Confused Language as a Deliberate Literary
Device in Biblical Hebrew Narrative

Gary A.Rendsburg, Cornell University

0. Introduction

0.1. The Egyptian story of the Shipwrecked Sailor is a text that imposes few difficulties on its readers. Our only extant manuscript is in excellent condition, hardly a sign is in doubt, and the reading is smooth.[1] The main exception to the smooth reading is lines 36-37 (repeated in lines 105-106): in ht hwi n-i s(y), literally “by wood, struck, to me, it” (with apologies for the lack of subscript diacritical marks). This line occurs in the Sailor’s description of his adventures, first to his Commanding Officer (lines 36-37) and then to the Snake (lines 105-106), with specific reference to the shipwreck itself.

0.2. The syntax is so confusing that scholar after scholar has deemed the phrase too difficult to render with any certainty.[2] Here is a sampling: Adolf Erman: “It was a piece of wood that . . . it to me,” with a footnote “The whole account of the storm is unintelligible to us.”[3] W. K. Simpson: “There was a plank which struck it (the wave) for me,” with a footnote “This passage difficult in the original.”[4]Miriam Lichtheim: “The mast—it (the wave) struck (it),” with a long footnote justifying her rendering and an honest statement that “this admittedly imperfect solution is presented largely in order to emphasize that the passage remains problematic.”[5] R. B. Parkinson: “Only the mast broke it for me,” with a footnote “An obscure phrase: it is probably the wave, so that the sense is that the mast sheltered the sailor from the storm.” [6] Note further the difficulty and uncertainty reflected in the Hebrew translation of Y. M. Grintz, with two different renderings: C( (?) ytzx)n for lines 36-37 and wb ytzx)n-... C( for lines 105-106, even though the Egyptian original is the same in both places.[7]

0.3. But the difficulty and unintelligibility of this passage are exactly the point and represent the stylistic device employed here.[8] I propose that we view these words from the mouth of the Sailor as a clever literary device in which confused syntax is utilized to portray the confusion that characterized the moment. A ship is in danger at sea, the wind is howling, and an eight-foot wave (see line 36 [=105]) strikes the ship (by this statement I do not mean to imply that I accept Lichtheim’s rendering, others are equally possible). In the very next sentence we read that “the ship stood a death” (lines 37-38 [=106]). What occurred between the great wave and the ship sinking is one minute of mass confusion for the Sailor. The language bears this out with its confused and irregular syntax.[9]

0.4. With this example as our paradigm,[10] we can turn to the Bible and see the same technique in use in a variety of contexts. I shall present seven cases from biblical narrative: the first two have been discussed previously in the literature; the remainder (presented in the order of their appearance in the canon) have occasioned comment by scholars, but typically the approach has been to assume that the text is in error and in need of correction. In four of these cases (examples 1, 4, 6, 7), the syntax itself is confused. In the other three (examples 2, 3, 5), there is nothing wrong with the syntax per se, but the language still does not allow clear comprehension. In all the cases, I propose that we view the confused language as a deliberate literary device invoked to portray confusion, excitement, or bewilderment.

1.  1 Sam 9:12-13: The maidens answer Saul

1.1. In 1 Sam 9:10-11, Saul and his attendant, on the outskirts of Samuel’s city, encounter a group of young maidens who have exited the city to draw water. They ask a simple question: h)rh hzb #yh “is the seer here?” to which the girls respond as follows:

I offer here an attempt at a translation: “Yes, here before you; hurry now, because today he is coming to the city, because the sacrifice is today for the people at the high-place. When you come to the city, thus you will find him, before he goes up to the high-place to eat, because the people cannot eat until he comes, because he must bless the sacrifice, afterwards the invited-ones can eat; so now go up, because him, this very day you will find him.”

1.2. Avi Hurvitz already has described the Hebrew of this passage: “Now if we judge the quality of the style employed in the passage solely according to strict formal linguistic standards of grammar and syntax, we would undoubtedly conclude that this is deficient Hebrew. However, if we consider the peculiar circumstances of the episode, it becomes clear that the confused speech created here by the biblical writer is an attempt to reproduce the effect of the girls all talking at once in their excitement at meeting Saul. The confused style is thus a deliberate device intended to reflect the heroines’ mood and feelings.”[11] Although Hurvitz developed the notion further, he was indebted to a simple remark by Martin Buber who referred to these verses as “Madchenschwatz.”[12] In sum, in their excitement over seeing the tall, handsome Saul, the girls prattle all at once, creating a cacophony of voices represented by the language of the text.    

