it.
Elisha, also, provides the point of view for a large section of the narrative, and is given speech, action and description as 'a holy man of
God' (v. 9). We learn of his itinerancy in the woman's discussion with
her husband about providing a stopover place for him. What we know
of his inner life, his thoughts and plans, comes through his conversations with Gehazi, his "II?]. Indeed, serving to bring the interior!ty of
other characters to expression is a frequent role of the D"1")!^ in biblical
narrative.
Gehazi speaks, is addressed and takes action, but with the exception
of the scene of his transgression, all these are done in the service of
developing other characters, not his own. His conversations with Elisha
tell us what Elisha is thinking. His actions are those that Elisha orders.
His attempt to prevent the Shunammite woman from falling at Elisha's
feet tells us that her emotion has caused her to lose her composure.
When Elisha sees her coming and dispatches Gehazi to make inquiries,
it serves to carry the focalization back and forth between the two locations, giving us a sense of time and distance. Similarly, when he is sent
ahead of Elisha and the Shunammite to attempt a healing, he carries the
story's point of view back and forth between the two scenes. Elisha's
power to heal is highlighted by contrast with Gehazi's inability to heal.
All of these things, which would ordinarily serve to sketch out a character for the reader, serve instead to give depth to the other characters and
to the action of the narrative.
Only in the scene of his greed do any of these devices serve to give
color to the character of Gehazi. We learn what he thought, what he
wanted, and what he did to get it. For a moment, the point of view seems
to be with him. Yet even here we find that his focalization serves to
highlight the distance between Naaman and Elisha, as the former travels
homeward after being healed. The initiative that Gehazi demonstrates
serves as a contrast to Elisha's refusal to accept payment and in the end
puts more flesh on Elisha's character than on Gehazi's. Finally, in the
'coda', Gehazi functions once again as a type, providing, in the
expected way, the inside information that the king needs about the great
deeds of Elisha.
54
In summary, although Gehazi seems to be a major player, by virtue

of being the apparent subject of an extended narrative, we find instead
that, in addition to being a servant in the world of the narrative, he is a
tool in the hands of the narrator. Clearly, his status is as a subordinate, a
dependent.
Ziba
A second case of a "IU] who is named and who is also a participant in an
extended story-line is that of Ziba, a retainer in the house of Saul, in
2 Samuel. This narrative, like the story of Gehazi, is broken up by the
intercalation of other material, whether by the original author or by a
redactor weaving his sources. With only a few exceptions,34 scholars do
not treat this narrative and the social realities it depicts as a unity, but
concentrate on the larger stories of David's fortunes and the political
realities that those tales depict. The 'Succession Document' in 2 Samuel
9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2, as identified by Rost,35 encompasses the three
scenes that make up this narrative. Rost already argues against Caspari
and Gressmann, who would delineate an independent Absalom cycle
within 2 Samuel, making the first of these three pericopes, in which
Ziba figures, originate from a separate source from the other two.36 Of
the proposition of an Amnon-Tamar novella and an Absalom novella,
he says:
It must be admitted that both of these novellen should be credited with a
certain amount of independence in so far as in each of them a different
character is, or seems to be, the centre of interest. Against this we should
note that no peculiarities of language or style can be discerned and that
in terms of content the threads are interwoven. So the most likely solution is that we should recognize just one author, in which case the
34. J.P. Fokkelman, 'King David (2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2)', in idem, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on
Stylistic and Structural Analyses (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981), pp. 23-40; S. Lasine,
'Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading: The Reader as Judge of the Dispute
between Mephibosheth and Ziba', HS 30 (1989), pp. 49-69.
35. L. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship, 1; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982), pp. 65-114.
36. D.W. Caspari, 'The Literary Type and Historical Value of 2 Samuel 15-20',
in D.M. Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann
and Other Scholars, 1906-1923 (trans. D.E. Orton; JSOTSup, 116; Sheffield:
Almond Press, 1991), pp. 59-88; H. Gressmann, 'The Oldest History Writing in
Israel', in Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel, pp. 9-58 (31).
55
somewhat unlikely possibility exists that we should attribute the present

form of the whole text to a final redaction by this same writer... But just
one look at the uniform style or the structure of the succession story
proves that there is a unifying plan underlying the whole text which does
not owe its origins to the industrious hands of some editor.37
In his traditio-historical treatment, Carlson's division of 2 Samuel into

'David under Blessing' (2-7) and 'David under Curse' (9-24) likewise
maintains all the parts of this story of Ziba in one unit.38 McCarter, more
recently, has suggested the Story of Absalom's revolt (2 Sam. 13-20),
as one of the materials that 'probably derive from the time of David', at
least in its original form.39 Neither Noth40 nor Cross41 counts these
verses as the work of the Deuteronomists, but rather as part of their
sources. Veijola assigns certain of these verses to DtrG (9.1, *7, *10,
lib, 13a|3; 19.22-23, 29),42 and along with Dietrich assigns the rest to a
late prophetic source.43 McCarter argues against both Dietrich and
Veijola, suggesting a Northern, pre-Deuteronomistic provenance for
these, as well as certain other prophetic materials.44
The interpreters mentioned above were not focusing primarily on the
story of Ziba the "IJJ] in their division into sources, and the splitting into
two different strata of the parts of that narrative was an unimportant and
unnoticed by-product of the process of applying their criteria to
2 Samuel. Fokkelman, however, argues for the integrity of a story that
he refers to as The triangle: David-Ziba-Mephibosheth', with his more
37. Rost, Succession, p. 67.
38. R.A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to
the Second Book of Samuel (trans. E.J. Sharpe and S. Rudman; Uppsala: Almqvist
& Wiksell, 1964), pp. 24, 30.
39. P.K. McCarter, Jr, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes
and Commentary (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), p. 9.
40. M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1981), p. 56.
41. P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1973), pp. 285-89.
42. T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastic
nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fenicae B, 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975), quoted in McCarter,
II Samuel, p. 7.
43. W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), pp. 134-39.
44. McCarter, II Samuel, p. 8.
56
deliberate focus on the narratives of the book. 'The analysis in Chapter

II below not only demonstrates that II Sam. 9 belongs with 16.1-4 and
19.25-31 on the basis of the material, but on the basis of style, structure,
and theme as well.'45
In its present form, the interpolation of the stories of David-Bathsheba-Uriah, the Ammonite wars, the Tamar-Amnon-Absalom tragedy
and the details of Absalom's revolt serve to delay the progress of the
story of Ziba, heightening tension while at the same time supplying
additional information that explains the motivations and situations of
various characters in the little drama. We shall see that Ziba shares with
Gehazi of 2 Kings not just the fact of being named, but also the fact of
being depicted as guilty of self-interest, opportunism and duplicity. (In
this they share with other unnamed DHU3 a tendency to behave badly
unless rigorously trained and supervised.)46
Ziba's story begins with David wondering whether Saul has any surviving descendants to whom he might be gracious as a gesture in memory of David's friend, Saul's son Jonathan (9.1). Since this question
bears no relationship to the listing of David's administrative personnel
with which ch. 8 closes, some scholars have tried a rearrangement that
links the first verses of ch. 9 with 2 Samuel 21, in which David executes
the last of the Saulides, allegedly to avenge the Gibeonites.47 This
emendation is not necessary for the sense of the text. Furthermore, given
the position of servants (DH3JJ as well as D"HJ?3) as members of the
household in the ancient Near East, even at times as heirs,48 it seems
likely that the narrator is suggesting that Ziba was brought forward, not
initially as an informant on the possibility of a blood descendant of
Saul, but rather as the only surviving member of the household himself.
Indeed, the rhetorical question about a survivor 'PINIZ? fTD1? (v. 1) is
answered immediately by the narrator's answer: ÎNEJ PPS1? (v. 2), there
was a servant ("Q#) by the name of Ziba. To David's question, 'Are you
45. Fokkelman, 'King David', p. 18.
46. E.g. Ruth 2.9, 22; Prov. 20.11; 22.6; 2 Kgs 2.23.
47. For example T. Veijola, David: Gesammelte Studien w den David iiberlieferungen des Alten Testaments (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft, 52; Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1990), pp. 68-69; H.P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Books of Samuel (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899), p. 310.
48. As, for instance, when Abraham (Gen. 15.2, 3) laments that Eliezer of Damascus, a slave (~nu) born in his house, will be his heir.
57
Ziba?' comes the ingratiating reply, '"[1213, your servant'.49 This detail
is important for understanding this narrative, since I believe that intentional obfuscation based on ambiguity about who is Ziba's master (that
is, of whom he is servant) lies at the heart of the plot of this tale.
David presses Ziba: Is there no one else left 'jlRVJ iTH1? (v. 3), and
Ziba replies that there is still Jonathan's crippled son. Ziba has heard
only that DTI^N "ion, the grace of God, was to be dispensed; he was not
present when David relayed his wish to grant grace 'for the sake of
Jonathan'. Thus, although Ziba may have wished to diminish Mephibosheth,50 by calling attention to his crippled condition, and to distance
him from 'the house of Saul', he unwittingly portrayed him as exactly
the person David is seeking.
Ziba's answer to David's next question alerts the careful reader to the
possibility that the faithful retainer may be more self-serving than traditional reading of this text has cast him. Mephibosheth has not been
under the care and service of Ziba of the House of Saul in the interval
since the deaths of his blood relatives. Rather he has been in the protection of Machir son of Ammiel (v. 5). When summoned, Mephibosheth
too places himself in clientship to the king with the phrase ~["Q!3 (v. 6).
David's offer of patronage includes not just the return of his grandfather's lands (had they been in the hands of Ziba perhaps?), but a place
49. Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, this word, ~|~nJJ, is used to indicate subservience, yet more, to indicate a desire to be the client in a patron-client relationship. In using this form, the speaker indicates a wish not to be treated as an equal,
but rather as an inferior. By doing so, he implicitly places himself under the protection of the other person by acknowledging his superiority. In an agonistic society,
such a display of modesty and humility precludes a contest for dominance by
declaring the outcome in advance. The rules of patronage in such societies make it a
dishonorable thing to do battle in any form with one's clients, since their honor is
embedded in the honor of the patron. Thus the address 'your servant' in the scriptures is placed on the lips of many who are patently not functioning in serving
capacities. Its use allows the speaker to opt out of a battle, physical, verbal or
otherwise, which he would surely lose. This behavior is found also in the animal
kingdom: among canines, a male dog frequently rolls onto his back (a very vulnerable position) and urinates on himself (as a puppy does) in a gesture designed to
reassure a more dominant dog that he is no threat and will not mount a challenge
for the position of 'leader of the pack' (v. 2).
50. I will, with MT, use the name Mephibosheth throughout, rather than following Chronicles or LXX in calling him Meribbaal, notwithstanding the possible editorial polemic included in the name.
58
at David's table (v. 7), and Mephibosheth responds with appropriate

gratitude (v. 8).
David's next responses, while some textual uncertainties exist in these
verses (vv. 9-13), accomplish a number of reversals. Ziba, who had been
previously identified as a servant (~QU) to the house of Saul, is now "l#]
of Saul51 for the first time. Whether this reflects a degree of being cast
off or uprooted is not immediately obvious, but careful examination of
the rest of ch. 9 hints that it may indeed do just that. Suddenly, everything that belongs to Saul and to all his house, that is, including what
belonged directly or indirectly to Ziba, is turned over to Mephibosheth,
who is identified as 'the son of your master' (v. 9). This terminology
takes on added significance in light of the fact (whatever may be the
rearrangements needed to fit the parts of v. 11 in their proper place in
the narrative)52 that Mephibosheth is said to eat at the king's table as
'one of the sons of the kings'. Thus Mephibosheth is, at one and the
same time, the son of Ziba's late master, Saul, and in effect the adopted
son of David, who for all intents and purposes is Ziba's present master.
Ziba has repeatedly acknowledged this by calling himself "]"DD.
The demotion is completed (v. 10) when the 'servant' is directed to
'serve': David directs Ziba to work the land for Mephibosheth. Furthermore, Ziba's 15 sons and 20 servants, those who might have fancied
themselves in line to inherit oversight of Saul's estate, are to join him in
that labor. This is the only biblical ")#] who has built his own 'house'
with sons and servants, an unusual situation facilitated, no doubt, by
Saul's death and Mephibosheth's absence, which allowed Ziba
temporarily to head the household. Working the land must have been
considerably more rigorous work than functioning as retainer or
steward to a king, and the observant reader will notice that this is a duty
that takes Ziba out of the city (where he seems to have been when the
king was wondering about Saul's survivors) into the countryside (where
apparently Mephibosheth was living prior to being invited to court life
in Jerusalem). In contrast to Ziba's large household, Mephibosheth has
51. Syriac manuscripts lack this phrase.
52. The emendations most commonly employed here are to repoint the verb to
3ms perf with the Greek or to emend to imperfect, which has textual support from
two manuscripts and the Vulgate. MT's 'my table' must then also be emended to
'his table', i.e. the table of David, the king. See A.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC,
11; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. 140; McCarter, II Samuel, p. 259; Smith,
Samuel, p. 312.
59
only one son, and a small (pp, perhaps 'insignificant'?) one at that, but
everyone dwelling in the household of Ziba was serving Mephibosheth
by working the lands of his ancestral estate, while he, crippled in both
feet, was dwelling in Jerusalem.
The next chapters interrupt the story of Ziba and Mephibosheth, but
whether as secondary material or a device of the author is not important. Our next encounter with Ziba is in ch. 16, while David is retreating
from Jerusalem as a result of Absalom's insurrection. The narrator calls
our attention to him (!"!3n) and to the donkeys53 loaded with bread and
fruit and wine (v. 1). With these provisions, Ziba is 'going' to meet
'him' (TltOp1?). Has Ziba, loyal follower of David, brought supplies to
David, or has he gone over to Absalom, who was just entering
Jerusalem in the last verse of ch. 15? Bringing agricultural products into
the city makes more sense than bringing them out of the city, especially
since we saw above that Ziba was likely in a rural location (surely
Saul's estate was in the vicinity of Gibeah), tilling the soil. At any rate,
he carries a considerable supply of food and drink.
Ziba's reply to David's question is ambiguous (v. 2) and noticeably
lacking in humble and ingratiating formalities. The asses are for the
household of the king to ride' (does this mean David or Absalom or
whoever comes out on top?), the foodstuffs are for his troops54 (again,
whichever king we may be talking about) and the wine for those who
'grow faint in the wilderness'. For none of these responses is the referent established, and our understanding of Ziba's words will depend on
our notion of his character. (Indeed, if the report of an attempted coup
by Mephibosheth were substantiated, even he and his followers could
be the referents.)
In v. 3, David only appears to ask about Mephibosheth when he asks,
'Where is the son of your master?' When he last appeared (9.11), Ziba's
final words were clear: 'According to all that my master the king has
commanded his servant, thus your servant will do.' Consequently, while
we hear the question as, 'Where is the son of your [former] master
Saul?', namely Mephibosheth, it can quite as easily mean, 'Where is
Absalom, the son of your [present] master?', namely David.55 The reply
53. Once again, a "ID3 is associated with the handling or leading of donkeys.
54. On nHiJ] as troops or 'gang members', see the section on military contexts,
Chapter 4, pp. 70, 72, 83-87.
55. For that matter, it could mean, 'Where is Micah, son of Mephibosheth?'
except that the narrator is careful to avoid describing Ziba as n&ITDQ ~QD, although
60
Ziba gives works either way, since both Absalom and Mephibosheth
were last seen in Jerusalem and either could be waiting for the handing
over of their father's kingdom. Such an expectation is, of course, preposterous in the case of Mephibosheth, crippled and without any support base that we know of,56 but Absalom, by contrast, has declared his
intent to take over the kingdom. Thus the often-cited difficulties in
ascertaining Ziba's true motives and character57 are simply an outcome
of our inability to ascertain exactly what he is saying in these responses.
Although the ambiguity may confuse us, it provides David with an
opportunity to hear the words he wants to hear. He transfers the estate
to Ziba, to which Ziba replies with formalized gratitude and selfabasement.
When the story continues in 2 Samuel 19, a different assemblage of
characters have gone to the Jordan to meet the now-victorious King
David. The people of Judah come to the Jordan to bring home their
monarch. Shimei, who cursed him in ch. 16, is present, accompanied by
a delegation of Benjaminites, as is Ziba, who met him either by accident or design in that chapter. At this point, the narrator identifies Ziba
as "II?] of the house of Saul, a suggestive progression from ~II?] of Saul
in ch. 9 and "II?] of Mephibosheth in ch. 16. Now his full retinue accompanies him: 15 sons and 20 servants. The account leaves the impression
of everyone tripping over each other in their haste to show their loyalty
to the victor, Shimei 'hurrying' (~li~lQ, v. 16), Ziba and his contingent
'rushing' (rf^, v. 18), anxious to do his bidding.
In contrast to the scurrying of the guilty, the innocent proceed with
more dignity and deliberation. Just as Judah came (frO, v. 16) to meet
David, so too Mephibosheth comes (v. 26) to meet him. That he is not
the guilty party in the accusation and counter-accusation of treason is
subtly suggested by the narrator in v. 25. We learn that Mephibosheth
had exhibited the unkempt appearance of one who grieves during the
entire time that David's kingship was in doubt. That this was not a mere
ploy, adopted for show, is clear from the information the narrator gives
us: he had neglected his grooming from the time David departed until
he does refer to him as the ~l! of Mephibosheth.
56. The fact that Mephibosheth has a small son, however, may have been provided by the narrator (9.12) to give a tiny glimmer of possibility to the notion of
establishing a Saulide dynasty.
57. Fokkelman has compiled an intriguing list of positions on the character
issue (Fokkelman, 'King David', p. 33).
61
the day that he came in peace, namely that very day. Thus presumably
it was not an unkempt son of Jonathan who came to greet David, making a show of his acts of mourning, but one groomed according to normal standards. Furthermore, the very choice of details, which are an
unusual set of descriptions, makes 'faking it' for show improbable:
untrimmed beard, unpared toenails, dirty clothes are much more difficult to produce on short notice than are the sackcloth and ashes, which
seem, in biblical narrative, to be donned at times for appearances' sake.58
No, Mephibosheth's grief was genuine during the period when the kingship was in doubt, although even King David would understand that
grief to be more for the loss of his secure and comfortable place at the
king's table than from any deep devotion to the king.
The logic behind David's decision to split the property between Ziba
and Mephibosheth has been ascribed to a number of causes: his not
knowing who the real villain was, his lack of wisdom, his naivety.59 We
have just seen him forgive a confessed scoundrel, Shimei, and provide
assurances for his safety (vv. 18-23); extending mercy in a less clearcut case may have simply been part of the goodwill of the day. Indeed,
retaining the services of an extensive servant household may have just
been good management. Whether he failed, in this instance, to exhibit
'the wisdom of Solomon' is a question I will leave to other speculators,
since it does not relate to my principal task.
The portrayal of the 11?] Ziba in this staccato narrative is one of the
most elaborate pictures of D*HI?] in the Hebrew scriptures. Ziba, indeed,
is one of the co-stars of this drama. He speaks, he acts, he is given a
name. Yet when we consider some of the other criteria of a full-fledged
characterization,60 we find that he is more a 'type' than a rounded character. Although he is named at the opening of each scene in which he
appears, he is always placed into relationship, and a serving relationship
at that, to some other person or collective of persons: "131? of Saul, ")!?]
of Saul, II?] of Mephibosheth, "II?] of the house of Saul.
Biblical characters are frequently not explicitly described except by
their words and deeds,61 but Ziba not only lacks description, but also
58. For instance, 1 Kgs 20.31; 21.27; 2 Kgs 6.30; 2 Sam. 3.31.
59. H.W. Hertzberg, / and II Samuel (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1964), p. 367;
Smith, Samuel, p. 365; Anderson, 2 Samuel, p. 238; but see especially Lasine, 'Judicial Narratives'.
61. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, p. 38.
62
focalization. His words and deeds are always described from the viewpoint of another character. In scene 1 (2 Sam. 9.1-8), Ziba is the foil for
David's musings about a chance to show respect for his deceased friend
Jonathan by an extension of grace to his survivors, if any can be found.
Scene 2 (vv. 9-13) uses Ziba to expand on that idea, by showing that
Ziba will be an agent (as the administrator) of the good that David will
do toward Mephibosheth. In scene 3 (16.1-4), we find that Ziba has
taken some initiative, but since we are not privy to his inner life, we
experience his actions only through their impact on David. By scene 4
(19.16-30), Ziba is not an actor but an extra, part of the crowd scene at
the crossing of the river. We are told that David gave half of the estate
of Saul to him, but we never see him again.
Narratively, Ziba serves as a 'type' against which the character of
Mephibosheth can be contrasted, and both serve the portrayal of the
character of David. In terms of a social study, he performs a range of
functions that we have already seen to be very typical of the D'Hi)]. He
serves as an informant, although in this case he can rely on first-hand
knowledge of the situation of the household of Saul rather than on local
gossip. He is given the tasks of tilling and harvesting (or, more likely,
supervising), which may not have been the expected role of a "!!>] since
these tasks are enumerated, not assumed. Among servant D"7"!!?], Ziba
alone has offspring and servants himself. His spouse is not mentioned.
Ziba's obsequiousness shows the dependency of his position in society,
at least with reference to the king. His servitude has not made him dullwitted, as his responses to David demonstrate when they meet during
David's flight from Jerusalem. In short, although he is unusual in being
given a name, nothing about the portrayal of Ziba alters our understanding of the ~IJ)] as servant. We know nothing about his family or ancestry, his home town or ethnicity, nor about how he came to be in the
service of Saul.
Agricultural Workers
Journeys. One of the commonest roles in which to find a 1JJ] is as a
companion on a journey.62 In addition to the story of Abraham and
62. We also find m"")!)] accompanying their mistresses on journeys, but they
seem to be permanent moves rather than excursions. When Abigail goes to become
David's wife, her five 'maids' are with her (1 Sam. 25.42). Rebecca also travels
63
Isaac mentioned above, we find Balaam getting up, saddling his donkey
and setting out with the officials of Moab (Num. 22.21). As he rode his
donkey, his two DHI?] were with him (1QI?), although they play no other
explicit part in the tale.63 When Saul sets out to search for his father's
lost asses, Kish instructs him to take (PIp'p) one of the D1*"!!?] with him
(1 Sam. 9.3). In 1 Samuel 25, Abigail loads provisions onto donkeys
(v. 18), then sends her D"1"!!?] ahead of her on her journey to appease
David. The Levite who becomes the object of the attentions of the mob
in Gibeah (Judg. 19) is accompanied by his servant and a couple of
donkeys (v. 3) when he sets out for Bethlehem to retrieve his concubine. In 2 Samuel 13, we find Absalom away from Jerusalem at Baalhazor, where his sheep are being sheared, and he addresses the DHI?]
who are there with him (v. 28). When Elijah goes to the top of Carmel
to end the drought, his "II?] is with him (1 Kgs 18.43), as he is when
Elijah flees to Beer-Sheba, although he is left behind (m]) when Elijah
ventures a day's journey into the wilderness. In each of these situations,
the ")!?] is present with the main character on a journey, where his role
as traveling companion varies, although general duties as a personal
attendant seem likely, especially since each of these 'masters' is an
individual of some stature. Even more striking is the presence, in each
of these cases, of animals, whether for transporting goods or persons or
for sacrifice. The job of the "II?] quite likely involved the handling of
these animals, a job that could be arduous, dirty, and might involve
ritual contamination.
Livestock. The DHI?] could be involved with livestock in other ways
as well. Abraham's "II?] (Gen. 18.7) prepared (FTOI?) the calf, a task that
may have involved slaughtering as well as dressing and cooking the
meat. During the time when Joseph served his half-brothers (sons of
Bilhah and Zilpah, Gen. 37.2) as a "II?], he shepherded their flocks. In
1 Samuel 25, Nabal's shepherds are called DHI?] (vv. 8, 14), and their
tasks apparently also included the slaughter of meat to feed the shearers
(v. II). 64 In the prose prologue to the book of Job, the first three waves
of destruction involve D'HI?] along with oxen and donkeys (Job 1.14,
15), "II?] along with sheep (v. 16), and D'HI?] along with camels (v. 17).
with her 'maids' when she goes to become Isaac's wife (Gen. 24.61).
63. The D"1"!!?] may have an implicit role in the sacrifice of a ram and bull that
Balak and Balaam offer in Num. 23.2.
64. Similarly, the dressed sheep that Abigail loaded on donkeys in v. 18 were
presumably slaughtered and dressed by the D'HI?] of v. 19.
64
Obviously, these were servants charged with tending or handling these

livestock.
In the story of Absalom's revenge against Amnon for the rape of his
sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13.23-29), Absalom is in the countryside with
shearers (D"TO, v. 24) who are harvesting the wool from his flock. His
DHI?] are instructed to watch for the moment when Amnon's guard is
down from drinking so that they may kill him. The ~iU] (vv. 28, 29) may
be the same individuals who are identified as shearers. Perhaps the
association of C1"!!^ with livestock and slaughter means that they were
considered appropriate persons to handle dead animals, with the concomitant ritual uncleanness. Similar reasoning could also explain the
other times when a ~IJJ] was requested to kill a human being as well
(see, e.g., Judg. 8.20; 9.54).
Kish 's Servants
A ~IU; whose function seems to have been agricultural65 is the one who
accompanies Saul, searching for donkeys, when he first encounters
Samuel and is secretly anointed for kingship (1 Sam. 9.1-10.1). The
narrator introduces both Kish and Saul by genealogy and by description: Kish is a man of substance (^TI "TQ3, v. 1) and his son Saul is a
fine young man (D1C31 TlPD, v. 2). The 'fellow' Saul takes along is only
one of the D'HU] in their employ. The function of this ~)U] is nowhere
made explicit, but we can assume that he will be a personal attendant to
Saul and that he may handle the donkeys once they are recaptured.
After considerable wandering, the two come to the land of Zuph,
where Saul speaks to the ~IU] about the possibility of turning back and
learns that a seer is in the neighborhood. Although Saul is uncertain
about a gift for the seer, he learns that the 'fellow' has in his possession
a quarter-shekel of silver, and the two proceeded into town where the
seer was. Throughout this dialogue (vv. 5-10), the ~IU] serves as a narrative tool to give us access to the interior thoughts of Saul. We learn
what Saul is thinking, wondering, worrying about, by his discourse with
the "li?l Furthermore, this whole episode turns on the piece of information that the ~ii?3 has about the local seer. On their way into town, Saul
and the ~IU] encounter some of the local rmiJ] who have come out to
65. Contra Macdonald, who suggests that this ~}Vjis a 'military escort' (Macdonald, 'Status and Role of the Na'ar', p. 159.) In his zeal to demonstrate that the
DHiJ] were 'crack troops' or an 'elite corps', Macdonald makes several similar
strained identifications.
65
draw water. They provide the more immediate details about Samuel's
whereabouts, as is typical for C'lU] and mil?] in these narratives.
The vignette provides only two more brief glances at the 1J?3: at the
shrine, he is ushered, along with Saul, into the dining chamber, but once
there he neither speaks nor acts. Then, after spending the night in town,
they arise and depart, this time accompanied by the prophet. At the
edge of town, Samuel sends the 1i?] on ahead, thus giving emphasis to
the fact that Samuel and Saul were well and truly alone at the time of
Saul's anointing. The 1W is not seen or heard from again. Sociologically, he functions as a servant, probably with, among other things,
agricultural tasks. Narratologically, he has served to demonstrate the
status of two of the story's characters and as a tool to reveal the musings of one of them.
Boaz 's Servants, Male and Female
Most of the situations in which D'Hi?] are involved in agricultural contexts mentioned above involved livestock. In the story of Elisha and the
Shunammite, the 1JJ] was in the field with her husband along with the
reapers (C'l^pn, 2 Kgs 4.18), and no mention is made of animals.
Likewise, Ziba fills this sort of horticultural role when he is directed by
David to 'work the land' for Mephibosheth.
The second chapter of Ruth, likewise, involves no mention of animals; the D'lU: (and mil?]) are occupied with the grain harvest, reaping
(D'linpn, v. 7). Boaz, like Kish, is described as a man of substance
("rn 1133, v. 1). The D'll?] are agents in this story, not full-fledged characters: they serve only to demonstrate Boaz's graciousness. Nevertheless, they provide a few clues to the role of D'lVX Boaz asks the 11?]
who served as foreman66 over the other D'li?] who were reaping to
identify Ruth for him (vv. 5-6), with the clear expectation that her identity will be known among the workers. After the C'lUJ have served this
narrative function, we hear about the workers only indirectly, through
Boaz or the narrator: their words and actions are never again recounted
directly. The D'li)] draw water (v. 9), with which Ruth is invited to
refresh herself, and they are instructed to leave some grain that will be
easy for her to gather (v. 15). Most intriguing of all, though, is his
66. Finding a 1IJ] in a supervisory capacity is no more an indication that these
are 'high-born' young men than the presence of a Hebrew foreman among the
slaves in Egypt indicates that the Hebrews who built the storehouses were of noble
birth (Exod. 5), contra Macdonald ('Status and Role of the Na'ar', p. 155.)
66
instruction to them not to bother her, suggesting that DHtf] might need
to be reminded not to accost an unaccompanied woman whom they find
in a field. Notwithstanding his warning to them, Boaz suggests that
Ruth stay close by his female workers (m~l#3, v. 8), but curiously, Ruth
reports to Naomi that he urged her to stick with his male workers
(D'l^j, v. 21). Naomi, who apparently understood the risks better than
Ruth did, corrects her, suggesting that she remain with the D'HW (v. 22),
which she did (v. 23).
Cultic Contexts
In several instances, the D'~lD2 have cultic or at least quasi-cultic functions. Certainly, all of the cases mentioned above that involve the
slaughter of livestock are candidates for consideration in this regard,
because of the close association in ancient Israel between slaughter and
sacrifice. More explicitly, the D1"!!?] of the people of Israel, whom Moses
sends 0f?2J) to the altar at the foot of the mountain, offer up (nÛ) and
sacrifice (I"QT) animals on behalf of the people, under Moses' direction
(Exod. 24.5). Kish's "UJ; unwittingly plays a role in the anointing of
Saul (1 Sam. 9), while Elisha dispatches a ~l] actually to perform the
anointing of Jehu (2 Kgs 9). In both of these cases, the anointing was a
divinely directed rite mediated by the prophet. Not only do prophets
like Elijah and Elisha have D"HU3 in their service, but so did priests, as
in the report of the meat-stealing servants of the priest in 1 Sam. 2.1317. The only time when Joshua is called a "1U3 is in Exod. 33.11, where
it is reported that he remained in the tent of meeting outside the camp
night and day, even when Moses returned to the camp.
Young Levite: Priestly Functions
One story within which the function of the 11?3 is clearly cultic is the tale
of the young Levite in Judges 17 and 18. We learn that he comes from
Bethlehem in Judah, and that he is something of a vagabond, traveling
to the hill country of Ephraim, looking for a position of some sort.
Micah takes him into his household (v. 12), as one of his sons (v. 11).
The ~IJJ] then is installed in Micah's personal shrine as a priest, whose
duties appear to be oracular, since the narrator reports the presence of
ephod and teraphim, but no mention is made of sacrifices. The voice of
the ~IJJ] (v. 3) is recognized by the spying Danites, who investigate his
situation and avail themselves of his divination services. When the full
67
force of Danites returns (v. 15), they proceed to the shrine and carry off
the cultic gear, over the initial protests of the "1^3 serving as priest.
Eventually he joins them on their northward migration, and apparently
becomes the founder of a dynasty of priests for the tribe of Dan.
This narrative uses the ID] as an agent, not a full-fledged character so
much as a necessary personage at the shrine, first in Ephraim, then in
Dan. We learn very little about him, except that he is rootless, evidently
without prospects at home with his family of origin, and opportunistic,
taking advantage of the best option for employment offered to him. The
Danite spies count on him (Judg. 18.3) as a source of information about
the local situation, just as we have encountered in so many other narratives. Of his actual cultic duties, these chapters tell us very little, apart
from what we can infer from the presence of an idol, along with the
ephod and teraphim. His position in the household of Micah was one of
dependency, while after the trip to Laish he ceases to be referred to as a
~iy] and may have become more independent. Given the likelihood that
18.30 is secondary, it can contribute little to our understanding of his
role.
Conclusions
From the many examples we have examined of D*"1U] who operate as
servants in either the domestic or agricultural sphere, we see certain
commonalities. They are depicted as dependent and subservient, and
can be categorized as clients. Their genealogies are not elaborated, and
even their fathers are seldom mentioned. Indeed, for the most part, they
themselves are not named. Within the narrative, their serving roles are
far less important than their roles as dialogue partners for the other
characters, in order to render in discourse those pieces of information
that might otherwise be conveyed by the narrator. This is in keeping
with the preference of biblical narrative for telling a tale through direct
discourse as much as is possible. Both within the social world of the
narrative and within the structure of the narrative itself, the D'lSJ:; are
secondary personages and serve the needs of others.
Chapter 4
FIGHTING MEN AND BATTLEFIELD ASSISTANTS
In the last chapter, we examined the role and function of those LTHU3
whose service was in the domestic or agricultural sphere. Although a
few of those individuals may have had some potential for involvement
in military situations, their primary duties were in the households or
fields of their masters, doing domestic or farm work, running errands,
and generally serving as personal attendants. The present chapter is
concerned with D"1")^] whose function, or at least the realm in which
they are depicted functioning, is explicitly military. This does not preclude their serving in the more mundane aspects of life. The "Ij;: who
carried equipment into battle may well have been the one who prepared
food for the forces during bivouac. He may also have had domestic or
agricultural responsibilities back home when his master was not called
away by battles great or small. Since the scriptures do not follow any
individual ~1U; through an appreciable expanse of time, we have no way
of knowing whether such switching between roles occurred. Such
flexible functioning seems likely, however, and the texts give us no
hard evidence of specialization by particular D'~)U1
The texts in which C1"!^ function in explicitly military situations are
found principally in the Former Prophets. With the exception of one
citation in the Pentateuch, one in Joshua and several in a section of
Nehemiah, they fall exclusively in the narratives of Judges through
Kings, with the books of Samuel possessing the largest concentrations.
This is in contrast with the rather more ubiquitous distribution of D'~!,UJ
as servants, but is perhaps not surprising given the quantity of material
in Samuel that is given over to accounts of battles. The comparative
absence of C'"i^] from the 'battle-laden' chapters of Joshua may be
owing to the fact that Joshua depicts wars of conquest in which people
4. Fighting Men and Battlefield Assistants
69
on the move are taking possession of the land, as compared to the territory wars of a more settled people.1
Our lone Pentateuchal example comes from Abram's rescue of Lot,
after he had been taken hostage when the coalition of kings led by Chedorlaomer plundered Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 14.14 tells us that
Abram took 318 'trained men, born in his house' ("TV1 T^rrnN
TP3) to effect the release of all the goods and citizens of Sodom as well
as Lot, his nephew. His forces included 'his servants' (l""nu, v. 15) and
his allies, Aner, Eshcol and Mamre (vv. 13, 24), who were presumably
other propertied residents. The king of Sodom asked Abram for the
return of his citizenry, but offered to allow him to retain the 'liberated'
goods. Abram replied that he was bound by oath to El Elyon (v. 23) to
refuse his offer, but his allies, being under no such constraint, were to
be given their shares. Abram would take 'nothing but what the D'lU]
have eaten' (v. 24). In this case, D'")!?] might refer to the trained men of
v. 14, although the trained men were more likely his actual fighting
force of D'~DiJ. By analogy with stories which appear in 1 and 2 Samuel,
the D'TU: are likely to be the porters and equipment handlers who
accompanied and attended his fighting men, although the boundaries
between the two groups may have been fluid. Food may have been
provided for the regular troops, but these subsidiaries may have been
expected to 'live off the land' or perhaps to take food from the plundered supplies that they were charged with transporting. In any case,
these D""1I33 were dependents of Abraham, engaged in a military
operation.
The book of Joshua recounts the tale of Rahab the prostitute and the
Israelite spies. In Josh. 2.1, the spies are referred to as 'men' (D'C^K,
also 6.22), thus presumably adults, and the king of Jericho identifies
their ethnicity as 'Israelite' (^toer '33, 2.3). Only in v. 23, when they
are dispatched to bring out Rahab and her family in preparation for the
destruction of the city are they called D"Hy]. As in the case of domestic
servants called D'~ii?j, these men act in response to the sending of someone more powerful than they. And as we shall see in numerous other
cases, they seem uniquely able to traverse boundaries, in this case
enemy lines, just as in Chapter 3, in the section on domestic servants,
we saw how frequently the ~li?: or n~lU] was the one who crossed the
threshold of the home, functioning both inside and outside the private
1. No evaluation, either for or against, should be assumed from this remark
about the historicity of these accounts, only about their subject matter.
70
space of the family. The DHI?] whom Joshua sent were expected to have
access to information on local conditions, in their case being explicitly
called spies (D^ÎQ, Josh. 2.1), from their contact with the 'underclasses' among the local populace, similar to the 'inside information'
provided by servants, as mentioned above.2
Thinning the Ranks
An intriguing example of this ability to cross enemy lines is found in
Judges 7 in the story of Gideon and the battle with the Midianites.
Fortified with the signs provided by the fleece and the dew (Judg. 6),
Gideon is prepared to go into battle, but in order to demonstrate whose
power will win the battle, Yahweh thins the ranks, first dismissing those
who are fearful, then those who used their hands to get a drink.3 As a
final reassurance of Yahweh's role in this battle, Yahweh sends Gideon
into the outer fringes of the enemy camp. The narrator records Yahweh's directive to Gideon to go with his 1JJ] Purah (v. 10) and relates
that Gideon went with his ~l0 Purah. After that, the *"II?3 is not mentioned again. At the outpost of the camp, Gideon hears one man tell
another of his disastrous dream, which the Midianite hearer interprets
as a sign that God has delivered their army into the hand of Gideon.
Gideon, in turn, passes on his renewed courage to his troops, and
indeed is able to recruit other Ephraimite hill country residents to join
the battle. We are not told of any attempt by Gideon either to hide himself or to disguise himself on his reconnaissance mission. This, combined with the disappearance of Purah from the narrative, suggests that
a ~l0 was an anonymous figure unnoticed in the camp and that, accom2. Apparently, DHDJJ (servants, followers, perhaps clients) could also sometimes be counted on to report what they had seen and heard, as suggested by 1 Sam.
22.7-8, in which Saul berates 'his servants who stood around him' for not having
reported to him on the conspiracy between David and his son Jonathan. The silence
is broken (v. 9) when Doeg the Edomite reports what he knows, but by contrast
with DHI)] in various narratives, who are simply assumed to possess critical information, Doeg's knowledge has been specifically set up by the narrator, who has
carefully explained in advance (1 Sam. 21.7) that he was present when David came
to Ahimelech at Nob for supplies.
3. Boling suggests, 'The story thus gives even greater credit to Yahweh, who
chose not only a smaller force but also those less suitable to a military enterprise'
His basis for this is the suggestion that those who lie down and lap up water are less
alert to possible attack from behind. (R.G. Boling, Judges: Introduction, Translation and Commentary [AB, 6A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975], pp. 145-46.)
71
panied by Purah, Gideon was able to slip into the camp without attracting attention. After having served as 'cover' for Gideon, Purah is of no
further use to the narrator of the tale.
A story that resembles Judges 7 in its victory by means of a diminished fighting force (which is thus greater glory for Yahweh) appears in
1 Kings 20, when King Ben-hadad of Aram and a mighty force of allies
besieges Samaria (v. 1). King Ahab of Israel initially agrees to BenHadad's demand for silver and gold, wives and children (v. 4), but the
Aramean king asserts his right to take whatever suits him (v. 6). On the
advice of the elders and people, Ahab finally resists (v. 9), resulting in a
vow of total destruction by Ben-hadad (v. 10).
Into this scene of complete and utter hopelessness comes an unnamed
prophet (v. 13), who relays Yahweh's promise of victory (v. 13). Ahab,
thinking logically, is skeptical, since he knows that his forces are no
match for the allies of Ben-hadad. The prophet's response is to suggest
that he think theologically, and he reassures Ahab that the victory
promised by Yahweh can be won with only the DHI?] of the provincial
governors as a fighting force.4 Ultimately the day is carried, not by
mighty warriors and experienced men of valor, but by servants, whose
role in warfare usually involved carrying the equipment and perhaps
attending to other baggage, including transporting the spoils of war.
Referred to consistently in relationship to the district governors whom
they serve, these D"1"!^] are mustered (v. 15) and led out in the battle
(vv. 17, 19), which results in a victory for Israel and great loss of life
for Aram (v. 21). With the help of Yahweh, the lowly D'HU]5 are able to
4. This suggestion, indeed, is similar to the boast by the Jebusites that 'even
the blind and the lame' would be able to prevent David from entering Jerusalem
(2 Sam. 5.6).
5. Montgomery wants to see D1"!^] here as 'a technical military term, like the
correspondent Arab, gulam, employed in the Arabic chronicles of the Crusades for
the young knights; cf. the parallel in Sanskrit marycC (Montgomery, Kings, p. 323).
Similarly, Gray, who sees them 'as a mobile force of professional soldiers, who
were employed in skirmishing in the encounter of Joab and Abner at Gibeon...
Here they are obviously a military group, lesser feudal retainers of district commanders, under whom Omri had probably organized the realm for military purposes... In the present passage the young soldiers were probably less ostentatiously
equipped than their seniors and so escaped detection as soldiers (v. 18), but were
nevertheless a picked body of striking troops' (J. Gray, / & II Kings, pp. 376-77.
This hypothetical specialized military designation is purely fanciful, as is demonstrated by the present discussion of the use of ~l#] in military contexts, where the
72
snatch victory for Israel from the jaws of what seemed absolutely certain defeat.6 Our D"*"]^, though they may have been an inexperienced
group of attendants, were certainly assisted in their victory by the arm
of Yahweh and by the foolishness of the leadership of the Aramean
allies, who seem to have been rather tipsy at the time of the battle.
Crossing Boundaries: Informants and Messengers
Although the story does not give sufficient information to ascertain
exactly what he was up to, the "1U] from Succoth, captured by Gideon
when he was returning from battle with Zebah and Zalmunna, was outside the city at the 'ascent of Heres' when he was intercepted. Once
again, the ")#] provides information about the local scene (Judg. 8.14),
this time a listing of Succoth's elders and officials, whose refusal of
supplies to Gideon's army will be punished.
When David and Abishai had crept into Saul's camp undetected and
stolen Saul's spear and water jug (1 Sam. 26.6-12), David calls across
the wadi to taunt Abner with his inability to maintain the inviolability
of the camp (vv. 13-16).7 David mocks the king with elaborate rhetoric
of clientship (vv. 17-20), and Saul is reduced to entreaty (v. 21) and
gives David his blessing (v. 25). In the midst of this conversation,
David suggests that Saul send one of the D"1"!!?] of Saul's retinue (v. 22)
to cross the lines and fetch the spear that David now holds as proof of
the success of his escapade of bravado. Not only crossing 'thresholds'
but also functioning as a 'gofer' or 'go-between' are the province of
D"H#] in military as in civilian life.
An intriguing example of both a "!J?] and a m#] crossing boundaries
and serving as informants appears in the midst of the story of Absamost widespread common denominator of the various circumstances in which the
word is used is that the task that these men shared most frequently was the carrying
of armor or baggage, scarcely the hallmark of an elite corps! To draw parallels with
an etymologically unrelated Arabic word from the time of the Crusades is simply
anachronistic and illogical, while conferring some sort of unusual prowess to this
group of fighters deprives the narrative of its intention, namely to demonstrate that
it is the power of Yahweh that is decisive and not Israel's military strength.
6. See Chapter 8 for a similar evaluation of the N'rn at the battle of Kadesh.
7. Issues of honor and shame are raised by the ability of a man to guard that
which is entrusted into his safekeeping, whether the life of the king, as here, or sexual access to women, as in the case of the Levite's concubine, as well as other
im^l (See Chapter 6, as well as K.A. Stone, 'Gender and Homosexuality', pp. 87107; idem, Sex, Honor, and Power, pp. 90, 121.)
73
lom's revolt in 2 Sam. 17. David has fled and Absalom is ensconced in
Jerusalem, listening to the advice of the turncoat Ahitophel and that of
the double agent Hushai, an apparent turncoat who was secretly still
loyal to David. Hushai passed information about Absalom's plan of
attack to Zadok and Abiathar, priests who had returned with the ark to
Jerusalem (v. 15). Their sons, Jonathan and Ahimaaz, were waiting at
En-rogel for the intelligence report that was generally conveyed from
their fathers via a mi?] (v. 17), but they were spotted by a "II?] (v. 18),
who reported what he had seen to Absalom, forcing the two priests'
sons to hide in a well in Bahurim. They survived with the assistance of
the quick-thinking wife of the householder, who covered the well and
spread grain over it (v. 19) and who lied to Absalom's servants when
they came searching (v. 20). Clearly the city's outskirts are the province
of D"H], m")D] and fugitives.
In 1 Sam. 30, in the wake of the destruction of Ziklag and the capture
of its women (including David's wives Ahinoam and Abigail, v. 5),
David receives Yahweh's command to pursue the Amalekites, from
whom he is assured he will be successful in rescuing the women (v. 8).
He pursued as far as the Wadi Besor, where 200 of his men, too
exhausted to go on, are left behind to guard the baggage,8 while the
remaining 400 proceeded with the hunt (v. 10). They intercepted an
Egyptian ~1D], servant (~ni?)9 to an Amalekite, who had been abandoned
by his master because of illness (v. 13). In exchange for food and for
assurances that he would not be killed or returned to his master, the "II?]
shows them how to find the raiding party responsible for the destruction
at Ziklag (v. 15). This story is a poignant example of the expendability
of the D"HI?] and the fear they presumably had of their masters, who
effectively held the power of life and death over them. The shallowness
of the loyalty that this sort of treatment inspired is illustrated not only
by the example of this Egyptian who led David to the Amalekite
8. David's army, prior to his kingship, appears to have been a rather egalitarian
organization. His men seem all to have been DHU] rather than men who had one or
more D"1"!!)] serving them. In this instance, the task of remaining behind to guard the
livestock and gathered plunder is given to the most fatigued of the fighters.
9. This is one of the clearest examples of the difference between status and
function. The fellow's status (~II?2) is with respect to his former situation: cast off or
cast out of Egypt, no longer growing up in his father's household. His present (at
least until yesterday) function ("QI?) is to serve an Amalekite raider, totally dependent upon his master for food and shelter.
74
encampment, but by the behavior of the other DHU] who were serving
the Amalekites in their camp. When David attacked the camp, far from
participating in its defense, 400 DH^] fled on camels (1 Sam. 30.17),
and whether they were camels belonging to their masters or part of the
spoil from Ziklag is unclear.10 These D'HU] seem to have been serving
the Amalekites as porters to carry off the spoil they took in their raids.11
Several other miscellaneous duties of a military or quasi-military
nature fall to the D"1"!!?]. When the Philistines had imprisoned Samson,
they brought him in to make sport of him at the sacrifice to their god
Dagon. His request to touch the pillars that supported the structure was
made to the 1^2 who restrained him (ITS p'mon "il^n, Judg. 16.2),
who apparently was either a prison guard or a servant of the guards.12
Similarly, after Absalom had assassinated his brother Amnon at the
sheep-shearing festivities, the safety of the rest of David's sons is
reported by the litt keeping watch (HD^H "lOT, 2 Sam. 13.34), a task
that may have included guarding the king's person in addition to
watching, and which could be considered a military position.
Guarding of another sort is in view when the tale of Sheba's rebellion
is recounted in 2 Sam. 20. After Joab's cold-blooded murder of Amasa,
a man from the DHI?] of Joab stations himself beside the body, covering
it and urging those who stopped to stare at the body to rejoin the battle
(20.11). This corpse-guarding would seem a grisly example of the task
of the CP~U}] who was left behind to tend the animals or watch the baggage or war materiel or plunder.
Given the involuntary nature of corvee labor, the designation of Jeroboam, "1JJ] of Solomon, as head over the forced labor pool for the house
of Joseph, can also be understood as a military function, although the
narrative provides few details.
When Sennacherib of Assyria had captured Lachish and Hezekiah of
Jerusalem had paid tribute, Sennacherib sent emissaries (~DNT ]mn~ntf
nptf'mTIKI OnO'ITl) from Lachish with a large army (2 Kgs 18.7).
Their arrogant speeches at the wall of Jerusalem in the hearing of the
10. This scene is reminiscent of the portrayal of na'arim described by MayerOpificius in the depictions of the Battle of Kadesh, to be discussed in Chapter 8.
11. Cf. the n- '-ru-na of the Merneptah Inscription, discussed in Chapter 8.
12. Macdonald's suggestion that Samson, as a high-status prisoner, was permitted his own personal attendant seems strained, in part because of its assumption that
the Philistines would honor the social class of a captive in their treatment of him
(Macdonald, 'Status and Role of the Na'ar', p. 159).
75
people demoralized everyone, not least of all Hezekiah, who sent for
the prophet Isaiah, who in turn reassured the king through his messengers, referring to the representatives of Sennacherib, clearly military
functionaries, as D"1"!!?]perhaps 'flunkies'of the king of Assyria
(TtitT-â nitt, 2 Kgs 19.6; also Isaiah 37.6). In all probability, these
functionaries would not consider themselves (or be considered within
their own society) as D'HU], but Isaiah dismisses them as minor players,
choosing a word that perhaps reflected their present function, carrying
messages back and forth between camps.
In Nehemiah, the D"HJJ] appear to have military roles that overlap
with those we have observed in the Pentateuch and Former Prophets.
When the work of rebuilding the wall was resumed (Neh. 4.10 [Eng.
4.16]), half of the DHU] worked on the actual construction, while the
other half held the armaments, here enumerated by type rather than
lumped together as 'armor' (D^D). They worked round the clock, building during the day and standing guard at night (v. 16 [22]). The D'HIJ]
served as guards again, after the rebuilding was accomplished, when
Nehemiah had them keep the gates closed to prevent the transaction of
commerce on the sabbath (Neh. 13.19). The D""1^3 are listed, along with
Nehemiah and his 'brothers', as lending money and grain to try to
prevent their fellow Jews from sliding into poverty and slavery (Neh.
5.10), while others are taking advantage of the plight of their fellow
Jews and making money from their misfortunes. This text makes it
obvious that some D'HI^ were involved in certain financial transactions,
as was Kish's "IU], who provided Saul with the silver coin for a gift for
the prophet when they visited Samuel at Ramah (1 Sam. 9).13
Armor-Bearers
1
An extensive list of D" ""!!?] are involved with the bearing of 'armor',14
and indeed, those discussed above in various military situations may
13. A number of seals have been found which indicate that D*HU] sometimes
served as stewards, in which case they would undoubtedly be involved in commerce, albeit on behalf of their masters rather than on their own accounts. See
Chapter 8.
14. The Hebrew word that is translated 'armor' in these instances is D'^D, which
is used in a number of other situations to indicate the sexual organs of David's men
(1 Sam. 21.5), the vessels of the temple (1 Kgs 7.45; 2 Kgs 12.14), men's garments
(Deut. 22.5, which are not to be worn by women), general baggage (1 Sam. 17.22),
76
have been 'equipment bearers' or 'military porters' (D^D KCDH), even if