2. Ruth 2:7: The foreman answers Boaz

2.1. Ruth 2:7 is one of the famous cruces of the Bible: +(m tybh htb# hz, literally “this, her sitting [in] the house, a little.” This short phrase has engendered considerable discussion in the secondary literature in recent years.[13] Of the proposed solutions, the one that rises above the others, especially because it entails no emendation of the traditional text,[14] is once more that of Hurvitz. Indeed, it was his reading of Ruth 2:7 that led him to the aforecited discussion of 1 Sam 9:12-13. Once more I quote Hurvitz at length: “We suggest, then, that a similar approach be adopted in the case of Ruth 2:7. Namely, here the overseer speaks in an apologetic and confused manner because he is not sure whether the ‘ boss’ will approve of the fact that the overseer has given Ruth his permission to stay (htb#-from b#y) inside the house reserved specifically for Boaz’s workers . .  . the overseer is emphasizing the fact that this ( hz) Ruth’s stay in ‘the house’ was very brief and that the whole day ‘from early morning until now’ ( ht( d(w rqwbh z)m) she has remained [working]
(dm(t) outside in the field. If this interpretation is accepted, then the peculiar wording of Ruth 2:7 makes perfect sense in its context and need not be attributed to hypothetical scribal errors which occurred in the course of transmission. The awkward formulation of the overseer’s words, then, should not be considered a textual corruption created by a later copyist, but, rather, an artistic device deliberately employed for dramatic purposes by the original author of Ruth”[15] (the last line, with the italicized words [in the original] for emphasis, speaks directly to the suggestion of D. R. G. Beattie that the phrase is a later addition to the original story.[16]  

3. Gen 37:28: Joseph pulled from the pit

3.1. In the ongoing debate as to how to make sense of the three different ethnic groups that appear in Genesis 37 in the context of transporting to Joseph,[17] the most crucial verse is the following:

Pswy wrkmyw rwbh Nm Pswy t) wl(yw wk#myw Myrxs Mynydm My#n) wrb(yw

hmyrcm Pswy t) w)ybyw Psk Myr#(b Myl)(m#yl

“Midianite merchant men passed; and they pulled and they raised Joseph from the pit; and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver; and they brought Joseph to Egypt” (Gen 37:28).

As is well known, source critics divide this verse into separate sources, generally attributing
Psk Myr#(b Myl)(m#yl Pswy wrkmyw “and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver” to “J,” and the remainder to “E.” We shall proceed on different grounds, following the lead of those scholars who have read the story as an integrated literary unit. The most sophisticated reading of the story, in my opinion, is that of E. L. Greenstein, whom I quote here at length: “A close reading of this verse reveals that it is ambiguous. Two readings converge on one clause . . . The clause in question is Myl)(m#yl Pswy wrkmyw ‘they-sold Joseph to-the-Ishmaelites.’ According to the syntax of the verse, the verb wrkmyw ‘they sold,’ follows as the fourth in a sequence of verbs of which ‘Midianite trading men’ is the explicit subject. Therefore, the syntactic reading is: the Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. However, the attentive reader is aware of another reading, which I call the ‘allusive’ reading. The phrase Myl)(m#yl Pswy wrkmyw ‘they-sold Joseph to-the-Ishmaelites,’ only alludes to the words of Judah to his brothers: Myl)(m#yl wnrkmn wkl, ‘Come, let-us-sell-him to-the-Ishmaelites’ (verse 27). With this association in mind, the reader can disregard the syntactic sequence and understand the subject of wrkmyw, ‘they-sold,’ in verse 28 to be Joseph’s brothers. . . . In a faithful reading, the reader must be sensitive to both messages, leaving them both open . . . In any event, the clause ‘they-sold Joseph to-the-Ishmaelites’ is equivocal in its context, that is, at that point in the narrative’s self-disclosure to us. The equivocation in this clause is merely a microcosm for the equivocal effect created for the surrounding narrative of the sale of Joseph as a whole by the twofold sequence of action.”[18] Though I would go further in presenting the ambiguities inherent in this verse (see below), I am in essential agreement with Greenstein. I also am willing to accept Greenstein’s conclusion: “In the end, the reader cannot be certain of what human events actually took Joseph down to Egypt. . . . By blurring the human factors leading to the enslavement of Joseph, the narrative sharpens our image of the divine factor in bringing it about.”[19]

3.2. However, in the specific case of the confusion present in Gen 37:28, I believe that an additional factor is at play, namely, that the language reflects Joseph’s point-of-view. As the recent literarystudy of biblical narrative has demonstrated, the text oftenshifts, ever so subtly, from the narrator’s objective third-personpoint-of-view, to the point-of-view of one of the story’scharacters, and back again.[20] Suchis the case in our passage. Joseph is at the bottom of a pit,unable to see what transpires above, and catching only a fewsounds and voices here and there. He cannot put all the cluestogether, and thus for Joseph the story is unclear. Things happenso fast without his full knowledge, and without his ability toprocess the events as they are happening, that for Joseph thequick moment of being yanked from the pit is one big blur. Thetext bears this out with its language.

3.3. In fact, as Iintimated above, Greenstein understated the ambiguities of thisverse. Not only is it not clear who sold Joseph to theIshmaelites, it is equally unclear who pulled Joseph from the pit.The Midianites might be the subject of Pswy t) wl(yw wk#myw “and they pulled and they raisedJoseph from the pit,” but the brothers also might be thesubject. True, the Masora connects this clause more closely tothe previous one (with “Midianite merchant men” as theexplicit subject) than to the following one, but any number ofreadings is possible. The Midianites could have pulled Joseph outand then sold him to the Ishmaelites; the Midianites could havepulled Joseph out and the brothers could have sold him to theIshmaelites; or the brothers could have pulled Joseph out andsold him to the Ishmaelites. Then, whoever winds up with Joseph,in whichever of these scenarios, brings Joseph to Egypt, as perthe last clause of v. 28.

3.4. It is important to note that Pswy “Joseph”appears three times in this verse, each time as the object of theverb(s), and that never does the text replace the name with apronominal form (either wt) orattached to the verb). This has two functions. First, it markseach clause as an independent one, thereby allowing thepossibility of a different subject for each clause. For example,if the reading were Myl)(m#yl wt) wrkmyw“and they sold him to the Ishmaelites,” then we wouldbe forced to assume, with no evidence to the contrary, thatwhoever pulled Joseph out of the pit also sold him to theIshmaelites. Secondly, the mention of “Joseph” by namethree times brings him into the reader’s mind moreforcefully than pronominal references would, thereby directingthe reader to see Joseph’s point-of-view in this verse. Insum, the ambiguity in Gen 37:28 reflects Joseph’s confusionin processing the events as they occurred.  

4. Gen 37:30:Reuben to his brothers (or is it to himself?)

4.1. Upon discovering thatJoseph was missing from the pit, Reuben returns to his brothersand says
)b yn) hn) yn)w wnny) dlyh “the child is not, and I,to where shall I come?” (Gen 37:30). I emphasize the finalword in the phrase, )b, and my Englishrendering thereof “come.” Not a single moderntranslation (in any language) that I have checked renders theword in this fashion, but that of course is the plain meaning of )b. The reason why translators do not render)b as “come” in thisinstance, but instead are compelled to use “go” (seebelow for examples), is clear. In Leo Depuydt’s words,“In questions asking for the destination to which a personis moving, the verb ‘to go’ is compulsory, becauseusing ‘to come’ equals assuming that the destination isalready known, namely [to] the speaker (or hearer). So, we do notsay ‘Where are you coming?, but rather: ‘Where are yougoing?’”[21]Depuydt further noted, correctly and not surprisingly, that“this is the only case where hn) goestogether with )wb, against 11 exampleswith Klh.”[22] Accordingly, we have here another case of confused—orin this case, impossible—syntax.[23]

4.2. This will explain whyeven those translations that make every attempt at rendering theHebrew text literally, simply cannot render )bas “come” here, but are forced to use “go.”Thus, for example, RSV “where shall I go?, andEverett Fox, who more than anyone else has attempted to capturethe essence of the Hebrew text in his English translation, “wheream I to go?”[24] Fox’sspiritual mentors, Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, may haverecognized the difficulty, since in their rendering “wo sollich hin?” the clause lacks a main verb altogether (asopposed to, for example, “wo soll ich hingehen?”).[25] Translations whichallow for a more idiomatic rendering offer such phrases as “whatam I to do?” (thus NJPSV; similarly REB and NJB)and “where can I turn?” (NAB, NRSV, andRobert Alter’s new translation[26]). Of interest is the following from VictorHamilton’s commentary: he first presented his Englishrendering of the text “What am I going to do!” thenadded a footnote stating “Lit., ‘and I, where shall Igo?’”[27] Of course, to be truly literal, one should renderas I have, with “come,” but Hamilton’s (andeveryone’s!) sense of English (and other [all?] languages)is that “go” is required here. Happily, Martin McNamara,while in the process of translating Targum Neofiti, captured theHebrew correctly: “‘and I, where (shall) I come’(=go).”[28]

4.3. If we have a look atthe ancient versions, we see the same process at work, with theexception of two Targumim. As Depuydt noted,[29] the LXX and theVulgate present the Greek and Latin equivalents of “go,”respectively poreuomai and ibo.[30] Depuydt did not present the Targumic evidence,which I now include. Following suit, Targum Neofiti and theSyriac Peshitta both have lz) “go.”The only exceptions to all these renderings are Targum Onqelosand Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, which both used Aramaic yt) “come” to render Hebrew )b. In the case of Targum Onqelos, the useof yt) is one more sign of thatancient text’s slavish devotion to the Hebrew Vorlage (exceptionssuch as the poetry in Genesis 49 notwithstanding); while in thecase of Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, presumably the influence of TargumOnqelos is at work.[31]Strikingly, however, when modern translators of these Targumimrender the Aramaic phrases into English, the result is BernardGrossfeld’s “where to shall I go?” for TargumOnqelos, and Michael Maher’s “where shall I go?”for Targum Pseudo-Yonatan,[32] oncemore an indication of how difficult it is to use “come”in this context.[33]