not designated as such by the texts. On the other hand, in some
instances, a man is called 0^3 N&] but is not specifically designated as
"UJ1 Given the probable strenuousness of this work, they too are likely
to have been military servants of the same sort. Thus the 'armor-bearer'
who was at Saul's side when he was struck by Philistine archers
(1 Sam. 31; 1 Chron. 10) was probably a II?], as also was Naharai of
Beeroth, armor-bearer of Joab, who is listed among the 'Thirty' in the
roster of David's warriors (2 Sam. 23.37; 1 Chron. 11.39). The Dnw of
Neh 4.16 carry 'armor' along with a whole list of defensive equipment,
as well as serving as construction workers on the rebuilding of the wall
of Jerusalem. Presumably, in a period when a citizen militia, rather than
a professional standing army, served to protect the interests of a particular group, those citizens who had D"HI?] serving them in peacetime
simply took this attendant along to perform some of the heavy work
when they were mustered for warfare.
Orders to Kill: Assassinations and Assisted Suicides
One of the most striking things about the D"1")!?] who serve as armorbearer is how frequently they are asked to kill. The parade example, of
course, comes from the story of Abimelech in Judg. 9.50-57. After the
destruction of Shechem, Abimelech's forces besieged Thebez. The
people of the city shut themselves up on the roof of a tower, and when
Abimelech approached the tower to set it afire, a 'certain woman'
heaved a millstone over the side, crushing his skull. At Abimelech's
request, the "IU2 who carried his armor put an end to him in order to
even cooking pots (Lev. 6.21). Given the likely cumbersomeness of Iron Age
weapons of war, a porter would have been helpful for transporting any of these
implements, and thus a translation of 'equipment' may be more accurate than the
usual 'armor'. Additionally, such a translation is less likely to predispose readers to
imagine a medieval battlefield complete with 'knights in shining armor' adhering to
a code of chivalry, such as Macdonald seems to have in view. (Macdonald, 'Status
and Role of the Na'ar', pp. 158-59.)
The cumbersome equipment of ancient warfare, as well as the servants enlisted
to carry it, can frequently be seen in reliefs depicting ancient battles. Orthostats
from the Nimrud palace of Ashurnasirpal II, for instance, show warriors in battle
and behind each of them is at least one beardless porter holding arrows or shields.
Many of these porters are marked as servants by their ear-piercings (Y. Yadin, The
Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study, II [New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1963], pp. 388-89.
77
spare him the ignominy of having been killed by a woman.

Another well-known example of the use of the ")D3 in assisted suicide
comes in the scenes depicting the death of King Saul. In 1 Samuel 31,
the narrator tells us that after the deaths of his sons Jonathan, Abinadab
and Malchishua, and once Saul realized that his wounds were fatal, he
asked his armor-bearer, not explicitly referred to as "!#], to complete the
process, lest the Philistines have the opportunity to torment him. The
armor-bearer refuses in fear,15 so Saul takes his own life, whereupon his
assistant joins him in suicide.
By contrast with this account that the narrator gives of the last
moments of Saul's life, another tale is told by the man who arrived in
Ziklag from Saul's camp, bearing the marks of grief, in 2 Samuel 1. To
David's inquiry about the outcome of the battle between Israel and Philistia, he relays the occurrence of widespread desertion and the deaths of
Saul and Jonathan. When David asked the "IJJ] (v. 5) how he could be
certain of their deaths, he reported finding a moribund Saul with
mounted enemy closing in. Saul's first question was about the homeland of the man, and hearing that he was an Amalekite, Saul asked him
to end his life.16 The 1#] reports to David, perhaps expecting to be commended for his good deed, that he complied with the request and has
brought the tokens of Saul's office to David. Far from being pleased,
David then commands one of his D"HU3 to execute the Amalekite, which
he does forthwith.
A similar, though more stealthy, assassination is carried out by the
DHl)] of Absalom. Some two years after Ammon's rape of Tamar, when
Absalom had gathered all of David's sons to celebrate the shearing of
his sheep, he instructed his D"H0 to watch for the moment when Ammon
was intoxicated and then at Absalom's signal they were to strike
15. This fear is without doubt because of the fact that Saul is the Lord's
anointed, not because of the "liO's 'youthfulness' or reluctance to take the life of
someone with higher status than himself because of some 'knightly code of honor',
as suggested by Macdonald. Certainly David was considered a hero for his unwillingness to harm Saul (as in 1 Sam. 24.6; 26.9), and his restraint was depicted as
strength, not weakness (R.W. Klein, 1 Samuel [WBC, 10; Waco, TX: Word Books,
1983], p. 288; Macdonald, 'Status and Role of the Na'ar', pp. 158-59.)
16. To ask about the ethnic identity of a potential 'angel of death' may seem
odd, but perhaps Saul wanted to be certain he was not a Philistine, or perhaps he
knew that only a foreigner would feel free to kill Israel's anointed king, even at his
own request, although David clearly feels that even an Amalekite should not have
done so.
78
Ammon and kill him. Apparently, this was an order that a ~l0 was in
some fear of carrying out, since Absalom enjoins them to be courageous
and assures them that the deed will be his responsibility, since he has
ordered it (2 Sam. 13.28). The text then reports simply that the DHi?]
did as they had been directed (v. 29), which resulted in the flight of the
remainder of Absalom's brothers.
Another incident in which an order to execute an enemy is given
occurs in the aftermath of the death of Saul and his three sons, when the
Israelites, along with a remaining son of Saul, called variously Ishbosheth or Ishbaal by MT and LXX respectively, lost heart (2 Sam. 4.1).
The two raiding band captains of Ishbosheth, Baanah and Rechab, sons
of Rimmon of Beeroth, came to Ishbosheth during a midday siesta. Pretending to deliver wheat, they struck him in the stomach as he lay in his
bed, decapitated him, and then fled. Thereupon they proudly carried the
head to David, assuming that the enmity between himself and Ishbosheth would cause him to welcome the assassination. Quite the contrary, David made reference to the way he had greeted the news of
Saul's death, and calling in the Q'HU], commanded them to execute the
brothers (v. 12) and remove their hands and feet for good measure.
A final example of D'HI)] who kill on the implied orders of their
master occurs in 2 Sam. 18.15 in the battle between forces loyal to
David, led by Joab, Abishai and Gittai, and Israelite forces who had
rallied behind Absalom. David had repeatedly asked his generals to
'deal gently' with Absalom, but they had discouraged him from coming
into the battle along with them. Absalom's gorgeous hair had gotten
him hung up in a tree when the mule on which he rode had ducked
under a low branch, and an observer reported this state of affairs to
Joab. To Joab's suggestion that he would have rewarded him for putting
an end to Absalom right then and there, the man responded that he
would not dream of acting contrary to King David's wish for clemency
in dealing with Absalom. Joab, in impatience and disgust, takes three
spears and drives them into Absalom's heart, whereupon ten D"HD],
Joab's armor-bearers, finish him off. The narrator does not record an
order from their master, but clearly they were carrying out his wishes.
A ")#] who refuses an order to kill is featured in the story in Judges 8
of Jether.17 In one of the stories of Gideon, in a passage that shows
17. Indeed, his unwillingness to carry out his father's directive, whether because
of fear or moral scruple or whatever, may be the reason that he is termed a "!!>],
since disobedience or insubordination might well result in removing one from the
79
some signs of interpolation,18 Gideon questions the captured Midianite

kings, Zeba and Zalmunna, about the men that they have killed at Tabor
(v. 18). On hearing of their resemblance to himself, he realizes that the
kings have killed his brothers, and he directs Jether, his first-born (l~nDH,
who appears here for the first time), to kill them (v. 20). Jether refuses,
being 'afraid because he is a ~1U]'. Soggin suggests that his hesitancy is
because 'the boy seems very young, frightened and inexperienced',
which may account for the repetition of the term "~IJ}119 This text will be
considered again with the group of individuals who are DHI?] because
they are at risk for one reason or another, but it is another example of a
"1U3 being asked to kill on behalf of his master, even though the reason
for calling Jether a ~1W remains less clear cut than with many others.
Jonathan and his Armor-Bearer Do Battle with the Philistines
The only narrative in which an armor-bearing "ll>] plays an extended
role is the story of Jonathan and his "15J3 single-handedly attacking the
camp of the Philistines at a time when the war seemed to have ground
to a stalemate (1 Sam. 14). This individual is twice identified as the ~1U]
bearing his 'armor' (V^D KEG, vv. 1, 6); in subsequent verses, he is
called simply the 'armor-bearer' (vv. 7, 12-14, 17), or probably more
accurately, 'weapon-bearer'.20
The narrator presents us with an Abstract in the form of Jonathan's
suggestion to the "IU3 who carried his weaponry: 'Come, let us go over
to the Philistine garrison on the other side' (v. 1), and then proceeds to
provide an Orientation that sets the scene and explicates the situation.21
The Abstract is repeated in v. 6, after we have been informed that Saul
knew nothing of this. The position of Saul and his 600-strong army, and
of the priest Ahijah and the ephod as well, is specified, as well as the
fact that the people were not aware of this sortie, and the ruggedness of
control and protection of one's father. See Chapter 5 for more on Jether.
18. The reference to a battle that the Midianite kings had fought at Tabor, and to
Gideon's brothers, comes without prior narrative preparation, for instance.
19. J.A. Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1981), p. 155. Certainly this seems a more straightforward explanation than Macdonald's suggestion that Jether feared to kill a man who outranked him (see above).
20. See Klein, 1 Samuel, pp. 129-34.
21. The terms 'Abstract' and 'Orientation' are from Berlin's appropriation of
William Labov's 'sequence of well-formed narrative', as discussed in Chapter 1
above (Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, p. 102.)
80
the pass that the two men traversed is described. Only in these two repetitions of the story's Abstract is the term "1123 used, as the narrator
clarifies the status of the characters in the opening description of the
story.
In the two episodes of 'dialogue' (in reality, monologue) with his "!!>],
the first quite brief (v. 1), the second slightly more detailed (v. 6), direct
discourse gives us access to Jonathan's thoughts. The weapon-bearer,
far from having thoughts of his own on the subject, simply serves to
endorse Jonathan's plan. 'Do all that is in your mind. I am with you; as
your mind is. so is mine' (v. 7). Indeed, from the point of view of the
narrative, the two possess only one mind between them. Only one of
them thinks, then both act as one. This appears to be yet another
example of D"~iy] crossing battle lines, and once again the two might
have crossed undetected had it not been for the decision to deliberately
reveal themselves to the Philistines (v. 8). The reaction of the Philistines, whether they will warn the two men off or invite them to come
ahead for a confrontation, is set up as a test of Yahweh's approval of
the scheme. The Philistines, who identify the men as 'Hebrews' (v. 11),
are ready for some action and suggest that the two men come up to 'see
something'. Perhaps they were under the impression that they were
dealing with two CT~li)j out looking for a meal.22 Scrambling up the
rocks, the two produced panic amongst the Philistines, with Jonathan
knocking them down and the weapon-bearer finishing them off,23 not
apparently under direct orders to kill, but clearly following his master's
wishes. The ensuing panic is total, involving the camp, the field, the
whole army, even the garrison and the raiders (JTTTOQm 31>an, v. 15).
Saul, realizing finally what Jonathan and the weapon-bearer have been
up to, joins the battle and a great Israelite victory is won. Throughout
the first 15 verses of the chapter, the focal point of the narrative has
been Jonathan; the role of the ~l^3 has been in the service of that
22. Indeed, according to v. 21 certain 'Hebrews' who had been in the service of
the Philistines crossed over to the Israelite side when they saw that the momentum
of the battle favored them. The debate about whether this represents a group of the
hapiru, as mentioned in the Amarna letters, while interesting, need not detain us
here, but will be revisited briefly in the concluding chapter. But see P.K. McCarter,
Jr, / Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB, 8;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 240-41.
23. In Hertzberg's words, 'the armor-bearer gives them the coup de grace'
(Hertzberg, / and II Samuel, p. 113).
81
focalization. In vv. 16-23, Jonathan and his weapon-bearer are noticed

only by virtue of their absence; neither speaks again. Jonathan has
served as a provocateur to end the stalemate, but the real concern of the
extended narrative is the fate of the army of Saul and of the ark (or
ephod).
Arrow-Fetcher
In 1 Samuel 20, the story of Jonathan's affection for David and of the
risks he took to protect him, a ~l^] figures into the narrative by carrying
military hardware, even though he is nowhere referred to as an 'armorbearer' (D^D K2J]). Within the world of the narrative, his task is to fetch
the arrows that Jonathan shoots, ostensibly for practice. David has
absented himself from the new moon meal out of fear of Saul (v. 5).
Jonathan has agreed to assess his father's mood with respect to David
and to send a signal to David that either he may safely rejoin the court
or he should flee for his life. The plan is developed privately, out in an
open field (v. 11), and David will know whether to approach or escape
by whether Jonathan tells the ")#] to look closer in or further out for the
arrows he will shoot (vv. 21-22).
When all have taken their places for the festive meal, Saul notices
David's absence and requests an explanation (v. 27). Not easily
deceived, Saul becomes enraged, calling his son names and hurling a
spear in his direction. The next morning, Jonathan takes a ]CDp HI?],24 a
small or young "!!?], with him when he goes to the prearranged meeting
with David. The boy, oblivious of the message being communicated
(v. 39), gathers the arrows and is sent to carry Jonathan's weapons (V^D,
v. 40) into town, leaving David and Jonathan truly alone for an emotional farewell (vv. 40-41).
This character, the young ~1U], has no name, no discourse, no action
within the story, except to go where he is taken or sent by his master
Jonathan. At no point is the story told from his point of view. He seems
to serve merely as a means by which the message between David and
Jonathan is communicated, although he is not even dignified with the
role of conscious messenger, but rather serves as the insentient tool of
his master. For the narrator, however, he serves a somewhat wider function. Just as D1""!!)] can serve as 'status indicators' to show the wealth or
24. The use of the fixed expression, ]CDp ~1U3, will be explored in more detail in
Chapter 7.
82
importance of their masters,25 they also serve the narrator as 'solitude

indicators'. When the narrator needs to demonstrate to the reader that a
character or characters are completely alone, the dismissal of the ~115], as
in this story of David and Jonathan and also in the story of the anointing
of Saul (1 Sam. 9.27), makes clear that no one, except the parties
involved, is aware of what is transpiring.26 Conversely, the mention of
the presence of a 115] in an otherwise quite private location is a way for
the narrator to signal that he has ways of knowing what goes on behind
closed doors. Thus the ancient audience, accustomed as they were to
certain classes of persons having constant attendants, was not as
immediately skeptical of stories about the most private of encounters as
we moderns are.27 The presence of a "1153 is a way of introducing 'the fly
on the wall' into these ancient narratives. In the case under discussion,
perhaps the ~IJ5] is mentioned specifically as being 'young' (|Qp) in order
to lessen the reader's expectation that he might catch on to the fact that
David was hiding behind a rock and messages were being communicated. In any case, the narrator is quite explicit in this case that the ~\U'j
knew nothing, only David and Jonathan knew:
David's Band of Rogues

Some clues about the situation and nature of DHi?; of a certain sort can
be deduced from the stories of the band of men who coalesced around
David during the time before he became king, which have many points
of similarity to various forms of 'social banditry' described by anthro25. As indicated above, Chapter 4.
26. Speiser makes a similar point in his commentary on 'The Great Temptation'
(Gen. 22): 'Abraham says that he intends to go with Isaac onto a mountain to pray...
Thus he separates from the servants [D'Hi^l, for he can do what he must only when
he is completely alone with the child' (E.A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes [AB, 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964], p. 240.)
27. So, for example, in 2 Sam. 13, in the story of the rape of Tamar by Amnon,
our questions about how anyone could know what events had gone on in that room
are answered (v. 17) when Amnon calls the 1U3 waiting upon him (im!3Q) to send
Tamar out of the room. This gesture, which seems to us unspeakably cruel, conveyed to the ancient reader that the deed had been observed. Interestingly enough,
the focalization of the story does not remain in the room with Amnon, but follows
Tamar through the door to her brother Absalom.
83
pologists.28 When David first flees Saul's wrath and goes into hiding,
we hear only of him, not of any others with him. Indeed, when David
goes to Ahimelech, the first question of the priest at Nob is, 'Why are
you alone, and no one with you?' (1 Sam. 21.1). David's reply that he
has set a rendezvous with the D'HU] (v. 2) is the first mention we have of
David's followers, and indeed we are not certain whether the priest
knows that these are David's band of brigands or whether he assumes
that David is still traveling with a division of Saul's regulars (1 Sam.
18.13). David's reply to the inquiry about the state of sexual purity of
his DHU] (1 Sam. 21.4) seems deliberately vague: 'Indeed women have
been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of
the young men [DHI^m^] are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels by holy?' (v. 5).
The classic description of the men around David during this time is
stated in 1 Sam. 22.2: 'Everyone who was in distress, and everyone
who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented gathered to him;
and he became captain over them. Those who were with him numbered
about four hundred.'29 Clearly his is a band of fugitives and malcontents, not the societal ideal of obedient sons living in their fathers'
houses, waiting to inherit the patrimony. That these were not youngsters
is reflected in the fact that, in addition to the references to them as
DHD], the most frequent reference is to David and the men that were
with him (intf "TO D'CftKl TH, e.g. 1 Sam. 22.6) or David and his men
(120N1 ~Tn) in, among other places, 1 Sam. 23.5, where their activities
28. E.J. Hobsbawm, 'Social Banditry', in H.A. Handsberger (ed.), Rural Protest
(New York: Barnes & Noble, 1973), pp. 154-56. For a fuller treatment of the phenomenon, see E. J. Hobsbawm, Bandits (New York: Pantheon, rev. edn, 1981).
29.
McCarter describes them as 'disfranchised, disenchanted and embittered' (P.K.
McCarter, Jr, '1 Samuel: Notes', W.A. Meeks (ed.), The HarperCollins Study
Bible: New Revised Standard Version [New York: HarperCollins, 1993]). The perils
of leading a band of misfits and malcontents is made clear, however, in 1 Sam.
30.22, when the text reports that some of the 400 who had pressed the raid against
Ziklag ('corrupt and worthless fellows', ÎT^m DTETK'^D) were disinclined to
share the booty with the 200 who had remained behind with the baggage at Wadi
Besor. In response, David declares an egalitarian principle of sharing the spoil
(v. 24), which the narrator asserts continues in practice to the present (v. 25). This
egalitarianism is further suggested by the fact that, in these stories, David's 'men'
or DHU] are never said to be 'serving' or 'waiting on' him. He seems to have been a
~l0 among D""!^], leader and captain perhaps, but first among equals.
84
included engaging the Philistines and taking plunder. Their numbers

apparently grew, being noted as 400 in 1 Sam. 22.2, then 600 in 1 Sam
23.13, where it is observed that 'they wandered wherever they could go'
(C^rur nC3fa r^nm).30 In contrast to the 400-600 'men' who traveled
with David, Saul goes in search of them with 300031 'select fighters'
(Tim 2TK U**b D^K nc^tf), although David and his men manage to
elude Saul.32 Their center of operations seems to have been the rougher
parts of the countryside (e.g. 1 Sam. 22.1; 24.1).
Settling themselves and their families in a Philistine-held village,
David and his band of six hundred lived by marauding (1 Sam. 27.2-8),
killing residents of towns and carrying off plunder. David himself is
under apparent clientship to the king of Achish, who is kept ignorant
about which towns have been the targets of David's raids. The trust of
Achish is so thoroughgoing that he appoints David as his lifelong
'bodyguard' OOTnLP intD, 28.2).
One of the activities that David's men carried on in order to support
themselves appears to have been a 'protection racket'. In 1 Samuel 25,
the Dî1: of David have been 'accompanying' the D11"!!?] of Nabal, a
wealthy livestock raiser, as they keep his flocks in the hills. During this
time, Nabal's shepherds have not suffered losses, evidently either from
predators or from bands of raiders similar to David's.33 When the time
for shearing came,34 David sent ten D'HJJ] to Nabal at Carmel (v. 5) with
greetings of 'peace' to remind him of the benefits that David's men
30. This phrase is reminiscent of the "11)3 from Bethlehem, identified as a Levite,
who was likewise itinerant, if not rootless (Judg. 17.8, 9):
HI^Q- -iEK3 Tob rmrr on"? TOO TOTQ er^n -j'n

The verb in 1 Sam. 23.13, the hithpael case of ~pT\, is used of David's men also in
1 Sam. 25.15, 27 and 30.31. Perhaps the modern notion of fellows 'hanging out
with' or 'running with' David is not too far off the mark.
31. Or possibly three 'divisions of, see: R.G. Boling, 'Judges: Notes', in Meeks
(ed.), The HarperCollins Study Bible, p. 369. Cf. also 'three thousand chosen men'
in 1 Sam. 26.2.
32. Other references to David's 'men': 1 Sam. 27.2, 3, 8, 9; 28.1; 30.1, 3, 4, 6,
9, 10, 24, 26; 2 Sam. 2.2. Saul's troops are referred to as 'chosen men', as in 1 Sam.
24.1; 26.2.
33. Raids on livestock were evidently part of the stock in trade of such bands.
1 Sam. 23.5 reports that David brought away the livestock (DiT3pQTIK) of the
Philistines in the rescue of the city of Keilah.
34. Shearing time was a time of celebration and feasting, as in the story of
Amnon's murder by Absalom, 2 Sam. 13.
85
have provided to his shepherds (v. 7) and to request a portion of the

festive foods (v. 8).
Nabal's reaction upon hearing the request that David's D**""!!?] delivered (v. 9) gives a good summary of how someone of Nabal's social
location (i.e. landed gentry) regarded someone of David's social location (i.e. captain of bandits): 'Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse?
There are many servants today who are breaking away from their masters' (v. 10). Indeed, during the time when David was serving as ~IU] in
Saul's court, we are told that he 'fled and escaped' (CDîn n~Q, 1 Sam.
19.18). Our vantage point suggests that David was justifiably fleeing for
his life, but from the point of view of the 'master class', David was no
doubt just another runaway. From Nabal's viewpoint, men like David
should have been under the control and supervision of someone like
himself, kept in a subservient rather than a leadership role. His answer
amounted to a declaration of war, and David armed his troops for battle
in the familiar ratio of 400 fighters to 200 'baggage handlers' (DTIKQ1
D^rrÛ "Q2T, v. 13).35 All-out war is averted when one of Nabal's
D"1"!^] alerts his mistress (v. 14), and she gathers an offering to placate
David's affronted pride (v. 18), which she transports to David's
encampment with the help of her D'HU] (v. 19). Pleading ignorance of
the request of the D"1")^] sent as messengers by David (v. 25), she offers
the gifts for David's D'HJJ] and ingratiates herself with the most selfabasing rhetoric (vv. 28-31).36 The offer is accepted and warfare
averted; the only casualty is Nabal himself, who basically 'drops dead'
35. Cf. the numbers from the Battle of Ziklag, 1 Sam. 30.10, 21, 24. Among
David's troops, the division into a corps of fighting men and a corps of porters
seems to have been ad hoc, as opposed to a class distinction, as it seems to have
been in some other cases. The role of the ~1D] in carrying off booty is perhaps illustrated in the story of the pursuit of Abner by fleet-footed Asahel in 2 Sam. 2. Abner
attempts to shake him off by urging that he turn in one direction or another and
'seize one of the DHiJ] and take his spoil' (v. 21). This certainly suggests that there
were any number of DHU] at hand carrying plunder.
36. Given the effect of gift-giving as a challenge requiring a response in an agonistic society (Malina, The New Testament World, rev. edn, p. 34), proffering these
foodstuffs as an offering for David's DHI5] may be a way of suggesting that these
gifts are far too humble to require a response from a person of such a stature as
David. Alternatively, this may be an example of the D""1U] being provided for by
'offerings' from the local populace (see Gen. 14.24), whereas army regulars may
have been provided for by transported supplies.
86
at the thought of the honor that David has received at his expense
(vv. 36-38).
Sociologically, the D1"!!?] are dependents, either of Nabal or of David,
and they do their masters' bidding. At one level of the story, they are
the provocation for the crisis, since the acceptance of protection by
Nabal's tni?] sets the stage for the confrontation. Within the narrative,
they serve merely as messengers and go-betweens, with no words other
than the words of their masters.
A narrative that has fueled a great deal of speculation is the story of
the contest of the C'~lU; in 2 Samuel 2. David has been proclaimed king
over Judah at Hebron (v. 4), but Saul's son Ishbaal is still nominally
ruler of the northern tribes. At Gibeon, Ishbaal's army commander,
Abner, encounters David's commander, Joab, and suggests that the
DHU] perform a contest (ipnfcn) for them (v. 14). A dozen men represent each side (v. 15), and David's 'servants' prevail (v. 17). Whether
this was a contest of 'picked champions' or of 'expendables' of the
order of a gladiatorial amusement is a matter of dispute, but it seems
not to have been a token battle that was to decide the outcome by
proxy. 37 The narrative reports that David lost 19 men (in addition to
Asahel, who died pursuing Abner, v. 23), while inflicting casualties of
360 on their enemies (v. 31). Parallels with other ancient contests of
champions are tenuous at best, and these C'~lU3 should probably be
regarded as warriors' attendants, armor-bearers and baggage handlers,
whose lives were held in such low regard that their masters were willing to use them for sport.
In 2 Sam. 4.12, David orders his D'~1U3 to execute the assassins of
Ishbosheth, as discussed above. This is the last appearance of David's
D'"l#3 in the scriptural narrative. In 2 Samuel 5, with David's anointing
as king over all Israel, his men, whether called explicitly DHU] or not,
disappear from view, and his retinue takes on the hallmarks of more
usual court life.38 Only in 2 Sam. 16.2, 39 in the words of Ziba, do we
37. A. Rote, 'The Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, Theology, Eschatology', in J. Neusner et al. (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 117-51.
38. 1 Chron. 12.29 (Eng., v. 28), in a listing of the troops who participated in his
ascension at Hebron, mentions one Zadok, a ~)W warrior or perhaps a "li?: of &warrior ('rn TO: ~\W),by name.
39. See p. 59 above.
87
hear of David's DHU] again, and Ziba's duplicitousness gives us doubt

as to exactly whose servants are intended by his statement.
David
The stories of David's earliest history are a good illustration of the
ways in which individuals, usually young people, came to be 0'"!^] (or
m~iu;) serving masters in agricultural, domestic or military contexts.
1 Samuel contains two quite different accounts of how David came to
be serving in Saul's court.40 For our purposes, the relative ages of these
two accounts, their authorship, or their historicity (or lack thereof) need
not concern us. 4I All of these stories depict roughly the same sort of
social world, and in two of them David is referred to explicitly as a "IJJ].
In the narrative of Samuel's trip to Bethlehem to anoint one of the
sons of Jesse (1 Sam. 16.1-13), the prophet sets out on his portentous
journey, taking with him a heifer as part of the cover story of performing a sacrifice, which ruse he will use to avoid incurring Saul's murderous wrath (v. 2). Yahweh has indicated to Samuel that at the sacrifice he
will indicate his selection of the one from among Jesse's sons to
become the next 'Lord's anointed' (v. 3). Seven sons appear before
Samuel, and seven sons are not selected (v. 10). Then Samuel asks, in
v. 11, D'~lU]n IQnn, which is often translated, 'Are all your sons here?'
Given the situation that is about to be described for David, and in light
of what we know about D'li)], Samuel's inquiry is whether there are
any other sons who are away from home, out of the nest, not at the
moment under the father's direct control, fledglings perhaps. Samuel is
saying, in effect, 'I have seen all the sons who live under your roof. Are
there others who live away? Do there still remain D'"!!)] that T need to
see?' Jesse answers that there is indeed one son, the youngest (]0pn)
working outside of the household, watching the flocks. David is brought
40. In 1 Sam. 16.14-23, David comes to Saul's attention as a musician. 1 Sam.

17 contains the composite account of David's defeat of Goliath, by which he
became known to Saul.
41. For good reviews of the problems associated with these narratives, see J.C.
Trebolle, The Story of David and Goliath (1 Sam. 17-18): Textual Variants and
Literary Composition', BIOSCS 23 (Fall 1990), pp. 16-30; A. van der Kooij, 'The
Story of David and Goliath: The Early History of Its Text', ETL 68.1 (1992),
pp. 118-31.
88
home, Yahweh confirms his selection (v. 12), and he is duly anointed in
the presence of his brothers (v. 13).
In a subsequent narrative describing David's arrival at court (1 Sam.
16.14-23), David is not specifically called a ~l!J], but the events leading
to his serving Saul are probably typical of the ways that individuals left
the homes of their fathers and became servants or attendants in another
household (or military camp). Saul is afflicted with some sort of melancholy or dementia (v. 14), and some of his servants suggest that a
skilled musician be sought to soothe his troubled mind (v. 16). One of
his D'Hl?;42 is aware of a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who, among his
many virtues,43 is a capable musician (v. 18). Saul requests Jesse to
send his son (v. 20), and Jesse complies, sending also a donkey loaded
with bread, wine and meat (v. 20). David 'entered Saul's service' and
'became his armor-bearer' (v. 21), a typical description of the situation
of a ")D1 David is so successful in his role that Saul wishes to extend
the term of service, asking Jesse to allow David to remain as his attendant (v. 22).
The second account of the engagement of David at Saul's court is in
the context of the battle with the Philistines in 1 Samuel 17. The first 11
verses of the chapter set the scene, describing the taunts of Goliath the
Philistine and his proposal for a battle of champions. Verses 12-31,
which are missing from LXX, describe David as one of eight sons of
Jesse, who here is called pT. The oldest three of Jesse's sons are part of
Saul's army, while David, the youngest, alternates between keeping his
father's livestock and carrying provisions to his brothers in the field.
Although nothing in these verses is inconsistent with our expections of
the situation of a Itf], nowhere in them is David referred to as such.
Beginning with v. 32, the text is once again found in LXX, and the
story continues with David adressing the king with the formal language
of clientship,44 identifying himself to Saul as ~|~nJJ, your servant. Saul
tries to dissuade David, reminding him that he is merely a "1U3, whereas
Goliath has been a warrior (HOn^Q 2TK) since the days when he served
42. A "0 'in the know' about local situations, see Chapter 3 above.
43. Among the phrases that the ~ll?j uses to describe David is "180 iti^R, which
suggests that in the mind of the composer of this narrative (or at least in the mind of
the final redactor) David was no longer a child.
44. See Chapter 3, p. 57.
89
as a "IJJ] (v. 33).45 David's description of the risks he has incurred in the
past while tending livestock (vv. 34-37) is a reasonable, though heavily
theological, portrayal of the life of a ~!U] serving in an agricultural context. Having put aside the weaponry of a professional soldier and armed
himself with the weapons of a shepherd, David sets out to do battle with
the Philistine (vv. 38-41). Although the warrior holds him in contempt
because he is a "II?] (v. 42), David prevails, not only downing the Philistine, but decapitating him with his own sword (v. 51). Saul, observing
this heroic effort, inquires as to the parentage of this ")!?] (v. 55).46 Abner
does not know whose son David is, and is directed to find out (v. 56).
Abner brings David before Saul, and the king asks him directly, 'Whose
son are you, -|J)]?' (v. 58).
Other information about the status of a "!!?] can be gleaned from subsequent narratives from the time David served in Saul's court. In
1 Sam. 18.1, when Saul becomes jealous and angry, he hurls his spear
at David, suggesting that the master may well have held the power of
life and death over the "Itf] who served him. That the ")!?] was a person
of low status is confirmed not only by the low regard with which the
"")>] David was held by both Saul and the Philistine when he announced
his readiness to fight the more experienced warrior,47 but also by the
self-deprecating response of David to the proposal that he might become
the son-in-law of the king (1 Sam. 18.18). In response to the growing
enmity that he felt for David, Saul removed him from his court service
and placed him at the head of a division of the army, where David was
very successful (18.13). In 18.27 David became in fact the king's sonin-law, not by marriage to Merab as had been originally promised, but
by marriage to Michal. With these two increments in his status, David
is never again referred to as ""!#]. No longer is he the displaced son of
his father's household, living away from his father's patronage and
protection. Henceforth he is the head of his own household, and indeed
we find in 1 Sam. 19.11 that Saul sends messengers to David's house,
45. In fact ]'HU]Q, which is frequently translated 'from his youth', although
'since his na'arship' is a possibility that will be discussed in Chapter 7.
46. Verses 17.55-18.5 are, like 17.12-31, missing from LXX.
47. If the D"1")!?] were a crack fighting corps, as suggested by Montgomery, Gray
and others, David the "1JJ3 would seem the most likely of candidates for a contest of
champions and the dismissive remarks of Saul and Goliath would seem out of
place.
90
"ITT JTO. Soon David will be the patron of other displaced persons, as
we have seen in the section above on David's men.48
Conclusions
As with D'Htf] serving in the domestic or agricultural sphere, the military "Itf] is a dependent, subservient to his master or commander, performing what was probably hard physical labor. He is away from his
father's household, serving in a military camp, without the care and
protection that a father might ordinarily be expected to provide. The
circumstance that led to this status could have been capture, as we
might suspect in the case of some of the D"*")!)] whose foreign origin is
identified. Others may have been sold into service in the payment of a
debt, or they may simply have been, as perhaps in the case of David,
one of the later-born sons in a family with many surviving sons. As
such, their prospects in their father's households would likely be limited, and becoming clients in the service of another household, even in
the court of the king, may have offered opportunity, or at least survival.
48. Significantly, after David's anointing at Hebron (2 Sam. 5), the men of his
retinue are never again referred to as D'H^l
Chapter 5
DANGEROUS SITUATIONS
At-Risk Individuals
All of the D"1"!!?] discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 are servants, probably

technically free men, not slaves in many cases, although economic
necessity often makes the distinction irrelevant. The translations invariably use the word 'servant' in these cases quite appropriately, since that
describes their functionaccurately. Their social location, on the other
hand, may be what is at issue in the use of the Hebrew term. Certainly
Joseph and David are no ordinary servants. The fact that they too are
called D"1U3 should alert us to look at what other characteristics these
individuals all share. One such characteristic is the fact of dependence
on a patron, whether an employer, a master or a charismatic leader, who
is not an actual biological father. Each person called a ~IJJ] is away from
home in someone else's household or camp.
Far more interesting, however, are those individuals who become
D'~lU] not by being servants, but by being at risk in some way, deprived
by circumstances of the oversight and protection of their natural patrons,
which is to say their fathers.1 As shall be demonstrated below, the need
1. Only by a curious combination of the serving functions of the C^JJ] that
were discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 and the alleged high birth or nobility of the
G'lJJ] discussed in the present chapter is Macdonald able to say, 'I had little hesitation in defining him [the ~li?3] as "squire" ' (Macdonald, 'The Status and Role of the
Na'ar', p. 169). The characters that qualify as 'at risk' here are manifestly not servants in any form (with the exception of Samuel's attendance on the priest Eli).
Furthermore, the evidence provided for the 'nobleness' of birth seems merely to be
the fact of being named by the narrator. In considering the question 'to what families or social class n"arim...belong', Macdonald includes the servants of 'wealthy
Boaz' and the attendant who accompanies Saul to a feast (p. 148). Clearly, however, the narrator has given us some evidence of the status of the master in these
cases, not of the servant. Worse yet, here too Macdonald is less than accurate in his
92
for a patron can come about because of the death or absence of the
father, through estrangement, as a result of grave illness from which the
father is unable to protect the ~)U], or by being removed from the father's
household by dedication to God. Indeed, in a number of instances, the
~]JJ] has no other patron on whom to rely except God.
Certain young men are reported to be Q'HM at the time of their growing
up, leaving home and striking out on their own. Indeed, being a ~II3]
seems to be a liminal state, at the threshold between two realities. After
Esau and Jacob have grown up 0^~ir, Gen. 25.27), they are referred to
as C'~1U], but each is a full-grown man, living on his own, pursuing his
own occupation: Esau as a hunter, Jacob 'living in tents'. They are
neither 'boys' nor servants, but they are clearly living away from their
father's home. A similar transitional experience is surely in view with
the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh by Jacob in Gen. 48.16. After
'adopting' the sons of Joseph (to insure their inheritance alongside their
father's brothers, 48.5), Jacob intones a poetic blessing over all three of
them. As they are about to lose their grandfather to death, Jacob refers
to them as Eni?! In his blessing, Jacob commends them to another's
care, indeed to the care of Yahweh who has been Jacob's protector.
A most striking example of an individual who is referred to as ~)JJ] by
the narrator at a vulnerable moment is Moses. In Exod. 2.6, when the
baby boy has been set adrift in his little basket in the river, Moses is
called a ~)U3. He is but a few months old (and indeed is also called "fr);
surely his age is not what he shares with Esau and Jacob, Ephraim and
Manasseh. But he is about to enter a wider world, without protection.
Death of the Father
Those whose fathers were deceased were obviously lacking this patronage. When Eli heard the news about the Philistine rout of the Israelites
and their capture of the ark, as well as the deaths of his own two sons,
he apparently succumbed to a heart attack. Shortly afterward, his daughciting of the biblical narratives. He says, 'Abraham's son by Hagar is so called [i.e.
1W] (Gen. 21.12, 17, 18, 20; and 22.12)' (p. 148). In actuality, the Gen. 22.12 reference is to Abraham's son Isaac, whose mother was Sarah. His statement, 'Joseph
son of Jacob is a na'ar (Gen. 37.2)' (p. 148), is footnoted by the comment, 'So also
described by Judah in speaking to Jacob (Gen. 43.8); cf. Gen. 44.22, 31-34' (p. 148
n. 2). Those verses, of course, mention Benjamin in the role of ~)U3, not Joseph!
5. Dangerous Situations
93
ter-in-law, widow of Phinehas, died giving birth to a son (p, v. 20), but
we are told that she named the ~IJJ] Ichabod, for she realized the peril
into which the infant would be born, without family support (1 Sam.
4.21).
Another 'fatherless child' is Jeroboam, son of the widow Zeruah,
who is also called ~IU] (1 Kgs 11.28) during his period as a servant
(~QJJ, v. 26) of Solomon. DeVries points out that 'although Jeroboam
has a patronym [son of Nebat, v. 26], we would know that his father
was dead not only from the fact that his mother is identified as a widow
but also from the unusual fact that she is named [Zeruah]'.2 Jeroboam is
certainly past childhood, even adolesence, and is referred to as GJ'K and
'TTT TO}, but little can be elaborated about his social location beyond
his vulnerability, a vulnerability that is a consequence of the fact that
his father is deceased. Gray is quite correct in noting that Jeroboam's
father's death has enormous implications for the young man's future,
but he has probably overreached the evidence in his analysis: 'Jeroboam, though a young man in the service of Solomon, had succeeded to
the property of his father, who had died early, since his mother is
designated as a widow.' 3 The simple designation 'widow' is insufficient
evidence to suggest that Jeroboam has inherited property; indeed his
service as a "lift suggests quite the opposite.4
2. S.J. DeVries, 1 Kings (WBC, 12; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), p. 150.
3. }.Gray,I&IIKings,p.213.
4. Paula Hiebert points out that, in the Middle Assyrian laws, a woman is
almattu (and therefore destitute) if both her husband and her father-in-law are
deceased and she thus lacks a male guardian. Rook suggests a semantic shift in the
meaning of Hebrew rEC^K over time, since Jeroboam, a grown son, could presumably have functioned as a male guardian for his mother. The issue, I think, is not
simply the presence of an adult male protector, but also a 'household' headed by
that adult male in which protection can be provided. In the case of a grown son who
has become the new head of a household once headed by his father (her household
of residence), both protector and protection are available. Jeroboam, however, was a
~ffi] and thus had no immediate prospect of becoming a head of household. He
served the 'house' of Solomon, which was likely not a household to which his
mother could become attached (P.S. Hiebert, ' "Whence Shall Help Come to Me?":
The Biblical Widow', in P.L. Day [ed.]. Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 19891, pp. 125-41 [128-29]; J. Rook, 'When Is a
Widow Not a Widow? Guardianship Provides an Answer, ' BTB 28 [1998], pp. 4-6
[5]).
94
Solomon himself is called "1U3 by David his father in a speech made

in anticipation of his own death (1 Chron. 22.5). David takes pains to
make provisions in advance for the building of the temple, since his son
is, in his view, ~!U] and ~p, or 'soft, tender'.5 His speech is repeated,
verbatim, in 1 Chron. 29.1, but this time the transfer to the protection
and patronage of Yahweh is made more explicit. The verses just prior
to 29.1 provide the context for the statement that Solomon is "11)2:
David said further to his son Solomon, 'Be strong and of good courage,
and act. Do not be afraid or dismayed; for the LORD God, my God, is
with you. He will not fail you or forsake you, until all the work for the
service of the house of the LORD is finished' (1 Chron. 28.20).
Solomon's son Rehoboam is characterized in the same words (~U)] and