4.4. But to return to theHebrew text itself: it is clear that the phrase )b yn) hn) yn)w wnny) dlyh “the childis not, and I, to where shall I come?” in Gen 37:30 presentsconfused—or as I said above, impossible—syntax. The useof this syntax here is once more a case of form following content.Reuben, with no knowledge of what has become of Joseph and in afretful state, can barely speak. His twofold use of the word yn) is one indication of this (though eventhis is not replicated in some of the translations discussedabove (e.g., REB and NJB). An even more glaringindication is the phrase )b yn) hn),the product of a confused mind.

4.5. The surface meaningof the text is that Reuben is speaking to his brothers. But in apenetrating study of this passage, M. Niehoff made a strong casefor reading these words as Reuben speaking to himself.[34] The presence ofconfused syntax in Reuben’s words could support Niehoff’sproposal—Reuben’s mind, filled with pain and “innerconflict,”[35] has not quite sorted out the individual words. Onthe other hand, my identification of confused syntax in Reuben’swords may have no bearing on this approach, since in cases 1 and2 treated above the confused syntax is in speech clearly spokenaloud.  

5. Judg 18:14-20:The disturbance at Micah’s house

5.1. Judges 18relates the story of the migration of the tribe of Dan from theiroriginal homeland in the southern coastal plain to the town ofLaish/Dan in northern Israel. En route, while passing through theterritory of Ephraim, the five men who had reconnoitered the landinform their fellow tribesmen that in the house of a certainMicah there is present
hksmw lspw Myprtw dwp) “an ephod and teraphim, and anidol and a molten-image” (Judg 18:14). The five men then addthe words w#(t hm w(d ht(w “andnow, know what you are to do” (ibid.), no doubt codedlanguage for “let’s take action.”[36] With six hundred armed Danites surrounding thehouse, the five men enter the house and take
hksmh t)w Myprth t)w dwp)h t)w lsph t) “the idol and the ephod,and the teraphim and the molten-image” (v. 17). Immediatelythe reader notices that the order of the four items has changed.The normal pairings of “ephod and teraphim” and “idoland molten-image,” which appear in v. 14, and which occur asearly as Judg 17:3-5 in the introduction to this story, now arechanged to the unnatural pairings “idol and ephod” and“teraphim and molten-image.” The effect is to give asense of ransacking.[37]

5.2. But there is more. Inthe second telling of what occurred—a telling which mostlikely gives us the perspective of the priest in Micah’shouse—the narrator refers to the items as
hksmh t)w Myprth t)w dwp)h lsp t) “theidol of the ephod, and the teraphim and the molten-image” (v.18). Now the confusion is even greater, since there can be nosuch combination as “an idol of the ephod.” The lootingis intensified, or at least the priest perceives the scene aseven more chaotic than it actually was. Finally, when the priestdecides to join the Danites, we read that he took
lsph t)w Myprth t)w dwp)h t) “theephod, and the teraphim and the idol” (v. 20), omitting oneof the four items. The effect is to convey the haste with whichthe priest departed, leaving behind hksmh“the molten-image.” Furthermore, as the priest grabsthe things, note that now the ephod is by itself, no longerpaired in the impossible construction dwp)hlsp “the idol of the ephod” as earlier, but thatthere still is a bit of a mix-up since the traditional pair“ephod and teraphim” is still not quite together—theMasoretic accents separate the two items and place the teraphimwith the idol. The cumulative effect of the four phrases—beginningwith the normal pairings in v. 14, then creating abnormalpairings in v. 17, then positing an impossible construction in v.18, and finally omitting one item in v. 20—is to portray theconfusion which reigned in Micah’s house.

5.3. Once more we may notethat the standard translations—both ancient and modern—smoothover the difficulties in the text. For example, the LXX omits thelisting in v. 17; reads “the graven-image and the ephod andthe teraphim and the molten-image” in v. 18 (with norecognition of the construct phrase dwp)h lsp);and then recreates the original string “the ephod and theteraphim and the graven-image and the molten-image” in v. 20,thereby putting everything back in order and including the hksm which is lacking in MT.[38] The interested readercan check the various English versions and see what moderntranslators have done. The most egregious change is representedin both NJPSV and REB at v. 18, with an impliedHebrew text
Myprth t)w dwp)h t)w hksmh t)w lsph t),thereby presenting the four items in their normal pairing (though,to their credit, both translations included a footnote presentingthe literal rendering of the Hebrew text).

5.4. Happily, one ancienttext followed MT throughout, namely Targum Yonatan,[39] including thereproduction of the construct phrase dwp)hlsp in v. 18 with )dwpy) Mlyc.[40] Not surprisingly,Buber and Rosenzweig adhered to MT in their translation. Theyrendered the key phrase in v. 18 as “das Schnitzbild mit demUmschurz, die Larven, den Aussenguss,”[41] which, while not following MT in exact fashion, atleast creates a separate expression to render
dwp)h lsp.

5.5. I also take theopportunity to comment on another stylistic device utilized bythe author, especially since it too has not been properlyunderstood by commentators. In v. 17 the actions of the five menare described as follows:
. . . wxql hm# w)b “theycame there, they took . . .” (with the listing of the fouritems taken, as noted above). Several scholars have disapprovedof this phrase. G. F. Moore noted that “the asyndeton iswithout parallel in simple narrative,”[42] while A. B. Ehrlich used the rather strong term“unhebraisch.”[43] Butcertainly this view is a misunderstanding of what the author isattempting to convey here. The lack of the conjunction is anindication of the suddenness by which the men swooped into thehouse and took the desired items. The text is not “un-Hebraic”here, but rather once more form follows content. Just as confusedsyntax is utilized to indicate the confusion of the moment, so isspeeded syntax (if I may use that term) used to indicate thespeed with which an event occurs. A parallel usage is found inSong 5:6, where the wording rb( qmx ydwdw “mybeloved had turned, had gone” indicates the instantaneousdisappearance of the male lover from the female lover’sfantasy.

5.6. To return to the mainpoint: the narrative in Judges 18 employs confused language toportray the ransacking of Micah’s house. This reading standsin contrast to that of a distinguished previous commentator:“The account of the way in which they got possession of theimages is badly confused by interpolations and glosses, andbaffles emendation or analysis.”[44] Confused, yes; but that is the very point. 

6. 1 Sam 14:21:Confusion in the Philistine camp

6.1.1 Sam 14:20-21describes an Israelite encounter with the Philistines. In thelatter half of v. 20 we learn that the confusion among the latterwas so great that the Philistines actually attacked each other.The narrator adds curtly: d)m hlwdg hmwhm “avery great confusion.” The next verse, v. 21, is anotherexample of confused syntax:

bybs hnxmb Mm( wl(r#) Mw#l# lwmt)k Myt#lpl wyh Myrb(hw

Ntnwyw lw)# M( r#)l)r#y M( twyhl hmh Mgw

“and the Hebrews were to the Philistines asbefore, that had gone up with them into the camp all around; andeven they to be with Israel that were with Saul and Jonathan.”I have translated the passage as it reads, without any attempt atsmoothing over the difficulties. The latter, of course, is whattypically occurs in English translations, e.g., NRSV “Nowthe Hebrews who previously had been with the Philistines and hadgone up with them into the camp turned and joined the Israeliteswho were with Saul and Jonathan.”[45] Now something like this is presumably whathappened in the battle, but the biblical writer did not describeit in such smooth terms. Instead, to evoke the confusion in thePhilistine camp, he produced language that by its very confusiondescribes the battlefield.

6.2. Thedifficulties in this verse are several. I present here a samplingof what some commentators have noted. First, as many scholarshave noted, it would be helpful to have a relative pronoun,presumably r#), afterMyrb(hw “and the Hebrews,”thus enabling a reading such as “and the Hebrews who werewith the Philistines.”[46]Secondly, the word Mm( is a bit odd,since by stating that the Hebrews had gone up with them, i.e.,the Philistines, the text implies that Philistines had gone upinto their own camp. Note that the LXX omits any equivalent to“with them.”[47]Third, in the words of J. P. Fokkelman, “The verse founderson the atnax in the MT and requires correction.”[48] His proposal, likethat of many, is to move the ’atnaxback one word, and to emend slightly, producing a text that wouldlook like hmh Mg wbbs hnxmb (with the ’atnaxon hnxmb) “. . .into the camp; they too turned . . .”[49] Fourth, though I havefound no scholar who stated so explicitly, the infinitiveconstruct twyhl “to be” hasno verb to support it, though of course by emending the text toread wbbs “turned” thisdifficulty is alleviated.

6.3. But thefree hand of the emender is the wrong approach here. The verse isintentionally confused: it depicts the confusion that reigned inthe Philistine camp. Any attempt either to emend the Hebreworiginal or to smooth over its difficulties in a moderntranslation misses the point entirely.  