~p, 2 Chron. 13.7), in the description of the rebellion and secession that
Jeroboam had accomplished upon Solomon's death. The narrator's
description of this critical time of transition, and of the importance of
guidance and protection to a man who has just lost the oversight and
influence of a father, is very revealing:
Then King Rehoboam took counsel with the older men [D^pT] who had
attended his father Solomon while he was still alive, saying, 'How do
you advise me to answer this people?' They answered him, 'If you will
be kind to this people and please them, and speak good words to them,
then they will be your servants forever.' But he rejected the advice that
the older men gave him, and consulted the young men who had grown
up with him [in lîa neJK D'l'T'] and now attended him (2 Chron. 10.68).6
His peers tell him the things he wishes to hear, and in his arrogance he
rejects the mentoring of men who could have helped him hold his kingdom together.
Josiah, who was thrust onto the throne in the wake of a palace coup
against his father Amon (2 Chron. 33.24, 25), is another young king who
is in need of good advice. When the historian refers to Josiah as "l3
(34.3), he is probably highlighting his vulnerability and lack of such
5. BDB suggests that the word implies 'undeveloped character'. Since supervision, guidance and character development were among the responsibilities of a
father or, I suggest, the master of a "IK, David's impending death will indeed render
Solomon vulnerable (and make any further development of his character unlikely).
6. For inscriptional evidence related to this phenomenon, see N. Fox, 'Royal
Officials and Court Families: A New Look at the (yeladim) in 1 Kings 12', BA 59.4
(December 1996), pp. 225-32.
95
mentoring, since most D1"^] are well into adulthood and are not, as
Josiah is, mere boys of eight.
Hadad of Edom, fleeing to Egypt after the extirpation of every Edomite male (including most certainly Hadad's father, since they were of
the royal family), is called ]Dp ~l0 (1 Kgs 11.17), a fixed expression
that appears a number of times and which will be explored in Chapter 7.
His youthfulness may be alluded to by the use of the adjective, but
surely the noun reflects his vulnerable state as a fatherless refugee,
dependent on the patronage of Pharaoh (v. 18).
Estrangement or Absence
Even short of death or orphanhood, the same sort of transfer of patronage7 appears in stories of alienation or of endangerment. At precisely
the moment in the narrative in which the father is no longer willing or
no longer able to protect his son, the terminology changes and the son
becomes a "I!?].
Ishmael. During the early years of his life, Ishmael is described as
Abraham's 'son' (Gen. 16.15; 17.23, 25, 26; 21.11). As his disenfranchisement approaches, he begins to be known as Hagar's son (21.9, 10)
or the son of a slave woman (21.13). In Gen. 21.12, God recognizes the
change in Ishmael's status by referring to him as "IU3 for the first time.
In v. 17, God hears the voice of the ~l#], and Ishmael continues to be
referred to in that way in vv. 18-20. The patronage of Abraham, his
father, has been lost. From this point on, God will provide protection
and advancement of the interests of Ishmael.
The story of Ismael is generally agreed to be composite; the age of
Ishmael at the time he was placed on his mother's shoulder and carried
off, helpless, into the wilderness would have been roughly 17,8 if a
7. According to Halvor Moxnes, patronage is the relationship between patrons
and clients, such as fathers and sons, lords and vassals, landlords and tenants.
'Patron-client relations are social relationships between individuals based on a
strong element of inequality and difference in power. The basic structure of the
relationship is an exchange of different and very unequal resources. A patron has
social, economic, and political resources that are needed by a client. In return, a
client can give expressions of loyalty and honor that are useful for the patron'
(Moxnes, 'Patron-Client Relations', p. 242).
8. According to Gen. 16.16, Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86. Gen.
17.24, 25 reports the circumcision of Abraham and Ishmael when they were 99 and
13 respectively. The birth of Isaac occurred when Abraham was 100 (Gen. 21.5;
96
single narrative were here represented. At that age, he should have been
providing for his outcast mother, rather than the other way around.
Beyond that agreement, however, little else is unanimous. Although
they differ as to the exact assignment of the first seven verses of ch. 21,
both Speiser and Skinner agree that vv. 8-21 should be assigned to the
Elohistic source.9 Westermann points to differences between this and
Gen. 20.1-18, another supposed Elohistic text, and suggests, 'A narrative from the patriarchal period was available to the interpolator'.10 This
agrees with our findings so far that the use of the word ~IU] occurs in
narratives from old sources, although the concept of a 'patriarchal
period' should be replaced, perhaps, by 'premonarchic period'.
Ishmael, in this narrative, is not a full-fledged character. He does not
act, speak, see or focalize. Indeed, in this account he is not even named;
we infer his name from the earlier accounts of his birth and circumcision. Strictly speaking, the possibility exists that this tale refers to yet
another son of Abraham by Hagar, an unlikely possibility, but one that
would resolve the chronological difficulties inherent in this pericope.
What the son of Hagar lacks in character development he makes up by
the power of the attention focused on him. Although he does not see or
speak, he is the object of all sight and speech in this story. Significantly,
he is named ~ID3 by God and the messenger of God. Hamilton has come
close to a description of the social location of a ~\$l in his exegesis of
this narrative:
It is interesting that every time God refers to Ishmael, he calls him a lad
(na'ar; cf. vv. 12, 17 [2 times], 18, 20). But when Abraham or Hagar
refer to him they call him a child (yeled; cf. vv. 14, 15, 16). The latter
word denotes a biological relationship. The use of the former by God
minimizes Ishmael's relationship to Abraham as son. Thus Ishmael is a
Ishmael by inference was 14), and the banishment of mother and child happened
only after the weaning of Isaac, surely at least two years later, perhaps three. The
phrase "lUm^l seems awkwardly inserted in v. 14, but whether it is so placed as an
attempted gloss (so C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary [trans. J.J.
Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), p. 341] or is a deliberate strategy of the
narrator to provide emphasis (so L.L. Lyke, 'Where Does "the Boy" Belong? Compositional Strategy in Genesis 21.14', CBQ 56.4 [1994], pp. 637-48 [647]), the
anachronism remains between this tale and the earlier stories of Ishmael.
9. E.A. Speiser, Genesis, p. 151; J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; New York: Charles Scribncr's Sons, rev. edn, 1910),
p. 320.
10. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 338.
97
yeled to Abraham and Hagar, but he is a na 'ar to God. It is almost as if

God is siding with Sarah in calling Ishmael Abraham's na 'ar rather than
his yeled.''
Neither the mother nor the son are given voice to protest the severance
of the bond of protection between father and son; the divine voices are
left to name the reality for what it is. Trible makes a similar observation
quite concisely: 'To minimize Abraham's relationhip to Ishmael, God
calls him "the lad" rather than "your son".'12
Isaac. A most dramatic example of this phenomenon of severance of
paternal protection comes in the story of the 'binding of Isaac'. After
Abraham has taken him away from home and has decided on a course
of obedience to God's demands that will culminate in his son's death,
God's angel refers to Isaac as ~)JJ] (Gen. 22.12). The author of this narrative undoubtedly means to indicate more than youthfulness by this
term, since he also uses it to indicate the servants whom Abraham has
taken along on this painful mission, who were presumably more than
mere boys (Gen. 22.3, 5, 19). Moreover, Isaac is manifestly not, in this
narrative, a servant of any sort.
Skinner, who refers to this story as the 'literary masterpiece of the
Elohistic collection', typifies the assignment of this narrative to the 'E'
source.13 Von Rad calls it 'the most perfectly formed and polished of all
the patriarchal stories', but suggests that its lack of tight connection to
the prior narratives implies 'that it existed a long time independently
before it found its place in the Elohist's great narrative'. 14 More
recently, Westermann argues against evidence of an Elohist source
here, but suggests that 'Gen. 22 is to be traced back to an older narrative'.15
11. V.P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (N1COT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 81.
12. P. Trible, 'The Other Woman: A Literary and Theological Study of the
Hagar Narratives', in J. Butler, E. Conrad and B. Ollenburger (eds.), Understanding
the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson (JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 221-46 (232).
13. Skinner, Genesis, p. 328. Also Speiser, Genesis, p. 166, and Hamilton, Genesis 18-50, p. 99.
14. G. von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (trans. J.H. Marks; OTL; Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1972). p. 238.
15. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, p. 354, also pp. 401-402.
98
The narrative prepares us for the horror of the stark moment when the
father's decision will cast the young man out of the warm glow of the
protection of his father into the cold darkness of the possibility of death
by a heaping up of phrases that sketch the tight bonds of love between
Abraham and Isaac: 'Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you
love...' (22.2). He takes along two of his D1")!?] and his son Isaac (v. 3)
and sets off. The D'HJW, who are servants, provide nothing in the way of
dialogue or action to advance the plot, but they do, just as we have seen
in other cases, serve as a narratorial device for indicating solitude: once
Abraham sees the location, he asks them to remain with the donkey,
while he and Isaac proceed ahead (v. 5). The decision to carry out this
terrible sacrifice seems irrevocable, and the term ~IU3, used in reference
to his beloved son, is uttered by Abraham: 'The "IU3 and I will go over
there and worship, and then we will come back to you.' (22.5)
Up to this point, the spotlight has been on Abraham. Isaac has merely
been a prop, the object of his father's preparations and actions. By calling his son a ~)UD (an ominous term) and with the laying of the wood on
the back of his son, Abraham transfers the focalization of the story to
Isaac (vv. 5, 6). Isaac finds his voice (v. 7), and we readers find ourselves inside his heart, feeling his uneasiness, his helplessness.
Just as abruptly, the focus returns to Abraham and his preparation of
altar and firewood (v. 9). Although his actions are the object of the
reader's focus, his interiority is never laid bare in quite the way that
Isaac's was.16 Indeed, as the story reaches its climax, the only part of
Abraham that seems to be in view is the outstretched hand, the hand
that holds the knife (v. 10). Then suddenly the attention shifts to the
heavenly messenger (who joins Abraham in calling Isaac what he has
become, a 1W) and to the ram that will serve as a substitute sacrifice,
instead of his son (v. 13). Leaving aside vv. 15-18,n Isaac does not
appear again in the narrative, either as character or as object. Indeed the
16. The closest we come to knowing Abraham's feelings is in the way that Isaac
is described in v. 2. This is a good example of Berlin's observation that a character's interiority can be shown in the way another character is named. (Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, p. 59.)
17. These verses are generally regarded as secondary to the narrative. See, for
example, Skinner, Genesis, p. 331; von Rad, Genesis, p. 242; Westermann, Genesis
12-36, p. 363. However, only the angel mentions Isaac (and even here, not by
name), saying, 'Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your
only son, I will indeed bless you' (vv. 16, 17).
99
biblical texts never again place Abraham and Isaac on the same stage
again, except when Isaac and Ishmael, both G'HU; by virtue of their
father's willingness to cast them out in obedience to God's demands,
come together to bury their father.
Benjamin. The story of Benjamin is another striking example of a young
man who becomes a 1iJ] when he is in danger. Genesis 43 and 44 are
part of the 'Joseph novella', which extends from Genesis 37 to 50.
Westermann presents an excellent survey of the gradual scholarly
departure from attempting to extend the J and E sources18 into the
Joseph story and instead to see it as a unified story (with perhaps interruptions at Genesis 38 and 48^19) related to the earlier patriarchal traditions, but with a very different shape and style.19 He refers to it as
an artistic narrative, the fruit, not of oral tradition, but of the literary plan
of an artist who conceved it in written form. It is a work of art of the
highest order, but the writer is not narrating something he himself
invented; he is narrating a story of the patriarchshis own fathers, and
the fathers of his listeners.20
He points out that, while the Joseph story bears resemblances to the
biblical books of Ruth, Esther, Judith and Tobit, only this story is integrated into the larger biblical narrative.
In the whole of this long Joseph story, the word ~l] is used only of
the sons of Rachel.21 Joseph, when he is away from home tending livestock for his half-brothers (Gen. 37.2) and again when he is in an
Egyptian prison (41.12) is called 1Uj. Benjamin, his only full brother, is
called the same repeatedly in the two chapters under discussion.
In Genesis 42, the brothers journey to Egypt in search of grain, but
'Jacob did not send Joseph's brother Benjamin with his brothers, for he
feared that harm might come to him' (v. 4). Genesis 43 finds them facing severe famine in Canaan again, with the exception of Simeon, who
has been detained in Egypt under pretense by Joseph, whom the brothers have not as yet recognized. Jacob wishes to send them to Egypt
18. So, for instance, Speiser assigns both chs. 43 and 44 to the source J (Speiser,
Genesis, pp. 325, 331).
19. C. Westermann, Genesis 37-50: A Commentary (trans. J.J. Scullion, SJ;
Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), pp. 15-30.
20. Westermann, Genesis 37-50, p. 26.
21. And grandsons, if we include the blessing of Ephraim and Manesseh in Gen.
48.16.
100
once again to seek food, but Judah reminds him that the man (Joseph
incognito) had warned them that they must bring their other brother
(Benjamin) with them if they ever returned (vv. 3, 4). He insists that
they will go only if their brother accompanies them. Jacob expresses his
dismay that they had even disclosed the existence of another brother
(v. 6). Throughout this entire discussion, Benjamin is referred to by his
relationship to the others, that is, as 'brother' (vv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Finally,
to break the impasse, Judah says, 'Send the ~IJJ] with me... I myself will
be surety for him; you can hold me accountable for him' (vv. 8-9).
They have not yet embarked on their journey, but at the moment when
Judah has verbally wrenched Benjamin from his father's protection, he
is labeled "1U1 Jacob finally acquiesces (v. 13), and suggests that the
brothers take a present of 'choice fruits of the land' (v. 11), another
example of the frequency with which D"H!?3 are associated with journeys, donkeys and agricultural products.
Once they arrive in Egypt, the group (referred to repeatedly as 'men',
43.16, 17, 18, 24) tries to make amends for their prior visit, when the
money with which they had purchased foodstuffs mysteriously reappeared in their baggage (they were unaware that this had happened
through Joseph's machinations). When Joseph returns home, he is
touched by the sight of his younger brother, and during this peaceful
moment in the narrative the narrator once again uses the relational term
with respect to Benjamin (vv. 29, 30). Arrangements are made for the
brothers to be treated to a banquet, and they sit down to enjoy it, 'the
firstborn according to his birthright [in~lD3D ~iD3H]22 and the youngest
according to his youth [THU^D Tl^m]', 23 and they are once again
referred to as 'men' (v. 33). Then, Joseph arranges for his silver cup to
be planted in Benjamin's bag (44.2). In the morning the men are sent on
their way, but the steward catches up with them, and a search (v. 12)
'beginning with the eldest [^13] and ending with the youngest [jtDp]'
reveals the missing cup. Significantly, this narrator chooses words such
as |CDp and "PUK to convey 'youngness',24 saving the word ~1M, which is
22. Cf. Gen. 25.31, 32, 34; Deut. 21.17; 1 Chron. 5.1, 2; Gen. 27.36.
23. Cf. Josh. 6.26; 1 Kgs 16.34; also Jer. 48.4.
24. See, e.g., Gen. 42.13, 15, 20, 32, 34; 43.29; 44.12, 23. Indeed, at no place in
the biblical text is the word "liJ3 part of a comparative or superlative expression
indicating 'younger' or 'youngest'. That concept is most frequently conveyed by
]0p, as in Gen. 9.24; Judg. 9.5; 1 Sam. 16.11; 17.14; 1 Chron. 24.31; 2 Chron.
21.17; 22.1.
101
so frequently translated 'young', to describe Benjamin, vulnerable and

away from his father's protection.
The brothers are so certain that the cup will not be found among their
things that they suggest the steward make a search, and if it should be
found, they will all become slaves (44.9). He counters that only the one
in whose possession the cup is found should be enslaved (v. 10). When
the cup is found in Benjamin's bag (v. 13), they return to the city, where
Joseph insists that the brothers should return home, but that Benjamin
will remain behind as his slave. Judah steps forward to plead the case,
explaining about his father's elderliness and his great affection for
Benjamin, and the great grief that will come to their father if they go
home without their youngest brother. Judah reminds Joseph that when
he had requested that they bring Benjamin to Egypt, they had
explained, 'The "1133 cannot leave his father, for if he should leave his
father, his father would die' (v. 22). Once again, the word ~i33 is
invoked precisely when the conversation turns to leaving the house of
the father, and thus being at risk.
Judah goes on to explain what will happen upon their return: '[W]hen
I come to your servant my father and the 113] is not with us, then, as his
life is bound up in the boy's life, when he sees that the "113] is not with
us, he will die' (vv. 30-31). Benjamin left behind is Benjamin as "113].
Judah suggests that, since he agreed to be surety for the "1,533 (v. 32), he
should remain as a slave instead of the 1U3, so that the ~l!3] (v. 33) could
return. '[H]ow can I go back to my father if the "1133 is not with me?'
(v. 34).
The resolution of the story comes in the first three verses of Genesis
45, in which Joseph identifies himself to his brothers. With the discovery of the presence (and power to protect) of Benjamin's older brother,
the narrative never again refers to Benjamin as "1133. Once again, he
becomes 'brother' (vv. 12, 14), and he is no longer in danger.
Within the narrative, Benjamin is scarcely a fully developed character. He does not speak or act; we have no glimpse of his interior life, of
whether he was fearful or courageous, willing or reluctant to undertake
this fateful journey. He is merely a prop, a 'bone of contention', that
gives tension to the narrative. Regarding our understanding of the word
1133 as it describes an individual away from the father's house and in
some sort of danger, perhaps the most revealing aspect of this story is
the question of who uses the word. Throughout this long account, only
other characters use the term "1133. The narrator and Joseph, both of
102
whom are in on the secret that there is no real danger, never speak it.
Understanding the social reality is made easier by understanding the
dynamics of the way the narrative is put together.
Absalom. One of the reasons that several commentators have suggested
that a ~liJ] is a 'noble-born' youth is the fact that, on a number of occasions, one or more of the sons of David are referred to as D'HWl25 Certainly kings' sons would qualify, according to most analyses, as
individuals of noble birth, but a careful examination of the texts in
which a son of David is so labeled reveals that in each instance the term
is used when the young man is in danger of some sort, away from the
house of his father.
The first such instance comes in the story of Absalom's revenge
against Amnon for the rape of his sister Tamar.26 Absalom holds a feast
in conjunction with the shearing of his flocks, and he invites his father
and his retinue to join him (2 Sam. 13.24). When David demurs, Absalom requests the presence at least of his brother Amnon (v. 26), and
over David's protestations, he wins approval for the attendance of all of
his brothers (v. 27). We can only speculate as to the reasons for David's
reluctance, but the ill-will existing between Amnon and Absalom must
have been known to their father. After the DH^ of Absalom have carried out his plot to assassinate Amnon, his other brothers mounted their
mules and fled (v. 29).27 The news that reached David was that all of his
sons had been killed (v. 30), and he exhibited all the signs of grief
(v. 31). Jonadab assures David that not 'all the D1")!?], the king's sons'
have been killed, only Amnon.28 In using this word to refer to David's
sons, he recognizes that they had been away from home and in danger.
25. Macdonald, 'Status and Role of the Na'ar', pp. 148, 156, 164; Stahli,
Knabe, pp. 149-57; Stager, 'The Archaeology of the Family', p. 26.
26. The Absalom Cycle also contains mention of QHJJ] of the agricultural and of
the military sort, that is, persons who are away from their own father's households,
serving cither David or Absalom in military or agricultural labor. These are servants
with no name and no pedigree; it would be difficult to assert that they were of
'noble birth', but in ascertaining the social location to which the term refers, these
citations are equally important.
27. Their presence at the sheep-shearing (without attracting particular notice
from the participants or from the narrator) suggests that Absalom's D1"^] are agricultural workers, not military personnel.
28. Commentators are not in agreement about whether the phrase 'the king's
sons' is an insertion that should be removed (so Smith) or a corruption of the text
103
At this point, Absalom fled to Geshur, where he lived for three years
as an outcast in the home of Talmai, son of Ammihud, the local king
(v. 37). By and by, Joab, using a ruse presented by the woman of Tekoa,
is able to persuade David to soften his position. The affront of the murder of his son had dishonored David, and he had responded to this challenge to his honor and authority by leaving Absalom in a state of
dishonored exile. David responds to the tale that the woman presents,
and to her pointing out to him, in a manner that was obsequious but still
risky, that his actions were precisely the same as those of the community who insisted on avenging spilled blood in her parable. He instructs
Joab to bring the outcast back to Jerusalem, calling him 'the ~iy] Absalom' (14.21), a phrase that will be used repeatedly by him to describe
his son, right up until the moment of Absalom's death, a phrase that
acknowledges that this estrangement in the family has left Absalom at
risk, away from his father's patronage.29
In 2 Samuel 18, we find that the temporary normalization in the
father-son relationship has been breached again by Absalom's usurpation attempt. David, having left the city of Jerusalem temporarily under
control of his son's insurrectionist forces, announces to his military
leaders that he will personally accompany the forces into battle (2 Sam.
18.2).30 David's commanders will not hear of it, and suggest strategic
reasons for him to remain away from the battle (v. 3).31 Many commentators see here a father's attempt to save his errant son.
David's intention is to go into battle, but he is made to stay behind at the
request of the people. Perhaps his wish conceals the intention of saving
Absalom's life, that of the troops, Joab's concern to prevent this... For
that needs to be emended (so McCarter). Neither position is critical to understanding Absalom's position as a ~IU1 A number of biblical narratives have DHD] who
are sons and D n ~l^] who are servants appearing in quite distinct roles in the same
stories, with occasional confusion about which is referred to at a particular point in
the narrative. See the section on 'Sons and Servants' below (Smith, Samuel, p. 333;
McCarter, II Samuel, p. 331).
29. Contra Smith, who suggests that this word was chosen to emphasize Absalom's youth: 'To his father he was still but a boy' (Smith, Samuel, p. 357).
30. In another instance (2 Sam. 11.1, 2), when the narrator seems to indicate
that, as king, David should have been on the battlefield with his troops, David
stayed behind in Jerusalem and had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba.
31. In a similar way, David had tried to use arguments about inconvenience to
Absalom as a reason for preventing his other sons from attending the fateful sheepshearing (2 Sam. 13.25).
104

Joab knows better than David himself, who is here governed solely by
his paternal sensibilities, that a further pardon of Absalom will only lead
to a further jeopardizing of the kingdom.32
Prevented from accompanying the forces into the field, David rather
plaintively entreats his officers, in earshot of all the troops, to 'deal
gently for my sake with the 1U] Absalom' (v. 5). When, in the midst of
the fighting, the upstart Absalom's mule runs under a branch and he is
immobilized, 'caught by his marvelous hair' (v. 9), 33 a man reports this
to Joab, who berates him for not having dispatched Absalom forthwith.
The man reminds Joab of David's injunction, using the same phrase,
'the ")IJ] Absalom' (v. 12), but Joab, impatient with such sensibilities,
carries out the execution himself with the help of other D'HJJ], his armorbearers (vv. 14, 15). Two runners set out to carry news of victory to
David, and each is asked about the welfare of 'the ~I2] Absalom'
(vv. 29, 32). Ahimaaz, who had ignored the suggestion that he ought
not to be the one to bring this news to the king, seems to realize, when
David words his inquiry this way, that he will fare better if he dissembles (v. 29). The Cushite (perhaps himself a ")!?]) fails to hear
danger in the king's question and reveals the outcome in echoing
David's phrase: 'May the enemies of my lord the king, and all who rise
up to do you harm, be like that "1U3' (v. 32).
Of all the instances where the word ~IJJ] is used in the Hebrew scriptures, only in this chapter do most commentators see that the use of the
word reflects issues concerning the relationship between father and son,
but they are not in agreement about what is connoted. Hertzberg says,
'David's clearly given command "Deal gently...with the young man
Absalom" shows his confidence of victory and at the same time his
readiness to forgive and his weakness as a father, which was already
observed in ch. 13'.34 Conroy suggests that 'the wordnV 'young man'
explicitly betrays the father's affection for his son in spite of everything.' 35 McCarter asserts 'David's use of na'ar, "young (man)", in
reference to Abishalom here and in vv. 12, 29, and 32 below is demon-
32. Hertzberg, / and II Samuel, pp. 358, 359.

33. W. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1990), p. 319.
34. Hertzberg, / and II Samuel, p. 358.
35. C. Conroy, Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20
(AnBib, 81; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), p. 58.
105
stratively affectionate... As elsewhere, the narrator is intent upon keeping David's love for his son before us'.36
Caspari comes close to capturing the authentic essence of the word in
a note on 2 Sam. 18.5: '~II3] betrays a loosening of the filial bond yet,
according to K. Budde, leniency for the son.'37 More recently, Brueggemann has noted some of the complexity that the terminology held,
perhaps especially for its earliest readers. Verse 5 he calls 'an intensely
freighted statement', and points out that
he does not name Absalom as his son, but only as 'the young man.' It is
as though David is reticent about identifying the relationship too directly.
Perhaps there is an intended distance to control the pathos. Second, it is
to be done 'tor my sake', not for the sake of the son. The narrative is cast
with attention turned completely away from Absalom to David. Even as
the son of the king, the narrative has no interest in Absalom or sympathy
for him.38
In considering the narrative structure of the Absalom cycle, we see

many points at which Absalom is a fully-fledged character, speaking,
acting, thinking, feeling and focalizing.39 In the passages in which he is
called ~iJJ], however, he is the object of the scheming or concern of others, nothing more. What is at stake in the use of this word is not the
father's affections, but the son's social location. Clearly, this estrangement has conferred on Absalom the status of ~1D]: he is a fully adult
male at this point in his life, and he is not the servant of anyone. Yet by
36. McCarter, II Samuel, p. 405.
37. '"ll?3 verrat Lockerung des Sohnesverhiiltnisses, doch nach Bd [K. Budde]
filr den Sohn mildernde Umstande.' D.W. Caspari, Die Samuelhiicher (KAT; Leipzig: Deichert, 1926), p. 588 n. 3; Caspari, '2 Samuel 15-20', p. 64.
Conroy disagrees: 'In view of David's reaction (19,1 ff.), it is hard to agree with
Caspari p. 588 n. 3 that the use of n 'r expresses a loosening of the filial relationship.
The Cushite's use of n V at 18,32b simply re-echoes David's question of v. 32a.'
Caspari, however, advocates the kind of eclectic translation that has for so long
obscured the sociological import of this term: 'In 14.21 the king calls Absalom a
~lUj because he does not want to accept him into favour, and in 18.5 because he pardons him. The tone in which the word is spoken is different in each case' (Conroy,
Absalom Absalom!', pp. 48-49 n. 14; Caspari, 'Literary Type', p. 64).
38. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, p. 317.
39. E.g., in conversation with and avenging his sister (2 Sam. 13.20-29); in his
efforts to enlist Joab in his reinstatement (14.28-33); in tricking his father and then
usurping his father's position (15.1-12); in plotting to hold onto the kingdom
(16.15-17.14).
106
his assumption of powers that belonged to his father, the king, he has
cast himself outside the household and alienated his proper patron.
Illness or Morbidity
Facing mortal danger or illness, too, takes one outside the protective
sphere of the father's house and conveys the status of "1^1 Thus the
term is used for Moses 'in the bulrushes' (Exod. 2.6) and Joseph in an
Egyptian prison (Gen. 41.12).40 When David is away from his father's
house at Saul's military encampment, about to face the Philistine
Goliath, he is repeatedly called Itf] (1 Sam. 17.33, 42, 55, 58).
The case of Jether, son of Gideon (Judg. 8.20), is a puzzling example
of a ~1JJ], but it may be an interesting example of the effect of danger in
conferring that status. When asked by his father on the battlefield to
slay the Midianite kings Zebah and Zalmunna, Jether, his first-born
(TTDn), 'did not draw his sword fain IDTl s^tETÎ] because he was
afraid since he was still a "11?;'. The text does not tell us everything
which we would like to know about his family circumstances, but we
have no evidence that Jether was, at this point, necessarily particularly
'young', which is the usual translation for "]#] in this verse. His refusal
to obey his father's order may have put him at risk of alienation from
the father to whom he owed obedience. The fact that 'Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring' (v. 30), not including less legitimate sons
like Abimelech, may have meant that the father's patronage was spread
too thin to provide adequate protection. Or the narrator may be seeing
ahead to the slaughter of all of Gideon's sons, except for Jotham the
youngest, by Abimelech (Judg. 9.5). The possibilities are more complex
than in most passages, but here too vulnerability rather than age seems
to be operative.
In the story of the rape of Dinah (Gen. 34), the perpetrator Shechem
is called ")D3 just once, at v. 19. A number of commentators have suggested that the tale is composite and that Shechem's father Hamor may
have been missing from the older of the component versions.41 Untangling the arguments for the presence of sources is not necessary, however, for understanding Shechem as a "1JJ3, since this is another case,
similar to that of Jether, in which the father appears to be present, but in
40. Joseph is also called "73JJ here, so that the term "1B3 is clearly not used to
indicate his function as a servant.
41. Von Rad, Genesis, pp. 320, 330; Skinner, Genesis, p. 417.
107
which the narrator knows that the individual in question will not survive to the end of the story.
Abijah. In each of these cases, the father is powerless to provide the
protection that could usually be expected from the head of a household.
Even when the father is alive and powerful, he is unable to protect
against fatal illness, a fact of life known only too well in a world in
which fully half of a family's children would die before reaching adulthood.42
Abijah, son of Jeroboam, is called ~IJJ] by his father when he becomes
ill (1 Kgs 14.3) and again at his death (v. 17). The text in which this
event is described has an interesting history. Gray has suggested that
the tale was originally 'associated...with the prophetic circle at Shiloh',
and that '[t]he nucleus of the passage is vv. 1-6, 12, 17'.43 Long points
out, 'Critics seem to agree that an old tradition has been heavily edited
by the Dtr editor of Kings, especially in vv. 7-11, 14-16'.44 DeVries
calls vv. 7-11 'Dtr's own oracle against the house of Jeroboam'.45 It is
precisely the verses that do not come from the hand of Dtr, the verses of
the old prophetic tale, in which Abijah is called by the term ")#]. The
connotation of the term is most concrete and specific in the earliest biblical materials.
Shunammite 's Son. Another story of a child who comes to be ~IU3 when
illness and death place him beyond the protection of his father is told in
2 Kings 4. Many details of this narrative are covered in Chapter 3,
where Gehazi, the 1U; of Elisha is discussed.
The Shunammite woman has initiated a relationship with Elisha, providing him with meals and lodging (2 Kgs 4.8-10). In return for this
material support, the prophet felt a need to demonstrate reciprocity, not
gratitude. To do otherwise would have placed him in a position of
clientship, with the woman as his patron.46 Expressed in modern terms,
Elisha did not want to be 'beholden'.
42. C.L. Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 112-13.
43. Gray, / & II Kings, p. 304.
44. B.O. Long, 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 154.
45. DeVries, I Kings, p. 178.
46. For a discussion of gift-giving as a 'challenge' requiring a 'response' to
avoid loss of honor, see B.J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from
108
Elisha has Gehazi summon her, and through Gehazi, he inquires about
areas of life in which she might need his intervention in order for her to
obtain patronage from people of great rank and power, such as the king
or the army commander (vv. 11-13). In other words, he offers to serve
as a 'broker'.47 She rejects his offer, indicating that her situation is
secure.
Elisha, however, will not be deterred, so he asks Gehazi what could
be done for the woman. The "lUj responds by pointing out her childless
state and her husband's age (v. 14), two factors that could leave her a
widow (mo^S) without a male advocate at her husband's death. Once
more, Elisha has Gehazi summon her (v. 15) and, addressing her
directly this time, he promises her a son, over her protests (v. 16). She
acknowledges her indebtedness by referring to herself as ~|nnstD, 'your
servant' (v. 16), which is the feminine equivalent of the use of ~["OU to
indicate indebtedness, humility or client status (see Chapter 3).
Elisha's intervention is successful, and the woman bears a son (p,
v. 17). Sometime later, while in the field with his father and the reapers,
he is stricken with some sort of affliction that affects his head (v. 19).
His father has the ~ltf] carry him home to his mother, on whose lap the
child (iV, v. 20) dies. After laying him on Elisha's bed, she requests
the use of one of the LT-IJJ] and a donkey from her husband, indicating
only that she plans to go quickly to the 'man of God' and return (v. 22).
His inquiry about what religious observance was prompting her journey
is met with evasion: nbffi, 'It is all right' (v. 23). Seeing her from a distance, Elisha sends Gehazi to inquire about her, her husband, her child
(v. 26), but she brushes him off with the same evasion, D*72J, and goes
directly to Elisha.
Gehazi tries to restrain her, but Elisha realizes that the patronage that
he has brokered has had tragic results and Yahweh (called by name here
for the first of three times) has not announced it to him (v. 27). To this
point, the boy has been called 'son' and 'child' (three times each), but
with this temporary eclipsing of Elisha's confidence in Yahweh's faithfulness (or perhaps in his own ability to deliver the patronage of Yahweh), Elisha for the first time calls him "II)]. The boy will continue to be
Cultural Anthropology(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, rev. edn,

1993), p. 101.
47. The broker 'functions as a mediator who gives a client access to the
resources of a more powerful patron' (Moxnes, 'Patron-Client Relations', p. 248).
109
called by that term through the entire period when his recovery is in
doubt. Elisha sends Gehazi ahead with his staff and instructions to place
it on the face of the ~IJJ] (v. 29), at which juncture the narrative joins the
prophet in referring to the woman as the mother of the "!]. Swearing by
Yahweh, she declares her intention to accompany Gehazi (v. 30), who
goes to her home and lays Elisha's staff on the face of the ~ll>;, then
returns to report that the ~UJ] has not awakened (v. 31). The narrator, as
well as Elisha and his servant, designate the child as ~1M; the parents, as
has been the case in other stories that we have examined, do not.
Elisha arrives in person and finds the "lift dead, lying on the bed
(v. 32). Entering the room with the body and closing the door, Elisha
prays to Yahweh (whose name is invoked here for the third and last
time), and, as he lays upon the child ("fr), the flesh of the child begins
to warm (v. 34). With the change in nomenclature, there begins to be
hope, but the resolution is deferred. The crisis is not quite past: the narrator tells us that the ~l0 sneezed seven times and the 1SK opened his
eyes (v. 35). The woman is summoned and instructed to take not her
~IJJ] but her son (p), so she takes her son and goes. Prior to his illness,
the boy was always 'son' or 'child', but as long as he is at risk, he is
called ~\V1, not once but seven times. Once healed, he is once again
'son', never again ~IU3. Unless we wish to assign these semantic shifts
to mere coincidence, the narrator must have intended to indicate a
change in status by the use of one word in preference to another.
Bathsheba's Child. Just as with the son of the Shunammite woman,
mortal illness seems to be the reason that David uses the term in praying for his son by Bathsheba when he becomes ill (2 Sam. 12.16).
When the child was born (11.27), he was called p, as he is again when
Nathan predicts that he will die (12.14). As he falls ill (v. 15) and again
after his death (v. 18), the boy is called iV". Only when David understands that the boy's life is beyond his power to protect, when he pleads
for Yahweh to assume the patron's role and save the boy, only then is
he called "1^1 McCarter has captured the dynamic of the moment in
explaining the odd form that David's 'grief took during this tragedy:
From the servants' viewpoint David seems to be mourning at the wrong
time. From his viewpoint, however, David is not mourning at all. By his
fasting and self-humiliation he is imploring Yahweh to spare the child.
('David entreated God on behalf of the boy,' v. 16.) Whereas it would be
110

illogical to stop mourning when someone dies, it is logical to stop
imploring God when one's petition has failed.48
This boy will not find another patron who can protect when his father is
powerless to do so.
Although all three of the narratives of sons who become D'"1U3 when
they are stricken with illness involve the mediation of a prophet and
prayers to Yahweh, only the son of the Shunammite is restored to
health. The sons of Jeroboam and of David are not so fortunate.
Dedication
In addition to the work of field and home and military encampment,
another sort of service seems to result in the status of "lift: the act of
dedication, by one's parents, to the deity.
Samson. In the story of the birth and dedication of Samson, an old narrative from the book of Judges, Samson is called 'son' (p, Judg. 13.3,
5, 7, 24) or 'boy' ("fr, 13.8, 24), but in his being set apart as a Nazirite,
he becomes "1ZJ3 (Judg. 13.5, 7, 12, 25).49 Clearly, the act of dedication
interrupts the usual relationship between father and son and substitutes
a different sort of patron to provide guidance and protection. Whereas,
in the case of Samuel, the dedication is carried out by ordinary human
means, that is, the two parents simply packed up the boy and took him
to the priest in the sanctuary, in Samson's case the dedication is the
result of not one but two theophanies. Indeed the angel is the first to call
the boy "IJW, immediately after specifying the practices that will set him
apart and mark him as someone other than an ordinary son of his
father's household (Judg. 13.5). When Manoah's wife recounts this
visitation to her husband, she retains the same order of discourse: first,
the conditions that will set Samson apart, then calling him 'a ""!!?] who
will be a Nazirite to God from birth to the day of his death' (v. 7).
Manoah requests a return visit from the angel (v. 8) in order to confirm
the conditions concerning the ~iu;. When the theophany is granted,
those conditions for the ~li>j are the only inquiry that Manoah presents
to the messenger (v. 12). The simple narrative of Samson is interrupted
by a lengthy interchange between the father and the angel about the
appropriateness of a sacrificial meal in honor of the visitor (vv. 1548. McCarter, II Samuel, p. 301.
49. Boling places this narrative with the oldest material in the book of Judges
(Boling, Judges, pp. 30, 224).
111
23).50 Finally, the birth and naming are reported, and we are told that
'the ~iy] grew and the Lord blessed him' (v. 24). Samson the HU3 will
indeed find himself without the protection of any patron except God,
and even that patronage will fail him when his hair, symbol of his being
set apart, has been cut.
Samuel. Samuel's mother had 'no children' (D'f^, 1 Sam. 1.1), although her faithful husband Elkanah reassured Hannah that he was of
more value than 'ten sons' (D^H, 1 Sam. 1.8). When, with Yahweh's
intervention, Hannah conceived, she bore a 'son' (1.20) and nursed her
'son' (1.23). However, at the moment of his dedication (1 Sam. 1.22),
and from the time he is handed over for service to the priest (1 Sam.
1.24, 25, 27; 2.11, 18, 21, 26; 3.1, 8) he is called IM.
All commentators agree that the integrity of the text has been disturbed in the first chapters of Samuel. Klein has suggested, 'At the end
of v. 24 MT is incomprehensible'.51 This incomprehensibility has not
dissuaded a number of scholars from proposing novel solutions to the
problems in these verses.52 McCarter suggests a reason for the disturbance of the text at this particular point: 'The unintelligible expression
whn'r n'r is the remnant of a long haplography due to homoioteleuton,
suggesting that the Hebrew tradition behind MT at this point was substantially the same as that behind LXX.'53 Fortunately, understanding
the social location of the ~li)] Samuel in this narrative is not dependent
on a final resolution to these issues.
Of more significance, when comparing young Samuel's story to the
accounts of other DÎUj, is the relative age of the sources of the narrative. Klein suggests that '[t]he Song of Hannah probably once had a
separate existence', and that 'Deuteronomistic notices appear in 2.27-36
and 3.11-14'.54 These are precisely the portions of this story in which
the word ~!U3 does not appear, and it is consistent with our earlier
50. Gray posits an 'Aetiological Myth of the Rock-altar of Zorah' in vv. 13-24.
(}. Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth [NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], p. 219).
51. Klein, / Samuel, p. 3 (note on v. 24),
52. R. Althann, 'Northwest Semitic Notes on Some Texts in 1 Samuel', JNSL
12 (1984), pp. 27-34; S. Frolov and V. Orel, 'Was the Lad a Lad? On the Interpretation oflSam 1.24',fiW81 (1996), pp. 5-7; R. Ratner, "Three Bulls or One?": A
Reappraisal of 1 Samuel 1.24', Bib 68.1 (1987), pp. 98-102.
53. McCarter, I Samuel, p. 57.
54. Klein, 1 Samuel, p. xxx.
112
observations that it is a word from old prose narratives, never found in

the bona fide work of Dtr and rarely used in poetry.
Once Samuel has been weaned and handed over as promised to
remain with the priest at Shiloh, he appears to serve as a domestic
helper in much the same way as other C"1U3 whom we have encountered. As the narrator describes the boy's ongoing 'growth', he repeatedly uses the familiar term mtDQ to indicate his service to Eli the priest.
The remarkable thing about Samuel is not the nature of his servanthood,
but the circumstances by which he was taken from the house of his
father and handed over to serve in the house of Yahweh, miT IT3
(1.24).
Sons and Servants
In several narratives of the Hebrew Bible, D*"^] who are servants exist
alongside D'"lW who are clearly not servants, but rather are sons, individuals who receive their status as ~UJ] from being at risk. In a number
of these instances, the narrator appears to be using the ambiguity of the
term deliberately, highlighting the common social location that the sons
of the main characters momentarily share (as a result of narrative circumstance) with unnamed domestic or military personnel. English translations that have rendered the term 'servant' on the one hand and 'son'
on the other have short-circuited this aspect of the narrator's art. This
brief section will focus on several of these instances, in an attempt to
recover some of the forcefulness that this play on words gives to the
stories in which it appears.
Job 1: Job's Sons and Servants
The word 1U3 occurs in Job only seven times: three times in the poetical
dialogues (Job 24.5; 29.5, 8) and four times in the prose prologue (Job
1.15, 16, 17, 19). Additionally, the feminine plural rmJJ] (with second
masculine singular suffix) appears once (Job 40.29). The first chapter of
Job sets the stage for reading the friends' speeches that follow, and it
colors our understanding of the term ~ll/] when it appears in those later
dialogues as well. Accordingly, it is within the prose passages that we
will attempt to establish a context for translating this word.
Scholars have offered widely divergent theories about the provenance
of the story that provides the framework for the poetic dialogues of Job.
Pope, for instance, see it as a traditional tale that the writer of the poetry
of Job has used for his own purposes:
113
Most critics, however, regard the Prologue-Epilogue as part of an ancient

folk tale which the author of the Dialogue used as the framework and
point of departure for his poetic treatment of the problem of suffering.
Whether this ancient folk tale was in written form or transmitted orally,
it had probably attained a relatively fixed form and content which the
author of the Dialogue could not modify in any radical fashion. It has
epic style and the charm and flavor of an oft told tale.''
Habel, on the other hand, suggests that the parallelism and 'episode
repetition' of the prologue suggest that the author who crafted the long
poetic speeches also used intentional narrative techniques to set up the
plot.56 Clearly, a final consensus has not been reached on the age of the
narrative material in Job.
A variety of schemes have been offered for outlining the contents of
the prologue to Job. Clines suggests that the structure consists of five
scenes that alternate between an earthly and a heavenly location, followed by a sixth that accomplishes the transition from the prologue to
the dialogues. Thus,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Job's piety (1.1-5).