7. 1 Sam 17:38:Saul dresses David with his armor

7.1. My finalexample is 1 Sam 17:38:

Nwyr# wt) #blyw w#)rl( t#xn (bwq Ntnw wydm dwd t) lw)# #blyw

This passage is uniformly rendered as a series ofconsecutive acts: as in NJPSV: “Saul clothed David inhis own garment; he placed a bronze helmet on his head andclothed him in a breastplate.”[50] But if we take a closer look at the verbs in thispassage: we note that only the first and the third are in the wayyiqtolform and that the second of them is in the weqatal form. Atypical approach is to declare “Ntnwis syntactically impossible” and to emend the verse.[51] More sober is theapproach of two recent studies from the field of discourseanalysis, one by R. E. Longacre and one by C. H. J. van der Merwe,both of whom isolated this passage as among the most difficultnuts to crack in the biblical narrative corpus.[52] While neither was able to supply an answer to theproblem of why Ntnw (insteadof the expected Ntyw) is used here (andtheir respect for the text precluded emendation as a solution),it was their discussion of this passage which motivated me tohunt for a solution.

7.2. Inkeeping with the approach taken above, I propose to explain thelinguistic peculiarity of 1 Sam 17:38 as follows. Given the threeitems mentioned in this verse, the expected order of dressingwould be Mydm “body-suit,”then Nwyr# “breastplate,”and finally (bwq “helmet.”[53] In the entire historyof human armor, the last item to be donned is always the helmet.The most explicit evidence comes from the numerous textualreferences to the donning of armor in ancient and medievalliterature (Iliad; La Chanson de Roland; and manyother works), all of which refer consistently to the helmet asthe last item to be affixed.[54]One of the overall goals of the author of 1 Samuel, as manyscholars have noted,[55] isto show the inadequacy of Saul. The present passage should beunderstood as part of the portrayal. Saul’s bewilderment atthe presence of the shepherd boy David on the battlefield and hisvolunteering to fight Goliath has caused the king to become soflustered that he is unable even to dress another man properly.[56] The language of 1 Sam17:38 parallels the scene, both through the order of the objectsmentioned and by use of the weqatal form Ntnw “he placed” (clearly, theverb is not a perfect or a pluperfect here). I propose an Englishrendering of 1 Sam 17:38 such as “Saul clothed David in hisbody-suit, then he even placed a bronze helmet on his head, andhe clothed him with a breastplate,” with the highlighting weqatalverb indicated by the expression “then he even placed”;or more radically, “Saul clothed David in his body-suit,then placed he a bronze helmet on his head, and he clothed himwith a breastplate,” with the inverted word order “thenplaced he” replicating the most unusual presence of theHebrew weqatal form.[57]

8. Endnotes

  1. The standard edition isA. M. Blackman, Middle-Egyptian Stories (BibliothecaAegyptiaca 2; Brussels: Edition de la Fondation egyptologiqueReine Elisabeth, 1932), pp. 41-48._

2. For detailed discussion, see H. Goedicke, DieGeschichte des Schiffbruchigen (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,1974), pp. 21-22.

3. A. Erman, The Ancient Egyptians: A Sourcebook oftheir Writings (trans. A. M. Blackman; ed. W. K. Simpson) (NewYork: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 30 and n. 5 (German original1923, first English edition 1927)._

4. W. K. Simpson, The Literature of Ancient Egypt(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 52 and n. 6.

5. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature,vol. 1 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), p. 212 (translation)and p. 215, n. 1 (comment)._

6. R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe and otherAncient Egyptian Poems 1940-1640 BC (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997),p. 93 and p. 98, n. 6.

7. Y. M. Grintz, Mivxar ha-Sifrut ha-Mitsrit ha-'Atiqa(Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1958), pp. 5, 7. My thanks to Hanan Eshel ofBar-Ilan University for drawing my attention to this volume.

8. For further discussion and for other stylisticdevices in this text, see G. A. Rendsburg, “Literary Devicesin the Story of the Shipwrecked Sailor,” JAOS (forthcoming).

9.  This approach serves as a counter to the viewof J. Baines, “Interpreting the Story of the ShipwreckedSailor,” JEA 76 (1990), p. 58 and n. 15: “Thestory’s status as written literature, as against a papyrusthat records an oral composition, is demonstrated by textualcorruptions that must have a written origin,” with thefootnote adding: “The best example is the phrase jn-ht hhn.j-s(w) (36-7, 105-6), which occurs twice but is notmeaningful as it stands” (and again apologies for the lackof subscript diacritical marks which naturally do appear inBaines's citation of the text). I agree with Baines’conclusion that the narrative is written literature (though Idoubt very much whether an ancient Egyptian or anyone in theancient Near East would have understood the modern scholarlydistinction between written composition and oral composition),but I disagree with his presumption of scribal error in lines 36-37(=105-106) as evidence thereof._

10. For a second examplefrom an ancient Near Eastern literary text, in the Apology ofEsarhaddon, see H. Tadmor, “Autobiographical Apology in theRoyal Assyrian Literature,” in H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld,eds., History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies inBiblical and Cuneiform Literatures (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,1983), p. 40. In addition, see N. C. Veldhuis, “The Fly, theWorm, and the Chain: Old Babylonian Chain Incantations,” OLP24 (1993), pp. 41-64. Veldhuis dealt with a specific literarygenre, namely, incantation texts, but his statement about grammaris applicable to all literature: “The rules of grammar arenot laws of nature—the existence of which, after all, isgenerally doubted. Ungrammaticality, or deviant grammar, is oftena mark in that it draws our attention to something special, asreaders of modern poetry well know. Therefore the object of ourinterest must be the deviation as well as the rule” (p. 46).My kind thanks to Scott Noegel for this reference.
As Victor Avigdor Hurowitz reminded me (oral communication), oneinterpretation of the confused language in lines 2-3 of the MesadHashavyahu inscription entails understanding these words asrepresenting the emotional status of the petitioner. Thus alreadyJ. Naveh in the editio princeps: “A Hebrew Letterfrom the Seventh Century B.C.,” IEJ 10 (1960), pp.131-132; and more forcefully S. Ahituv, ’Asufat Ketuvot‘Ivriyot (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1992), p. 98. In fact,both of these scholars cited Gen 37:30, one of the biblical textsthat we will consider below, as a parallel.
Finally, for other examples of peculiarities in the biblical text,ranging from orthographic issues to lexical issues, see S. B.Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job (JSOTSS 223;Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 146-147; and S. B.Noegel, “A Slip of the Reader and Not the Reed,” JBQ26 (1998), pp. 12-19, 93-100._

11. A. Hurvitz, “Ruth2:7—‘A Midrashic Gloss’?” ZAW 95 (1983),p. 122.

12. M. Buber, “DieErzahlung von Sauls Konigswahl,” VT 6 (1956), p.126. It appears that J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetryin the Books of Samuel, vol. 4: Vow and Desire (Assen:Van Gorcum, 1993), p. 387, had Buber’s specific comment inmind when he wrote, after attempting to show some order to thechaos of these lines, that “These observations yield enoughmaterial to prevent our labelling the contribution of the women‘chatter’.” Fokkelman did not cite Buber on thisparticular passage, but he cited Buber’s lengthy treatmentof the Saul narrative in several other places (e.g., p. 383, n.31).

13. See M. S. Moore,“Two Textual Anomalies in Ruth,” CBQ 59 (1997),pp. 238-243, for a recent survey of opinions._

14. By traditional text, Imean the Masoretic Text with all its parts. Thus, e.g., D. Lys,“Residence ou repos? Notule sur Ruth ii 7,” VT21 (1971), pp. 497-501, proposed a reading that ignored theaccent marks; and D. R. G. Beattie, “A Midrashic Gloss inRuth 2:7,” ZAW 89 (1977), pp. 122-124, proposed aninterpretation based on a repointing of the vowels. Of course,other scholars have suggested more radical alterations, i.e.,emendation of the consonantal text._

15. Hurvitz, “Ruth 2:7—‘AMidrashic Gloss’?” pp. 122-123._

16. See Beattie, “AMidrashic Gloss in Ruth 2:7.”_

17. Most scholars contendwith only two different ethnic groups, the Midianites and theIshmaelites, but Gen 37:36 introduces a third group, theMedanites. That the Midianites and the Medanites are distinctentities according to the biblical tradition may be seen in Gen25:2._

18. E. L. Greenstein,“An Equivocal Reading of the Sale of Joseph,” in K. R.R. Gros Louis, ed., Literary Interpretations of BiblicalNarratives, vol. 2 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982), pp. 119-121.I have taken the liberty of retroverting Greenstein’stransliterations to the Hebrew original._

19. Ibid., pp. 122-123._

20. See, for example, A.Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield:Almond Press, 1983), pp. 59-73._

21. L. Depuydt, “Onthe Notion of Movement in Egypto-Coptic and Biblical Hebrew,”in S. Israelit-Groll, ed., Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible andChristianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985), p. 37. Thebracketed word “to” at the end of the first sentence inthis quotation is missing in the original; I have added itbecause I think it is necessary to bring out Depuydt’sintended meaning (unless I have misunderstood him in some way)._

22. Depuydt, “On theNotion of Movement in Egypto-Coptic and Biblical Hebrew,” p.37._

23. I fully recognize thatwords for “come” and “go” do not equate inall cases in all languages. There may be instances of Klh where “come” is the desiredEnglish equivalent, and there may be instances of )wb where “go” is the desiredEnglish equivalent (see also the use of both words collocated in w)b wklw in Gen 45:17). But Depuydt iscorrect in this case, since with hn)the only “correct” option is Klhand the use of )wb creates confusedsyntax._

24.  E. Fox, TheFive Books of Moses (New York: Schocken, 1995), p. 179._

25. The Buber-Rosenzweigtranslation appears in various editions. I cite the text from the15-volume edition: M. Buber and F. Rosenzweig, Die Schrift(Berlin: Schocken, 1926-n.d.) vol. 1, p. 147. Martin Luther’stranslation, incidentally, is the same._