First dialogue of Yahweh and the Satan (1.6-12).
Disasters announced to Job (1.13-22).
Second dialogue of Yahweh and the Satan (2.1-1 a).
Personal afflictions of Job (2.7b-10).
Arrival of Job's friends (2.11-13).57
In support of this structure he points out the parallels between scenes 2

and 4 and the recurring phrase 'there came a day when...' The literary
artistry is shown by the fact that the author has given the plot a double
complication (1.6-21; 2.1-10).58
The 'plot analysis' sketched by Habel does not break the narrative
into radically different segments, but it serves to highlight slightly different features. Only the first episode is outlined below.59
55. M.H. Pope,yofc (AB, 15; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), pp. xxii-xxiii.
56. N.C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary (OIL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), p. 81.
57. D.J.A. Clines, Job 1-20 (WBC, 17; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), p. 6.
58. Habel, Job, p. 7.
59. Episode 2, in this analysis is 2.1-10b; Episode 3 is 2.11-3. Iff. (Habel, Job,
pp. 79-80). Berlin's categories of Abstract, Orientation, Complicating Actions,
Evaluation and Resolution can equally effectively be applied. Her Coda would correspond to Clines's, Scene 6 or Habel's Episode Three (Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, pp. 102-103.)
114
Pretemporal Background (1.1-5) Introducing Job, his character and his world
Episode 1: Yahweh versus the Satan
Setting (1.6-7)
The council of heaven; Yahweh and the
Satan.
Catalyst (1.8)
Yahweh boasts about the blameless character
of Job.
Conflict
Challenge (1.9-11)
The Satan challenges Yahweh's boast and
predicts a conflict between Job and God if
Job is afflicted.
Challenge accepted (1.12) Yahweh accepts the challenge and gives the
Satan power to afflict Job.
Execution (1.13-19)
Job is afflicted according to the decision in
heaven.
Apparent resolution (1.20-21) Job passes the test and Yahweh is vindicated.
Closure (1.22)
Narrator's verdict: Job does not express contempt for God.
In the prologue of Job, the word D11")^ is found only in the section
that Habel has labeled the Execution, which corresponds to Clines's
third scene, which is enclosed by the two 'scenes in the heavenly court'.
This section (Job 1.13-22) is a free-standing vignette that could function as a compelling story not only without the speeches of the friends,
but even without the remainder of the prose portions of the book.
It is the first day of the cycle of feasting of Job's sons and daughters,
and they are holding their accustomed festivities at the home of the oldest son. The complicating actions appear in four waves, vv. 13-19, in
the form of the successive catastrophes that gradually erode Job's
blessedness and prosperity. Habel has pointed out 'the forcefulness of
episode repetition in the fourfold reference to the "boys/servants" being
killed (1.15, 16, 17, 19)'.60 The power of this account comes from the
relentless waves of tragedy that wash over Job, one right after the other,
giving him no time to react, and it is the fate of the various groups of
D'"]!?] that gives the unit its structure. One by one, the hallmarks of
Job's success and prosperity are erased, but not until v. 20 do we finally
see Job take on the signs of grief. The narrative has set out to answer
the question of Satan: what would Job do if he did not have all the
things with which God had blessed him? The first answer comes in
v. 21, when Job makes his statement and blesses the name of the Lord.
115
The word ~!U] in the prose prologue of Job appears only in the complicating actions within this sub-narrative, where the word provides the
connecting link in a beautifully balanced rehearsal of four disasters,
each recounted in a series of three steps. At the head of the series of
complications, the stage is set (v. 13) and we are subsequently
reminded of this domestic scene, in which Job's sons and daughters are
eating and drinking in their eldest brother's home, by an almost verbatim reiteration in the second half of v. 18, which heightens the drama by
delaying the inevitable completion. Four messengers arrive (vv. 14, 16,
17, 18), each one still speaking when the next one arrives. Clearly, this
is a rapid-fire series of disasters. Following the arrival of each messenger in turn, the substance of the announcement of each stage of destruction is provided (vv. 14b, 16b, 17b, 19). Parallels between these are
reinforced by the use, in the first, second and fourth case, by forms of
the verb "?S3, and a similar balance between forms of npb, in the first
and third cases. The disasters alternate, as has been pointed out by
numerous commentators, between raids by humans and 'acts of God',
perhaps meteorological phenomena.61 Finally, in perfectly symmetrical
phrases (vv. 15b, 16c, 17c, 19b), we learn of the fate of the DHU], and
we hear a refrain, identical to each messenger, that indicates that he
alone has survived to tell the tale.62
The degree of similarity between each of these segments can be seen
when the verses are printed with their parallel portions in juxtaposition.63
A (The Scene):
v. 13:
v. I8b:
v. 13:
And there was a day when

his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in the house
of their brother, the first-born.
61. E.g. J.G. Janzen, Job (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), p. 43; Clines,
Job 1-20, p. 30.
62. The reader is somehow not bothered by the fact that each messenger claims
to be the sole survivor and yet the next messenger (who has obviously also survived) announces additional deaths among the ranks that have apparently been decimated but not eliminated.
63. The translation offered is rather literal in order to highlight the similarities
between verses.
116
v. 18b: your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in the
house of their brother, the first-born.
B (Messenger arrives and speaks):
v. 14:
v. 16:
v. 17:
v. 18:
v.
v.
v.
v.
14:
16:
17:
18:
Then a messenger
As this one was still speaking, another
came to Job
came
came
came
and
and
and
and
said:
said:
said:
said:
C (Crisis described):
v. I4b:
v. I6b.
v. nb:
v. 19:
v. 14b: The oxen were plowing and the asses grazing at their side and Sabea
fell and took them
v. 16b: The fire of God
fell from heaven and burned up the flocks
v. 17b: Chaldeans made three columns and attacked the camels
and took them
v. 19: See, a great wind came from across the desert
and struck the four corners of the house and it
fell
D (Fate of the C'""l0 and announcement of sole survivorship):
v. I5b:
v. I6c:
v. 17c:
v. I9b:
v. 15b: And struck the D11")!?] with the mouth of the sword
and there remains only I alone to report to you.
v. 16c: And on the GHSJ] and consumed them
v. 17c: And struck the D1"^; with the mouth of the sword
v. 19b: And the D-li?] and they died
117
As a result of careful examination of parallel elements in this small

narrative we must now question how we are to understand the word II?].
Almost all the English translations render the word as servants in the
first three instances, but change to indicate Job's children in the final
case.64 In view of the perfect symmetry in all four contexts, the evidence from the narrative does not support this practice. Habel alone
maintains a consistent word choice throughout. Of his translation for
v. 19, he says, 'The rendering "boys", as in vs. 15, 16, 17, is more
forceful and faithful to the MT'.65 The question remains whether 'boys'
is an appropriate designation for servants who have charge of Job's
agricultural and trading operation or for his children, who have homes
of their own in which to feast. Although one might argue that the word
has different meanings, or at least different connotations, in different
contexts, the author of this short piece has been meticulous in holding
the context constant. This observation supports the conclusion that a
different understanding of the word in its fourth occurrence from that in
the other three occurrences is not warranted. The evidence of this intricate pattern of connections and parallels suggests that every word of
this brief story has been chosen carefully and deliberately. The author's
intentions are everywhere evident and suggest that his use of TiTDl V33
in one place and D"1JJ3 in another is neither by accident nor by caprice.
The simplest and most convincing explanation is that the author
means to indicate 'servants' throughout and that the sons and daughters
are not, in fact, harmed. The evidence from the rest of the book of Job,
in point of fact, supports this possibility. Nowhere, in either the poetic
dialogues or in the prose prologue or epilogue, is there unequivocal
evidence of the deaths of Job's children. Certainly, the absence of evidence of grief on the part of Job's wife makes us wonder. Nowhere
does the book suggest the loss of D^D or of D'l'T, only of D"~IU]. Most
translations of Job 8.4 assume, and therefore reflect, the deaths of Job's
64. Significantly, most scholars feel a need to justify this practice of rendering
the same word into such different English equivalants (Pope, Job, p. 14; S.R. Driver
and G.B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the. Book of Job:
Together with a New Translation [ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1921],
pp. 17, 18; R. Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentaiy New Translation and Special
Studies [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978], pp. 16, 17; E.
Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job [trans. H. Knight; London: Thomas
Nelson, 1967 (1928)], pp. 10, 12).
118
children, but Jastrow sidesteps the difficulty entirely here by suggesting

that Job's children were not an original part of this section at all: 'A
commentator has added, v. 4 (in prose form). "If thy children had
sinned against Him, He would give them up because of their transgression." '66 An easier case can be made for rendering that verse into
English as another 'hypothetical' case: '[/]/'your children have sinned
against God, he has delivered (or will deliver) them into the power of
their transgression.'67
Countering the possibility that Job 8.4 reports the deaths of Job's
sons is their presence in Job's speech in 19.17-18. Coogan translates,
'My breath is alien to my wife, and I am repulsive to the sons of my
belly,' and points out,'If Job is referring to his own children in this
continuation of his response to Bildad, then it appears that they are not
dead.'68 Although he suggests possible ways of dealing with this
anomaly, he is finally left with the conclusion that 'at times Job seems
to be talking as if his children were still alive'.69
As noted above, the word "IJJ3 appears three other times in Job. Job
24.5 is a much disputed verse whose definitive translation remains elusive, but in any case, the reference is not either to servants or to children of Job, but rather apparently to the offspring of wild asses.70 In ch.
29, Job is reminiscing about the days when his fortunes were secure; he
recalls a time 'when the Almighty was still with me, when my D'HDj
were around me' (v. 5). Obviously, his D"HU] are no longer around him,
but this context does not demand that they be sons rather than servants.
In v. 8, Job tells us that, prior to his downfall, when he appeared in
public 'the D'~lU3 saw me and withdrew, and the D'lpT rose up and
66. M. Jastrow, Jr, The Book of Job: Its Origin, Growth and Interpretation
Together with a New Translation Based on a Revised Test (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1920), p. 223 n. 53.
67. Those who assume a different provenance for the dialogues as compared to
the prologue will, of course, find no need to reconcile such issues in any case, but
will find additional evidence from such supposed contradictions for different sources
or authors.
68. M.D. Coogan, 'Job's Children', in T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in
Honor of William L. Moran (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), p. 141.
69. Coogan, 'Job's Children', p. 143.
70. See, e.g., Dhorme, Job, pp. 256, 357-58; Gordis, Job, p. 253. Even in this
rather confused allusion, we see the juxtaposition of 'asses' and C n ~li3], as mentioned in Chapter 4.
119
stood.' Although NRSV has chosen to translate these as 'young men'

and 'aged' (i.e. a merismus of age), I will argue in Chapter 7 that this is
a set form that represents (here as well as in other contexts in the
Hebrew texts) a merismus indicating the full gamut of status rather than
age: '[T]he servants withdrew, the elders rose.' In any case, however,
this is not an indication of Job's offspring. The lone representative of
the feminine form of this word in Job appears in 40.29. This is another
verse whose full meaning fails to elicit unanimity, but the most common rendering is 'maidservant' or something similar, but decidedly not
'daughters'.71
The notion that Job's children were not, in fact, harmed is buttressed
by reading the epilogue. In the opening scene of Job, we learned that
there were born to him. (I1? TfTTI, 1.2) seven sons and three daughters.
His livestock included 7000 sheep, 3000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500
donkeys (v. 3). The restoration related by c. 42 consisted of 'twice as
much' as before (v. 10), and Job was 'blessed more than at the beginning' (v. 12), which included 14,000 sheep, 6000 camels, 1000 yoke of
oxen and 1000 donkeys. 'And Job had seven sons and three daughters'
(fTTPI, 42.13, not were born to him as in the first chapter). This choice
of words certainly allows the possibility that these were his original
children, not new ones, since no birth is mentioned in this chapter.
Clearly, the doubling promised in v. 10 or the increase promised in
v. 12 are not realized with respect to children, if they were indeed lost
to him, although some have viewed it as if this were the case:
The Epilogue naively assumes that the death of the children can be compensated for by new children and that Job's suffering can be fully
recompensed by living twice the normal lifespan. Since Job has been
unjustly deprived of his possessions and his offspring, everything is
doubled. The number of his daughters, however, remains the same, on
the theory that in the case of female offspring enough is sufficient! The
doubling of his possessions, his male offspring,72 and his lifespan is in
71. Gordis, for instance, proposes the following: "frhlJ] here is the Arabic
nugharun, fem. nugharatua, "sparrow, swallow", as noted by D. Winton Thomas
(VT, vol. 14 [1964], pp. 114ff) but there is no need to revocalize as ÎTî!, since
cognates frequently undergo vocalic change' (Gordis, Job, p. 319).
72. Gordis here is assuming that rniOB in 42.13 is a dual form and thus represents 14 sons. I will follow Coogan's understanding: 'The form Sib'and in 42.13 is
not, as has occasionally been suggested, a dual (meaning that Job had fourteen more
sons), but an archaizing form probably attested in Ugaritic; see Sarna, "Epic Sub-
120

accordance with the ancient biblical law in Ex. 22.3, 11, which ordains
double payment for a theft.73
Invoking a dual form here to yield double restitution of the sons and
suggesting that this restitution applied only singlefold to the daughters
is a strained attempt to make the text fit our presumptions about it; it is
not satisfying either logically or grammatically. Still, the thoroughgoing nature of the calamities leads us to assume the loss of progeny as
well as of other blessings.
The careful crafting of the scenario of Job's trials has suggested to
some a second possibility: the author has presented us with a deliberate
ambiguity. We are not intended to know for certain whether Job's children were lost along with the servants. Habel has proposed that this
exploitation of ambiguity is a deliberate authorial device.74 The author
is practising 'reticence'.75 Clines, too, sees this as the use of the same
word to denote two different groups of people, and suggests that the
author has given a sort of foreshadowing.
In this scene, it is the children of Job who are meant; on looking back
over the passage, we realize that it is for the sake of this announcement
that the term D'~1U] has been used throughout. These are the C*~IJJ3 that
really matter, though no doubt their attendant servants also have died.76
Perhaps by placing us in a position of limited information, the writer

reminds us of the perils that all D'li1] may face and of the frightening
stratum," 17-18, followed by Gordon in UT 102-3' (Coogan, 'Job's Children',
p. 137 n. 8.)
73. Gordis, Job, p. 576.
74. In his note on Job 1.15, he says, 'The translation "boys" (for ne'arlm) is
retained to preserve the literary effect, though the sense is probably "servants" '. On
v. 19: 'Most translations render ne'drim in this verse by an expression which
implies a reference to Job's children... But this distorts the literary force of the
orginal by making explicit what the narrator leaves the audience to deduce, namely,
the death of Job's children... Each disaster account reports the fate of the servant
"boys." The last word spoken about them is that they "died." In the last disaster the
messenger boy also reports that the servant "boys" were crushed and died, but he
omits any reference to Job's family. The most tragic disaster of all, the death of
Job's family, is not actually stated. It is left for the audience to deduce' (Habel, Job,
pp. 78, 92-93).
75. Alter uses this term with respect to characterization, but much of his discussion can apply equally to the actions which advance the plot. (Alter, The Art of
Biblical Narrative, pp. 114-30).
76. Clines, Job 1-20, p. 33.
121
suddenness with which sons and daughters, living safely nearby as part
of an extended family occupying the family compound, can slip into
danger beyond a parent's ability to protect them, just as the servants
hired or bought by Job live outside the protection of their fathers. This
illustration of the porousness of the boundary between offspring who
one minute are living in safety under the patronage of their fathers and
the next are D"1"!!?] facing life's exigencies unshielded is consistent with
the overall effect of the book of Job as it illustrates the mysterious tenuousness of good fortune.
Eli's Sons and Servants
A similar juxtaposition of son and servant is exploited by the author of
the narratives of Samuel's birth, call and displacement of the house of
Eli in 1 Sam. 1.1-4.1. The contrast, noted early by Smith77 and elaborated on by Klein, between the ~ll>] Samuel and the D'lU] Hophni and
Phineas (sons of Eli), almost certainly was deliberate on the part of the
narrator.
The word 'boy' or 'attendant' (~1U3) would seem to be in some tension
with the very young age presupposed for Samuel78 in the rest of the story,
but the main point of contrast seems to be between the faithful boy
Samuel and the evil boys or attendants, namely, the sons of Eli. These
sons were in fact 'good-for-nothings'.79
Still, this linguistic connection is overlooked by most commentators

owing to the inadequacy of the semantic values that have been given to
the word ~ID1
Samuel has been removed from his father's household as a result of
the fulfillment of Hannah's vow, becoming a ~1I3] in the process. Hophni
and Phinehas, while still apparently residing either with or near their
father Eli, have removed themselves from their father's control and
guidance by their disobedience and wicked ways, and in the process
have become C'lD] (2.17). The use of the same noun in describing all
three of them functions to highlight the contrast between the two biological sons of Eli and the 'foster son' Samuel, who is serving a sort of
priestly apprenticeship under Eli and has accepted the older man's
77. Smith, Samuel, p. 17.

78. Klein here presupposes the commonly accepted understanding of "ll^j as
'youth' or 'young man'.
79. Klein, 1 Samuel, pp. 24-25.
122
authority and guidance. Perhaps a third sort of ~IU3 is present in this narrative as well, the 'servant of the priest' (2.13, 15), who actually carries
out the evil practices of Eli's renegade sons, although some take this to
be one or the other of the sons of Eli. Thus the contrast is complex: the
good and obedient Samuel, a servant ""IU3, 'ministering to the Lord under
Eli' (^2 '3D1? mn'-n nifflC ^RIDti ~l^m, 3.1, a typical description of
the position of a servant); Eli's sons, D'lJM whose 'sin was very great in
the sight of the Lord' (v. 17); and 'the priest's servant', }rDn ~IJJ]
(vv. 13, 16), whose obedience to 'sons of Belial' makes him an agent of
wickedness, not goodness. For Eli, the apprentice is more faithful than
his biological sons.
None of these observations about the opening chapters of the book of
Samuel are dependent on any particular view of the development, composition and compiling of these stories. However, an understanding of
the stages of development is useful in furthering our knowledge of the
place of the word ~\ffl within the Hebrew scriptures generally. McCarter
sees in these chapters old material that the Dtr editor has only lightly
edited, with additions at 2.27-36, 3.11-14 and 4.18b.80 He also suggests
that the 'Song of Hannah', 1 Sam. 2.1-10, as it stands in these chapters,
is in a 'secondary context'.81 Klein, likewise, attributes 2.27-36 and
3.11-14 to the Deuteronomistic historian82 and recognizes, regarding
2.1-10, 'that this psalm must have had a different setting and function
before its ascription to Hannah'.83 The term ~ID3 is used frequently in
the portions of 1 Sam. 1.1-4.1 that these commentators consider to be
older prose sources, but it is entirely absent from the other portions of
these texts. This strengthens our earlier observation that this word is a
word of old narrative sources more than of the Deuteronomistic redactor or of poetry, whether archaic or not.
80. McCarter, 7 Samuel, pp. 15-16.

81. McCarter, 7 Samuel, p. 76.
82. Klein, / Samuel, pp. xxx, 24, 37.
83. Klein, 1 Samuel, p. 14. More recently, Campbell, while not fully accepting
the specifics of any of the theories of Deuteronomistic redaction, nonetheless considers these same elements to have been added by a redactor to older prophetic narrative. See Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings, pp. 66-67. Much earlier, Smith recognized that the insertion of 2.27-36 is 'of comparatively late date' and refers to the
narratives themselves as work of the 'oldest historian' (Smith, Samuel, p. 21).
123
Other Contrasts between Sons and Servants

Although it is not developed nearly as strongly, a contrast between servant "ll>] and a son as ~ID] appears also in Judges 8. In 8.14 Gideon captures a "1U3 of the people of Succoth' (or perhaps better 'of the army of
Succoth'), quite likely a weapons carrier or porter or other military servant. This individual obediently identifies for him the 'officials and
elders of Succoth' (v. 14) when questioned by Gideon. Gideon's son
Jether, by contrast, refuses the direct order of his father when he is told
to kill Zebah and Zalmunna (v. 21). The servant was obedient, the son
was not, but both are termed ~IU] by the narrator.
Similarly, in the story of Absalom's revenge against Amnon, Absalom commands his D1")!)] (servants) to watch for the moment when
Amnon is tipsy to kill him (2 Sam. 13.28, 29). David, who had resisted
allowing his sons to attend the shearing festivities, watches and grieves,
fearing all of them have died, but is assured by Shimeah that 'all the
D'HD] the king's sons' have not been killed, only Amnon (13.31).
Another "IU3, serving as watchman, is the first to see that the other sons
were returning safely (v. 34). Absalom, as noted earlier, is repeatedly
referred to in chs. 14 and 18 as 'the ~1D] Absalom.' Once again, the son
is perfidious, while his own and his father's servants exercise their
duties faithfully. Obedience issues from the 'fictive' kin, but not from
the biological son.
The stories of Elisha in 2 Kgs 2-6 are filled with D"1")!?} of various
roles and dispositions, although only one is in a relationship of
'sonship', and that is the son of the Shunammite woman. These chapters present a veritable nexus of contrasts (see Chapters 4 and 6 above)
along diverse lines. The impertinent C'li?] who taunt Elisha (2.23) contrast with the innocent son of the Shunnamite, who becomes a ~ID] only
when his life is endangered (4.18-37). Gehazi, the greedy ~1D] of Elisha,
is contrasted with the faithful C"~\S'j of Naaman, who carry the gifts
(intended for Elisha) that Gehazi has fraudulently accepted in the name
of fictitious D"Hy] of the prophets, supposedly newly-arrived from the
hill country (5.19-27). In each of these pairings, the faithlessness of the
one who should have been trustworthy is contrasted to the faithfulness
of the one who is a mere servant.
From the conspicuous case of the servants/sons of Job to the pairs
that receive only the briefest mentions, the use of this same term, ~)D],
seems to be a deliberate narrative device that forces our minds to make
the connection between those who are outside their father's households
124
because of unavoidable circumstances and those who have given up

that protection because of intentional flaunting of the natural relationship of protection and authority that should have existed between them
and their fathers/masters. With a nuanced understanding of the Hebrew
word 1!?] we can appreciate the full power and subtlety of the ways the
authors of these old narratives have used the word to elicit connections
and draw contrasts.
Conclusions
The D'~lUj of this chapter vary in age and circumstances. What they all
share, however, is the reality of their vulnerability. Something stands
between them and the safety of their father's house: illness, distance,
dedication, estrangement or orphanhood. Almost without exception,
only God or the narrator (both of whom are in their own way 'omniscient'), use this term of these individuals.84 At precisely the moment
when these characters are 'shaken loose' from the protective arms of
their fathers, the narrator terms them D'Hyi If they are fortunate enough
to see that bond restored, from that point on the narrator chooses other
words to describe them. Clearly, this condition of risk is what is at issue
in the use of this word ~1M.
84. Trible has observed this in the case of Ishmael, albeit without making note
of the more general phenomenon: 'When speaking to Hagar about her own child,
God never uses the noun son or the pronoun your. Instead, the deity follows the
lead of the narrator by referring to Ishmael as "the lad". Subtly, the motherhood of
Hagar is undercut' (Trible, 'Other Woman', p. 236).
Chapter 6
WOMEN: UNPROTECTED AND VULNERABLE
The Hebrew word m^ is invariably translated 'girl, damsel, maid', 1 or

perhaps 'young woman' (as, for instance, in the NRSV), thus suggesting
a stage of life. In fact 'nubility' or marriageability have been asserted as
the nuance of this particular female designation.2 Close reading of the
Hebrew texts in which this term occurs, however, suggest that the word
connotes a girl or young woman who is away from home, perhaps in
danger or at risk in some way. The uses of the feminine term show
many parallels to the ways the masculine term ~IU3 is employed. Often,
the feminine term seems to have a slight negative or pejorative cast to
it, perhaps because to a considerable extent a man's claim to honor was
contingent on his ability to keep the women of his household shielded
from both danger and scandal. This applied perhaps most strongly to
wives, but also to sisters and to daughters.
Feminine 'shame' as a positive value is characterized by deference and
submission to male authority, by docile and timorous behavior, by hiding
nakedness, by sexual exclusiveness, and by modesty in attire and deportment. The absence of these qualities renders a woman 'shameless' and
dishonors her familyparticularly her husband, who cannot 'control' his
wifein the eyes of the community... To protect his honor and social
reputation from his wife's shameful behavior, a husband has socially
1. BOB, p. 655 b, c.
2. This is precisely the sort of nuance that Wenham has suggested for n'PIHD,
which is traditionally translated 'virgin'. His case is built by comparison with
related words in other Semitic languages as well as an examination of the biblical
uses of the word. Thus he argues that the term refers not to the young woman's
sexual status (e.g. virgo intacta), but rather to the stage of life she has reached (G.J.
Wenham, 'Betulah, "A Girl of Marriageable Age' ", VT 22 [July 1972J, pp. 32648).
126

recognized strategies: segregation of his women, insisting that they
remain veiled in public, and restricting their social behavior to 'women's
spaces'.3
Women Servants
A large number of the persons referred to as miJ] in the Hebrew Bible
are maids or serving girls, frequently under the control and direction of
a woman. As we saw in the case of the D'HJJ] of Chapter 4, the narrative
ordinarily does not describe the tasks with which these women are
occupied. Their presence is, as was the case with their masculine counterparts, an indication of the status of their masters or mistresses. Providing food for them seems to be a concern (Prov. 21.21, and perhaps
31.154), perhaps suggesting that when the household suffered times of
shortage, the C'HW and m~lU3 were the first whose rations were shortened. They are frequently 'sent' (e.g. Prov. 9.3) on errands or journeys
and seem to move across boundaries and thresholds, between spaces,
frequently with messages and insider information.5 In the biblical narratives, we seldom find m~lU3 in houses; most frequently they are 'out'.
This, of course, is in sharp contrast to the notion that 'women's space'
was interior space.
Female spaces and female things are centered around the family residence and 'face toward the inside', and all things remaining within the
home are identified with the female; those taken from the inside to the
outsidethe male 'space'are identified with the male.6
As part of the artistry of the narrative, the ~IUJ serves, by his departure
or being left behind, to indicate that the main character is in complete
solitude.7 By contrast, the miO seems to function to bolster the appearance of propriety in scenes in which a female character is out and about
in places where her safety, or at the very least her good name, might be
in jeopardy. The narrator indicates that a respectable woman is not
3. L.R. Klein, 'Honor and Shame in Esther', in A. Brenner (ed.), A Feminist
Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna (Feminist Companion to the Bible, 7;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), p. 151.
4. The Hebrew pn is here variously considered either a prescribed portion (i.e.
rations) or a prescribed task.
5. Cf. Chapters 3 and 4.
6. Klein, 'Honor and Shame in Esther', p. 151.
7. Cf. Chapter 3.
6. Women: Unprotected and Vulnerable
127
alone by mentioning the presence of her mi5j. Thus, when Pharaoh's

daughter walks along the river, her m~lI?J accompany her, serving no
other function, apparently, than as chaperones (Exod. 2.5). When Abigail sets out on the journey to become the wife of David, she is accompanied by rrru1] (1 Sam. 25.42), as is Rebekah when she sets off with
Abraham's servant and his men to become Isaac's bride (Gen. 24.61).
The m~lU] also serve, just as the D"1")^ do, as a device by which the
plot of the narrative can be advanced through dialogue rather than narration.8 We have access to the interior of a character by what is said to
the mi?] who happens to be standing nearby. In addition, m~lU3 carry
information or messages across boundaries between one category of
space and another or between groups of people who would not otherwise have information about one another. Thus, the ni~iU] of Queen
Esther bring her word of the scene that Uncle Mordecai is creating by
taking on the signs of grieving in reaction to the plan to annihilate the
Jews (Est. 4.4). They carry the dialogue back and forth between the
inside world of Esther and the outside world of her uncle. The Queen's
m"l#] even join her in fasting (Est. 4.16). The captured Israelite girl
who served Naaman's wife (2 Kgs 5.2, 4) allows word about Israel's
prophet to be inserted into the court of the king of Aram, where ordinarily his existence and powers would not be known. These women
have movement and liminality that their more respectable sisters do not.
The servant women in many of these texts are at the disposal of, and
in fact are probably the property of, another female.9 Mace suggests that
a 'handmaid' was a customary part of the dowry that a young bride
received from her family. 'The freedom with which these wives (Sarah,
Rebekah, Leah and Rachel) disposed of their maids shows them to have
been in the nature of an individual possession over which their husbands did not share the control.'10
8. As Alter has observed, 'The biblical preference for direct discourse is so

pronounced that thought is almost invariably rendered as actual speech, that is, as
quoted monologue... [W]hen an actual process of contemplating specific possibilities, sorting out feelings, weighing alternatives, making resolutions, is a moment in
the narrative event, it is reported as direct discourse' (Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative, pp. 67-68.)
9. For instance, Rebekah, Abigail, Esther and the daughter of Pharaoh all have
women serving them who are called rmiJ].
10. D.R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953), p. 176.
128
The mi)] could also be in the service of a man, however, as those in

Prov. 27.27, Job 40.29 (English 41.5),11 and Ruth 2.8, 22, 23; 3.2 seem
to be. The type of work performed was generally as household help or
personal attendant, although apparently some agricultural work might
be performed as well, as in the case of the women working as 'reapers'
for Boaz. The texts do not differentiate among the positions of 'hireling'
(i.e. a woman working for wages of some sort), 'indentured servant' (i.e.
a woman serving a master for a specific term of time), and 'slave' (i.e. a
woman in a permanent state of servitude). All three possibilities seem
to be covered, at times, by the single term mui Indeed, the differences
among the three circumstances may have been negligible. All three situations would have involved living in the household of her master or
mistress, away from the home of her natural parents.
Only in the case of the servant of Naaman's wife, who had been captured by an Aramean raiding party, does the biblical narrative make
explicit how the mil?] came to be away from their father's household.
In other situations, a father might sell a daughter to meet a debt obligation (or perhaps as collateral),12 or perhaps a father would send his
daughter out to perform paid day labor. In any case, being away from
the father's house removed the mUD from the patronage and watchful
eye of her father.
Women and Sexual Service
Although debt slaves and captive women might be used as serving girls
in field or household, at other times their designation might be explicitly sexual. Even as servant to a woman, a mi)] could be made sexually available at the command of her mistress. Furthermore, such a mi)]
may well have been less than secure against sexual exploitation by men
in the household in which she lived, even over the objections of her
mistress.
The preferred sequence of events in life for a female child in ancient
Israel, during all the stages of its history, was to grow up within the
confines of the family to which she was born until the time of her marriage, when she would transfer her residence and her allegiance to the
11. This is the very difficult reference to the leashing of Leviathan. As is frequently the case in poetic citations, little can be ascertained about the social reality
underlying the term miJ] here.
12. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel, pp. 63-65, \ 82-84.
129
household of her husband. '[H]er father controlled her life until he

relinquished her to another man for marriage.'13 Although at various
periods she might have more or less independence with regard to various activities, with regard to her sexuality, she was not a free agent. Her
body was not her own.14 The result was that, although theoretically she
was not chattel and was not 'owned1 by father or husband, in reality
every woman in Israel would normally be under the authority of some
man. At first it was her father, but on her marriage she was transferred to
the potestas of her husband, the head of the new household which she
was to help to build up. As long as either was alive, therefore, she had to
recognize the authority of her father or her husband.15
The restrictions and close supervision of females in such a society

seem to us to reduce her to property; in reality their aim is to guard
against the misuse of her sexuality, either by her own willful violation
of the sexual exclusivity that she owed to the man under whose tutelage
she lived or by exposing her to victimization by men who might take
advantage of her. Thus,
the key to the understanding of Hebrew standards lies in the conception
of the woman's sexuality as the property of the man under whose potestas she was. In the case of her father, this involved the exclusive right of
disposal; in the case of her husband, the exclusive right of use.16
In either case violation of chastity or sexual exclusivity involved a deep

affront to the man who was supposed to control/protect her. 'A wife
who was proved guilty of fornication had violated the honor and power
of both her father and her husband."7
The rrniJj of the Bible are each women who are, by reason of circumstance or conduct, functioning outside the control/protection of
father or husband. As a result, her chastity may be questionable, or perhaps she may be in a dependent position that renders her ability to
maintain her chastity problematic. Unlike the typical woman of the
Bible, who was named as someone's wife or someone's daughter, these
13. P. Trible, 'Woman in the Old Testament', IDBSup (New York: Abingdon
Press, 1976), pp. 963-66 (964).
14. Trible, 'Woman in the Old Testament', p. 964; Perdue et al. (eds.). Families
in Ancient Israel, p. 76.
15. Mace, Hebrew Marriage, p. 189.
16. Mace, Hebrew Marriage, p. 227.
17. Bird, 'Woman in the Old Testament', p. 964.
130
females are not designated by the name of their male kin. The vocabulary with which the biblical writer describes them and their activities is
illustrative of two realities, both of which must be understood as having
negative implications for a woman. First, she is frequently described in
terms which put her exterior, and thus outside the safety of the home.
The r\T\y] are described as 'going out' or 'sent out', they are found on
roads, at wells, in the countryside. Second, the stories depict them most
frequently as objects of verbs, not as subjects, either grammatically or
narratively. They are 'brought' and 'sought', 'found' and 'gathered'.
Thus, the social position of a mi)] is one of sexual contingency, of
ambiguity and vulnerability.
Wives for the Tribe of Benjamin
A shocking example of the sexual vulnerability of young women who
are without the protection of their male relatives comes from the story
of the plot to obtain wives for the tribe of Benjamin, after the other
tribes had sworn not to give their daughters in marriage because of the
outrage that had occurred in Gibeah in Judges 19. In the first phase of
this horrifying plan, all the men of Jabesh-gilead (a city that had refused
the call to muster when the other tribes went out for vengeance against
Benjamin), along with all the sexually experienced women, were slain.
The remaining 400 young women, deprived now of the protection of
fathers and mothers, are referred to as rfnm mU3 (Judg. 21.12) and are
distributed to the men of Benjamin for sexual purposes, presumably as
wives. The second phase of the plan, in which they capture additional
wives from among the daughters of Shiloh who are dancing for the
annual festival (Judg. 21.19-21), does not use the term n~!U3 to refer to
these young women, presumably since their fathers and brothers are
still alive and are persuaded to give ex post facto consent to the marriages negotiated in this way (v. 22).18
Abishag
This beautiful young Shunammite procured for King David in his days
of waning potency (1 Kgs 1.2, 3, 4), likewise evidently fatherless and
husbandless, was also a mui Perhaps she was a captive (or orphan) of
war. During Saul's reign, Shunem was the site of a Philistine encampment (1 Sam. 28.4). In any case, she has no husband and appears not to
18. We should note that, once again, these women are at risk when they 'go
out', in this case as a group for celebration.
131
be any longer under the care of a father. As is so often the case with
rvntf], the text does not name her with reference to the names of the
men of her family (as is usually the case with women), but gives only
her own name and place of origin.19 Her sexual status remains ambiguous since she was available to the king, but the narrator reports that the
relationship was not consummated, and she continues to be referred to
as mui20
Because the root skn/sgn has a wide range of uses in various ancient
Near Eastern contexts, a few scholars have attempted to find in the term
rtDO, used of Abishag in vv. 2 and 4, a title of some sort of 'high
government official'. 21 I will follow Lipiriski, who sees 1 Kgs 1.1-4 as
an example of a usage of the word meaning (in the French) 'intendant',
that is, in English, 'steward' or perhaps 'attendant' or 'governess' or
'nurse'. 22 Whatever a similar term may have designated in Akkadian
documents, the presence of the expressions "[ban "E^ mQVI (v. 2) and
inrnom (v. 4) in the two verses in which Abishag is called flDO clearly
indicate that the semantic domain here is one of servanthood, not of
high royal officialdom. 'Standing before' (i.e. waiting on) and 'ministering' are precisely the terms used to describe the service of other
mi)] and miM, as well as C'llLU.23
Esther
The manner in which Abishag is procured for King David is echoed by
the manner in which Esther is procured for King Ahasuerus, although
19. Indeed, her name means 'My father is a wanderer' (or perhaps sinner) BDB,
p. 4.
20. In contrast, Esther ceases to be called mi?] after she 'goes into the king',
apparently because that relationship was consummated and, as a wife, she is once
again appropriately 'attached to' (or 'embedded within') the household.
21. See discussion in M. Heltzer, The New-Assyrian Sakintu and the Biblical
Sokenet (1 Reg 1,4)', in La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique: XXXIHe Rencontre assyriologique Internationale (Paris: Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1987),
pp. 87-90; M.J. Mulder, 'Versuch zur Deutung von Sokenet in 1 Kon 1.2,4', VT22
(1972), pp. 43-54; O. Loretz, 'Ugaritisch Skn-Skt und hebraisch Skn-Sknt', ZAW
94(1982), pp. 126-27.
22. E. Lipiriski, 'Skn et Sgn dans le semitique occidental du nord', UF 5 (1973),
pp. 191-207 (196).
23. See, e.g., the uses of the Hebrew words mo, 7QD, ^ in Gen. 39.4; 40.4;
2 Kgs 4.43; 6.15; 2 Sam. 13.17, 18; 1 Kgs 10.5; Est. 2.2; 6.3; 1 Sam. 16.22; 1 Kgs
1.2; 17.1; 18.15; 2 Kgs 3.14; 5.16; Jer. 15.19.
132
the source of 'dis-ease' for this king is an affront to the royal ego rather
than an inability to keep warm.24 The servants of King Ahasuerus, when
the king's pride has been injured by Queen Vashti, seek mîrQ m~lJJ]
for the king's pleasure (Est. 2.2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13). Perhaps they
come from among various captive populations, since Esther's 'Jewishness' is pointed out, in which case these women are already sexually
vulnerable by virtue of being spoils of war. Whether captive or not, they
became vulnerable upon being removed from their families at the command of the king. After each 'girl's' night with the king, she was
returned to the harem to a status of perpetual sexual ambiguity, not quite
a wife, but certainly never again the virgin daughter of her father's
household. 23 Parallels between the stories of Esther and Abishag are
quite remarkable, as is obvious when verses are juxtaposed:
Est. 2.2
1 Kgs 1.2
And the C'~li2] of the king and his ministers said...
And his servants said to him...
Est 2.2
i Kgs 1.2
Let there be sought for the king virgin ni~li?j, good looking...
Let there be sought for my lord, the king a virgin mjJj...
Est 2.7
i Kgs 1.3
And the n~UJj was lovely to look at...
a lovely muj...
Est 2.8
24. The striking similarities between these two stories are given only the briefest
of mentions in most of the commentaries and other discussions, e.g., Wenham calls
it a 'similar incident'; others note the shared motif. Clines suggests that this part of
the Esther tale 'is probably deliberately reminiscent of 1 Kg 1.2-4', although he
looks further afield to make a comparison to the basic tale: 'The story of the search
for a bride is obviously analogous to that of the Thousand and One Nights, where
also only one girl (Scheherezade) can charm the king and so become queen' (Wenham, 'Betulah', p. 343; J.D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary [OTL; Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997], p. 54; C.A. Moore, Esther: Introduction,
Translation, and Notes [AB, 7B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971], p. 26; D.J.A.
Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther [NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984], pp. 285,
286).
25. Indeed, after their night with the king, neither Esther nor any of the other
women is again referred to as a mi?3. Esther is ever after referred to as 'queen'; the
others simply fade from view.
133
i Kgs 1.3
And Esther was taken to the house of the king...
And they brought her to the king...
i Kgs 1.5
And she ministered to him.
These similarities suggest the likelihood that the Esther narrative was
an elaboration or expansion of an earlier motif.26 In reliance on the structure of the Abishag account for his basic story-line, the writer appears
to have borrowed considerable language from the older, shorter account.
Thus, the use of the term my; in Esther (as well as "IM in other parts of
the book), which is obviously a postexilic text may reflect a deliberate
archaizing, since the words are used with precisely the same sense that
they have when they are found in the much older narratives of Genesis
and the Former Prophets.
Significantly, in Est. 2.7 we hear that Esther 'had neither father nor
mother', and had been adopted by her cousin Mordecai. As an orphan
and 'foster child', Esther is living outside the protection of her natural
father. Mordecai, as surrogate father, was not able to provide the same
patronage and oversight, perhaps due to his own situation as an exile.
Once Esther becomes queen, she is under the king's patronage and is no
longer referred to as m^.
As we have seen in other narratives, Esther as miJ] appears as an
object in the narrative, one who is sought and gathered and made ready
for the king's enjoyment. Only after she ceases to be called m,y] does
she emerge as a fully-fledged character, with speech and action, thought
and feeling and initiative.
Women at Risk
General
In addition to the loss of guidance and protection which a young man
experienced when he became a ~1U3, the young woman who was a mU]
also became vulnerable sexually, even when she was not explicitly procured for sexual service. The resultant vulnerability to the possibility of
sexual shame is a prominent characteristic that these women all share.
26. If this is an example of the 'type-scene' as discussed by Alter, the ancient

hearer would have indeed expected to hear the familiar vocabulary used in the new
elaboration of the familiar story (Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, pp. 47-62).
134
The proper sphere for a woman was the interiorspace of the home;
venturing across the threshold into the exterior space confers the status
of my; on a woman in some texts. One of the sites in village life where
women mingled freely with those outside the family was the local well.
Whether this was so because this was considered a safe space (possibly
because adequately 'public') or because it was simply a necessary risk
because of the need to draw water is not clear. In either case, it is significant that, in more than one instance, young women at the well are
referred to as my;. Outside the household, women could be vulnerable
and fathers would be unable to supervise their activities there. Additionally, one simply could not ascertain the status of a young woman in
that situation: she was not easily identifiable as someone's wife, daughter or serving girl.27
That the dangers to women at the well were real is suggested by a
recent analysis of Ruth 2.7 by Carasik. He has suggested that the fumbling speech of the overseer in response to Boaz's question about the
identity of the my; (Ruth 2.5, 'To whom does this my] belong?')
reflects the overseer's embarrassment because Ruth had been 'sexually
harassed' by the reapers of Boaz when she tried to quench her thirst at
the water source.28 The instructions that Boaz then gives her (2.8, 9)
suggest that he recognizes the danger and that he has taken some steps
to curb the behavior of the C'~iy;, although she is cautioned to avoid eye
contact and to stick close to the other female reapers.29 The same sort of
encounter with intimidating behavior at the well is suggested, according
to Carasik, by the story of the daughters of the priest of Midian (Exod.
2.16-19). They are protected and assisted there by a complete stranger,
Moses.
27. Cf. the Ugaritic poem 'Kirta' (col. Ill, 11. 9-10), in which the surprise attack
on the women occurs at the well (S.B. Parker [ed.], Ugaritic Narrative Poetry
[Writings from the Ancient World, SBL; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], KRT
l.IH.9-10, 16).
28. M. Carasik, 'Ruth 2,7: Why the Overseer Was Embarrassed', ZAW 107
(1995), pp. 493-94. Many women of my generation will identify with this episode,
spelled out in the manner that Carasik has spelled it out. Not infrequently, young
women of high school age had to 'run the gauntlet' of a hallway lined with young
men whose remarks or perhaps simply stares persuaded her that she would wait for
a drink of water until she got home in the afternoon.
29. In fact, this is another example of the narrative use of m~iiJ] to guard against
impropriety by providing chaperonage to a woman who would otherwise be alone.
135
Despite the apparent dangers, women seem to have been the chief
drawers of water, and in that position are referred to as mil)]. Thus,
when Saul and his servant are searching for donkeys and go to consult
the seer, 'they met some mil)] coming out to draw water' (1 Sam.
9.11). These woman carry the information about the local seer across
the social boundary between the village and these two outsiders. Likewise, when Abraham's servant goes to seek a bride for Isaac, he prays
that the mi)] who says, 'Drink, and I will water your camels' (Gen.
24.14, 16) will be the appropriate bride for his master's son. Apparently, at the well there were no restrictions on conversation with men
not of one's own household, including men who were strangers to you.
Possibly it was to the local well where Dinah 'went out to visit the
women of the region' of Shechem, when she ventured outside the protection of her father's house.30
Rebekah
When Abraham's servant arrives seeking a bride for Isaac, Rebekah,
too, is a mi)] coming to the well for water (Gen. 24.14, 16). After the
encounter with the servant, the narrator tells us, the mi)] runs to tell the
news to her mother's household (Gen. 24.28). The gifts (not bride
price) are presented to Rebekah's mother and brother (Gen. 24.53), not
to her father as would be the custom, and the arrangements are agreed
to. Only the time of departure remains unsettled, and the mother and
brother request, 'Let the mi)] remain with us a while, at least ten days;
after that she may go' (Gen. 24.55). Abraham's servant prefers to set
out immediately, and in the end the final decision is made by Rebekah
herself: 'We will call the mi)], and ask her' (Gen. 24.57). In the course
of the negotiations about departing, her mother and brother Laban give
her a great deal more of a voice in decision-making than we would
expect.
Rebekah is identified as 'the daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son, whom
Milcah bore to him' (Gen. 24.24, 47), but it is her brother Laban who
extends hospitality to the servant. When the servant asks for Rebekah as
a wife for his master's son, Laban and Bethuel answer together (v. 50).
This is the only appearance of the woman's father in the story, and we
30. Other stories of women, unsupervised by male relatives, at the local well
include the story of the encounter between Jacob and Rachel (Gen. 29.1-14, in
which Rachel is not called mi)] but is tending stock, as DHJ); so often do), and even
the exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (Jn 4.1-38).
136
sense that something may be unusual about the authority structure in

this household. Some have suggested that a later editor has included
Laban in v. 50.31 Perhaps Rebekah's father has died,32 or been incapacitated, either physically or mentally.
Thus the use of the word mitt for Rebekah reflects a twofold reality:
she is out and about, talking to a stranger at the well (a circumstance
that has resulted in that designation being used for other women, as we
have seen). She may also be fatherless, although not without a male
overseer, since she has a brother to speak on her behalf. Surely some of
the details of this situation have been lost to us, but, in conjunction with
the term mi)], we have in Rebekah a young woman whose status is
somewhat ambiguous, and who has more autonomy than we would
expect from a young woman under the potestas patrii. After her marriage she will not be called by this word, but for the moment Rebekah is
a my;.
Dinah
More willful adventuring seems to have been the case when Dinah
explored the world outside the walls of her father's house, with a consequent change in appellation to mitt (Gen. 34.3, 12) once she has been
'humbled'33 by Hamor.34 Dinah, daughter of Leah and Jacob, 'went out
to visit the women of the region' of Shechem (Gen. 34.1). Perhaps, as
with Rebekah and others, this was a trip to the local water source or
well, since we do not know of other gathering places for women in
ancient times. Her role in the narrative is as object, as 'bone of contention' , not as subject. Her ability to initiate action is ended after the
first verse in which she took the fateful step of 'going out'. Her help31. Skinner, for instance, labels the phrase 'and Bethuel' in v. 50 a 'marginal
gloss' or 'textual misadventure'; Speiser suggests that it is 'probably intrusive' and
calls it 'a marginal gloss on the part of some ancient scribe who did not realize that
the father had no place in this narrative' (Speiser, Genesis, pp. 177, 181; Skinner,
p. 184).
32. Westermann takes this for a certainty (Westermann, Genesis 37-50, pp.
386, 388).
33. Whether rape or consensual extramarital intercourse is indicated is a matter
of considerable dispute. In reality, the consent required is her father's, not her own.
34. A good background on the narratological issues in this text can be found in
D.N. Fewell and D.M. Gunn, 'Tipping the Balance: Sternberg's Reader and the
Rape of Dinah', JBL 110.2 (1991), pp. 193-211; M. Sternberg, 'Biblical Poetics and
Sexual Politics: From Reading to Counterreading', JBL 111.3 (1992), pp. 463-88.
137
lessness is seen by the rapid-fire series of verbs of which she is the

object in v. 2: Shechem saw (NT), took (np'P), lay with (2323) and 'disgraced' (H3IO her. She does not act; she is acted on, as is underscored by
the threefold repetition in this verse of the objective pronoun nns.
Although Shechem recognized that she was 'Dinah daughter of
Jacob', he took the opportunity, when she had left the authority and
protection of her father, of 'going out' to rape her.35 With this act, her
status was changed, and the narrative tells us that 'he loved the iTIU]'
and 'spoke tenderly to the !"!"")]' (v. 3). The potential vulnerability has
been actualized, and Dinah has moved from 'daughter' to mui36
Shechem requests of his father Hamor, 'Get me ['^Tlp] this girl [Tltf
rn'rn] to be my wife' (v. 4), and his change of terminology reveals two
things about his situation. Since he can refer to Dinah as a 'girl', her
youth influences our evaluation of this sexual encounter, whether or not
force was used.37 Second, he paints the best possible portrait of Dinah:
to his father, he does not describe her as a n~i0 whose adventures outside the house of her father might have left her chastity, or at least her
reputation, damaged. To his father, he describes a 'girl-child' (m'r)
whom he wishes to wed. When making a case to his father about the
value of making arrangements for his marriage to Dinah, he presents
her as a girl whose purity had presumably been kept properly protected
under a father's watchful eye.
During the negotiations with the men of Dinah's family, Hamor
likewise uses words that reflect well on Dinah, calling her 'your
daughter' (v. 8). Shechem, however, minimizes his own guilt by using
less favorable terminology when he adds his eagerness to the discussion. 'Name your price,' he says in effect. 'Only give me this mM to be
my wife' (Gen. 34.12). In addressing her father, he attempts to excuse
his behavior by terming her a mÔ, calling attention to the failure of
35. Some scholars, including Tikva Frymer-Kensky, suggest that 'forcible rape'
was not necessarily the situation here (T. Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth [New
York: Fawcett Columbine, 1992], p. 274 n. 34).
36. The reference to Dinah as 'daughter of Leah' in v. 1 establishes her identity
within the polygamous family but does not indicate that Jacob had died, as he is
present, although not central, in the rest of the narrative.
37. Of the various terms used for individuals of various statuses, situations and
ages in the Hebrew texts, "i"?* and m"?' are the most consistent in indicating a
minor, what we would think of as a child, as opposed to a person of dependency or
reduced status whose situation might not be solely due to age.
138
Jacob (as well as Simeon and Levi) to keep his daughter (and their sister) confined to 'women's spaces'.38 The honor of the men of the family, specifically with regard to their ability to control access to the sexuality of their women, has been impugned. The story of the revenge
taken by Dinah's brothers suggests how deeply this affront to honor
was felt.39
Ruth
The same term used for a fatherless young woman (as Rebekah appears
to have been) might be used for a widow; both might be called mJJ].
When the widowed Ruth returns to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law,
Boaz inquires, To whom does this mU3 belong?' (Ruth 2.5, 6). The
young woman has come into the community without an apparent patron;
her vulnerability to sexual exploitation40 is clear in Boaz's charge to his
reapers not to 'bother' her (Ruth 2.9).
Ruth was the Moabite woman who had married Mahlon, one of the
sons of Naomi.41 Upon her return as a widow to Bethlehem with her
mother-in-law, Boaz asks a most revealing question about her, when she
appears as a gleaner in one of his fields (a public and vulnerable place
for a young woman). Once again we see that the term is used when the
attachments of a female are not evident. Whose daughter, whose wife,
38. Contra Hamilton, who sees justthe opposite effect: 'Note that when Shechem
spoke to his father about Dinah he called her a "girl" (yaldd, v. 4) but when he
speaks about her to her father and brothers he calls her a maiden (na'ard). We
understand immediately his purpose in using a word with more dignity attached to
it.' The notion that the term nil): is one of 'dignity' is shown to be fanciful by
recalling what sorts of women are called by that term, to wit, not wives, mothers
and daughters, but servants, widows, orphans and concubines (Hamilton, Genesis,
p. 361).
39. For discussion of this text from a socio-anthropological viewpoint, see PittRivers; for aspects of biblical law, see Frymer-Kensky; as a defense of exogamy,
see Klein (Pitt-Rivers, Fate of Shechem; T. Frymer-Kensky, 'Law and Philosophy:
The Case of Sex in the Bible', Semeia 45 f 1988], pp. 89-102 [95]; R.W. Klein,
'Israel/Today's Believers and the Nations: Three Test Cases', CurTM 24.3 [1997],
pp. 232-37).
40. And perhaps also the tendency of D'1133 to be 'troublesome'.
41. For basic background scholarship on the book of Ruth, the reader is referred
to E.F. Campbell, Ruth (AB, 7; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975); R.L. Hubbard,
The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); J. Sasson, Ruth: A
New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Fomalist-FoMorist Interpretation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979).
139
whose serving girl is the woman? The ~UJ] to whom Boaz addresses his
question serves merely as a foil for the narrator to provide to Boaz the
information that the reader already has about the identity of Ruth. That
her presence in this place is a premeditated bid for a patron is reflected
by Ruth's announcement of her intentions: I will go to the fields and
glean 'behind someone in whose eyes I may find favor' (2.2).42 That the
desired relationship is one of 'fictive kinship' is made obvious by
Boaz's addressing Ruth as 'my daughter' (TD, v. 8).
Throughout the book, Ruth is no mere tool of the narrator. She is a
fully-fledged character who speaks and acts, whose interiority we see,
who takes initiative. She is not a nameless, faceless, voiceless servant;
only her circumstances and Boaz's inquiry make her a m^l Ruth, who
has no father to broker a marriage for her, offers her own sexuality to
Boaz at the threshing floor. The patron who should have served in this
capacity is missing from her life, so she is called mi?]. By accomplishing this marriage, she perpetuates the name of her deceased husband
(and of her father-in-law), and in the process provides security for both
her mother-in-law and herself.
Once the marriage has been arranged between Ruth and Boaz (but
before she has become his wife), the term my] is used of Ruth just
once more, this time by the people gathered as witnesses at the gate:
Through the children that the Lord will give you by this mitt, may
your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah'
(Ruth 4.12). The people's use of the term is poignant; they acknowledge the possibility that this marriage of somewhat unconventional
beginnings may be more productive in building up the house of Boaz
than a more traditional one might have been.
The comparison is intriguing, since Tamar, too, was a woman whose
sexual status involved some irregularity. Tamar is never called n~li5],
but like Ruth she takes the initiative to offer, without a male broker, her
42. Malina has pointed out the connection between patronage and the Hebrew
word |n. 'What clients seek of patrons is favor, and grace is favor. Favor might be
defined as receiving something, either that could not otherwise be obtained at all, or
on terms more advantageous than could otherwise be obtained. Favoritism is the
main quality of patron-client relationships. The frequent phrase in the Hebrew
Bible, "to find favor in the eyes (sight) of means to have a person treat one with all
the benefactions of a client...' Hubbard anticipated a portion of this analysis, but
without the language of the social sciences, in his discussion of this passage. See
Pilch and Malina, Biblical Social Values, pp. 83-84; Hubbard, Ruth, p. 139.
140
sexuality. Although the expressed intent of this conception was to save

the name of her late husband from extinction (and provide security for
herself), the result from the long view of the greater scriptural narrative
thread was to perpetuate the name of her unjust father-in-law Judah, as
the genealogy at the end of the book of Ruth makes clear.
Levite 's Concubine
The Bible's most compelling illustration of the fate of women who
strayed outside the protected boundaries comes from the story of the
Levite's concubine.43 Apparently because of some sort of falling out,
the woman leaves the Levite and returns to her father's residence. By
this action, the concubine places her self at risk, 'going out', crossing
the threshold into the world outside her home, which was 'male space'.
In the process, she has entered a state of sexual ambiguity: clearly not
the virgin daughter of her father, but temporarily estranged from her
master/husband. The verb used of the woman is PCT, which suggests harlotry or adultery; LXX translates as oopyioGri (became angry, spurned),
indicating either an emendation or a Vorlage that read n3T. In commenting on this verse of the story, Boling suggests 'MT is interpretive.
As Israelite law did not allow for divorce by the wife, she became an
adulteress by walking out on him.'44 The dishonor that this departure
from her master's household brings upon her family of origin is conveyed by the narrator's repeated reference to 'the father of the mi)]'
(Judg. 19.3-6, 8, 9). Once she is restored to the control of her master,
she is once again referred to as ItD^D (his concubine), a status that provides protection for neither her sexuality nor her life.
Although the climax of this story comes later, when the couple have
stopped for the night at Gibeah, the interesting scenes with respect to
our understanding of the word mi)] come during the time when she has
taken temporary refuge in her father's home, for it is only during this
time that the term is used with respect to her. Careful reading of the
text, however, reveals that the word is not in fact ever used of this
woman directly. Instead, during the time when she is in her father's
home, he is referred to as muin "HK, 'father of the mU3'. Within this
phrase may be hidden the reasons for her status as a concubine and the
43. For general discussion of this story, see, e.g., S. Niditch, 'The "Sodomite"
Theme in Judges 19-20: Family, Community, and Social Disintegration', CBQ 44
(1982), pp. 365-78.
44. Boling, Judges, p. 274.
141
callous disregard with which she is treated by her husband/master. The

narrative never tells us why she is called concubine and not wife. No
mention is made that the Levite has a primary wife to whom this woman
must take second place. However, the phrase mi)]!! "ON, when it
appears in Deuteronomy 22, applies to the father of a woman who has
had sexual relations, either as a result of rape or seduction, while still
living in the home of her father. As a non-virgin bride, she may have
been forever condemned to a secondary status, such as we see in this
story. More horrifying still, this designation is used in Deuteronomy for
the father of a woman who has been raped and whose rapist is punished
by an unrenounceable marriage to her. With echoes of these circumstances ringing in our ears, we cannot help but wonder whether her
husband's treatment of her is the result of her being 'used goods', or
indeed whether this heartless Levite might even be a rapist.
When she was inside her father's home, she disappeared, becoming a
nonentity.45 Outside, she is an object for rage and lust. In light of the
role of D"HI)j and rmU3 in going out or being sent out to cross boundaries and thresholds, it is significant that it is at the threshold of the
house that she is found dead (or dying). Clearly, to be 'out' was a dangerous place. Still, some, like Dinah in Genesis 34, cannot resist the
crossing of the threshold, despite the risks. In the process, they become
m"IJ)]. The possibility is strong that one function of the story of the
Levite's concubine among its earliest hearers (and the story of Dinah as
well) was as an object lesson for women, to make clear the dangers of
taking initiative, of 'going out', of venturing across the threshold of the
home in which she was protected by father or husband. This possibility
is strengthened when we are attentive to the language used by the narrator in the story of the adventuring concubine, whose father is over and
over called 'the father of the m#]'. That phrase is used elsewhere in the
Hebrew scriptures in only one place, the collection of laws regarding
45. Phyllis Trible has pointed this out: 'The power struggle between the two
men highlights the plight of the woman who brought them together but whom they
and the storyteller have ignored. Unlike her father, the daughter has no speech;
unlike her master, the concubine has no power. A journey "to speak to her heart"
has become a visit to engage male hearts, with no speech to her at all. What the
master set out to do, he has forsaken to enjoy hospitality and competition with
another man. The woman suffers through neglect' (P. Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives [OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1984], p. 69).
142
the penalties for the misuse, on her own part or on the part of another,
of the sexuality of a m^] in Deuteronomy 22. Surely its use in this narrative would sound a note of warning to female listeners.
Legal Material
Among the various law codes and groups of statutes in the Hebrew
scriptures, only the Deuteronomic Code deals with the term m#]: the
word appears 13 times in Deut. 22.13-29, 3 of which occur in the phrase
'father of the mi?3', which was so prominent in the story of the Levite's
concubine. 46 These laws (which are part of the Deuteronomic Law
Code in Deuteronomy 19-25) are considered by most scholars to have
appeared later than the Book of the Covenant in Exod. 20.22-23.33.47
Steinberg places them in a tenth-century context, and suggests that they
helped to consolidate the power of the monarchy, diminishing the
importance of the wider kinship network, especially the extended family, by placing limits on the absolute power of the paterfamilias.^ Rofe
proposes the eighth century, during the second half of the monarchy.49
Criisemann has mounted a very convincing 'plea for a pre-exilic dating'
in which he suggests the beginning of the reign of Josiah (639-609 BCE)
as the most compelling option to consider.50 Any of these proposals
46. In Deuteronomy, the Hebrew word is spelled defectiva HI)] (with one exception in v. 19), as it was in Genesis. I will omit discussion of Deut. 22.22 and 22.30,
since they neither use the word mi)] nor deal with the concepts directly under discussion.
47. For an excellent analysis of these verses, along with a summary of pertinent
scholarship to date, see F. Criisemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of
Old Testament Law (trans. A.W. Mahnke; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1996),
p. 109. See also C. Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws (BZAW, 216; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1993). The reader is referred as well
to earlier treatments of these verses found in A. Phillips, 'Another Look at Adultery', JSOT 20 (1981), pp. 3-25; von Rad, Deuteronomy, pp. 141-43; A.D.H.
Mayes, Deuteronomy: Based on the Revised Standard Version (NCB; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 309-13; R.J.V. Hiebert, 'Deuteronomy 22.28-29 and
Its Premishnaic Interpretations', CBQ 56 (1994), pp. 203-20.
48. N. Steinberg, 'The Deuteronomic Law Code and the Politics of State Centralization', in Jobling et al. (eds.), The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis, pp. 16170, 336-38 (169). See also Perdue et al. (eds.), Families in Ancient Israel, p. 60.
49. A. Rofe, 'Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy and the Book of Covenant', Henoch 9.2 (1987), pp. 131-59 (157).
50. Crusemann, Torah, p. 212.
143
would accord well with the time frame in which the terms "li?] and mi?]
are most frequently found in other biblical sources. Although the laws
of Deuteronomy appear to offer some protection to women, in actual
practise these statutes are part of an overall loss of power and independence, as the monarchy increasingly centralized decision-making.51
This particular section of laws in Deuteronomy deals principally with
one issue: the case of a woman who has crossed the threshold of her
father's house, who has 'gone out'. The first case is one in which the
'going out' is only suspected (Deut. 22.13-19), and falsely so at that.
The husband has accused his wife of not having been a 'virgin' when
the marriage began.52 In other words, the woman is accused of 'going
out' from, of 'wandering' from, of 'harloting', her father's house, since
presumably the behavior of which she is accused could not have happened when she was supervised within it. Within the description of this
case, the woman is not a subject who acts at all. The father of the mi?]
submits the evidence of the virginity of the mi?] (v. 15), the father of
the i~Hi?] presents his case to the elders (v. 16), the father of the mi?]
receives the fine from the man who has falsely accused her. Significantly, the father, in speaking of her, refers to her as daughter (TQ,
vv. 16, 17), never iTm
In the case in which the accusation is demonstrated to be true and the
signs of virginity of the mi?] are not found (v. 20), which is to say that
she has indeed crossed thresholds and left a sphere within which she
should have remained, then it is to that theshold (nnD, v. 21) that the
mi?] shall be brought, to be stoned for her act of unfaithfulness (i~f]T,
v. 21).
The remaining cases also reflect the situation of a female, called a
mi?] because she is away from her father's house, who has sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband. In the first situation, she is
engaged and the man has found her (Htfltfn, v. 23) in the city and lain
with her.53 In this instance, because the woman 'did not cry for help'
51. Meyers, Discovering Eve, pp. 189-96; Steinberg, 'Law Code', p. 168.
52. I will accept here the traditional translation of H^TD as 'virgin'. The debate
over this translation, while interesting, is not germane to the issue at hand. For
details of that debate, I refer the reader to the articles by Wenham and by Wadsworth
(Wenham, 'Betulah'; T. Wadsworth, 'Is There a Hebrew Word for Virgin? Bethulah in the Old Testament', ResQ 23.3 [1980], pp. 161-71).
53. Translators make her culpability more explicit than the original author of
this legislation by using the less ambiguous 'meet her', which carries the implica-
144
they are both to be stoned (v. 24), even though the woman has been
'violated' (!"I]U). In this situation, no mention is made of her father, since
she was clearly not under his supervision when the event occurred. The
stoning is to take place at the 'threshold' of the city, which is to say at
the gate (ItfE?).
In the case of the mitt 'found' in the countryside, the case is strengthened by adding that 'the man seizes her', perhaps suggesting that
force is involved (ptn, v. 25). No punishment is to be administered to
her, since she is presumed to have called out (v. 26), but was unheard
because of the secluded location (v. 27). Whether or not the degree of
force involved is greater in this case than in the prior one, a central
issue in both cases is that this young woman is at risk and is called
mui In these two instances, her father is not even mentioned.
The final case involves a virgin who is not engaged, and thus has no
obligation to any man except her father. The degree of force is not clear
(the Hebrew word here is (2?sn), the location of the rape/seduction is not
specified, only her status as virgin daughter of her father's household
not yet promised in marriage to any man is described. Once again, she
is a n~l0 (v. 29), venturing beyond the threshold (or at least acting outside the supervision of her father) and compromising her reputation and
marriageability in the process. The man will be penalized by paying 50
shekels to the father of the mU3; she will be penalized by spending a
lifetime with the man who has done this.54 These laws without exception relate to sexual behavior of women who had a responsibility to
uphold the honor of a man, that is, father, nance" or husband. Her own
wishes in the episode, her own initiative or carelessness, matter less than
does her status as a woman 'attached' to some man, a man to whose
honor she could bring shame even if she were the victim of rape.
tion that the woman had a hand in arranging the sexual encounter.
54. Naomi Steinberg has pointed out that, by contrast with the case of Exod.
22.16-17, in which the father could withhold his daughter from this marriage if he
wished, in the Deuteronomic Code 'what could have been resolved by the paterfamilias in Exodus is in Deuteronomy expressed in categorical terms. Such an
arrangement for the administration of legal rights qualifies the power of adult males
of the nuclear family and supposedly provides legal protection for women and children. The successful transition to a centralized state comes from both using and
subverting existing judicial authority structures, in this case the elders' (Steinberg,
'Law Code', p. 165).
145
The passage shows clearly that in terms of her sexuality at least, the
unmarried girl was under her father's authority, as the married woman
was under the authority of her husband... Legally, the woman's status is
determined by her relationship (or non-relationship) to a man. As Phyllis
Bird has noted, whether a woman's actions toward a man and whether a
man's actions toward a woman are offenses or not is determined by
whether the woman has obligations to a husband, father, or father in
law.55
That the Deuteronomic Code escalates these offenses to include the

entire community as party to the case does not alter the basic fact that
the principal affront is to the man to whom she owed faithfulness.
The Deuteronomic understanding of adultery as an offense against the
community, however, does not mean that the Deuteronomic authors did
not regard adultery as a violation of the rights of the husband or the
father. Rather, it is precisely as a violation of the husband's or father's
rights that adultery was perceived as a serious threat to the social order.56
Each of these scenarios represents a situation that is not the sexual

norm, that is a chaste young virgin whose sexuality is passed on,
unblemished, to her bridegroom, who maintains exclusive access to that
sexuality. The laws detail the resolution of those situations where the
morality of the young woman is in question: how to determine the virginity or non-virginity of the new bride, how to determine the culpability or innocence of the betrothed woman who has had sexual intercourse, and how to deal justly with the chaste daughter who has become
'damaged goods', through no fault of her own, except perhaps her
boldness in stepping outside of boundaries to explore, 'to see the
women of the land'. Stuhlman, in his study of those offenses for which
the Deuteronomic Code prescribes the death penalty, has noted 'the
most profound fears and concerns' in the social world of the authors of
this law collection:
The greatest threat to the social environment of D is posed neither by
foreigners who are 'far away' nor by enemies who are 'close by' but
outside the defined boundaries (e.g., Canaanites, Jebusites, Perizzites
[7.1]). Rather, the most profound danger to the social order of D is posed
55. Pressler, View of Women, p. 43; P. Bird, '"To Play the Harlot": An Inquiry
into an Old Testament Metaphor', in P.L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in
Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 77.
56. Pressler, View of Women, p. 42.
146

by wanton individuals/groups who reside within the community boundaries but do not conform to its social and cosmic restraints.57
It is precisely at the 'community boundaries' that the term mi>3 is used.

A Special Case: Amos 2
The third phrase of Amos 2.7, mWirbs "D1/1 V2K1 tDÎ, is usually
translated by some variation of 'father and son go in to the same girl',
and some sort of violation of incest standards is inferred. However,
only in this verse is "jîl used with a sexual connotation. (The verb ordinarily used to suggest sexual congress is K"Q.) The phrase also lacks any
designator that would suggest the same girl. The Greek translators,
however, already understood it that way (iced woe; Kai nairip OCUTOIJ
eiaenopeiJOVTO npoc, xr\v awi\v 7tat8ioKnv), although probably without
explicitly sexual content.58 In reality, it says simply that a 'man and his
father go to the girl'. What this means is the subject of many a commentary and book on Amos, and the breadth of the scope of proposed
solutions to this crux is matched only by their creativeness. A sampling
from recent commentators is illustrative.
Wolff's suggestion is typical of a number of scholars, who see this
passage as a sexual injustice, which he places under the rubric of 'Abuse
of Maidens'.
The mjJ] is generally a young woman, legally a minor, though her status
seems less a matter of actual age than of social standing. In our passage
'the maiden' is further defined neither as wife nor as sister, nor is there
anything which indicates that a female servant is meant. The reproach
addresses the case of a 'man and his father' consorting sexually with 'the
(same) maiden', since here the expression *7R ~]bn (literally 'to go unto')
means nothing less than 'to copulate with.' Thus in our text, as often
elsewhere, rnjJI simply denotes a marriageable girl. The terminology of
our passage and the situation it portrays are unattested in the biblical
legal traditions. To be sure, there are apodictic injunctions against a man
having intercourse with both a woman and her daughter, or a son with
57. L. Stulman, 'Encroachment in Deuteronomy: An Analysis of the Social

World of the D Code', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 613-32 [631].
58. The Greek verb eiajtopeijw does not ordinarily have a sexual connotation,
but means rather 'to enter' or 'to go into' (H.G. Liddell [ed.], An Intermediate
Greek-English Lexicon Founded Upon the Seventh Edition of Liddell and Scott's
Greek-English Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889], p. 234).
147
the wife of his father, or a father with the wife of his son; but nowhere do
we encounter the prohibition of father and son having intercourse with
the same young woman. Casuistic law handles a similar case when it
provides that a female house slave shall be elevated to the full legal status of a wife if either the householder or his son has intercourse with her
(Exod. 21.7-11). Amos, however, is not speaking of a female slave (HON
Exod. 21.7), but simply of a young woman, one who is not identified
more precisely either as a maidservant or a temple prostitute. If it were
the 'exploitation of her defenselessness and servitude' which made the
act reprehensible, this dependence and weakness of the woman ought to
have been stressed. The only thing that is emphasized as being reprehensible here, however, is the fact that 'a man and his son' consort sexually
with 'the (same) maiden.'5
It is interesting to note his assertion that the 'dependence and weakness

of the woman ought to have been stressed' if this passage intends to
indicate some sort of abuse of economic or social power. This stress is,
in Wolffs view, absent, although he has not examined the social location (and possible level of dependence and weakness) of an individual
indicated by the Hebrew term mi)]. On the other hand, he suggests that
what is 'emphasized' is the fact that father and son 'consort sexually
with "the (same) maiden'", a fact whose emphatic content is surely
diminished by the fact that the critical word (same) is not supplied by
the biblical writer!
Mays suggests that the transgression in question is not sexual so
much as syncretistic, and represents an offense against strict monotheism, although allowing for a possible social and sexual concern:
The maiden to whom both father and son go could be the cultic prostitute
who plays such an important role in the fertility cult of Canaanite religion (Hos. 4.14). The institution of cultic prostitution was strictly forbidden in Israel (Deut. 23.17). But maiden (na'ara)is a neutral word that
does not of itself mean sacred prostitute (qedeSa).Possibly v. 7b refers to
the violation of the rights of a female bond-servant by making her into a
concubine for father and son, prohibited in Ex. 21.8. (Cf. also Deut.
22.30.) The emphasis of the line on father and son highlights the promiscuity involved. In Israel's legal tradition the juxtaposition of related pairs
in sexual relations to a third is the subject of a number of laws (Deut.
27.20; Lev. 18.8, 15, 17; 20.10ff.).60
59. H.W. Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets
Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 166-67.
60. J.L. Mays, Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1969), p. 46. For a similar treatment, see F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Amos:
148
Barstad, while noting the general absence of 'religious polemics' in

the first few chapters of Amos, believes that these verses are an exception, and stresses, as Mays does, that religious syncretism may be the
issue that concerns the prophet. He, however, takes pains to build a case
that 'as long as the texts themselves remain silent on this point, the
sound scholarly attitude should be to regard cultic prostitution in Israel
as non-existent'.61 He connects this phrase in Amos to a two-generational participation in a mrzh meal, a banquet of the upper classes of
Canaanite society that involved conspicuous consumption and drinking
to the point of collapse in a religious setting. The mi)3, in this view,
would be the 'hostess' of the mrzh banquet.62
This suggestion was already anticipated by Coote,63 who considered
it along with other possible breaches of the social ethic that drives the
prophet in the verses surrounding this one, including the possibility that
the n~)U] is a tavern keeper whose giving of credit has brought two generations into indebtedness (or perhaps creditorship):
I strongly suspect, however, that this line does not refer to intercourse
with a peasant slave, but rather to an institution known in considerable
detail from Mesopotamian documents: the role of the alewife, or barmaid
(the 'girl'), as broker. A man and his father must go (the verb may be
translated modally) to the alewife to obtain a loan at exorbitant rates or
else a man and his father go to the alewife to invest for a usurious return.
Either the man and his father are peasants, or they are the ruling elite.
The latter alternative may fit better with the succeeding line in the oracle.
I prefer the former, which by its mention of son and father seems to
allude to the breakdown of patrimonial domain. 64
Coote acknowledges, however, the difficulties with the alewife hypothesis, since the evidence of this institution is lacking in the SyroPalestinian area, not to mention that all references to it date prior to the
middle of the second millennium.65
A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24A; New York:
Doubleday, 1989), p. 318.
61. H.M. Barstad, The Religious Polemics of Amos: Studies in the Preaching of
Amos 2,7b-8;4, 1-13; 5,1-27; 6,4-7; 8,14 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1984), p. 31.
62. Barstad, Polemics of Amos, pp. 34-36.
63. R.B. Coote, Amos among the Prophets: Composition and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), pp. 36-38.
64. Coote, Amos among the Prophets, p. 35.
65. Coote, Amos among the Prophets, p. 36.
149
Paul points out that Amos's concern is with the 'social sphere' and
that he evidences little concern about idolatry. The female involved is
not referred to as rroip, nor are shrines mentioned, until the next verse,
which Paul cites as evidence against understanding this as a cultic
transgression. He points out that no biblical law forbids father and son
to have sexual relations with the same unmarriedwoman, pointing out
that Exod. 21.7-11 are not related to this situation.66 Still, he says that
Amos is expressing disapproval of the 'continuity of the act involved
(father setting the example for his son), as well as the lack of shame and
promiscuity involved when a father and son both "go to the (same)
young woman'".67 Although this description is morally satisfying, Paul
does not explain how an act that is not prohibited by the law codes can
be branded with 'lack of shame and promiscuity'. His view of the mu:
as 'just one more member of the defenseless and exploited human
beings in northern Israel' confirms our findings, even if the source of
exploitation for this particular n~iJJ] remains a mystery.68
Each of these suggestions is consistent with the picture that we have
derived of the social location of the mui Whether slave or hired girl,
cult prostitute, barmaid or banquet hostess, the young woman mentioned in this problematic verse is working outside the home, away from
the protection and supervision of her father.69 If sexuality is involved, it
is clearly irregular in some way, not the ideal of marital intimacy within
a union arranged and sanctioned by family, but somehow outside the
bounds of acceptable sexual activity. This has been reflected in every
incident in the biblical texts in which a mi?] is involved in sexual activity, whether it is the Levite's concubine, called n~lU] when she leaves
her husband's home, or the m,U] of the law codes of Deuteronomy.70
66. S.M. Paul, Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 76-81.
67. Paul, Amos, p. 82.
68. Paul, Amos, p. 82-83.
69. Chaney has suggested a solution to understanding this elusive verse in
which the mi)] ceases to be a woman at all! He suggests, by an extensive comparison with the sociological situation in Neh. 5, that the word here means 'foreclosure', making this a denouncement of societal structures that reduce families to
poverty and break the sacred connection between the people and their land. (M.L.
Chaney, 'Latifundialization and Prophetic Diction in Eighth Century Israel and
Judah', unpublished paper, Colloquium on Reformed Faith and Economics, Ghost
Ranch, August 1987).
70. Other m~IW (such as Ruth and Esther) cease to be called by that term when
their sexual activity is 'regularized' by marriage.
150
Even if this text from Amos does not address sexual issues directly, it
seems clear from the concerns of the prophet in the rest of chapter 2
that the girl is vulnerable in some way (economically). In any case, the
full situation behind this verse remains elusive, and our emerging picture of the miJ] in ancient Israel is not significantly challenged.
Conclusions
As in the case of the young men of previous chapters, these women
who come to be called nnu] vary in age and circumstance. Without
exception, however, they are beyond the protective reach of their fathers
and as a result are vulnerable. In the case of the women, this vulnerability is felt particularly strongly in the area of sexual matters.
Chapter 7
OTHER USES OF -u?]
Fixed Expressions
The Expression ]pT-"l#]

The Hebrew word ~)U] appears frequently as part of the stereotyped
phrase ]pT-"lU3, which establishes antithetic parallelism.1 No corresponding stereotyped pair based on nil?] seems to exist. The phenomenon of stereotyped pairs has been catalogued in both Hebrew and
Ugaritic by Dahood, and these uses of the pair fpT-IU] function very
much in the way he suggested, whether the pair is used together or has
been 'broken up'. This particular pair has no parallels in the Ugaritic
literature, however, since Ugaritic dqn is used exclusively to designate
the beard or chin, never a person like the Hebrew elder.2
In the Hebrew texts, the phrase functions as a merismus, always indicating the totality of the group by designating the end points of a continuum. Frequently this is made explicit with the use of the prepositions
]Q and ~I17. The usual English translations of these passages suggest the
full spectrum of age, from young to old, and indeed that is probably
what is represented in some of the late compositions. Certainly, that
was the way these expressions were understood by those who rendered
these texts into the Greek of the LXX. More appropriate, in view of our
1. For more on the parallel pairs, see: M. Dahood, Psalms III: 101-150: Introduction, Translation, and Notes with an Appendix, the Grammar of the Psalter
(AB, 17A; New York: Doubleday, 1970), pp. 445-56; M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse
Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), pp. 96-109; W.G.E. Watson,
Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup, 26; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 328-32; M.J. Dahood, 'The Breakup of Stereotyped
Phrases: Some New Examples', JANES 5 (1973), pp. 83-89.
2. Hebrew ]pT also designates the beard. The relationship of the beard to a
man's honor, and thus potentially to the office of elder, needs to be explored
further.
152
findings regarding the social location of the ~IU] in early Israel, would
be to assume that the merismus works to indicate the entire status
gamut, rather than the spectrum of age, with jpT referring to a man who
has achieved the status of paterfamilias, while ~IU3 refers to a dependent
male working under the tutelage of someone other than his own father
who thus is unlikely ever to attain the coveted status of 'elder'. Just as
we saw that, in general, a "ii)3 was an adult male and not one of the
youngest persons in the community, the |pT has long been recognized to
be a community leader and head of household, but not necessarily
'elderly'.3
Not surprisingly, since the use of parallel pairs is principally a device
of poetry, the phrase *pT-"li?3 appears only a few times in prose narrative, in sharp contrast to the distribution of the word ~1U] when not in
combination. The pair appears three times in the Pentateuch, once in the
Former Prophets and once in Esther. The remainder occur in Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Psalms, Proverbs and Lamentations.
Genesis 19.4: 'But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men
of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house... '
The narrator clearly does not mean to include the very youngest individuals of Sodom, only those who were sexually mature and capable of
assault. No 'boys' are included here, only 'men', but men of rank along
with men with little to lose.
Exodus 10.9: 'Moses said, "We will go with our young and our old;
we will go with our sons and daughters and with our flocks and herds,
because we have the LORD'S festival to celebrate.'"
Moses declares that the entire Israelite community will go, supposedly to celebrate the festival of Yahweh. 'Youngsters' would be
included as sons and daughters; the phrase here once again indicates the
full range of adults.
Deuteronomy 28.50: 'a grim-faced nation showing no respect to the
old or favor to the young...'
Deuteronomy 28.47-68 threatens the people with hardship, exile,
even return to the captivity in Egypt for failure to obey the stipulations
3. For the age, status, prerequisites and functions of the 'elders', see Reviv,
The Elders in Ancient Israel', R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel. I. Social Institutions (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1965); McKenzie, 'Elders in the Old Testament', pp. 522-40;
Matthews and Benjamin, 'The Elder', pp. 170-74; Bendor, Social Structure of
Ancient Israel, pp. 256-57.
7. Other Uses
153
of Yahweh. Here we may suspect the hand of a late Deuteronomistic

redactor. The phrase does, however, express aspects that are consistent
with a status range rather than an age range. Those in the position of
'elder' will not be shown the appropriate respect; the grace or patronage
(]n) that was expected by the "!!?] would also be wanting.
Joshua 6.21: 'Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the
sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep,
and donkeys...'
The Israelites, upon capturing the city of Jericho, destroyed all that
was in the city, 'from man to woman, from "!#] to ]pT'. That the term as
used by this author is not simply indicating the children of Jericho is
suggested by the fact that just two verses later (6.23) the Israelite spies
who visited the prostitute Rahab and spied out the land, who were
surely adult men, are referred to as D'HUl
Esther 3.13: 'Letters were sent by couriers to all the king's provinces,
giving orders to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all Jews, young and
old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth
month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods.'
Esther is clearly a late composition, but in the use of the phrase ""l0]pT, as with other occurrences of ~l^] and mm in Esther, the author uses
the word as it is used by earlier writers. The term specifies the range of
Jewish males (DHlim) who are to be extirpated. Children are indicated
by the term rp, and are included with the women.
By contrast to the rather formulaic use of the phrase by the prose narrators, the poets break up the expression with other intervening descriptions, but the sense seems to remain: to express the totality of the
people.
Isaiah 3.4, 5: 'And I will make boys their princes, and babes shall
rule over them. The people will be oppressed, everyone by another, and
everyone by a neighbor; the youth will be insolent to the elder, and the
base to the honorable.'
The prophet, in a description of disaster that sounds very like the
Babylonian captivity, describes a world in which everyone with leadership potential (including the D^pT)anyone with power, with wisdom,
with experience, with expertisewill be taken away from Jerusalem
and Judah. In that power vacuum, the world will be turned upside down.
The DH^] will be captains, the young children will rule. The ~l0 will
'lord it over' the )pT, as will the 'lightweights' treat the 'heavyweights'.
Although age is clearly a factor here, it is used to express a lack of skill
154
and status. Those from the lower rungs of the society will come out on
top when all of those who are important are taken away.4
Isaiah 20.4: '...so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians
as captives and the Ethiopians as exiles, both the young and the old,
naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.'
Isaiah describes the fate of Egypt and Cush at the hands of the Assyrians. Whichever end of the status line they occupied before, they will
alike be stripped of all modesty and all honor.
Isaiah 65.20: 'No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a
few days, or an old person who does not live out a lifetime; for one who
dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth, and one who falls
short of a hundred will be considered accursed.'
When the poet describes the New Creation, the motif is one of fullness of life, thus of age. Status seems nowhere to be the issue in this
passage, although McKenzie has pointed out that longevity was seen as
a sign of Yahweh's favor.5 Clearly, by the time of this writing, the word
no longer carried the significance that it did in the earliest period.6
Jeremiah 51.22: '...with you [Israel, as God's instrument] I smash
man and woman; with you I smash the old man and the boy; with you I
smash the young man and the girl.'
This late oracle from Jeremiah presents an interesting case. In the
preceding verses, the objects of destruction have been political entities
or military functionaries (vv. 20-21). In v. 23, the targets are the pastoralist and the agriculturist, with their livestock, and finally the leaders
(D^Dl mns, although this last phrase may not belong here, but may
have been added from v. 28). Standing between these is v. 22, which
designates categories of people: man and woman, "11?] and |pT, young
man and young woman.7 The middle pairing, since it does not extend to
4. Background on the situation at the time of the writings of First Isaiah is
available in M.A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1-39 (FOIL, 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996); R.E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39 (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).
5. J.L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah (AB, 20; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1968), p. 199.
6. For more background on the late Isaianic writings, see P.D. Hanson, Isaiah
40-66 (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1995).
7. These last two terms, ~n!~Q and n^lfO, have themselves generated a great
deal of speculation with regard to social location. They seem to be prime young
people from honorable families; they are viewed as ideal marriage prospects. The
"lim appears to be someone who will eventually achieve the status of 'elder', but
who probably does not yet hold that rank.
7. Other Uses
155
the two genders, has been regarded by some as an addition, which is

evidenced by the fact that it is missing from the Old Greek. Another
possibility is that the translators of LXX, not quite understanding what
was meant by the phrase, omitted it even though it was contained in
their Hebrew original. Societal station does seem to be at issue here, not
age, although the late (exilic or early postexilic) dating of the passage
makes specificity in the use of the word "l0 less likely.
Psalm 37.25: 'I have been young, and now am old, yet I have not see
the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread.'
In this instructional psalm, the principal contrast being drawn is
between the wicked and the righteous. The "IU3 in the Bible is frequently depicted as in need of instruction, and most of the occurrences
of the word among the writings are in wisdom contexts. Although usually translated in terms of age, this verse could equally be translated in
terms of status: I have been a ~)0 and now am an elder. In either case,
the psalmist suggests that he has seen the world from both sides and
wishes to impart to his hearers what he learned in the process of living.
Psalm 148.12: 'Young men and women alike, old and young
together!'
This psalm is a hymn of praise whose creation theme suggests a wisdom setting as well. As mentioned in reference to Jer. 51.22, the young
men and women (mîra'DSl D'HTQ) are male and female young adults
with 'good prospects'. The other pair (D"HTDU D'OpT) delimits the ends
of an entirely different spectrum, whether of age or of status is not possible to determine since the text is principally an enumeration, providing very little context.
Proverbs 22.6: 'Train children in the right way, and when old, they
will not stray.'
This is the only proverb that exhibits this merism, but it is only one
of many whose concern is the proper training of D'HJJl The verb used
for training here (~pl~I) is rare in biblical Hebrew. It can mean the dedication of a new house or the consecration of a temple. Only here is it
used of instruction or discipline of either children or servants. An adjective derived from this word is used to describe the servants of Abraham,
born in his house, who accompanied him when he went to rescue Lot
(Gen. 14.14). In light of the evidence from Hebrew narrative, this might
more appropriately be translated, 'Commit a "fosterchild" to the right
path, and if he becomes an elder, he will not depart from it'.
156
Lamentations 2.21: The young and the old are lying on the ground
in the streets; my young women and my young men have fallen by the
sword; in the day of your anger you have killed them, slaughtering
without mercy.'
In Lamentations, the poet grieves the destruction of Jerusalem.8 The
theme of 2.20-21 is to delineate the victims of this great tragedy.
Women and children, priest and prophet are mentioned, followed by
"1)3 and ]pt, who are lying on the ground in the streets, and the n^TQ
and D'TIPD who have fallen by the sword. The acrostic device used to
structure ch. 2 suggests that it was liturgical, and in any case it comes
clearly from sometime after 586 BCE. The context tells us little about
what is intended by the phrase ]pT-~li)] here, but in light of the lateness,
the phrase may be a fixed expression simply emphasizing the totality of
the destruction. The contemporary hearers might not have made any
assumptions about whether age or status were involved.9
Lamentations 5.11-14: 'Women are raped in Zion, virgins in the
town of Judah. Princes are hung up by their hands; no respect is shown
to the elders. Young men are compelled to grind, and boys stagger under
loads of wood. The old men have left the city gate, the young men their
music.'
In these verses, the poet has done considerable breaking up of
stereotyped pairs, creating a complex strophe that covers the full range
of the adults of Judah. He begins with the women and 'choice females'
(nbrQ) of Judah (v. 11) and ends with the 'elders' (D^pT) and 'chosen
males' (future elders, D'~inD, v. 14). Between he places 'chiefs' and
'elders' (v. 12), 'choice males' and 'disinherited' (D'HUJ, v. 13). Children do not seem to be in view in this passage, but the full range of
status does seem to be represented.
The Expressions pp-li)] and map-mi)]
Another fixed phrase that appears several times in the Hebrew scriptures is ]!2p-~lU] or mop-mi)]. The noun ~ii)], as we have seen from the
8. See the extensive history of interpretation in Westermann, as well as the
background in Killers: C. Westermann, Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994); D.R. Millers, Lamentations: Introduction,
Translation, and Notes (AB, 7A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972).
9. Contemporary English speakers who use the expressions 'from soup to nuts'
or 'from stem to stern' might be hardpressed to state what is being described, precisely, in one or the other expression.
7. Other Uses
157
preponderance of Hebrew narratives, does not indicate that the individual so named was necessarily young, but rather indicated something
more complex about his social location: namely that he was 'out of the
nest', no longer under the protection and guidance of his father. Certainly, the term was rarely applied to persons who were children or
even prepubescent, at least not in texts coming to us from the period of
the early monarchy or before. The adjective ]Dp, on the other hand,
modifies ")#] to give it precisely this meaning. This (pp) is the usual
way of expressing 'young' or 'small' in Hebrew, and when used of a
person the term virtually always indicates age, not stature. In expressing
the comparative or superlative, 'younger' or 'youngest', the term used
is always ]Dp. No form of the word ~\V1 is found with this meaning.
Indeed, the word is never employed indisputably as an adjective, although it sometimes appears as a substantive, usually translated as
'youth'. In the Ugaritic texts, as will be discussed in the next chapter,
apart from one possible usage as the substantive, the word n 'r is
unknown as an adjective.
2 Kings 5. The story of the healing of Naaman (2 Kgs 5.1-14) is filled
with contrasts in status, from the king and his great and favored commander down to the little servant girl, who was declassed by her age,
her gender and her status as mi)].10 These contrasts are drawn by the
use of pairs of words that are drawn from opposite ends of the social
spectrum. Particularly significant is the way the author plays with ^113
(great, rich, powerful, literally big) and ]CDp (young, insignificant, powerless, literally small). In this context, the i~l3Dp m0 from Israel (v. 2)
probably was a girl, likely of a younger age than was usual for being
outside her father's household in domestic service. After Naaman's skin
condition has been healed, we are told that it became like that of a ~)>]
]Dp (v. 14; cf. Job 23.25). Again, probably a boy is meant, not a servant
of the usual age. Perhaps the author is drawing our attention to the lack
of body hair typical of childhood and eunuchs.
Other Very Young DHI?]. In a few other citations, the individual seems
actually to have been a young boy. In each case, however, his circumstances, not his age, make him a "l!J]. His age is revealed by the adjective.11 Most of these texts have been treated in the appropriate chapters
10. This narrative was discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
11. David (1 Sam. 16.11) was ]Qpn, the youngest of his brothers, but in his ser-
158
based on what the narrative tells us about their function or situation.

1 Kings 11.17: 'but Hadad fled to Egypt with some Edomites who
were servants of his father. He was a young boy at that time.'
The motif of the adult heirs to the throne being slain while a young
son escapes and is brought up elsewhere is common. Hadad probably
was a boy under the care of regents until he was ready to rule on his
own.
2 Kings 2.23: 'He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while
he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and
jeered at him, saying, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!"'
Probably the taunts of young boys are in view here, boys who are
clearly not under supervision and have not been 'well-brought-up'. The
1U3 was thought to be prone to misbehavior at all stages of his life, and
much concern is expressed about his training and discipline.
/ Samuel 20.35: 'In the morning Jonathan went out into the field to
the appointment with David, and with him was a little boy.'
A young boy, who serves as arrow-fetcher and weapon carrier, but
not apparently as armor-bearer quite yet, accompanies Jonathan into the
field and unwittingly serves as a distance marker by which Jonathan
sends his secret message to David. Presumably, the usual adult military
assistant would have been harder to fool.
Isaiah 11.6: 'The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie
down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fading together, and a
little child shall lead them.'
In the 'peaceable kingdom' envisioned by the prophet, domestic livestock will not be attacked by wild animals, but both will be pastured
together. As is frequently the case in biblical narratives, the tending of
the livestock (and most particularly protection from depredation) is the
task of a ~l], and a young boy can manage this job in such non-violent
times.
Not Young, but Inexperienced, Undeserving.
1 Kings 3.7: 'And now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant
king in place of my father David, although I am only a little child; I do
not know how to go out or come in.'
vice as ~li?3 to Saul he was not }CDp ~li?3, that is, he was not a young boy, just the lastborn.
7. Other Uses
159
In this prayer Solomon refers to himself as |Qp "IU3, although he has

already married Pharaoh's daughter and has been responsible for several deaths. He has, in fact, lost the protection of his father David and
has had to struggle fiercely to hold onto the throne, given his status as a
later-born son. The biblical texts frequently stress the need for training
and discipline for a "ll?3 and depict him as one who lacks wisdom, who
doesn't know 'this from that'. The "1123 of Isa. 7.16, who serves as a sign
to Ahaz of the lifting of the siege, does not 'know how to refuse the evil
and choose the good'. Although some have suggested that this is the
child of the prophet, that is by no means made explicit. That the child is
called a "l!?3 may reflect the fact that only his mother is mentioned or
that the siege represents danger from which even his father cannot protect him. The usage of the term, by Isaiah's time, may also have been
less precise than in the earlier narratives. In Isa. 8.4, the ~l>3 who is
described as the child of the prophet, does not 'know how to call "My
father" or "My mother"', perhaps a reference to the need for a fosterling to learn to address the adults in his new home by those titles.
Solomon identifies himself as a "ll?3 (1 Kgs 3.7), one who does not know
what he needs to know in order to rule successfully, and he asks for
wisdom.
In Chronicles, the later historian has David describe his son, shortly
before his own death, as "]"T1 ~)>3 (a "1^3 and inexperienced), and thus
not up to the task of building Yahweh's house (1 Chron. 22.5; 29.1).
After the death of Solomon, his son Rehoboam, endangered by the
rebellion of Jeroboam, is described in the same terms. Josiah, who at
the age of 16 had already reigned for 8 years after the assassination of
his father Amon, was called ~!>3, possibly because of his status as an
orphan. In the listing of the troops who brought David to power at
Hebron, Zadok is called "1^3, which hardly seems a designation for
youthfulness, given that he is also a 'valiant warrior' and brings 22
commanders from his 'father's house', in which household he was
obviously no longer resident. Curiously, not one of these late references
to D"""!!^ is a person whose father is living and present. Nevertheless, it
is not unlikely that the nuance of the term had been lost by this period.
Jeremiah 1.6, 7. 'Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Truly I do not know
how to speak, for I am only a "11)3." But the LORD said to me, "Do not
say, I am only a "ll?3"...'
The prophet Jeremiah identifies himself as a "IU3 (not however as a
160
]Qp ~II?;), although he is an adult at the time of his call.12 He addresses

Yahweh as 'my lord' ("IN, v. 6), which is typical of the way DnU] who
are servants address their masters. Like the untrained D'ltfj discussed
above, who do not know about good and bad, about going in and coming out, about calling Mother and Father, Jeremiah stresses his inexperience: he does not know how (or what perhaps) to speak. He is
relying on Yahweh for guidance and training, deliverance and patronage. Jeremiah was 'foreordained' for Yahweh's service before birth
QEQZl, v. 5). Clearly, the term "UJ3 here has 'more to do with societal
status than with age'.13
This circumstance of Jeremiah's call is echoed in the situations of
other biblical D'"li)l Samson receives his dedication as a Nazirite before
birth (pin, Judg. 13.5), as does Samuel (1 Sam. 1.11). Both of these
are also CHI?], as we have seen. Perhaps girls were dedicated to the service of a god at a shrine or temple from an early age as well. Certainly
the knowledge that the HMp mi)] who served the Queen of Aram had
about the prophet of Israel could have been acquired from such service.
Perhaps she was captured from a shrine rather than from a household.
Poetic and Proverbial Uses
In addition to the use of the word ""!!)] in the fixed expressions discussed
above, it is found occasionally in other poetic and proverbial settings,
as well as a few times in late prose. These lack the narrative context
that is so helpful in determining meaning, but in some cases parallelism
provides clues. Some of these passages are quite problematic, with various emendations proposed by scholars who have studied them. In most
of the other cases, the understanding of the word ~li)] (and mM) that has
been developed by close reading of the early narratives in which the
12. Both Jeremiah and Solomon identify themselves as D'HSJ] (which in itself is
unusual, since CHJJ; are spoken about far more than they speak themselves, generally), but neither one of them calls himself ~[~1U], 'your ~li>3'. That identification of
the speaker as client and the hearer as patron is common in the Hebrew Bible, but it
is everywhere expressed as ~|~nj), 'your servant'. Equally significant is the fact that
a man (or woman) never refers to his offspring as '1SJ], 'my ~IJ3".
A thorough discussion of the divisions of Jeremiah, along with proposals for
their dating, is found in J. Bright, Jeremiah (AB, 21; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1965).
13. J.R. Lundbom, 'Rhetorical Structures in Jeremiah 1', TAW 103 (1991),
pp. 193-210 [196].
7. Other Uses
161
word is used will be shown to fit the context of the poetic or late use of
the word quite adequately. Each of these examples will be examined
briefly in turn.
Prophets
The prophets used the noun 11J] infrequently, although the eighthcentury prophets used it slightly more often than the later ones.14 Quite
often, they made use of the set pairing jpT-~ir3 in one form or another as
illustrated above, or sometimes a variant of this that placed D'-iU] in
parallel with D'Tim (Isa. 40.30) or with cnn (Isa. 13.18), for instance.
That these expressions indicate the totality of the people is obvious.
More difficult, in dealing with parallel pairs, is the determination of
whether the two terms are synonomous, opposite, or from the same
semantic field, but with one exceeding the other in some quality.
In addition to Isa. 7.16 and 8.4 (mentioned in connection with 1 Kgs
3.7 above), Isaiah highlights the lack of training of D"1"!?] in his description of a time when the trees will be so few than even a ~iu; can write
them down. The implication seems to be that, although a ~IU] might be
taught some writing skills for the carrying out of his duties, his literacy
was not extensive.15
Zechariah, writing after the return from exile, portrays a ~IU3 who has
been given the task of measuring Jerusalem (Zech. 2.8). He is apparently a servant. Zechariah 11.16 has long represented a challenge to
scholars, and the list of proposed emendations for this passage is long.
Petersen suggests seeing here a verbal form ("1JJ] IT) meaning 'to lament',
which is quite appropriate in this context.16 Jeremiah 51.38 is to be
understood in a comparable way. Similarly, Isa. 1.31, along with Judg.
16.9, are not the usual reference to a person, but indicate fiber or chaff
(tow) from the production of linen.
Early in the history of the classical or writing prophets, Hosea introduced an image of Israel that was to become a standard motif used by
the nation's prophets for centuries.17
14. The single useofmU] in the prophets (Amos 2.7) was discussed in Chapter6.
15. Cf. the -IU3 who listed the elders of Succoth (Judg. 3.8).
16. See also the background by Petersen and the emendation suggested by Meyers: D.L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi(OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995), p. 203; C.L. Meyers and E.M. Meyers, Zechariah
9-14 (AB, 25C; New York: Doublcday, 1993), p. 287.
17. For background on the book of Hosca, sec H.W. Wolff, Hosea (Hermeneia;
162
Hosea 11.1: 'When Israel was a child [~IJW], I loved him and out of
Egypt I have called my son [']H^, TO T.EKVO: auiott].'
Israel indeed understood itself to have served a 'raz'arship' in Egypt,
performing slave labor, unransomed by her 'father', Yahweh, who
seemed to remain behind in the land while the nation did its term of
service. The story of the exodus was viewed as the moment in which
they were bought back from a time that amounted to debt slavery. The
process began when the land of Canaan, their rftra, their patrimony,
was no longer able to feed them. In leaving their land and their God in
search of food in Egypt, the nation became a ~IW (or in some metaphors
a m^]). Then a time finally came when the father called their children
(reading MT), or his children (reading the Greek), to return to the land
of their father.18
Hosea was not the only prophet to use this image of the servanthood
or 'na 'orship' of Israel in Egypt in his writings. Surveying the occurrences of the substantive form of ~IU], which is usually translated
'youth', produces the interesting result that the substantives occur
almost exclusively in the poetic books and legal codes rather than in
prose narrative (40 occurrences in poetic books, 3 in legal codes, 6 in
prose narratives).19 In 20 of these cases, the period of Israel's slavery in
Egypt is what is being described by the poet in much the same way that
Hosea uses the noun.20
Other Poetic Writings
The word ~ll?j, in the poetic writings, seems most at home in a wisdom
setting. Even in the Psalms and Prophets, it appears most often in a
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974); F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Hosea: A
New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1980).
18. Kuhnigk and Dahood already earlier translated 123 as 'slave' or 'servant'
here. (W. Kuhnigk, Nordwestsemitische Studien zum Hoseabuch [BibOr; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1974], p. 127; M. Dahood, in RSP, II, pp. 82-83.)
Andersen suggests that Yahweh 'chooses Israel and confers the status of child on
him'. In that way Israel has become 'the senior, the privileged heir' (Andersen and
Freedman, Hosea, p. 577).
19. The word appears D'Tia], ~li?; or mm:?;.
20. Isa. 47.12, 15; Jer. 2.2; 3.4, 24, 25; 22.21; 31.19; 32.30; Ezek. 16.22,43, 60;
23.2, 3, 8, 19, 21; Hos. 2.17 (Eng. 15); Ps. 129.1, 2; Isa. 54.6; Jer. 48.11 represent
somewhat different but closely related images.
7. Other Uses
163
didactic context. Beyond that, much remains in these passages that is a

challenge to the interpreter.
In the book of Job, the uses of D*1""!!?] in the prose prologue clearly
mean 'servants', and Job 29.5 is appropriately translated in the same
way. Job 24.5 and 40.29 were discussed in Chapter 5, where the difficulties in understanding these phrases were pointed out. Job 29.8 contains the pairing of D"7")!?] (who withdrew from Job's august presence)
with DÊP (who rise and stand), a word unknown outside of Job, but
which the writer appears to use with roughly the same meaning as D^pt.
Ecclesiastes 10.16: 'Alas for you, O land, when your king is a servant [~!G] and your princes feast in the morning. Happy are you, O
land, when your king is a nobleman [Dmrrp] and your princes feast at
the proper timefor strength, and not for drunkenness!'
Some have seen in this 'upside-down' social order (cf. Eccl. 10.5-7) a
reference to Solomon or Josiah or Rehoboam (who were D"HiJ3 when
they began to rule), but the Preacher is probably simply making the
point that rulers should be drawn from the upper echelons of society.
The only psalm that uses "IU3 outside of the fixed pair ]pT-")0 is
Psalm 119, the longest of the collection. It is an acrostic wisdom composition on the theme of obedience to the law that asks the question
(v. 9), 'How can a ~IJJ] keep his path pure?' The setting is too stylized to
provide much information in identifying how the author understood the
term.
In the book of Proverbs, the use of mi)] clearly indicates a serving
girl in every instance (Prov. 9.3; 27.27; 31.15). For the males, the subject is instruction throughout, beginning with the prologue to the entire
work that explains that the purpose of the proverbs, among other things,
is to teach 'knowledge and prudence to the "II)]' (1.4). In explaining the
perils of adultery, the teacher indicates having seen 'a ~)D] without
sense' in the vicinity of the 'strange woman', and thus vulnerable to
danger (7.7). In an ancient version of our saying 'Handsome is as handsome does', we are told that 'even a "ID] is known by his deeds' (20.11).
Proverbs 22.15, 23.13 and 29.15 all urge the use of corporal punishment in the training of a "ID], using a 'rod' (CD32J). Close readings of the
ways the word is used elsewhere suggest that these are servants, probably young adults, and not children. The same treatment is also recommended for slaves (DHDU, 29.19, 21). Nowhere is the use of the 'rod'
advocated for Cr"")^ (children), although Prov. 13.24 suggests that a
164
man is wise to use the rod on m (his son), without specifying the age of
the one disciplined in this way.
Late Prose Historical Sources
Chronicles, as we have seen above, uses ~1M in several settings of the
speech about Solomon's inability to handle, without his father's assistance, the task of temple-building. In this, the historian seems to be using something of a stock phrase.
The book of Esther, which uses both ~IJJ] and mw extensively, uses
those terms with precisely the nuance that was developed from reading
the contexts of those words in early prose narrative. I have suggested in
Chapter 6 that this may have come from a deliberate modelling of the
Esther story on the brief account of the selection of Abishag the Shunammite.
Nehemiah, too, although clearly a late source, uses the term ~li5; to
designate servants in a way that would be clearly compatible with our
understanding of the HiJj as one who is away from his father's house,
serving in another man's household or camp. The servants of Nehemiah
and the other returning Judahites are referred to in 4.10, 16, 17 (Eng.
vv. 16, 22, 23) and 5.10 as carrying weapons and working on the construction of the wall. In 13.19, some of the servants guard the gate on
the sabbath. The only remarkable aspect about any of this, potentially,
is Nehemiah's statement (5.10) that he, his brothers and his D1"!!?; were
lending money to help people avoid debt slavery. The source and extent
of a servant's money is not clear, unless these D'HU} were working for
wages. Certainly the social world depicted in Nehemiah is not one in
which every son in Judah remained in the extended family, working the
patrimonial land of the house of his father. Thus, the institution of sending sons out to work for others as D"1"!!?: is quite likely in this context.21
Nehemiah mentions that Sanballat has D'lP] who served as messengers.
That this was not a position of 'high rank', as some have suggested, is
made clear by the disapproval of the fact that the D*~UJ] of the former
governors 'lorded it over' the people (6.5).
21. Twentieth-century American Mennonitc families practise this sharing of

labor, sending sons whose help is not needed at home to another farm in the community, where they can assist (and be fed by) another householder. (I thank Prof.
Theodore Hiebert for calling my attention to this practice and Lonnie Voth for
sharing his experience of it.)
7. Other Uses
165
Abstract Substantive: 'Youth'

In addition to the citations mentioned earlier in conjunction with the
discussion of Hosea 11.1, a number of passages remain in which a substantive based on the noun "lUj is understood to mean 'youth'. The
majority of these occur in prophecy or other poetic books. The context
of most of the rest is not the blocks of narratives from old sources, but
rather redacted speeches and comments as well as legal material (e.g.
Lev. 22.13; Num. 30.4, 17).
In certain instances, the individual named has indeed been characterized as a ~IU] at some point in the biblical story, and a translation of
'since my mz'arship' is probably most appropriate. This phrase is used
of Samuel (1 Sam. 12.2), Goliath (1 Sam. 17.33), who likely started out
as an armor-bearer, David (2 Sam. 19.8), Obadiah (1 Kgs 18.12), in
charge of Ahaz's palace, and perhaps even Job (31.18), in light of the
expression 'from my mother's womb' and its connection to the na'ar
ship of Samson and Samuel. The same concept of servanthood is
clearly indicated in Lam. 3.27 and Prov. 29.21.
The husband or wife or sons of one's youth are a frequent motif (Joel
1.8; Mai. 2.14; Ps. 127.4; 144.12; Prov. 2.17; 5.18), and it is not impossible that these were marriages or births that occurred during a time of
servant status. Sins or evil since 'youth' (Gen. 8.21; Ps. 25.7; Job 13.26;
or conversely Ezek 4.14) and the protection or guidance of Yahweh
since 'youth' (Ps. 71.5, 17) appear, as do occupations practiced 'since
youth' (Gen. 48.34; Zech. 13.5) and the possibility of dying in 'youth'
(Job 36.14; Ps. 88.26 [15]). Finally, there is the unique and uplifting
image of 'youth renewed as an eagle's' (Ps. 103.5) which reminds us
that in the course of time, the nuance of servanthood or risk, of being
away from the father's house, was lost and replaced by the concept of
'youngness', based more on the fact that this was the time when such
separations most often occurred, and not on any supposed 'root' or
'original' meaning of the word 11?].
Chapter 8
RELATED WORDS IN OTHER LANGUAGES
Although the many references to n'r in the texts discovered at Ras

Shamra would seem to be the logical place to begin a search for cognates to the Hebrew word "1^3,1 hope to show that an erroneous understanding of the Ugaritic term has crept into the literature as a result of a
misreading of the Egyptian evidence, and consequently the understanding of the Egyptian context must be set right before an adequate examination of the Ugaritic usage of the term can be carried out. Fortunately,
a recent article by Walter Mayer and Ronald Mayer-Opificius has provided a basis for this effort.[
An Egyptian word that would seem to bear a relationship to the Hebrew ~1J)D appears in a handful of inscriptions. This word is n'rn or n- '-rna. The most important sources for our understanding of this Egyptian
word, borrowed no doubt from Egypt's Semitic neighbors, are the
accounts of the Battle of Kadesh. These accounts are especially useful
since the inscriptions appear at several sites, allowing lacunae in one
account to be supplied by reference to another. Their very nature, as
descriptions of a battle, provides the narrative context that is so necessary in determining the meaning of a word in any language, and the
interplay between text and picture provides additional valuable data.
The Battle of Kadesh reflects the efforts of the great empires of the
Late Bronze Age to control the flow of men and goods through the
Levant. Suppiluliumas (1375-1335 BCE) of the Hittites had begun to
expand southward, finally reaching Damascus and taking control of
Kadesh, a small city-state on the Orontes River in the process. With its
strategic position on one of the main north-south travel routes, the city
was an important part of the Hittite defenses against Egyptian north1.
Mayer and Mayer-Opificius, 'Die Schlacht bei Qades', pp. 321-68.
8. Related Words in Other Languages
167
ward expansion. When Muwatallis (1306-1282 BCE), the grandson of

Suppiluliumas, engaged in battle against Ramesses II (1290-1224 BCE,
grandson of Ramesses I, first ruler of the Nineteenth Dynasty), Kadesh
was a predictable theater for their encounter. The conduct and outcome
of the battle, in which Ramesses II claimed victory, became the subject
matter for a whole series of inscriptions in various Egyptian monuments.2 Our sources for information about the Battle of Kadesh include
reliefs plus three bodies of texts, referred to as the Poem, the Bulletin or
Record and the Captions to the reliefs.3
In these records, the n- '-r-na are mentioned by name in R 11,4 a portion of the caption to a scene among the reliefs that depicts the camp of
Pharaoh, with an incursion of Hittite troops being fought off by combatants from the camp.5 Breasted initially labeled these defenders
'recruits'.6 The poem describes the route and preparations taken by
2. These include the temples at Karnak, Luxor and Abydos, the Ramesseum
and Abu Sirabel. To see what these lines of hieratic text look like and how they are
placed on the walls of the various Egyptian monuments, see K.A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. II. Historical and Biographical (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979),
pp. 125-33.
3. Although this 'Bulletin' has been asserted to be some sort of 'official report'
of the battle, Gardiner contends that it is simply one more (albeit longer) relief caption (A.H. Gardiner, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II [Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 1975], pp. 3, 5, 6; J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of
Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. III.
The Nineteenth Dynasty [Ancient Records of Egypt, 2nd series; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906], pp. 125-57.)
4. This entire caption reads, following the translation of Gardiner: 'The coming of the Ne'arln of Pharaoh from the land of Amor. They found that the host of
the Khatti enemies hemmed in the camp of Pharaoh on its western side, while His
Majesty sat alone, his army not with him, the host of the chariots hemming in.. .his
soldiers, while the army of Amun in which Pharaoh was had not yet ended the
pitching of the camp, and the army of Pre' and the army of Ptah were marching and
their.. .had not yet arrived from the wood of Robawi. And the Ne'arin broke into the
host of the wretched Fallen one of Khatti as they were entering into the camp of
Pharaoh, and the servants of His Majesty killed them and did not allow one of them
to escape, their hearts being confident of the great strength of Pharaoh their goodly
Lord, he being behind them like a mountain of copper and like a wall of iron for
ever and ever' (Gardiner, Kadesh Inscriptions, p. 37.)
5. Sketches and photographs of this camp scene, as it is depicted at various of
the monuments, can be seen in Yadin, The An of Warfare,pp. 107-109, 236-37.
6. Breasted, Ancient Records, 133, Sect. 302.
168
Pharaoh before arriving at the camp near Kadesh. Breasted interprets

line 18 of this account: 'Marching through Palestine, and along the
Phoenician coast road, Ramesses passed into Amor, where he formed
his van of picked men, on the shore in the land of Amor.'7 Originally,
he interpreted the relief of the camp scene without reference to the
account of the trip up the coast road, saying simply, 'These hostile
intruders [Hittites breaking into the camp] are quickly dispatched by the
household troops of Ramses, who are to be seen on foot poniarding
them'.8 He abandoned this understanding, however, in response to
Meyer, who claimed,
Rameses marched up the Phoenician Coast and dispatched here an elite
squadron as a vanguard which would march along the Amorite Coast and
penetrate to him at the Eleutheros Valley. Subsequently they were designated by the Semitic term na'aruna, 'youthful troops'.9
How these came to be understood as 'crack troops' can be understood

by the following excerpt from the well-respected scholar Alan Gardiner, in reference to the troops that Breasted referred to as a 'van of
picked men' (above):
It seems to me, however, that this sentence must allude to the force
which is depicted in all the temple-scenes as suddenly arriving and, having found the camp of Pharaoh surrounded, attacking the Hittites in the
rear; the accompanying legend begins '...The arrival of the youthful
troops (n'rn, see above under No. 259) of Pharaoh from the land of
Amor...,' Kuentz, 366. Various suggestions have been made about these
fresh troops: Breasted (Battle of Kadesh, 38) thought they might have
belonged to the fugitive division of Amun now returning on finding
themselves no longer pursued by the enemy; Burne (JEA VII, 194) conjectured that they might have been attached to the rear of the division of
Pre'. But Breasted himself (loc. cit.) had seen the objection to both these
guesses; why should these troops be spoken of as arriving from the land
of Amor? The only possible answer, as Meyer, Geschichte, II, 1, 462 has
seen, is that they were a special 'battle-force' (skw tpy 'first battle-force',
7. Breasted, Ancient Records, 127, Sect. 298.
8. Breasted, Ancient Records, 190.
9. 'Ramses ruckle an dcr Kiiste Phoenikiens (Zahi) von und sonderte hier eine
Elitetruppe als Vorhut ab, die an der Kiiste des Amoriterlandes entlang ziehen und
durch das Eleutheroslal zu ihm stossen sollte; nachher werden sie mit semitischen
Namen als na'aruna, "junge Mannschaft", bezeichnet'. (E. Meyer, Geschichte des
Altertums. II/l. Die Zeit der agyptischen Grossmacht [Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta'sche
Buchhandlung, 1929], p. 462).
169
so to be rendered in place of Breasted's 'first rank', see above) that had

pushed up the coast to beyond Tripolis, whence they struck inland by the
important road that crosses the Eleutherus river (Nahr-el-Kebir) and
leads to Horns or else by another a little further south. It is only natural
that Ramesses II, wishing to make the most of his own exploits, should
have given as few details as possible about the force which proved his
salvation.10
If Breasted had followed his own first instincts about this passage,
almost a century of confusion about the meaning of this term might
have been avoided, since 'household servants' may come rather close to
the function of the n 'rn in the account of the Battle of Kadesh.
In his analysis of the appearance of this word in the Onomasticon of
Amenhotep, Gardiner was less inclined to insist on quite such a strongly
technical military definition:
N'ryn 'Ne'arin'; no such people or country appears elsewhere in Egyptian texts, the only similar word being a Semitic one, Hebr. D"1"!^]
'youths', employed in the hieroglyphs to designate some sort of troop in
the Egyptian army, Wb. II, 209, 10. However, Sidney Smith comments
as follows: 'There is a possibility that this is a true geographical name.
The Assyrians from the ninth century onwards continually mention the
Nairi-\a.nd or -lands; these districts were situated along the Taurus,
between Miliddu (= Malatia) and Lake Wan, and were sometimes subject to Urartu but not normally. The name does not occur earlier, so we
may presume that it is a political term that arose owing to the landslide
of 1200 B.C.11
Inevitably, the notion crept into the lexica that the n- '-ru-na were a
particular 'type of Egyptian' military troop, 'eine agyptische Truppengattung; D"H0'.12 The origin of this notion that the term represented
some sort of Eliteformation was based on E. Meyer's conclusion that
Ramesses had left the n-'-ru-na behind on the Amorite coast.13 From
this point, by a process of scholars citing other scholars, this view came
10. AEO,p. 188*.

11. AEO,p. 177*.
12. A. Erman and H. Grapow, Aegyptisches Handworterbuch (Berlin: Verlag
von Reuther & Reichard, 1921), p. 77; M. Burchardt, Die altkanaandischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Aegyptischen: I: Die kritische Analyse der Schreibung
(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1909), no. 559.
13. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, pp. 462-63.
170
to be accepted as 'common knowledge'.14 In more recent years, the

rejection, by Schulman, of the idea that these were special forces of
some sort has been largely unheeded. Calling attention not only to the
Kadesh inscriptions, but also to Papyrus Anastasi T and the inscription
of Merneptah at Karnak, Schulman asserts, 'In none of these occurrences does n'rn appear to be the name of a special unit or body of
troops, or contain any real technical connotation. It was merely an Asiatic word for soldiers, and was so used by the Egyptians.'15
Mayer and Mayer-Opiflcius survey the long history of literature produced in studying this battle report and suggest that, in all of the
changing opinions and shifting consensuses, no solution has managed
adequately to explain the contradiction between the allegedly decisive
victory of Ramesses II and the subsequent weakness of Egyptian policy
in Syria.16 At the heart of their reinterpretation of this ancient account is
a re-evaluation of the Egyptian term n- '-ru-na, to which task they have
produced an excursus.17
After a careful survey of the Ugaritic texts (which come, of course,
from close to the time and location in which this battle was fought),
these authors come to the conclusion that the term n'r in the Ras
Shamra texts describes18
...a subordinate function as apprentice, assistant, underling, or servant,
whereby it is a question of a free person not a slave. Clearly this is likewise true in the case where a member of this category of persons serves
in a military context: thus, for instance, they can possess a bow, but they
14. E.g., Stahli, Knabe, 48; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, I, p. 221; A.F. Rainey, The
Military Personnel of Ugarit', JNES 24 (1965), pp. 17-27; idem, The Social
Structure of Ugarit: A Study of West Semitic Social Stratification during the Late
Bronze Age (The Social Stratification of Ugarit [Waltham, MA, 1963] copyright
dissertation Brandeis University, 1962. Xerox copy made in 1975 by University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI, 1967); J. Macdonald, 'Status and Role of the Na'ar',
JNES 35, (July 1976), pp. 147-70; W.F. Albright, 'Mitannian Maryannu, "ChariotWarrior", and the Canaanite and Egyptian Equivalents', AfO 6 (1930-31), pp. 21721.
15. A.R. Schulman, 'The N'rn at the Battle of Kadesh', JARCE 1 (1962), pp.
47-52.
16. Mayer and Mayer-Opificius, 'Schlacht bei Qades', pp. 322-33.
17. Mayer and Mayer-Opificius, 'Schlacht bei Qades', pp. 354-59.
18. They bracket any close examination of the cognate Hebrew term, since its
semantic domain is clearly similar to that of the Ugaritic word.
171
are situated on a level with guards and overseers. The n'r of a marjanu is
undoubtedly classed with the servants who are responsible for the horses
and wagons. However else one may nuance a particular case, there is no
way that it entails some sort or another or 'elite'.19
With this in mind, the caption (R 11) is interpreted. The reference to n- 'ru-na the second time it is used in the caption stands in parallel to an
Egyptian word, sdm-'s, which unquestionably means servant. Attention
is also called to the fact that the combatants engaging the attacking Hittites are wearing long garments, not the short garb usually worn by the
typical Egyptian soldier. Furthermore, the line that Gardiner (for instance) has interpreted as '[t]he coming of the Ne'arin of Pharaoh from
the land of Amor' can equally well be understood as '[t]he n-'-ru-na of
Pharaoh came from Amor' signalling the ethnicity of this heroic group
of servants, rather than announcing the deployment of a special cadre of
the troops.20 All of this evidence leads Mayer and Mayer-Opificius to
suggest that these were not 'crack troops', but rather a ragtag troop of
'servants, handymen, stable boys and assorted camp followers'
('Diener, Handlanger, Pferdeburschen und sonstigen camp followers')
who had been picked up along the way. 21 Furthermore, in contrast to
the Egyptian army regulars who had been spoiled by royal patronage,
these Amorite 'youths' had done their duty and saved the life of the
Pharaoh, which explains the ironic tone in Ramesses' praise of their
role in this mission.22
19. '...eine untergeordnete Funktion als Lehrling, Gehilfe, Handlanger oder

Diener, wobei es sich aber um Frei und nicht um Sklaven ('bdm) handelt. Dies gilt
offenbar auch dann, wenn sich Angehorige dieses Personenkreises in militarischem
Umfeld befinden: So konnen sie beispielsweise einen Bogen besitzen, sie befinden
sich aber auf einer Stufe mit Wachtern und Biitteln. Der n 'r eines marjannu gehort
ohne Zweifel zu den Bediensteten, die fur die Pflege der Pferde und des Wagens
zustandig waren. Wie auch immer im Einzelfall zu nuancieren sein mag, es 1'iihrt
von hier kcin Weg zu einer irgendwie gearteten Elite'. Mayer and Maycr-Opificius,
'Schlacht bei Qades', p. 355.
20. Gardiner, Kadesh Inscriptions, p. 37; Mayer and Mayer-Opificius, 'Schlacht
bei Qades', pp. 356,357.
21. Mayer and Mayer-Opificius, 'Schlacht bei Qades', p. 356.
172
In light of this understanding of n-'-ru-na, Mayer and Mayer-Opificius discuss the remainder of the limited Egyptian evidence about this
unquestionably Semitic term. The Merneptah Inscription bears the
phrase 'all the veterans of the army and the n-'-ru-na carried booty'
(KRI IV.7. 11/2). The suggestion here is that the quantity of booty
which Merneptah carried away from Libya was so great as to require
even the army veterans to function as porters alongside the n- '-ru-na,
whose task this ordinarily would have been.23 Papyrus Anastasi I (from
Egypt, end of the thirteenth century) contains a letter, long recognized
as satirical, in which the sender Hori addresses his recipient, the scribe
Amen-em-opet, in an extravagance of mocking praise: Thou art sent
on a mission to Djahan at the head of the victorious army, to crush
those rebels called Near in.'24 Apparently, the scribe has been sent to
quell a rebellion of porters and horse grooms, not to meet the advance
of a powerful army. In a similarly scathing vein, Hori suggests that
Amen-em-opet is the general of an army of n-'-ru-na: 'O Who-is-it,
thou choice scribe, mahir who knows (how to use) his hand, foremost
of the nearin, first of the army host...' 25 The scribe is general of an
army of stable boys!
Pritchard quite rightly makes the comparison of this letter to 1 Kgs
20.13-22 in which the battle to free the city of Ahab from the siege
being carried out by Ben-hadad of Aram is begun and accomplished by
the C"H,y] of the district governors, as promised by the prophet. In this
narrative, as in the Kadesh inscriptions, the victory of the inexperienced
servants signals an upset in the usual power dynamics in favor of the
powerless, the underdog. Clearly, the task of the prophet is not to give
strategic advice on which body of skilled fighters should begin the
battle, but rather to suggest that Yahweh has promised victory, even
though the Israelites have only the provincial governors' servants for
troops. The irony in both of these narratives has been overlooked by
commentators, whose assumption seems to be that the fact of victory
must indicate exceptional skill and training of the troops. Thus Montgomery suggests, 'The first noun (Heb. primarily 'youths', Eng. 'young

24. P. Anast. I, 17, 3/4 (ANET,2nd edn, p. 476).
25. I.e., 'What's-your-name'; P. Anast. I, 26, 9-27, 1 (ANET,2nd edn, p. 478;
Mayer and Mayer-Opificius, 'Schlacht bei Qades', p. 358).
173
men') is a technical military term...' Gray goes somewhat further and

postulates 'the usage of ne'drlm as a mobile force of professional soldiers..^ picked body of striking troops'. DeVries calls them a 'special
elite guard' and 'elite corpsmen'.26 These overreadings suggest the
importance of the use of literary analysis of texts to detect the use, by
the author, of such rhetorical devices as irony. In any case, the Egyptian
evidence in toto supports the notion that the n- '-ru-na were men who
had attached themselves to the Egyptian army as porters, weapons
bearers and perhaps even camp cooks, hewers of wood and fetchers of
water. It is likely that these were young men who had left their fathers'
houses in search of employment or of some other means of making
their way as a result of familial poverty and indebtedness perhaps or of
being later-born sons.
Ugaritic
Both Cyrus Gordon and Mitchell Dahood suggested the usual nuances
of the Hebrew word ~IJJ2 (i.e. youth or servant) for the Ugaritic equivalent when it began to turn up in the texts from Ras Shamra.27 Aistleitner
proposes 'member of a servant class' (Mitglied e. dienenden Berufsklasse) and for the feminine 'maidservant' (Dienerinnen).2S Nevertheless, very soon the Egyptian evidence discussed above was called upon
to assert Meyer's 'elite corps''T(Eliteformation))asas the definition of th
Ugaritic word as well. Rainey's thorough cataloguing of the various
military subsets follows this pattern. Because the n'rn were 'able fighting men in Canaan' (for which his evidence includes Erman and
Grapow's WAS, Gardiner's AEO and the Merneptah Stele), he con-
26. In support of his analysis, Gray cites de Vaux, who in turn refers back to the
Egyptian evidence in addition to 1 Kgs 20, as well as other scriptural occurrences
which have been discussed in prior chapters. (Montgomery, Kings, p. 323; Gray, I
& II Kings, pp. 376-77; DeVries, 1 Kings, p. 249; de Vaux, Social Institutions,
p. 220).
27. Gordon's UT glossary entry 1666 suggests boy, child, unmarried son. He
points out that the texts distinguish between bn and n'r 'so that n'r has some other
meaning such as "servant"...members of a certain guild, perhaps "servitors" or
"soldiers'". For this last possibility he cites the New Egyptian evidence discussed
above (UT, p. 445; RSP, p. 82).
28. J. Aistleitner, Worterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1967), p. 208, entry 1808.
174
eludes that 'the n'rm of Ugarit were first-class, experienced fightingmen'.29 How this correlates with the presence of DHW in the household
lists is not clarified.
Certainly the evidence from Ugaritic texts must be used with care for
the identification of the ~1JJ] in ancient Israel, as also the Egyptian texts
must be considered indicative but not definitive in interpreting the
Ugaritic. The importance of interpreting a word from within the social
world in which it is used is especially compelling in the case of a word
like ~IU3, which describes an individual's social location, since such
words would be particularly dependent on the social features of language, features that are dependent on the social structure in which they
are used.
Still, although without doubt the final decision about the meaning of
a word must come from its use by native speakers, the Ugaritic vocabulary and social system represent the most closely related antecedents for
early Israel. Ugarit is undoubtedly an important contributor to the
stockgenetic, linguistic and socialfrom which ancient Israel drew
its roots. The Ugaritic texts come to us, as it were, frozen in time, not
having been subjected to the most recent millennia of transmission (and
perhaps tendentious editing) that the biblical Hebrew texts have undergone. Their contribution to the discussion has the potential to be enlightening, although I will be careful to eliminate any contamination
from erroneous reading of Egyptian records as I give an extremely cursory examination to those documents from Ras Shamra in which the
words appear. Because our examination of these texts will be very
brief, the main issue to be resolved in each case will be whether the
social location which I have proposed for the ~\S' in biblical Hebrew
makes sense for the word's usage in particular instances in cognate
languages.
Lists
A number of the texts in Ugaritic that have been discovered consist
entirely of lists whose extent and condition of preservation vary widely.
Beyond serving an obvious function for some sort of record-keeping,
our understanding of the purposes of these lists is somewhat speculative. One of the more complete and more thoroughly studied, KTU
4.68, has an Akkadian syllabic colophon on one margin. Unfortunately,
29. Rainey, 'Military Personnel', p. 21.
175
even that helpful information has not finally answered the question
whether each of the listed entities was to receive or to provide a bow,
nor whether the bow itself designates the weapon or the personnel who
used it.30 The uncertainties involved are compounded by the fact that
words in a list have a context only slightly more explicit than does a
word in isolation. Such words have no syntax, they are neither subject
nor object of verbs. The best one can hope to glean from such documents is a sense of semantic domain (what sorts of things are listed
together) and perhaps some hierarchical ordering, although whether
such ordering is along an axis of importance, chronology, proximity or
any other variable is not always immediately apparent. While interesting results have come from research into biblical lists, those lists have
not yielded their treasures willingly. Nevertheless, some information
can be gathered from the lists in which the word n'r is found, which
appear to fall into two types: accountings of military personnel and of
household members.
Military. Three Ugaritic texts yield n 'rm in lists of occupations, presumed to be military: KTU 4.126, 4.68 and 4.179. The latter text is
clearly a list of occupations, probably all military, with some sort of
numerical notation associated with each, although to what end is not
entirely clear. The third entry is n'r mrynm, 'na'ar of the Maryannu'.
Wright inter alios, has proposed the Maryannu as 'chariot warriors', to
whom quite likely was attached a servant to do the heavy work of tending stock, chariot and weapons.31 KTU 4.68 is a list of cities followed,
30. In fact, the ideogram for 'bow' is scarcely readable, although probably correct (Ch. Virolleaud, 'Les villes el les corporations du Royaume d'Ugarit', Syria:
Revue d'Art Oriental et d'Archeologie 21 (1940), pp. 123-51 [137]).
31. Macdonald, who insists that the n'r held an 'eminent place', places them as
commanders of the Maryannu rather than their servants. In the course of his argument, he himself points out that sons and land grants are both mentioned with
respect to the Maryannu, but not the n V. Certainly in Israel, sons and land were two
of the things conferring the highest status, clearly undercutting Macdonald's argument here. On land grants, see also Gray. Reviv has more recently published observations on the Maryannu (J. Macdonald, 'The Unique Ugaritic Personnel Text KTU
4.102', UF 10 [1978J, pp. 161-73; J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra
Texts and their Relevance to the Old Testament [VTSup, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1957], pp. 167-69; Albright, 'Maryannu'; H. Reviv, 'More about the "Maryannu"
in Syria and Palestine', in B. Doled et al. (eds.), Studies in the History of the Jewish
People and the Land of Israel, II Haifa: University of Haifa, 1972]; H. Reviv,
176
after a clear demarcation, by a list of associations or occupations.32

After each entry or group of entries is a numerical notation. The right
side of the tablet is blank, perhaps for future notations. The first entry in
the occupation list is n 'rm, followed by other terms that seem to be
military functions. A marginal note in Akkadian indicates that these
groups are to be furnishers or recipients of 'bows'. A similar text is
KTU 4.126, which has city names and occupations or associations
commingled, although it lacks both the Akkadian colophon and the
numeric notations. Some of these entries are grouped together as in
KTU 4.68.
Very little can be understood about the relative status of these nouns:
the definitions of many of them are not clear, nor has their ranking
within Ugarit's social system been demonstrated. The n'rm appear as
the first entry (KTU 4.68), third entry (KTU 4.179), and twelfth entry
(KTU 4.126), although even a consistent position in these lists might be
difficult to interpret. Across the three lists there appear to be somewhat
fluid groupings that seem to bear some relationship to each other. For
instance, tnnm, 'sr, n 'r mrynm in 4.179 resembles tnrynm, mrum, 'srm,
tnnm (4.126) and 'srm, mrum, tnnm (4.68); likewise nqdm, khnm, qdsm,
pslm, mkrm (4.126) and nqdm, khnm, qdsm, nsk.ksp, mkrm (4.68),
although the significance of these associative groupings is far from
clear. More interesting, perhaps, is the fact that in 4.68 are juxtaposed
n'rm, mdrglm, kzym compared to n'rm, 'bdm, kzym in 4.126. Since the
last term in each of these refers to a horse groom, and clearly 'bdm are
servants or slaves, perhaps these soldiers (which Gray called 'armourers') are either bearers of some sort of heavy weapon or warriors
who have need for such support personnel.33 In any case, the principle
of association suggested here is physical labor, not elite status. This is
consistent with the idea of men who have left their fathers' houses and
signed on in heavy manual service with the fighting troops.
'Some Comments on the Maryannu', IE] 22.4 [1972], pp. 218-28).

32. Principally by analogy to medieval Europe this list has given rise to literature suggesting 'guilds' in ancient Ugarit. The reader is invited to evaluate this evidence in, for instance, Macdonald, 'Unique Ugaritic Personnel Text'; Gray, Legacy
of Canaan, p. 166; Gordon, Ugaritic Literature.
33. See the discussions by Gordon, Gray and Macdonald (UT, 19.436, 1535;
Macdonald, 'Unique Ugaritic Personnel Text', p. 17; Gray, The Legacy of Canaan,
p. 169).
177
Households. The exact purpose for which the household censuses were
prepared is also open to a variety of interpretations. One possibility is
that these were 'excess' personnel dedicated to the king or to the temple
either to provide labor or to be provided for as part of the 'social safety
net'.34 Whether this dedication was the result of piety or the inability of
the paterfamilias to provide adequately for all family members is not
clear. Tax rosters, ration lists or enrollments of captives have all been
suggested as the identity of these documents.35 KTU 4.339 is a list of
households belonging to U[]t(?)sb and those belonging to the king, each
cited by the name of the householder with various numbers of persons
in various relationships to him, in the format PN and his wife, or PN
and his wife and his son. The very first person named is Ks(r)n and his
wife and his n 'r. Among the king's personnel are Annmn and his three
tt'|r] (curiously using the singular, if the reconstruction is accurate).
KTU 4.367 is a brief text listing royal personnel in which a lacuna has
been reconstructed to read 'two sons of Twrhzs [n] 'rm' followed by an
entry for 2 individuals (bns) of lytlm and 20 yoke of oxen. Whether
these sons of Iwrhz are to serve as n 'rm or perhaps are being turned
over to the king after living away from their father's house in service to
some other lord is not clear. KTU 4.419 is a very broken text that mentions a wife (1. 3) and 3 wives (1. 6); the fourth line reads 'and 4 n'r...',
leaving little evidence on which to base any conclusion. KTU 4.360
appears to be a census of several households, making note of which
sons in each family are 'able-bodied' or 'workers' (b'lm).36 The family
of Yrhm includes his two sons, workers and three n 'rm and one daughter.
The most studied of these household texts, KTU 4.102, is comprised
of lists of various numbers of particular types of household members,
each group said to be 'in the house of PN'. The relationships include att
34. Macdonald, 'Unique Ugaritic Personnel Text', pp. 171-72, and references
cited therein.
35. Indeed the lists of military personnel could also, in some cases, be lists of
captives.
36. So Virolleaud (PRU V.80; PRU II.2, 11) in Claude F.-A. Virolleaud,
'Textes en cuneiformes alphabetiques des archives sud, sud-ouest et du petit palais',
in Le palais royal d'Ugarit (Mission de Ras Shamra; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,
1965), pp. 105-106; see also Rainey, 'The Social Stratification of Ugarit', p. 97;
Contra StahlL Knabe, pp. 49-50.
178
'wife', att adrt 'noble wife', bn, bt, pgt, and gzr.31 The exact identity of
these last two terms is not clearly established. Only one or the other
type of wife is mentioned in each 'house', although there may be more
than one wife. In those entries in which more than one of the other
terms are included (all on the reverse side of the tablet), pgt is mentioned before gzr, but bn precedes either of them. Two 'houses', one on
each side of the tablet, contain n'rm: the household of Ilsk(?) has two,
following a single wife; that of Sk[] has three noble wives, three gzrm,
and five n'rt.38 The only secure conclusion about the word in these texts
is that a n 'r could be a part of a household. The simplest explanation is
that these particular individuals were household servants, potentially
serving the roles that sons or daughters would ordinarily fill since they
appear more frequently when other offspring are lacking.39 Situations as
permanent slave, debt slave, hired servant or 'foster child' are all conceivable, and would dovetail with the evidence from the Hebrew
scriptures.
Epistolary and Mythologic Texts
Letters and narratives, of course, hold the promise of providing more
context from which to gain clues about the social institution that was
indicated by the Ugaritic words n 'r and n 'rt. The only extant letter in
Ugaritic in which the word n 'r appears is KTU 2.33, which comes from
the Royal Archives. It is a message to the king, using the Lady of Ugarit
as intermediary, from one Ewrsrm, who is encircled by the enemy and
wishes to withdraw to the side of Mount Amn. Apparently the king has
assigned him a levy of 2000 horses, which he says that he is unable to
deliver, owing to the press of the enemy. Although much is unclear
about his entreaty, he asserts, 'I will not expose my wife (or) n 'ry to the
face of the enemy' (11. 28-29). Clearly n 'r here is a dependent of the
37. On these terms, see J.C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from
Ugarit (Religious Texts Translation Series, 16; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), pp. 76, 95,
96, 108; A. van Selms, Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature (Pretoria
Oriental Series; London: Luzac, 1954), pp. 95, 96, 107.
38. As in the Hebrew texts, the feminine form appears far less commonly than
the masculine.
39. Stahli has come to nearly this same understanding, at least for KTU 4.108.
The story of Aqhat enumerates the duties of a son (which include setting up the 'Ancestor's stela', fixing the roof, and leading his father home when he is drunk, KTU
1.17.1.42-48) and also those of a daughter (fetching water and leading the donkey,
KTU 1.17. II. 1-5) (Stahli, Knabe, p. 49; Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, p. 69).
179
named individual, one for whom Ewrsrm has both affection and responsibility. A 'foster son' employed in the household or in some other way
functioning in the roles of a son would obviously be compatible with
this letter.
In the mythologic texts, we find n 'r as both noun and verb exclusively in texts relating to 'antidotes' or healing, either from snake
venom or from drunkenness. KTU 1.100 is a mythological/apotropaic
text in three sections: an account of 12 incantations (each addressed by
Sps to a different god) against snake bite, a mythical account of how
Hrn neutralized the venom of the snake, and a ritual involving a bride
and groom and the magic powers of a snake. Line 65, which reads
'r'rm.yn'rnh is rendered by most translators as a verbal form meaning
'to shake', although Virolleaud indicates that the verb fails to present
'aucun sens acceptable' ('any acceptable meaning').40 Tsevat, likewise,
while identifying the text as mythological and not merely an
incantation, admits difficulty with this line.41 Assuredly, however, this
is part of a ritual designed to bring healing.
In the account of the Feast of El (KTU 1.114), the first side of the
tablet contains the narrative account of the banquet, while the reverse,
which unfortunately is not in good condition, explains the prescription
needed to cure the hangover that Ilu suffers as a result of drinking to
excess at his feast.42 The third line of the reverse (which is 1. 28), reads
kmtrpa.hn.n'r, which Virolleaud read as "Voici 1'enfant' ('Here is the
child'), leaving open the meaning of the first word.43 More recently
Pope proposed that this form is the particle k- with enclitic emphatic
-ma, followed by a verb form that involves healing. He suggests that n'r
40. J. Nougayrol, et al. (eds.), Ugaritica. V/2. Les nouveaux textes tnythologiques et liturgiques de Ras Shamra (Mission Ras Shamra, 16; Paris: Imprimerie
Nationalc, 1968), p. 571. For additional background on this text, see de Moor,Religious Texts from Ugarit, pp. 146-56.
41. M. Tsevat, 'Der Schlangentext von Ugarit: UT 607-KTU 1.100-Ug V,
564ff.-RS 24.244', UF 11 (1979), pp. 759-78 [765].
42. On the mrzh (marzah feast), see: J.L. McLaughlin, 'The Marzah at Ugarit:
A Textual and Contextual Study', UF23 (1991), pp. 265-81. For background on
this text, see M.H. Pope, 'A Divine Banquet at Ugarit', in M.S. Smith (ed.), Probative Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag,
1994), pp. 175-77; de Moor, Religious Texts from. Ugarit, pp.134-37.
43. Nougayro) et al. (eds.), Ugaritica, V, p. 551.
180
might refer to El's malady or to his recovery from it.44 Margalit reads,
'If you would cure (him?), here is the remedy'.45 Dietrich, Loretz and
Sanmartin render the phrase, 'Wenn du heilst, das ist die Mischung' ('If
you would heal, this is the mixture'), assuming a relationship to the root
-HE II, 'to shake'.46 The translation of 11. 2-5 (27-30) by de Moor is
perhaps the most compelling: 'And with these they restored the strength
of his hands. When they had healed (him), look, he awoke. What should
one put on the brow of the unconscious patient?' What follows is an
herbal prescription with instructions for its application.47
Inevitably, these suggestions call to mind Job 33.25 and 2 Kgs 5.14,
both of which contain the Hebrew word ~J3] and which involve healing
Job and Naaman, respectively, of skin diseases. These have been understood as returning to the smooth skin of a child, but these Ugaritic texts
leave open the possibility that a verb, not a noun, should be understood
in these texts. The implications of all this for the present study of ~IU3 in
Hebrew are obvious. If the word forms from the root n 'r in these texts
are, in the end, determined to be verbs, they are probably not relevant to
the task at hand. If they are nouns, Virolleaud's suggestion, 'Behold,
the n V is consistent with what has been demonstrated in the Hebrew
text, if the word is understood to be within the semantic domain of service personnel. That a servant should be found at hand, presumably
bearing the prescribed materials, would be a reasonable understanding
of this line in view of the Hebrew. What is less appropriate is to understand this to refer to an infant or even a child, in light of the fact that the
overwhelming impression of the ages of D'HJJJ in Hebrew and of n'rm
in Ugaritic are young men of at least sufficient age to serve in military
and domestic service. Very young f~lU2 are quite special cases, often
designated by the adjective )Qp, as seen in Chapter 7.
Related issues are raised by KTU 1.107, another mythological/
apotropaic text, also involving the god Sps and snake venom, in this
instance used to banish the clouds that cover the earth. The badly damaged text reads, beginning at 1. 37:
44. Pope, Ugaritic and Biblical Literature, pp. 175-76.

45. B. Margalit, 'The Ugaritic Feat of the Drunken Gods: Another Look at RS
24.258 (KTU 1.114)', Maarav 2.1 (1979-80), pp. 65-120 [72].
46. M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, 'Der Stichometrische Aufbau von
RS 24.258 (= UG 5, s. 545 NR. 1)', UF1 (1975), pp. 109-14 [110, 113].
47. De Moor, Religious Texts from Ugarit, p. 136.
181
gr.srgzz.ybky.km.n'r
[wydm'.k]m..sgr.sps.bsmm.tqru
]plt.y[ J.md.nplt.bsr
].wtpky.k[m.]n'r.tdm'.km
The translation seems obvious: 'He [or emended to you] cried like a
1W, which is understood by most translators to be 'like a child', since
the word appears to be in a parallel construction with sgr, a word meaning 'small'. The 'crier' is assumed to be Ql-bl, son of Sps, but the progress of the narrative is difficult to follow because of the numerous
lacunae. Clearly, this text is concerned with the same motifs as those
discussed above. Once again, the question arises of whether to consider
this a child. Given the cultic context, we may think here of an individual who becomes a n 'r by being devoted by his parents to the service of
a deity or a temple, as Samuel was. In such a case, he may have been of
far more tender years than those D'HU] who were sent from their fathers'
houses to serve military roles or even domestic labor. Such separation
from family would, no doubt, produce weeping from a young child.
Indeed, a related understanding has been suggested for the crux in
1 Sam. 1.24: in place of the rather pointless translation, 'And the lad
was young' (or worse, 'and the lad was a lad', or indeed even the only
slightly more informative 'and the ~l>] began his service as a ~l0')
Frolov has suggested that young Samuel roared or growled, as a sign of
God's spirit being with him.48 In any case, this incantation text has too
many unanswered questions to yield a definitive answer, but it is at
least potentially compatible with the understanding of the social location of the "1^] as derived from the biblical materials.
Foodstuffs or Textiles
A few economic texts mention n 'r in very fragmentary contexts that
suggest quantities of flour or of tow (perhaps as fuel for the fire) or even
of textiles. In every case, the substance appears in connection with a
word dd, which appears to indicate a quantity or even a container. These
texts (KTU 4.60; 4.362; 4.402; 4.426; 4.663; 4.789) would seem to
suggest a material 'shaken out' or 'beaten out', and are thus likely to be
from an entirely different semantic field than is biblical "ll?!49
48. Indeed, a variant of this idea was already suggested by Althann (R. Althann,
'Some Texts in 1 Samuel', pp. 27-28; see also S. Frolov and V. Orel, 'Was the Lad
a Lad?', pp. 5-7).
49. Except perhaps for Judg. 16.6 and Isa. 1.31.
182
Personal Names
Two texts, KTU 4.12 and KTU 3.7, appear to use n'r as part of a
personal name. The former text is a list of persons designated as bn X.
The final entry in the list is one bn n'r!(?) il. Perhaps this represents a
theophoric name, designating 'servant of Ilu' as the patronym. An
intriguing possibility suggests itself. Perhaps the young person who
became a n'r by being dedicated by his parents to a deity or temple took
on such an appelation as his name. The second text contains a list of
individuals for whom one Msry 'vouches'. The reverse side of the tablet
appears to continue the list, and the final entry, at what is clearly the
bottom of the tablet, is n'r.b.ulm, N'r from Ulm, or perhaps better a n'r
from Ulm. We can only speculate, but clearly these names are not
inconsistent with the notion of service developed for Hebrew "UJ1
Seals, Ostraca and Other Inscriptions
A number of seals as well as impressions of seals have been found by
archaeologists in the Levant that are inscribed with a personal name
followed by ~1DJ or ~QU and then another personal name.50 At least one
Ammonite and one Phoenician seal bearing the same inscription have
been found as well.51 Obviously, the person who bore such a seal used
it in service to the other named individual, although the exact rank or
function of such persons is not specified. The discovery of these na 'a/and 'ebed seals in conjunction with Imlkjarhandles suggests that these
servants bore responsibility for managing agricultural estates and vineyards, probably seeing to the distribution of commodities for trade,
collecting commodities from those who actually worked the land, and
paying taxes.52 That a few servants were in positions as stewards that
required them to possess such a seal should not be taken as evidence
50. N. Avigad, 'New Light on the Na'ar Seals', in P.M. Cross, W.E. Lemke and
P.D. Miller, Jr (eds.), Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible
and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1976), pp. 294-300.
51. J. Naveh, 'Unpublished Phoenician Inscriptions from Palestine', IEJ 37
(1987), pp. 25-30; W.E. Aufrecht, A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions (Ancient
Near Eastern Texts Studies, 4; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), pp. 13738.
52. D. Ussishkin, 'Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions',
BASOR 223 (1976), pp. 1-14.
183
that all members of either group ("!>] or ~Q>) had positions of custodianship. Ordinary servants, who did not possess such tangible evidence
of their position, have simply vanished without a trace. We will never
know what fraction of D'HJJ] had managerial responsibilities, but they
were probably the exception.53
Although those scholars who have been influenced by the traditional
reading of the Egyptian evidence have asserted that the "!#] was of
'high rank', especially compared to the position of an ~QU, Avigad has
suggested quite the opposite: ' 'Ebed is known to have been the title of
high-ranking officers of the royal court, whereas the title na 'ar is never
mentioned in the texts among the highest officials of the realm.'54
Obviously, without an examination of the values of the society and the
attributes that bestowed status, the question of 'highness' cannot be
finally decided. Although their attendance on powerful people may
have given them a great deal of influence and indirect power, both of
these categories of workers were in service to others, engaged in building up the 'house' of another instead of their own. We should be cautious in exporting our own values to ancient Israel. While we may see
an administrative position on the behalf of a royal or noble household
('inside work, no heavy lifting') as a superior status, particularly compared with agricultural labor, for instance, the individuals involved
might have preferred to be working a piece of land of their own, siring
sons of their own, gaining respect and authority in the village of their
fathers.
Albright's original analysis of the first of the seal impressions that
bore the inscription I'lyqm n'rywkn asserted that this was the stamp of
Eliakim, Steward of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, which placed it in the
time frame 597-586 BCE.55 This decision caused some difficulties in
establishing the chronology of strata immediately above and below the
level in which the impression was found, and more recently scholars
have proposed the destruction layers of Sennacherib's campaign, 701
BCE.56 This has not only solved problems for archaeologists, but it
accords well with the time frame for the provenance of the Hebrew
53. Avigad, 'Na'ar Seals', p. 295.
54. Avigad, 'Na'ar Seals', p. 294.
55. W.F. Albright, 'The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of
Judah, with Some Observations on Ezekiel', JBL51 (1932), pp. 77-106.
56. Y. Garfinkel, 'The Eliakim Na'ar Yokan Seal Impressions: Sixty Years of
Confusion in Biblical Archaeology Research', BA 53 (1990), pp. 74-79.
184
texts, or at least the source materials for those narratives, in which "IJM
appears with the greatest frequency.
Phoenician, Aramaic, Akkadian and Greek Evidence
Phoenician
In addition to the seals and seal impressions mentioned above, two
other inscriptions, which come from Phoenician sources, employ a cognate of Hebrew ~li)l The first, the so-called Kilamuwa Inscription, is a
palace dedication from the second half of the ninth century BCE,found
in northwest Syria (KAI 24).57 In it, King Kilamuwa recounts the successes of his reign. On the second side, he says,
Him who had never seen the face of a sheep, I made the possessor of a
flock. Him who had never seen the face of an ox, I made the possessor of
a herd of cattle and a possessor of silver and a possessor of gold. He who
had not (even) seen linen since his youth, in my days he was covered
with byssus.58
The word appears as *~)S)ti?. Since the other situations that Kilamuwa
lists indicate poverty and lack of status rather than ages or stages of life,
an understanding of this phrase as 'since his servanthood' or 'na'arship'
or perhaps 'since his departure from his father's house' is quite tenable.
The other text (KAI 37) is a marble tablet coming from Cyprus
(Kition), and dating from the fourth-third century BCE.59 For background on Cyprus as a Phoenician city, see the recent article by Marguerite Yon.60 The text is a listing of obligations due to the priests of
the Temple of Astarte.61 The form of the word (A.8, 12 and B.ll) is
NSp U~\y^7 followed by a number, so, for instance 'for the two servants,
57. H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und aramdische Inschriften, I

(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962), pp. 4-5; idem, Kanaanaische und aramdische Inschriften, II (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), pp. 30-34.
58. ANET, pp. 654-55.
59. Donner and Rollig, Kanaanaische und aramdische Inschriften, I, p. 8; idem,
Kanaanaische und aramdische Inschriften, II, pp. 54-55.
60. M. Yon, 'Kition in the Tenth to Fourth Centuries B.C.' (trans. W.A.P.
Childs), BASOR 308 (1997), pp. 1-17.
61. M. Delcor, 'Le personnel du Temple d'Astarte a Kition d'apres une tablette
Phonicienne (CIS 86 A et B)', UF 11 (1979), pp. 147-64.
185
two qp', indicating some measure of which the identity is uncertain.62

The resemblances between this text and the various personnel lists from
Ugarit are obvious, and suggest the same sort of social location,
namely, a "!!)] dedicated to the temple.
Aramaic
From the Aramaic-speaking Jewish garrison stationed at Elephantine in
Egypt has come a collection of papyri of various sorts from the fifth
century BCE.63 One of those is the Wisdom of Ahiqar, 11 sheets of
papyrus whose first 78 lines are devoted to telling the story of Ahiqar,
while the remainder preserve his proverbs or teachings. Long before
this copy of Ahiqar in Aramaic was discovered, versions of the story
and proverbs were known in Syriac, Armenian and Greek, among other
languages, as well as references to it in the book of Tobit.64 The first
line of the aphorisms contains the word "IU], although its meaning is far
from clear. The Aramaic of the first two lines, and Cowley's translation
of most of Column vi are:
Col. vi, lines 79-80:
Col. vi, lines 79-94

What is stronger than wine foaming in the press?
The son who is trained and taught, and on whose feet the fetter is put
shall prosper. Withhold not thy son from the rod, if thou canst not keep
him from wickedness. If I smite thee, my son,65 thou wilt not die, and if I
62. R.S. Tomback, A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic
Languages (SBLDS, 32; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), p. 217.
63. For background on this Jewish community, see B. Porten, Archives from
Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1960).
64. For an excellent (and brief) survey of the various recensions of Ahiqar and
their relationships to each other, see J.C. Greenfield, 'The Wisdom of Ahiqar', in
J.P. Day, R.P. Gordon and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel:
Essays in Honour ofJ.A. Emerton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995),
pp. 43-52.
65. 'My son' here probably refers to the student for whom Ahiqar's instruction
is offerred, not necessarily biological offspring. Day points out that the Egyptian
wisdom tradition never uses 'my son' in instructions, while the book of Proverbs
makes liberal use of the expression, as do Babylonian and Sumerian wisdom texts,
along with Ahiqar. This, he suggests, is evidence of the fact that Israel's wisdom
186

leave (thee) to thine own heart thou wilt not live. A blow for a slave,
rebuke for a maid, and for all thy servants discipline. A man who buys a
licentious slave (or) a thievish maid brings anxiety into his house, and
disgraces the name of his father and his offspring with the reputation of
his wantonness. [Lines 86-91 deal in animal analogies.] Two things are a
merit (?), and of three there is pleasure to Shamash: one who drinks wine
and gives it (to others), one who restrains (?) wisdom...and he hears a
word and does not reveal (it). Behold, this is precious before Shamash.
But one who drinks wine and does not give it to others and his wisdom
goes astray...who sees?... Thou hast placed...the peoples their wisdom
the gods... (1 94)'66
Among the other suggestions for translations of these two words are
'braying ass', or 'fermenting wine', which presumably would froth or
'shake' in some manner.67 None of the previous suggestions has won
over the field, and they are obviously not germane to the discussion of
~II5] as some sort of personage. Clearly, however, this entire section of
sayings is concerned with slaves or servants of one sort or another, for
which a variety of Aramaic terms are employed. Furthermore, the column ends by returning to the topic of drinking wine. In light of those
facts, I would like to propose the translation,
What is stronger than an ass? A ~IJJ] at the winepress.
This translation stays within the semantic domain of 'servanthood',

alludes to the tendency of D1"!!?] to be troublesome,68 and forms a loose
inclusio with the final discussion of wine-drinking. Such a translation
would dovetail nicely with the understanding of ~1U3 developed from
biblical narratives. The other proposals do not undermine that understanding, they simply make this text irrelevant.
The word "1U3 does not occur in biblical Aramaic. The Targumim
avoid the use of 1U] and mi)3, preferring instead KOÎD and KnQîr.
The Talmudim and Midrashim have moved well beyond the time frame
tradition is more influenced by Semitic than by Egyptian conventions (J. Day,

'Foreign Semitic Influence on the Wisdom of Israel', in Day, Gordon and Williamson (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel, pp. 55-70 [66]).
66. A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.: Edited, with Translation and Notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), pp. 222-23.
67. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. 233; J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary
of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions with Appendices by R.C. Steiner, A. Mosak
Moshavi andB. Porten. II. M-T (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), p. 739.
68. See Chapter 6 above.
187
of the narratives in which the word appears in Hebrew, and the Rabbis
developed a fairly specialized notion of the meanings of the words, but
those discussions clearly reflect a later attempt to recover the nuance of
the word and will not be pursued in the current discussion.69
Akkadian
Because of the failure of Akkadian to retain proto-Semitic 'ayin, establishing cognates in the Akkadian literature is inconclusive, and so will
be treated only briefly here. The likely candidate as a parallel to Hebrew
~l0 is Akkadian ndru, a loan word meaning 'singer', which of course
refers to temple musicians.70 This is a far more specialized usage than
the Hebrew, but several intriguing texts suggest that the social location
of these singers may be similar to that of the DHi)] and Dili)] in Israel,
that is, dependent servants, vulnerable, perhaps captives. For instance:
'I took as booty his courtiers' LU.NAR.ME SAL.NAR ME (OIP 2
52.32).
'I removed male and female musicians and counted them as spoil' (Asb.
70 vi 28).
'He will give the price of the slave girl and of the musician to PN' (HSS
19114.11).71
While these are tantalizing, the connection to the Hebrew is too inconclusive to sustain the weight of any conclusions based on them.
Greek
The LXX uses several words in its translation of ~IU] and mi?] with no
obvious pattern, thus: Ttoic;, TiaiSiciKoq, TiaiStoKn., 7iai8dpiov, veavioKOt;, TiapOevoc;.72 These exhibit the same range of meanings as the
69. Bamberger, for example, cites evidence that the rabbis classified a girl as
na 'arah from the age of 12 years and one day (if by then she had pubic hair) until
six months later, when she became a bogereth. That this construct has no bearing
on the biblical texts needs no elaboration! (B.J. Bamberger, 'Qetanah, Na'arah,
Bogereth', HUCA 32 [1961], pp. 281-94).
70. Gelb suggests that this is a Semitic loan word; CAD indicates it was borrowed from Sumerian (I.J. Gelb, Glossary of Old Akkadian [Materials for the
Assyrian Dictionary; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957], p. 193).
71. J.A. Brinkman (ed,), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago. XI. N, Part 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980),
pp. 376-78.
72. Also represented, with somewhat less frequency: veoq, vf|7uoi;, Kopdoiov,
GepOOTCOv, 8oC>?ioc;, 5idKovo<;.
188
English words by which the Hebrew is translated. They cover, in some

instances, both slave and free, child and young adult. Apparently, by
the Hellenistic period, the particular connotations of the Hebrew words
had been lost and only a general sense remained. Thus the Hebrew term
was translated opportunistically and eclectically. This is certainly
consistent with our finding that, in later biblical texts, the words no
longer functioned to indicate such a specific social location as in the
premonarchic and early monarchic narratives.
The Futile Search for a Root Meaning
The basic methodology of this study has been to examine the use of the
Hebrew words ~1U] and miJ] in the context of narratives, which is the
only appropriate approach for determining the social location that the
words denoted. Language is, after all, a product of the social world in
which it is used, and as such is totally dependent on the understanding
of native speakers to give it meaning. No field more than biblical studies has suffered from the excesses of those who seek to distill pure
meaning, untainted by context, by endeavoring to discover the oldest
usage of words and to give them an etymology. The dangers of this are
made clear by Barr:
The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about
its meaning but about its history; it is only as a historical statement that it
can be responsibly asserted, and it is quite wrong to suppose that the
etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its 'proper' meaning
in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period.
Therefore, only with an understanding that an etymology merely tells

us an earlier meaning, which cannot be privileged as the supposed real
meaning, can we speculate about a vector along which the word has
traveled through time, arriving at the period under consideration with a
particular denotation. Nevertheless, the temptation to such speculation
is too great to resist, although any hypothesis must remain unproven.
Since both Hebrew and Ugaritic have other perfectly functional ways
to express the concept 'young', I will reject at the outset the notion that
the 'root' meaning of ~l!5] is 'young'.74 The vast majority of the persons
referred to as n'rm in both languages are adults. Biblical D1"!!?: are very
73. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, p. 109.
74. Hebrew TU^, ]Ep, Ugaritic sgr, for instance.
189
rarely children, and what we view as 'early adulthood' scarcely seems

'young' in a world where hard work and marriage started early and
where life was very likely to be over by the age of 40.75 With that in
view, a majority of our D"HU3 were probably middle-aged! It seems that
the direction of semantic shift over time moved toward a connotation of
youthfulness, not the other way around.
The proposed etymologies that rely on some connection to the braying of a donkey and the breaking voice of an adolescent male are simply too strained for further consideration. Buxdorf long ago proposed
that the 'root' meaning of ")!)] was 'puer, puerulus, infans', because the
child is 'excusus ex utero maternd', and he thus imagined the word to
be derived from n'r II, 'to shake'.76 This creative image lacks credibility, since the DHU] were almost never babies or small boys (and virtually never spoken of at the moment in which they were 'shaken' from
their mothers' wombs). Nevertheless the word, as found in the narratives of early Israel, does seem to indicate an individual who has been
'shaken from the nest' as it were, stripped from his father's house.
Unless a great many new and unexpected documents are discovered and
deciphered, this fanciful reconstruction comes as near to a root or an
etymology as I intend to go.
75. Stager, 'Archaeology of the Family', pp. 18-21; Carney, The Shape of the
Past, p. 88.
76. ThWAT, V, p. 508.
Chapter 9
CONCLUSIONS
Social Location of the ~l#] and mU3 r'n Ancient Israel
Power, Status, Role

After examining so many biblical texts, what have we discovered about
the meaning of the Hebrew words ~l^3 and ma]? Consistently, the individuals so named in pre-exilic prose narratives are in some way separated from the DK fPD into which they had been born. Most often, they
are attached to another ITU, the house of their master, and they perform
service of a variety of types. Meyers observes that 'military captives,
transients (sojourners), and supplementary workers, indentured from
other families may also have been included in the compound family'. 1
This is a good description of the sorts of individuals who might find
themselves as n^lUl Sometimes the 'household' to which they were
attached and in which they served was a shrine or temple or military
encampment. In any case, the head of the house or camp served as their
patron and surrogate father.
Many of the D'HW were unremarkable, performing the most mundane
(and sometimes arduous) of tasks. A few were in intimate attendance on
powerful persons in the stories and were able to exercise considerable
influence. Influence, however, is only indirect power, and as such is
'feminized'. It is the sort of power that women were able to exercise,
and therefore less valued, less honorable than direct power, which is a
masculine value. In addition, this power was generally the power to
accomplish the master's goals, not one's own. A "IJJ; might be in a
position of considerable responsibility, but it was responsibility to build
up the house of his master, not of himself or of his own father. With
only one exception, men whose status was as ~ID3 did not own land, did
1.
Meyers, 'The Family in Early Israel', p. 17.
9. Conclusions
191
not marry, did not have sons. Their labors did not advance their own
honor, but the honor of their masters. Thus we found that only in terms
of our own contemporary values could we consider the D"1"!!?] to hold
'high positions' or to be of 'high status'
This description of the ")!)] which we derived from pre-exilic prose
texts was also applicable to the use of the designation in postexilic
prose writings as well, for the most part, although the frequency of use
in later sources diminished substantially. In poetic sources, these words
gradually lost this precise nuance and took on a more generalized sense
of 'youth'.
Becoming a 1U]
For the D'HU3 who function as servants, the biblical texts almost never
provide direct information about the circumstances that led individuals
to leave the 'family farm' and attach themselves to other households. In
a few cases capture is specified or alluded to. In most cases, economic
circumstances probably caused individuals to be hired out, indentured
or sold, and mounting adversity probably often led from the temporary
forms of service to the more permanent types of servitude. Our evidence for these institutions comes principally from the prophets and the
law codes, however, and its exact relationship to the ")>] must be by
implication only. Probably the ")JJ] was at least nominally a free citizen.
Much of the confusion that has arisen about the meaning of "IU3 and
miO has come from those texts in which persons are not functioning as
servants and are sometimes not physically away from home. We have
seen that these are D'H!}] for whom the tie to the 38 JTQ, the bond to the
father, has been severed by extraordinary circumstances. Even while
physically 'at home' they have become disembedded from the household, seen as a protective and controling sphere.
Other Words in the Same Semantic Domain
The relationship of "I5J3 and mU2 to other Hebrew words for disadvantaged persons must await studies that determine, as precisely as the evidence will allow, the social locations for those terms. Nevertheless a
few preliminary observations can be made. Occasionally, a "IU3 is also
called "CU, but the latter were probably permanent slaves. Analysis of
servitude has been complicated by the fact that persons seeking to
ingratiate themselves with those more powerful than themselves (that is
seeking patronage) refer to themselves as ~[~ni) or "]il32?. The widow
192
(n]Q^) and the "I I) 3 or m>3 seem to occupy similar social locations,
with dislocation striking the female characters even more harshly than
the males. There is not sufficient overlap in the texts to say much about
the relationship of "1^2 to "13, although possibly the "12 is one who finds
himself outside the bounds of his ethnic group or nation for reasons
similar to the ones which cast the "IU3 outside the bounds of the household.
How then shall we translate "1^3? No single English word seems to
capture the implications of the social location of the 1U3. Servant,
fledgling, outcast, apprentice, fosterlingeach capture a portion of the
sense of the word. In anthropological language 'client' is perhaps the
most accurate term, but the associations of that word with modern professions makes it inappropriate in translating "IJJ3 in the stories in which
the D'HJtt appear.2
Were the D"H^3 the 'apiru?
David's followers were at times called D*'"l^3, and they also fit the
model of 'social banditry' associated with the term 'apiruin the Amarna
letters. The question must then be asked whether the D'HItt and the
'apiru represent the same sociological phenomenon. The debates over
this term have been extensive and vigorous, and this is not the time to
enter into an extended analysis of the El Amarna evidence. Nevertheless, a few observations can be made based on what is generally agreed
about the 'apiru. The controversy over whether it represents an ethnic
designation has no bearing on how it might relate to Hebrew DH^3:
most of our characters have been Israelite, although individuals of a few
other ethnic groups are also called D'Hl^j. The social location of the
'apiru is generally one of marginalization, living in groups at the
fringes of settled communities by raiding or by hiring out as mercenaries. In this respect, very few of the D"""!!^ could be categorized with the
'apiru. Despite the easy identification with the individuals who were
gathered around David, most D'HJ)3 are not found in 'bands' and do not
live by 'social banditry.' Most are attached, individually or in small
numbers, to settled households. Although thought to be 'troublesome',
2. Paula Hiebert translates 13 by the word 'client', which is wonderfully apt,
although it would be appropriate in most cases to add that a "13 is a 'client in search
of a patron', whereas a "1U3 is a client who has already established such a relationship (Hiebert, ' "Whence Shall Help Come to Me?", p. 126.)
9. Conclusions
193
they are not presented in the narratives as living 'outside the law'. That
having been said, however, the clear possibility existed for movement
between one status and the other in any time and place in which both
groups coexisted. Both groups had limited prospects within the existing
social order. A "15J3 who lost his patron (or was unable to find one)
might well have joined a band of 'apiru. One of the 'apiru might have
left the band for a position of service in a household or military camp.
Beyond this sort of fluidity, no identification can be securely made
between the two groups.3
Implications
The most apparent implication of these findings about the social location of the 1iJ] and m0 in ancient Israel is that understanding their
social location will allow us to better understand the social world of the
biblical texts in general, and the realities of the narratives in which the
word is found in particular. The reader is left to explore the extent of
that implication, but two specific cases will be mentioned briefly.
The text of Proverbs (22.15; 23.13; 29.15) suggests (or so we have
long understood), 'Spare the rod, spoil the child'. This has been interpreted as a biblical mandate for spanking children. Understanding that
these verses refer not to children but to household servants of adult
years may come as a great surprise to some (and a great relief to
others!).
A more serious point of contact with the social location of the ~l^]
comes from Luke's parable of the Prodigal Son. In a recent article,
Harrill has pointed out that the prodigal has been forced, by squandering his resources, to hire himself out as 'dependent labor', submitting to
an institution called in Greek paramone, which shares many similarities
3. For overviews of this phenomenon, see: Chaney, 'Ancient Palestinian Peasant Movements', esp. pp. 72-83; A.F. Rainey, 'Unruly Elements in Late Bronze
Canaanite Society', in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds.),
Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) pp. 481-96; R.A. Horsley, 'Apiru and Cossacks: A Comparative
Analysis of Social Form and Historical Role', in Jacob Neusner et al. (eds.), Religion, Literature, and Society in Ancient Israel, Formative Christianity and Judiasm
(New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism, 2; Lanham, MD, University Press of
America, 1987), pp. 3-26.
194
with the social location of the "l#l4 Our study of the ")D3 can deepen our
understanding of this parable, and further study of this first-century
indentured status can suggest more about the social location of the
Hebrew ~)U1 In this way, we can increase our understanding of the
realities of life for 'second-class citizens' of the worlds of both the First
and the Second Testaments.
4. J.A. Harrill, 'The Indentured Labor of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15.15)', JBL
115 (1996), pp. 714-17.
APPENDIX
Named DHW
Abijah 1 Kgs 14.3, 17

Abishag 1 Kgs 1.2-4
Absalom 2 Sam. 13.32; 14.21; 18.5,
12, 29, 32
Benjamin Gen. 43.8; 44.22, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34
David 1 Sam. 17.33, 42, 55, 58
(16.11)
Jacob and Esau Gen. 25.27

Jeremiah Jer. 1.6, 7
Jeroboam 1 Kgs 11.28; 2 Chron.13.7
Jether Judg. 8.20
Joseph Gen. 37.2; 41.12
Joshua Exod. 33.11
Josiah 2 Chron. 34.3
Moses Exod. 2.6
Purah Judg. 7.10, 11
Ephraim and Manesseh Gen. 48.16

Esther
Gehazi 2 Kgs 4.12, 22, 24, 25, 38;
5.20, 22, 23; 6.15, 17; 8.4 (2 Kgs
9.4?)
Hadad 1 Kgs 11.17
Ichabod 1 Sam. 4.21
Isaac Gen. 22.12
Ishmael Gen. 21.12, 17, 18, 19, 20
Ruth
Samson Judg. 13.5, 7, 8, 12, 25
Samuel 1 Sam. 1.22, 24, 25, 27; 2.11,
18, 21, 26; 3.1,8
Shechem Gen. 34.19
Solomon 1 Kgs 3.7; 1 Chron. 22.5;
29.1
Zadok 1 Chron. 12.28
Zechariah Zech. 2.8
Ziba 2 Sam. 9.9; 16.1,2; 19.18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aistleitner, Joseph, Worterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache (Worterbuch; Berlin: Akademie

Verlag, 1967).
Albright, William F., 'Mitannian Maryannu, "Chariot-Warrior", and the Canaanite and
Egyptian Equivalents', AfO 6 (Spring 1930-31), pp. 217-21.
'The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of Judah, with Some Observations
on Ezekiel', JBL 51 (1932), pp. 77-106.
Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
Althann, Robert, 'Northwest Semitic Notes on Some Texts in 1 Samuel', JNSL12 (1984),
pp. 27-34.
Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman,Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24A; New York: Doubleday, 1989).
Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 24; Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1980).
Anderson, A.A., 2 Samuel (ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker; WBC; Dallas:
Word Books, 1989).
Aufrecht, Walter E., A Corpus of Ammonite Inscriptions (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and
Studies, 4; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989).
Avigad, Nachman, 'New Light on the Na'Ar Seals', in Frank Moore Cross, Werner E.
Lemke and Patrick D. Miller, Jr (eds.), Magnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God:
Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 294-300.
Baltzer, Klaus, 'Liberation from Debt Slavery After the Exile in Second Isaiah and Nehemiah', in Miller, Jr, Hanson and McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion, pp. 47784.
Bamberger, B.J., 'Qetanah, Na'arah, Bogareth', HUCA 32 (1961), pp. 281-94.
Barr, James, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961).
Barrick, W. Boyd, The Word BMH in the Old Testament' (PhD dissertation; Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1977).
Barstad, Hans M., The Religious Polemics of Amos: Studies in the Preaching of Amos 2,7b8; 4,1-13; 5,1-27; 6,4-7; 8,14 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1984).
Bendor, S., The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit 'Ab)
from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (ed. Emunah Katzenstein; Jerusalem
Biblical Series; Jerusalem: Simor, 1996).
Berlin, Adele, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond Press,
1983).
Bird, Phyllis, ' "To Play the Harlot": An Inquiry Into an Old Testament Metaphor', in
Peggy L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1989), pp. 75-94.
Bibliography
197
Boling, Robert G., Judges: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB, 6A; Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1975).
'Judges: Notes', in Wayne A. Meeks (ed.), The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised
Standard Version (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), pp. 367-407.
Borowski, Oded, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987).
Breasted, J.H., Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to
the Persian Conquest. III. The Nineteenth Dynasty (Ancient Records of Egypt, 2nd
series; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906).
Bright, John, Jeremiah (AB, 21 Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965).
Brinkman, J.A. (ed.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. XI. N, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).
Brueggemann, Walter, First and Second Samuel (ed. James Luther Mays; IBC; Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990).
Burchardt, Max, Die altkanaandischen Fremdworte und Eigennamen im Aegyptischen:
Erster Teil: die kritische Analyse der Schreibung (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1909).
Campbell, Antony F., SJ, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document
(1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10) (CBQMS, 17; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1986).
Campbell, Edward F., Ruth (AB, 7; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975).
Campbell, John K., Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral
Values in a Greek Mountain Community (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964).
Carasik, Michael, 'Ruth 2,7: Why the Overseer Was Embarrassed', ZAW 107 (1995),
pp. 493-94.
Carlson, R.A., David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second
Book of Samuel (trans. Eric J. Sharpe and Stanley Rudman; Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksell, 1964).
Carney, Thomas F., The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity (Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press, 1975).
Caspar!, D. Wilhelm, Die Samuelbucher(KAT:; Leipzig: Deichert, 1926).
Caspari, Wilhelm, 'The Literary Type and Historical Value of 2 Samuel 15-20', in David
M. Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and
Other Scholars 1906-1923 (trans. David E. Orton; JSOTSup, 116; Sheffield: Almond
Press, 1991), pp. 59-88.
Chancy, Marvin L., 'Ancient Palestinian Peasant Movements and the Formation of Premonarchic Israel', in David Noel Freedman and David Frank Graf (eds.), Palestine in
Transition: The Emergence of Ancient Israel (SWBA, 2; Sheffield: Almond Press,
1983).
'Latifundialization and Prophetic Diction in Eighth-Century Israel and Judah' (Unpublished paper, Colloquium on Reformed Faith and Economics, Ghost Ranch, 1987).
Chinchen, Delbert, 'The Patron-Client System: A Model of Indigenous Discipleship',
Evangelical Missions Quarterly 31 (October 1995), pp. 446-51.
Chirichigno, Gregory, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 141;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993).
Chow, John K., Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth (JSNTSup,
75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).
Clements, Ronald E., Isaiah 1-39 (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980).
Clines, David J.A., Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984).
Job 1-20 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1989).
198
Conroy, Charles, Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20 (AnBib, 8;
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978).
Coogan, Michael David, 'Job's Children', in Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard and Piotr
Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature
in Honor of William L. Moran (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990).
Coote, Robert B., Amos Among the Prophets: Composition and Theology (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1981).
Cowley, A., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.: Edited, with Translation and Notes
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923).
Cross, Frank Moore, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973).
Criisemann, Frank, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans.
Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).
Cutler, B. (in collaboration with John Macdonald), 'Identification of the Na'Ar in the
Ugaritic Texts', UF 8 (1976), pp. 27-36.
Dahood, Mitchell, 'The Breakup of Stereotyped Phrases: Some New Examples.' JANES 5
(1973), pp. 83-89.
Psalms HI: 101-150: Introduction, Translation, and Notes with an Appendix, the Grammar of the Psalter (AB, 17A; New York: Doubleday, 1970).
Ras Shamra Parallels: The Text from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, I (AnOr, 49; Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972).
Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer, 'Literary Perspectives on Prophetic Literature', in James Luther
Mays, David L. Petersen and Kent Harold Richards (eds.), Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), pp. 127-43.
Davis, John, The People of the Mediterranean: An Essay in Comparative Social Anthropology (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977).
Day, J., 'Foreign Semitic Influence on the Wisdom of Israel', in J.P. Day, R.P. Gordon and
H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J.A.
Emerton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 55-70.
Delcor, M., 'Le personnel du Temple d'Astartii a Kition d'apres une tablette Phonicienne
(CIS 86 A et B)', UF 11 (1979), pp. 147-64.
DeVries, Simon J., 1 Kings (eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker; WBC; Waco,
TX: Word Books, 1985).
Dhorme, E., A Commentary on the Book of Job (trans. Harold Knight; London: Thomas
Nelson, 1967).
Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz and J. Sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus
Ugarit (AOAT, 24; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976).
Dietrich, W., Prophetic und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum
Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT; Gb'ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).
Donner, H., and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und aramaische Inschriften (2 vols.; Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1962, 1964).
Driver, Samuel R., and George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Book of Job: Together with a New Translation (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1921).
Eisenstadt, S.N., and Louis Roniger, 'Patron-Client Relations as a Model of Structuring
Social Exchange', Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (1980), pp. 42-77.
Bibliography
199
Elliott, John H., 'Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian Society: A Short Reading
Guide', FF 3.4 (December 1987), pp. 39-48.
Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow, Aegyptisches Handworterbuch (Berlin: Verlag von
Reuther & Reichard, 1921).
Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn, Torah as Narrative and Narrative as Torah', in James Luther
Mays, David L. Petersen and Kent Harold Richards (eds.), Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1995), pp. 13-30.
Fewell, Danna Nolan, and David M. Gunn, 'Tipping the Balance: Steinberg's Reader and
the Rape of Dinah', JBL 110.2 (1991), pp. 193-211.
Fokkelman, Jan P., Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation
Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981).
Fox, Nili, 'Royal Officials and Court Families: A New Look at the yeladimin in 1 Kings 2',
BA 59 (1996), pp. 225-32.
Frick, Frank S., The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Models and Theories (SWBA, 4; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985).
Frolov, Serge, and Vladimir Orel, 'Was the Lad a Lad? On the Interpretation of I Sam
1.24', BN 81 (1996), pp. 5-7.
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical
Transformation of Pagan Myth(New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1992).
'Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible', Semeia 45 (1988), pp. 89-102.
Gardiner, Alan H., Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. I. Text (London: Oxford University
Press, 1947).
The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II (Oxford: Grifffith Institute, Ashmolean
Museum, 1960).
Garfinkel, Yosef, 'The Eliakim Na'Ar Yokan Seal Impressions: Sixty Years of Confusion
in Biblical Archaeology Research', BA 53 (1990), pp. 74-79.
Garnsey, Peter, and Richard Sailer. The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).
Gelb, I.J., Glossary of Old Akkadian (Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957).
Gordis, Robert, The Book of Job: Commentary New Translation and Special Studies (New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978).
Gordon, Cyrus H., Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and
Prose Text (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949).
f/7(AnOr, 38; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965).
Gottwald, Norman K., The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia:
The Tribes ofYahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979).
Gray, John, / & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963).
The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament (VTSup, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1957).
The New Century Bible Commentary: Joshua, Judges, Ruth (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).
Greenfield, J.C., 'The Wisdom of Ahiqar', in J.P. Day, R.P. Gordon and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour ofJ.A. Emerton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 43-52.
200
Gressmann, Hugo, Die dlteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetic Israels (SAT, 2.1;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921).
'The Oldest History Writing in Israel', in David M. Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in
Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars, 1906-1923 (trans. David
E. Orton; JSOTSup, 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991).
Habel, Norman C., The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1985).
Hamilton, Victor P., The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995).
Hanson, K.C., 'BTB's Reader's Guide to Kinship', BTB 24 (1994), pp. 183-94.
Hanson, Paul D., Isaiah 40-66 (IBC; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,
1995).
Harrisell, J.A., 'The Indentured Labor of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15.15)', JBL 115 (1996),
pp. 714-17.
Heltzer, Michael, 'The New-Assyrian Sakintu and the Biblical Sokenet (1 Reg 1,4)', In La
femme dans le Proche-Orient antique: XXXIHe Rencontre assyriologique Internationale (Paris: Recherches sur les Civilisations, 1987).
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm, / and II Samuel (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1964).
Hiebert, Paula S., ' "Whence Shall Help Come to Me?": The Biblical Widow', in Peggy L.
Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1989).
Hiebert, Robert J.V., 'Deuteronomy 22.28-29 and Its Premishnaic Interpretations', CBQ 56
(April 1994), pp. 203-20.
Killers, Delbert R., Lamentations: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 7A; Garden
Hobsbawm, Eric J., Bandits (New York: Pantheon, rev. edn, 1981).
'Social Banditry', in H.A. Handsberger (ed.), Rural Protest (New York: Barnes &
Noble, 1973).
Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions with
Appendices by R.C. Steiner, A. Mosak Moshavi and B. Porten. II. M-T(Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1995).
Hollister, C. Warren, 'Knights and Knight Service', in Joseph R. Strayer (ed.), Dictionary
of the Middle Ages. VII. Italian Renaissance-Mabinogi (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986), pp. 276-79.
Hopkins, David C., The Highlands of Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early Iron Age
(SWBA, 3; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985).
Horsley, R.A., 'Apiru and Cossacks: A Comparative Analysis of Social Form and Historical Role', in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Religion, Literature, and Society in Ancient Israel,
Formative Christianity and Judaism (New Perspectives in Ancient Judaism, 2; Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987), pp. 3-26.
Hubbard, Robert L., The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988).
Janzen, J. Gerald, Job (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985).
Jastrow, Morris, Jr, The Book of Job: Its Origin, Growth and Interpretation Together with
a New Translation Based on a Revised Test (London: J.B. Lippincott, 1920).
Kitchen, K.A., Ramesside Inscriptions. II. Historical and Biographical(Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1979).
Bibliography
201
Klein, Lillian R., 'Honor and Shame in Esther', in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith, and Susanna (Feminist Companion to the Bible, 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 149-75.
Klein, Ralph W., 1 Samuel (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983).
'Israel/Today's Believers and the Nations: Three Test Cases', CurTM 24.3 (1997),
pp. 232-37.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament (rev. Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1995).
Kooij, Arie van der, The Story of David and Goliath: The Early History of its Text', ETL
68.1 (April 1992), pp. 118-31.
Kuhnigk, W., Nordwestsemitische Studien zum Hoseabuch (BibOr, 27; Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1974).
Labov, William, Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972).
Laniak, Tim, 'EstherA Tale of Honor and Shame' (Paper presented at SBL Annual
Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, 1994).
Lasine, Stuart, 'Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading: The Reader as Judge of the
Dispute between Mephibosheth and Ziba', HS 30 (1989), pp. 49-69.
Lenski, Gerhard, and Jean Lenski, Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978).
Levenson, Jon D., Esther: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox
Press, 1997).
Liddell, H.G. (ed.), An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon Founded Upon the Seventh
Edition of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1889).
Linton, Ralph, The Study of Man (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1936).
Lipifiski, Edward, 'Skn et Sgn dans le semitique occidental du nord', UF 5 (1973), pp. 191207.
Long, Burke O., 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL, 9; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984).
2 Kings (FOTL, 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991).
Loretz, Oswald, 'Ugaritisch Skn-Skt und hebraisch Skn-Sknt', Z4W94 (1982), pp. 126-27.
Lundbom, Jack R., 'Rhetorical Structures in Jeremiah 1', ZAW 103 (1991), pp. 193-210.
Lyke, Larry L., 'Where Does "the Boy" Belong? Compositional Strategy in Genesis
21.14', CBQ 56.4 (1994), pp. 637-48.
Macdonald, John, 'The Role and Status of the Suharu in the Mari Correspondence.' JAOS
96.1 (1976), pp. 57-68.
The Status and Role of the Na'Ar in Israelite Society', JNES 35.3 (July 1976), pp. 14770.
The Unique Ugaritic Personnel Text KTU 4.102', UF 10 (1978), pp. 161-73.
Mace, David R., Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953).
Malina, Bruce J., The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology
(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, rev. edn, 1993).
'Patron and Client: The Analogy Behind Synoptic Theology', FF 4.1 (March 1988),
pp. 2-31.
202
Malina, Bruce, and Richard Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic

Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
Margalit, Baruch, 'The Ugaritic Feat of the Drunken Gods: Another Look at RS 24.258
(KTU 1.114)', Maarav 2.1 (1979-80), pp. 65-120.
Matthews, Victor H., and Don C. Benjamin, 'The Elder', Bible Today30 (1992), pp. 17074.
'Social Sciences and Biblical Studies', in Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible
(Semeia, 68; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 7-21.
Social World of Ancient Israel: 1250-587 BCE (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993).
Mayer, Walter, and Ronald Mayer-Opificius. 'Die Schlacht bei QadeS: Der Versuch einer
neuen Rekonstruktion', UF 26 (1994), pp. 321-68.
Mayes, A.D.H. Deuteronomy (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).
Mays, James Luther, Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969).
McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980).
II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 9; Garden
'1 Samuel: Notes', in Wayne A. Meeks (ed.), The HarperCollins Study Bible: New
Revised Standard Version (New York: HarperCollins, 1993).
McKenzie, John L., The Elders in the Old Testament', Bib 40 (1959), pp. 522-40.
Second Isaiah (AB, 20; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968).
McLaughlin, John L., 'The Marzaat Ugarit: A Textual and Contextual Study', UF 23
(1991), pp. 265-81.
McNutt, Paula M., The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in
Ancient Society (JSOTSup, 108; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990).
Mendenhall, George E., The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973).
Meyer, Eduard, Geschichte des Altertums. II/l. Die Zeit der agyptischen Grossmacht
(Berlin: J.G. Cotta'sche Buchhandlung, 1929).
Meyers, Carol L., Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1988).
The Family in Early Israel', in Leo G. Perdue, Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins and
Carol Meyers (eds.), Families in Ancient Israel (Family, Religion, and Culture;
Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997), pp. 1-47.
' "To Her Mother's House": Considering a Counterpart to the Israelite Bet 'ab', in David
Jobling (ed.), The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K.
Gottwaldon His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 1991), pp. 39-52.
'Procreation, Production, and Protection: Male-Female Balance in Early Israel', JAAR
51.4 (1983), pp. 569-93.
Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (AB, 25C; New York: Doubleday,
1993).
Miller, P.D., Jr, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in
Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987).
Montgomery, James A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings
(ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951).
Moor, Johannes C. de, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Religious Texts
Translation Series, 16; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987).
Bibliography
203
Moore, Carey A., Esther: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB, 7B; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1971).
Moxnes, Halvor, 'Honor and Shame' (BTB Readers Guide) BTB 23, pp. 167-76.
'Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts', in J.H. Neyrey (ed.),
Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 241-68.
Mulder, Martin Jan, 'Versuch zur Deutung von Sokenet in 1 Kon 1:2,4', VT 22 (1972),
pp. 43-54.
Naveh, Joseph, 'Unpublished Phoenician Inscriptions from Palestine', IEJ 37 (1987),
pp. 25-30.
Niditch, Susan. The "Sodomite" Theme in Judges 19-20: Family, Community, and Social
Disintegration', CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 365-78.
Naveh, J., 'Unpublished Phoenican Inscriptions from Palestine', IEJ 37 (1987), pp. 25-30.
Noth, Martin, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981).
The History of Israel (New York: Harper & Row, 1958).
A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. Bernhard W. Anderson; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).
Nougayrol, Jean, E. Laroche, Charles Virolleaud and Claude F.A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica.
V/2. Les nouveaux textes mythologiques et liturgiques de Ras Shamra (Mission Ras
Shamra XVI; Paris: Imprimerie National, 1968), pp. 545-606.
O'Connor, M., Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980).
Parker, Simon B. (ed.), Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (Writings from the Ancient World, 9;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
Paul, Shalom M., Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).
Perdue, Leo, Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins and Carol Meyers (eds.), Families in
Ancient Israel (Family, Religion, and Culture; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1997).
Peristiany, J.G. (ed.), Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (London:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1965).
Petersen, David L., Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1995).
Phillips, Anthony, 'Another Look at Adultery', JSOT20 (1981), pp. 3-25.
Pilch, John J., and Bruce J. Malina, Biblical Social Values and their Meaning: A Handbook
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993).
Pitt-Rivers, Julian, The Fate of Shechem, or The Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1977).
Pope, Marvin H., 'A Divine Banquet at Ugarit', in Mark S. Smith (ed.), in Probative
Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994),
pp. 175-77.
Job (AB, 15; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965).
Probative Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag,
1994).
Porten, B., Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960).
Pressler, Carolyn, The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws (BZAW,
2/6; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1993).
Rad, Gerhard von, Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Genesis: A Commentary (trans. John H.
Marks; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1972 [1951]).
204
Rainey, Anson F., The Military Personnel of Ugarit', JNES 24 (1965), pp. 17-27.
'The Social Stratification of Ugarit' (PhD dissertation, Brandeis University, 1962).
'Unruly Elements in Late Bronze Canaanite Society', in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman
and A. Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish,
and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom(Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 481-96.
Ramsey, George W., The Quest for the Historical Israel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981).
Ratner, Robert, "Three Bulls or One?': A Reappraisal of 1 Samuel 1.24', Bib 68.1 (1987),
pp. 98-102.
Reviv, Hanoch, The Elders in Ancient Israel: A Study of a Biblical Institution (trans. Lucy
Plitmann; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989).
'More About the "Maryannu" in Syria and Palestine', in Bustanay Oded, et al. (eds.),
Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, II (Haifa: University of Haifa Press, 1972).
'Some Comments on the Maryannu', IEJ 22.4 (1972), pp. 218-28.
Rofe, Alexander, 'The Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, Theology, Eschatology', in
Jacob Neusner, et al. (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (1987).
The Classification of the Prophetical Stories', JBL 89 (1970), pp. 427-40.
'Family and Sex Laws in Deuteronomy and the Book of Covenant', Henoch 9.2 (1987),
pp. 131-59.
Rohrbaugh, Richard (ed.), The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996).
Roniger, Luis, 'Modern Patron-Client Relations and Historical Clientelism: Some Clues
from Ancient Republican Rome', Archives of European Sociology 24 (1983), pp. 6395.
Rook, John, 'When Is a Widow Not a Widow? Guardianship Provides an Answer', BTB 28
(1998), pp. 4-6.
Rost, Leonhard, The Succession to the Throne of David (Historic Texts & Interpreters, 1;
Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982).
Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry
(HSM, 17; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978).
Sailer, Richard P., Imperial Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982).
Sasson, Jack, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a EormalistFolklorist Interpretation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979).
Schulman, Alan R., The N'rn at the Battle of Kadesh', JARCE1 (1962), pp. 47-52.
Selms, A. van, Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature(Pretoria Oriental Series;
London: Luzac, 1954).
Shiloh, Yigael., The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City',
IEJ 20(1970), pp. 180-90.
Simkins, Ronald, ' "Return to Yahweh": Honor and Shame in Joel', Semeia 68 (1996),
pp. 41-54.
Skinner, John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, rev. edn, 1910).
Smith, Henry Preserved, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel
(ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899).
Soggin, J. Alberto, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981).
Bibliography
205
Speiser, E.A., Genesis: Introduction, Translation and Notes (AB, 1, Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1964).
Stager, Lawrence E., 'The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel', BASOR 260
(1985), pp. 1-35.
Stansell, Gary, 'Honor and Shame in the David Narratives', in Frank Criisemann, Christof
Hardmeier and Rainer Kessler (eds.), 'Was ist der Mensch?' Beitrdge zur Anthropologie des Alien Testaments (Tubingen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1992), pp. 94-114.
Stahli, Hans-Peter, Knabe-JUngling-Knecht: Untersuchungen zum Begriff Na'ar im Alien
Testament (BBET, 7; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1978).
Steinberg, Naomi, 'The Deuteronomic Law Code and the Politics of State Centralization',
in David Jobling, el al. (eds.), The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in
Honor of Norman K. Gotlwald on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Cleveland: Pilgrim,
1991), pp. 161-70,336-38.
Sternberg, Meir, 'Biblical Poetics and Sexual Politics: From Reading to Counterreading',
JBL 111.3 (1992), pp. 463-88.
The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985).
Stone, Kenneth Alan, 'Gender and Homosexuality in Judges 19: Subject-Honor, ObjectShame?', JSOT61 (Spring 1995), pp. 87-107.
Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 234; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996).
Stulman, Louis, 'Encroachment in Deuteronomy: An Analysis of the Social World of the D
Code', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 613-32.
Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1-39 (FOTL, 16; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
Thompson, William E., and Joseph V. Hickey, Society in Focus: An Introduction to Sociology (New York: Harper Collins College Publishers, 1994).
Tomback, R.S., in H.C. Kee and D.A. Knight (eds.), A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the
Phoenician and Punic Languages (SBLDS; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978),
p. 117.
Trebolle, Julio C., The Story of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17-18): Textual Variants and
Literary Composition', BIOSCS 23 (Fall 1990), pp. 16-30.
Trible, Phyllis, 'The Other Woman: A Literary and Theological Study of the Hagar
Narratives', in J. Butler, E Conrad and B. Ollenburger (eds.), Understanding the
Word: Essays in Honour of Bernhard W. Anderson (JSOTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1985), pp. 221-46.
Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1994).
Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT; Philadelphia:
'Woman in the OT (sic)', in Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (Supplementary Volume; Keith Crim gen. ed.; Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1976), pp. 963-66.
Tsevat, Matitiahu, 'Der Schangentext von Ugarit: UT 607-KTU 1.100-Ug V, 564ff.-RS
24.244', UF 11 (1979), pp. 759-78.
Ussishkin, David, 'Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions', BASOR 223
(1976), pp. 1-14.
Vaux, Roland de, Ancient Israel. I. Social Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).
206
Veijola, Timo, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975).
David: Gesammelte Studien zu den David Uberlieferungen des Alten Testaments
(Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft, 52; Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).
Virolleaud, Claude F.-A., Le palais royal d'Ugarit(Mission de Ras Shamra; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1965).
Wadsworth, Tom, 'Is there a Hebrew Word for Virgin? Bethulah in the Old Testament',
ResQ 23.3 (1980), pp. 161-71.
Waldbaum, Jane C., From Bronze to Iron: The Transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron
Age in the Eastern Mediterranean (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, 5.54;
Gothenburg: Paul Astrom, 1978).
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.), Patronage in Ancient Society (London: Routledge, 1989), p. 157.
Watson, W.G.E., Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup, 170;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984).
Wenham, Gordon J., 'Betulah, "A Girl of Marriageable Age" ', VT22 (July 1972), pp. 32648.
Westermann, Claus, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (trans. John J. Scullion, SJ; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985).
Genesis 37-50: A Commentary(trans. John J. Scullion, SJ; Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1986).
Lamentations: Issues and Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).
Wolff, Hans Walter, Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974).
Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).
Wright, Christopher J.H., 'Family', ABD, II, pp. 761-69.
Wright, G. Ernest, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1962).
Yadin, Yigael, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study
(2 vols.; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963).
Yon, Marguerite, 'Kition in the Tenth to Fourth Centuries B.C.' (trans. William A.P.
Childs), BASOR 308 (1997), pp. 1-17.
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
BIBLE
Old Testament
Genesis
8.21
9.24
12
14.13
14.14
14.15
14.23
14.24
15
15.2
15.3
16.15
17.23
17.24
17.25
17.26
18.7
19.4
20.1-18
21
21.5
21.8-21
21.9
h
21.10
21.11
21.12
21.13
21.14
21.15
21.16
21.17
165
100
19,31
69
69, 155
69
69
69,85
19,31
56
56
95
95
95
95
95
12, 44, 63
152
96
96
95
96
95
95
95
17, 92, 95,
96
95
96
96
96
17, 92, 95,
96
21.18-20
21.18
21.20
22
22.2
22.3
22.5
22.6
22.7
22.9
22.10
22.12
22.13
22.15-18
22.16
22.17
22.19
24.12
24.14
24.16
24.20
24.24
24.28
24.47
24.50
24.53
24.55
24.57
24.61
25.27
25.31
25.32
95
17, 92, 96
17, 92, 96
42, 43, 82,
97
98
42, 97, 98
42, 43, 97,
98
98
98
98
98
17, 92, 97
98
98
98
98
42,97
11
13, 135
13, 135
45
135
13, 135
135
135, 136
135
13, 135
13,135
13,63,
127
17,92
100
100
25.34
27.36
29.1-14
34
34.1
34.2
34.3
34.4
34.8
34.12
34.19
37.1-2
37.2
38
39
39.4
40.4
41.12
42
42.4
42.13
43
43.3
43.4
43.5
43.6
43.7
43.8-9
43.8
100
100
135
106, 141
136
137
20, 136,
137
137
137
20, 136,
137
13, 17,20,
106
20
12, 13, 17,
44, 45, 63,
92,99
99
44
44, 131
44, 131
43, 44, 99,
106
99
99
100
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
92
208
Genesis (cont.)
43.11
100
43.12
100
43.13
100
43.15
100
43.16
100
43.17
100
43.18
100
43.20
100
43.24
100
43.29
100
43.30
100
43.32
100
43.33
100
43.34
100
44
99
44.2
100
44.9
101
44.10
101
44.12
100
44.13
101
44.22
92, 101
44.23
100
44.30-31
101
44.31-34
92
44.32
101
44.33
101
44.34
101
45
101
45.12
101
45.14
101
48^9
99
48.5
92
48.16
17, 92, 99
48.20
93
48.34
165
Exodus
2.5
2.6
2.16-19
5
10.9
20.22-23.33
21.7-11
21.7
13, 20,
127
13, 17,20,
92, 106
134
65
152
142
147, 149
147
21.8
22.3
22.11
24.5
33.11
147
120
120
66
44, 45, 66
Leviticus
6.21
18.8
18.15
18.17
20.10
22.13
76
147
147
147
147
165
Numbers
11.27
22.21
23.2
30.4
30.17
43,45
63
63
165
165
Deuteronomy
7.1
19-25
21.17
22
22.5
22.13-29
22.13-19
22.15
22.16
22.17
22.19
22.20
22.21
22.22
22.23
22.24
22.25
22.26
22.27
22.29
22.30
23.7
23.17
27.20
28.47-68
145
142
100
20, 141
142
75
142
143
143
143
143
142
143
143
142
143
144
13, 144
144
13, 144
144
142, 147
147
147
147
152
28.50
20, 152
Joshua
2.1
2.3
2.23
6.21
6.22
6.23
6.26
69,70
69
69
153
69
153
100
Judges
3.8
6
7
7.10
8
8.14
8.18
8.20
8.21
8.30
9.5
9.50-57
9.54
13.3
13.5-7
13.5
13.7
13.8
13.12
13.13-24
13.15-23
13.24
13.25
16.2
16.6
16.9
17-18
17
17.3
17.8
17.9
17.11
161
70
70,71
70
78, 123
123
79
64, 79,
106
123
106
100, 106
76
12,64
110
17
13, 110
160
13, 110
13, 110
13, 17,
110
111
110
17, 110
111
110
74
181
161
18
66
66
84
84
66
209
Index of References 209

17.12
17.15
18
18.3
18.30
19
19.3-6
19.3
19.4
19.5
19.6
19.8
19.9
19.11
19.13
19.19
21.12
21.19-21
21.22
66
67
66
67
67
45, 63,
130
140
13,20
13,20
13,20
13,20
13, 20,
140
13, 20,
140
20,43
20
20
130
130
130
Ruth
2.1
2.2
2.5-6
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.15
2.21
2.22
2.23
3.2
4.12
65
139
65
12, 13, 20,
43, 45,
134, 138
12, 13, 20,
43, 138
65, 134
13, 20, 66,
128, 134
139
12, 20, 43,
45, 56, 65,
134, 138
12, 20, 43,
65
12, 20, 66
13, 20, 56,
66, 128
13, 20, 66,
128
128
13, 139
1 Samuel
1.1-4.1
121, 122
1.1
111
1.2-2Kgs 10.28
46
1.8
111
1.11
160
1.20
111
1.22
17, 111
1.23
111
1.24
13, 111
112, 181
17
1.24-25
111
1.25
1.27
111
122
2.1-10
2.11
111
66
2.13-17
122
2.13
2.15
43, 122
2.16
43
121
2.17
2.18
111
2.21
111
2.26
111
111, 122
2.27-36
122
2.29-36
111, 122
3.1
111
3.8
111, 122
3.11-14
122
3.13
122
3.16
3.17
122
122
4.18
4.21
17,93
8
40
66,75
9
64
9.1-10.1
64
9.1
64
9.2
12, 20, 63
9.3
64
9.5-10
20
9.5
43,45
9.6
20, 43, 45
9.7
20,43
9.8
9.10
20,43
9.11
9.22
9.27
10.17-27
11.12
12.2
14
14.1
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.11
14.12-14
14.15
14.16-23
14.17
14.21
16.1-13
16.2
16.3
16.10
16.11
16.12
16.13
16.14-23
16.14
16.16
16.18
16.20
16.21
16.22
17
17.12-31
17.14
17.22
17.32
17.33
17.34-37
17.38-41
17.42
17.51
17.55-18.5
17.55
17.56
17.58
20, 45,
135
20,44
20, 43, 82
40
40
165
79
12, 79, 80
12,79,80
79,80
80
80
79
80
81
79
80
87
87
87
87
12, 87,
100, 157
88
88
87,88
88
88
43, 44, 88
88
88
88, 131
87,88
88,89
100
75
88
89, 106,
165
89
89
89, 106
89
89
89, 106
89
89, 106
210
1 Samuel (cont.)
18.1
89
18.13
83,89
18.18
89
18.27
89
19.11
89
19.18
85
20
81
20.5
81
20.11
81
20.21-22
81
20.21
12
20.27
81
20.35
12, 158
20.36
12
20.37
12
20.38
12
20.39
12,81
20.40-41
81
20.40
12, 81
20.41
12
21.1
83
21.2
83
21.3
12
21.4
83
21.5
12,75,83
21.6
12
21.7
70
22.1
84
22.2
83, 84
22.6
83
22.7-8
70
22.9
70
23.5
83, 84
23.13
84
24.1
84
24.6
77
25
42, 63, 84
25.3
63
25.5
12, 20, 84
25.7
85
25.8
12, 20, 43,
63,85
25.9
12, 20, 85
25.10
85
25.11
63
25.12
12,20
25.13
85
25.14
25.15
25.18
25.19
25.25
25.27
25.28-31
25.36-38
25.42
26.2
26.6-12
26.9
26.13-16
26.17-20
26.21
26.22
26.25
27.2-8
27.2
27.3
27.8
27.9
28.1
28.2
28.4
30
30.1
30.3
30.4
30.5
30.6
30.8
30.9
30.10
30.13
30.15
30.17
30.21
30.22
30.24
30.25
30.26
30.31
31
12, 20, 43,

63,85
84
63,85
12, 20, 43,
63,85
12, 20, 85
12, 20, 84
85
86
13, 20, 62,
127
84
72
77
72
72
72
72
72
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
130
73
84
84
84
73
84
73
84
73, 84, 85
73
73
74
85
83
83-85
83
84
84
76,77
2 Samuel
1
1.5
1.12
2-7
2
2.2
2.4
2.12-17
2.14
2.15
2.17
2.21
2.23
2.31
3.31
4.1
4.12
5
5.6
8
9-24
9-20
9
9.1-8
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9-13
9.9
9.10
9.11
9.12
9.13
11.1
11.2
11.27
12.14
12.15
12.16
12.18
13-20
13
77
77
78
55
85,86
84
86
12
86
86
86
85
86
86
61
78
86
86,90
71
56
55
54
56, 58, 60
62
55,56
56,57
57
57
57
55,58
58
58,62
13,58
55,58
55, 58, 59
60
55
103
103
109
109
109
109
109
55
63, 82, 84,
104
Index of References 211

13.17
13.18
13.20-29
13.23-29
13.24
13.25
13.26
13.27
13.28-29
13.28
13.29
13.30
13.31
13.34
13.37
14
14.21
14.28-33
15
15.1-12
16
16.1-4
16.1
16.2
16.3
16.15-17.14
17
17.15
17.17
17.18
17.19
17.20
18
18.2
18.3
18.5
18.9
18.12
18.14
18.15
18.29
18.32
19
19.8
43-45, 82
131
105
64
64, 102
103
102
102
64
43, 63, 78,
123
78, 102
123
102
102, 123
74, 123
103
123
103, 105
105
59
105
59,60
13,56,62
59
59,86
59
105
73
73
73
73
73
73
103, 123
103
103
13, 104,
105
104
13, 104
104
12,78,
104
104
104
60
165
19.16-30
19.16
19.18-23
19.18
19.22-23
19.25-31
19.25
19.26
19.29
20
20.11
21
23.37
62
60
61
60
55
56
60
60
55
74
74
56
76
211
20.6
20.9
20.10
20.13-22
20.13-21
20.13
20.15
20.17
20.19
20.21
20.31
21.27
71
71
71
172
25
71
71
71
71
71
61
61
2 Kings
1 Kings
1-2
1.1-4
1.2-4
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.15
3.7
7.45
10.5
11.17
11.18
11.26
11.28
14.1-6
14.3
14.7-11
14.12
14.14-16
14.17
16.34
17.1
18.12
18.15
18.43
19.3
20
20.1
20.4
54
131
132
130-32
130, 132
133
44, 130
131
133
44
158, 159
161
75
131
95, 158
95
17,93
17,93
107
107
107
107
107
107
100
131
165
131
43, 45, 63
43
71, 173
71
71
2-6
2.1-25
2.19-22
2.23-25
2.23
3-13
3.4-27
3.14
4-6
4
4.1-7
4.1
4.2
4.6
4.8-37
4.8-17
4.8-10
4.8
4.11-13
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18-37
4.18-25
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.22
4.23
123
46
46
46
56, 123
158
46
46
131
46
11, 107
46
50
43
43
45, 46, 48
49
107
49
108
49
11,49
49,52
108
49, 108
49, 108
49, 108
123
49
49,65
108
50, 108
11, 108
108
212
2 Kings (cont.)
4.24
12,50
4.25-31
50
4.25
11
4.26
108
4.27
108
4.29
109
4.30
109
4.31
109
4.32-37
50
4.32
109
4.34
109
4.35
109
4.36
50
4.38-45
46
4.38
12, 44, 46
4.43
131
5
13, 157
5.1-27
45,46
5.1-14
48, 157
5.1-7
50
5.2
20, 49,
127, 157
5.4
20, 127
5.5-6
50
5.7
50
5.8-10
50
5.10
51
5.11-14
51
5.14
51, 157,
180
5.15-27
48
5.15-19
51
5.15-18
51
5.16
131
5.19-27
123
5.19-24
51
11
5.20
5.23
51
5.25-37
51
5.25
51
6.15
46, 131
6.17
46
6.30
61
8.1-6
45,48,51
8.4
11
8.9
53
8.15
53

9
9.4
12.14
18.7
19.6
66
43
75
74
21,75
I Chronicles
5.1
5.2
10
11.39
12.29
22.5
24.31
28.20
29.1
100
100
76
76
86
94, 159
100
94
94, 159
2 Chronicles
10.6-8
13.7
21.17
22.1
33.24
33.25
34.3
94
94
100
100
94
94
94
Nehemiah
4.10
4.16
4.17
5
5.10
5.16
6.5
13.19
Esther
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.7
12, 75,
164
12, 75, 76,
164
12, 164
149
12, 75,
164
12
164
12,75,
164
12, 20, 43,

44, 131
132
20, 132
20, 132
20, 132
133
2.8
2.9
2.12
2.13
3.13
4.4
4.16
6.3
6.5
20, 132
13, 20,
132
20, 132
20, 132
153
13, 127
13, 127
12, 43, 44,
131
12,43
Job
1.1-5
1.2
1.3
1.6-21
1.6-12
1.6-7
1.8
1.9-11
1.10
1.12
1.13-22
1.13-19
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20-21
1.20
1.21
1.22
2.1-10
2.1-7
2.7-10
2.11-3.1
2.11-13
8.4
113, 114
119
119
113
113
114
114
114
119
114, 119
113, 114
114
115
63, 115
116
63, 112
114-17,
120
63, 112
114-17
112, 11417
115, 116
112, 11417, 120
114
114
114
114
113
113
113
113
113
117, 118
Index of References
42.13
165
118
157
112, 118
163
118
112, 118
163
112, 118
163
165
180
165
13,21,
112, 119,
128, 163
119
Psalms
25.7
37.25
71.5
71.17
88.26
103.5
119
119.9
127.4
129.1
129.2
144.12
148.12
165
155
165
165
165
165
163
163
165
162
162
165
155
13.26
19.17-18
23.25
24.5
29
29.5
29.8
31.18
33.25
36.14
40.29
Proverbs
1.4
2.17
5.18
7.7
9.3
13.24
20.11
22.6
22.15
23.13
27.27
163
165
165
163
13, 126
163
163
56, 163
56, 155
163, 193
163, 193
13, 126
163
29.15
29.19
29.21
31.15
163, 193
163
163, 165
13, 126
163
213
Lamentations
2
2.20-21
2.21
3.27
5.11-14
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
156
156
156
165
156
156
156
156
156
Ecclesiastes
10.5-7
10.16
163
163
Isaiah
1.31
3.4
3.5
7.16
8.4
11.6
13.18
20.4
37.6
40.30
47.12
47.15
54.6
65.20
161, 181
153
153
159, 161
159, 161
158
161
154
21,75
161
162
162
162
154
Ezekiel
4.14
16.22
16.43
16.60
23.2
23.3
23.8
23.19
23.21
165
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
Hosea
2.17
4.14
11.1
162
147
162, 165
Jeremiah
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.2
3.4
3.24
3.25
15.19
22.21
31.19
32.30
48.4
48.11
51.20-21
51.22
51.23
51.28
51.38
160
159, 160
159
162
162
162
162
131
162
162
162
100
162
154
154, 155
154
154
161
Joel
1.8
165
Amos
2
2.7
150
13,21,
146, 161
Zechariah
2.8
11.16
13.5
161
161
165
Malachi
2.14
165
New Testament
John
4.1-38
135
214

OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES
Aramaic
Wisdom ofAhiqar KTU
6.79-94
185
6.79-80
185
6.86-91
186
6.94
186
Akkadian
Asb.
70vi28
HSS
19114.11
OIP
2.52.32
187
187
187
Ugaritic
ktu
1.17
1.100
1.107
1.114
2.33
3.7
4.12
4.60
4.68
4.102
4.108
4.126
4.179
4.339
4.360
178
179
180
179
178
182
182
181
174-76
177
178
175, 176
176
176, 177
177
4.362
4.367
4.402
4.419
4.426
4.663
4.789
181
177
181
177
181
181
181
Inscriptions
KAI
24
37
184
184
KRI
4.7.11/2
172
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Abusch, T. 118
Aisleitner, J. 173
Albright, W.F. 170,175,183
Alter, R. 26, 120, 127, 133
Althann,R. I l l , 181
Andersen, F.I. 147, 162
Anderson, A.A. 58, 61
Aufrecht, W.E. 182
Avigad, N. 182, 183
Baltzer, K. 39
Bamberger, B.J. 187
Barr,J. 23,24, 188
Barrick,W.B. 24
Barstad, H.M. 148
Baumgartner, W. 14, 15
Bendor, S. 31,32, 152
Benjamin, D.C. 29, 32, 36, 152
Berlin, A. 26, 27, 48, 51, 52, 61, 79, 98,
113
Bird, P. 129, 145
Blenkinsopp, J. 30
Boling, R.G. 70, 84, 110, 140
Borowski, O. 29
Breasted, J.H. 167-69
Brenner, A. 126
Briggs, C.A. 12
Bright,!. 160
Brinkman, J.A. 187
Brown, F. 12
Brueggemann, W. 104, 105
Budde, K. 105
Burchardt, M. 169
Butler,!. 97
Campbell, A.F. 46
Campbell, E.F. 138
Campbell, !.K. 38, 122

Carasik,M. 134
Carlson, R.A. 55
Carney, T.F. 28, 189
Caspari, D.W. 54, 105
Chaney, M.L. 21,29, 149, 193
Chinchen, D. 38
Chirichigno, G. 39, 128
Chow,!.K. 38
Clements, R.E. 154
Clines, DJ.A. 113-15, 120, 132
Collins,!.!. 30
Conrad, E. 97
Conroy, C. 104, 105
Coogan, M.D. 118-20
Coote, R.B 40, 148
Cowley, A. 186
Cross, P.M. 55, 182
Criisemann, F. 32, 142
Cutler, B. 16, 17
Dahood, M.!. 151, 162, 173
Darr, K.P. 25
Davis,!. 28
Day,!.P. 185, 186
Day, P.L. 93, 145
Delcor, M. 184
Dhorme, E. 117, 118
Dietrich, W. 55, 180
Donner, H. 184
Driver, S.R. 12, 117
Eisenstadt, S.N. 38
Elliott, !.H. 38
Erman, A. 169, 173
Eskenazi, T.C. 25
216
Fewell, D.N. 136

Fokkelman, J.P. 54-56,60
Fox, N. 94
Freedman, D.N. 29, 147, 162, 193
Frick,F.S. 31
Frolov, S. I l l , 181
Frymer-Kensky, T. 137, 138
Gardiner, A.H. 167-69, 171
Garfinkel, Y. 183
Garnsey, P. 38
Gelb, I.J. 187
Gordis, R. 117-20
Gordon, C.H. 14, 120, 173, 176
Gordon, R.P. 185, 186
Gottwald, N.K. 19, 20, 29, 35, 37
Graf, D.F. 29
Grapow, H. 169, 173
Gray, G.B. 117
Gray,J. 47,48,71,89,93, 107, 111, 173,
176
Greenfield, J.C. 185
Gressmann, H. 48
Gunn, D.M. 54, 136
Habel, N.C. 113, 114, 117, 120
Hamilton, V.P. 96,97, 138
Handsberger, H.A. 83
Hanson, K.C. 32
Hanson, P.O. 39, 154
Hardmeier, C. 32
Harrill, J.A. 194
Heltzer, M. 131
Hertzberg, H.W. 61, 80, 104
Hickey,J.V. 19,29,40
Hiebart, P.S. 93, 192
Hiebert, RJ.V. 142
Killers, D.R. 156
Hobsbawm, E.J. 83
Hoftijzer,J. 186
Hollister, C.W. 17
Hopkins, D.C. 29
Horsley, R.A. 193
Hubbard,R.L. 138, 139
Huehnergard, J. 118
Hurvitz, A. 193
Janzen, J.G. 115

Jastrow, M., Jr 118
Jobling, D. 35, 142
Jongeling, K. 186
Kessler, R. 32
Kitchen, K.A. 167
Klein, L.R. 126
Klein, R.W. 77, 79, 111, 121, 122, 138
Koehler,L. 13-15
Kooij, A. van der 87
Kuhnigk, W. 162
Labov, W. 26,27,79
Laniak, T. 32
Lasine, S. 54, 61
Lemke, W.E. 182
Lenski, G. 31
Lenski, J. 31
Levenson,J.D. 132
Liddell,H.G. 146
Linton, R. 40
Lipiriski, E. 131
Long, B.O. 46, 47, 107
Loretz, O. 131, 180
Lundbom, J.R. 160
Lyke, L.L. 96
Macdonald, J. 16, 17, 64, 65, 74, 76, 77,
79,91,92, 102, 170, 175-77
Mace, D.R. 127, 129
Malina, B.J. 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 85, 107,
139
Margalit, B. 180
Matthews, V.H. 29, 32, 36, 152
Mayer, W. 19, 166, 170-72
Mayer-Opificius, R. 19, 74, 166, 170-72
Mayes, A.D.H. 142
Mays, J.L. 25, 147, 148
McBride, S.D. 39
McCarter, P.K., Jr 55, 80, 83, 103-105,
110, 111, 122
McKenzie, J.L. 36, 152, 154
McLaughlin, J.L. 179
McNutt, P.M. 29
Meeks,W.A. 83
Mendenhall, G.E. 29
Meyer, E. 17, 168, 169, 173
Index of Authors
Meyers, C.L. 30, 35, 39, 107, 143, 161,
190
Meyers, E.M. 161
Miller, P.O., Jr 39, 182
Montgomery, J.A. 47, 71, 89, 173
Moor,J.C. de 178-80
Moore, C.A. 132
Moxnes, H. 32, 38, 95, 108
Mulder, MJ. 131
Naveh,J. 182
Neusner, J. 86, 193
Neyrey, J. 38
Niditch, S. 140
Noth, M. 20,29,55
Nougayrol, J. 179
O'Connor, M. 151
Ollenburger, B. 97
Ooled,B. 175
Orel, V. I l l , 181
Parker, S.B. 134, 178
Paul, S.M. 149
Perdue, L.G. 30,31, 129, 142
Peristiany, J. 28
Petersen, D.L. 25, 161
Phillips, A. 142
Pilch, J.J. 32,37, 139
Pitt-Rivers, J. 28,33,34, 138
Pope, M.H. 112,113,117,179,180
Porten, B. 185
Pressler, C. 142, 145
Sakenfeld, K.D. 21,24

Sailer, R.P. 38
Sanmartin, J. 180
Sarna, N.M. 119
Sasson, J. 138
Schmitt, H.-C. 46
Schulman, A.R. 170
Selms, A. van 178
Shiloh, Y. 30
Simkins, R. 32
Skinner,!. 96-98, 106, 136
Smith, H.P. 56, 103, 121, 122
Smith, S. 169
Soggin, J.A. 79
Speiser, E.A. 82, 96, 97, 99, 136
Stager, L.E. 15, 17, 18, 30, 36, 102, 189
Stahli, H.-P. 15, 16, 170, 177, 178
Stansell, G. 32
Steinberg, N. 142-44
Steinkeller, P. 118
Sternberg, M. 26, 136
Stone, K.A. 32,72
Strayer, J.R. 17
Stulman, L. 146
Sweeney, M.A. 154
Thomas, D.W. 119
Thompson, W.E. 19,29,40
Tomback, R.S. 185
Trebolle, J.C. 87
Trible, P. 26, 97, 124, 129, 141
Tsevat, M. 179
Ussishkin, D. 182
Rad, G. von 97,98, 106, 142

Rainey, A.F. 170, 173, 174, 177, 193
Ramsey, G.W. 29
Ratner, R. I l l
Retanen, D.L. 25
Reviv, H. 36, 152, 175, 176
Richards, K.H. 25
Rofe, A. 48, 86, 142
Rohrbaugh, R. 32
R6llig,W. 184
Roniger, L. 38
Rook,J. 93
Rost,L. 54,55
217
Vaux, R. de 40, 152, 170, 173

Veijola,T. 55,56
Virolleaud, C. 175,177,179,180
Vries, S.J. de 93, 107, 173
Wadsworth, T. 143
Waldbaum, J.C. 29
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 37, 39
Watson, W.G.E. 151
Wenham, G.J. 125, 132, 143
Westermann, C. 96-99, 136, 156
Whitelam, K.W. 40
Williamson, H.G.M. 185,186
218
Wolff, H.W. 146, 147, 161

Wright, C.J.H. 18
Wright, D.P. 193
Wright, G.E. 29
Yadin, Y. 76, 167

Yon, M. 184
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD

SUPPLEMENT SERIES
TESTAMENT
145 Charles S. Shaw, The Speeches ofMicah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis

146 Gosta W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic
Period to Alexander's Conquest [Out of print]
147 Tony W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East
148 Philip R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel': A Study of Biblical Origins
149 Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll and Philip R. Davies (eds.),
Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of
Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp
150 Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8
151 Joel Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community
152 A. Graeme Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour
of George Wishart Anderson
153 Donald K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for
Psalm 18
154 Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane (eds.), Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and
Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th
Birthday
155 Jeffrey A. Eager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew
Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge
156 John W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of
Choral Music in Chronicles
157 Gordon R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible
158 Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of
Numbers
159 J. Clinton McCann, Jr (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter
160 William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History
161 George W. Coats, The Moses Tradition
162 Heather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets' Visions and the
Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour ofR. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday
163 J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical
Narratives
164 Lyle Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7
165 Martin McNamara, The Psalms in the Early Irish Church
166 D.R.G. Beattie and M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in
their Historical Context
167 Raymond F. Person, Jr, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School
168 R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs
169 Bert Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in
Biblical Prophecy and Story
170 Wilfred G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse
111 Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman and Benjamin Uffenheimer (eds.),
Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature
172 Volkmar Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology
173 M. Patrick Graham, William P. Brown and Jeffrey K. Kuan (eds.), History
and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes
174 Joe M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach
175 Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies: 2
Temple and Community in the Persian Period
176 Gershon Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead
Sea Scrolls
177 David Allan Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew
178 Martin Ravndal Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and
Function in the I-Psalms
179 J.G. McConville and J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy
180 Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the
Prophets
181 Bernard M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform
Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development
182 Steven L. McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's
Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth
183 William Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Second
and Third Series)
184 John C. Reeves and John Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor
of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday
185 Seth Daniel Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew
Mythology
186 Linda Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther
187 Charles V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual
Integrity
188 Robert H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of
Isaiah
189 William Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment
190 Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken:
Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom
191 Magne Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old
Testament
192 Henning Graf Reventlow and William Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the
Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914
193 Brooks Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic
History of the Restoration
194 Else Kragelund Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the
Book ofHosea
195 Jon Davies, Graham Harvey and Wilfred G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer
196 Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible
197 William M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to
Exegete in the Second Temple Period
198 T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison
199 J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the
Commentators
200 M. Daniel Carroll R., David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Bible
in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson
201 John W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of
F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith
202 Nanette Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible
203 Jill M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs
204 Philip R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway?
205 David J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of
the Hebrew Bible
206 M0gens Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint
207 John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies and M. Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), The
Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium
208 Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis
2-3
209 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of
Athaliah and Joash
210 Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient
Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry
211 Brian E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles
212 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in
Literary-Theoretical Perspective
213 Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context
214 Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah
215 J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of
Biblical Women
216 Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat
and Drink
217 Jerome F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter
218 Harry P. Nasuti, Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition, and the PostCritical Interpretation of the Psalms
219 Gerald Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea
220 Raymond F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis,
Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah
221 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative'
222 R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book
223 Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job
224 Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of

Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha
225 Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season:
Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders
226 Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist
Analysis
221 John F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas
228 Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite
States
229 Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene
M. Tucker
230 Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies:
Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara
231 Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical
Narrative
232 Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament
233 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms ofAsaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the
Psalter, III
234 Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History
235 James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays
on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts
236 Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Reexamined
237 Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel:
Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present
238 M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The
Chronicler as Historian
239 Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus
240 Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form
and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats
241 Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel
242 K.L. Noll, The Faces of David
243 Henning Graf Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and
Christian Tradition
244 Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in
Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete
245 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written?
246 Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith
and his Heritage
247 Nathan Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets
248 Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the
Mishnah
249 William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action
250 Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin, Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene
251 Flemming A.J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History
252 David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms
253 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 1: 1 Chronicles 1-2
Chronicles 9: Israel's Place among the Nations
254 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 2: 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt
and Atonement
255 Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of
Tradition in Parabolic Narrative
256 Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric
257 Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons,
Places, Perspectives
258 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150):
Studies in the Psalter, IV
259 Allen Rosengren Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient
Israel and Ugarit?
260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.),
Troubling Jeremiah
261 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near
Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible
262 Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.),
Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East
263 M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author:
Studies in Text and Texture
264 Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics,
Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel
5.17-7.29)
266 J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Biblical Studies/Cultural
Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium
268 Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: 'Pandeuteronomism' and Scholarship in the Nineties
269 David J.A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Auguries: The Jubilee
Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies
270 John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar
271 Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah
272 James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of
Social Identity
273 Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb and Sharon Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the
Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon
274 Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context
275 William Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application
276 Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom of
Judah
277 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs

278 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and
Ideology
279 Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and
Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings
280 Eric S. Christiansen, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes
281 Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah 34-35: A Nightmare/A Dream
282 Joan E. Cook, Hannah's Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations in the
Story of Hannah
283 Kelvin Friebel, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal
Communication
284 M. Patrick Graham, Rick R. Marrs and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Worship
and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis
286 Wesley J. Bergen, Elisha and the End ofProphetism
287 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation of Torah from Scribal
Advice to Law
288 Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal
Dreams of Genesis
289 Joze Krasovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia
290 Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the
Old and New Testaments
291 Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period
292 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays,
1967-1998 Volume 1
293 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays,
1967-1998 Volume 2
294 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social
and Demographic Study
295 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew
Narratives
296 Mark Cameron Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1-8 and the Frustrated
Reader
297 Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment
298 John D. Baildam, Paradisal Love: Johann Gottfried Herder and the Song of
Songs
299 M. Daniel Carroll R., Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions
from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation
300 Edward Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament
Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements
301 Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father's House: The Social Location of
na 'ar and na 'arah in Ancient Israel
302 Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew
Bible
303 Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis

Carolyn S. Leeb Away From The Fathers House The Social Location of The Naar and Naarah in Ancient Israel JSOT Supplement Series 2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carolyn S. Leeb Away From The Fathers House The Social Location of The Naar and Naarah in Ancient Israel JSOT Supplement Series 2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carolyn S. Leeb Away From The Fathers House The Social Location of The Naar and Naarah in Ancient Israel JSOT Supplement Series 2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

Away from the

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Copyright 2000 Sheffield Academic Press

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

SPECIFIC TEXTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE:

FIGHTING MEN AND BATTLEFIELD ASSISTANTS

Away from the Father's House

WOMEN: UNPROTECTED AND VULNERABLE

RELATED WORDS IN OTHER LANGUAGES

The publication of this book based on my doctoral dissertation finds me

Israel Exploration Journal

This page intentionally left blank

Understanding the Word ~1W] in the Hebrew Bible

Away from the Father's House

a journey (2 Kgs 4.24). Elisha's servant is asked to prepare a pot of

damsel, female attendants, maid. Cited examples, for the masculine

Away from the Father's House

He goes on to compare them to the 'New Egyptian n'rn = - na'aruna'.10

well-known narratives and a more nearly adequate comprehension of

Away from the Father's House

Having been captivated by the happenstance that this etymologically

He focuses principally on military contexts, and eventually settles on

A way from the Father's House

Stager goes further by making specific comparisons to the aristocratic

The principal shortcoming of all three of these approaches is their

Away from the Father's House

misreading of the Egyptian evidence has encouraged the proliferation

Away from the Father's House

Away from the Father's House

Away from the Father's House

10. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, pp. 34-42.

Away from the Father's House

The Social World in which the Word Was Used

Away from the Father's House

These activities placed a high labor demand on the community that in

Away from the Father's House

Values ofPre-exilic Israel

The ancient Mediterranean villager viewed all people as possessing

Challenges could be either negative (an insult, a threat) or positive (a

Away from the Father's House

or unable to meet a challenge with an effective response caused a loss

communities pioneering the hill country.33 Furthermore, a man's ability

Although the evidence indicates that the household of residence was

Away from the Father's House

family 'compound'.36 The household, or 'family', was comprised of

36. Stager, 'Archaeology of the Family', pp. 17-18.

Away from the Father's House

another household, as an 'indentured servant' or 'supplementary

The commonest mechanisms for the establishment of dependency

Israel's earliest history was marked by various structures that worked

Away from the Father's House

families became greater in response to the needs of the monarchy, more

The process was a self-perpetuating spiral, which the ethical demands of

3. Specific Texts in the Hebrew Bible

specified activity is the rule rather than the exception.