26. R. Alter, Genesis:Translation and Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), p.214._

27. V. P. Hamilton, TheBook of Genesis, Chapters 18-50 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1995), p. 421 and n. 12._

28. M. McNamara, TargumNeofiti I: Genesis (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992),p. 173, n. 20.

29. Depuydt, “On theNotion of Movement in Egypto-Coptic and Biblical Hebrew,” p.37._

30. Though one must admitthat this is not the only instance of the LXX utilizing the verb poreuestaifor )wb. There are eight other cases,according to E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to theSeptuagint (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897), pp. 1189-1194, namely,Gen 24:62, Exod 5:23, Numb 32:6, 1 Sam 17:45, 26:5, 2 Sam 15:37,1 Kgs 16:18, Prov 2:19. But see above n. 23 and more importantlyDepuydt’s important observation that only here is the verb )wb “come” collocated with theinterrogative hn) “whither.”_

31. On this point see thediscussion by M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (Collegeville,MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), pp. 1-2, with a survey of scholarlyopinions and bibliography in n. 5._

32. B. Grossfeld, TheTargum Onqelos to Genesis (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988),p. 128; and Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, p. 126._

33. As with my commentsabove re Hamilton, so too here with Grossfeld and Maher: I intendno criticism towards these scholars, but rather I use theseexamples to demonstrate how odd and difficult a phrase such as“where shall I come?” is to English (and other) ears._

34. M. Niehoff, “DoBiblical Characters Talk to Themselves? Narrative Modes ofRepresenting Inner Speech in Early Biblical Fiction,” JBL111 (1992), pp. 577-595, especially pp. 587-588._

35. Ibid., p. 588._

36. In the words of G. F.Moore, Judges (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895), p. 395:“No more than the hint was needed.”_

37. Though he did not gofar enough in recognizing the true import of the change inwording, see the suggestion of D. N. Freedman apud R. G.Boling, Judges (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), p. 264._

38. Based on the LXX, manymodern scholars emend MT to include hksm inv. 20; thus, e.g., Boling, Judges, p. 264._

39. I follow BM Or. 2210,the text utilized by both A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic,vol. 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959), and M. Cohen, Miqra’otGedolot ha-Keter: Sefer Yehoshua^c -Sefer Shofetim (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1992). W. F.Smelik, The Targum of Judges (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995),utilized different manuscripts of Targum Yonatan, many of whichread )tktm (as opposed to )mlc) in v. 20, thus producing one variantwith MT (as noted by Smelik on p. 227; and see already Sperber’scritical apparatus on p. 85)._

40. However, D. J.Harrington and A. J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the FormerProphets (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987), p. 93, departedfrom the actual text in their English rendering of v. 18 with“the graven image, the ephod, and the figures, and themolten image,” ridding the passage of the construct phrase._

41. Buber and Rosenzweig, DieSchrift, vol. 7, p. 91._

42. Moore, Judges,p. 397._

43. A. B. Ehrlich, Randglossenzur Hebraischen Bibel, vol. 3 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1910),p. 146._

44. Moore, Judges,p. 394._

45. The translation in NJPSV:“And the Hebrews who had previously sided with thePhilistines, who had come up with them in the army [from] roundabout—they too joined with the Israelites who were with Sauland Jonathan,” with a footnote marking the entire sentencesave the last six words “Meaning of Heb. uncertain,” isa bit better at preserving some of the difficulty of this verse._

46. Thus, e.g., S. R.Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford:Clarendon, 1890), pp. 84-85; H. S. Smith, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1899), p. 113; and Ehrlich, Randglossen,vol. 3, p. 213. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry inthe Books of Samuel, vol. 2: The Crossing Fates (Assen:Van Gorcum, 1986), pp. 61-62, n. 53, proposed adding -h, a less radical emendation, instead of r#). But he qualified his remark on p. 721._

47. See P. K. McCarter, 1Samuel (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), p. 237._

48. Fokkelman, NarrativeArt and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. 2: TheCrossing Fates, p. 61, n. 53._

49. Thus McCarter, 1Samuel, pp. 234, 237, with an eye to the LXX. See also Driver,Samuel, p. 84; Smith, Samuel, p. 113; Ehrlich, Randglossen,vol. 3, p. 213; and BHS, ad loc. This emendationunderlies those translations that include the word “turned”in their rendition, e.g., the aforecited NRSV, as well as RSVand NAB. Probably REB “changed sides” andNJB “defected” have a similar basis._

50. Reading the last partof the verse with the footnote; the main text reads “andfastened a breastplate on him.”_

51. McCarter, 1 Samuel,p. 288._

52. R. E. Longacre, “WeqatalForms in Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-modular Approach,”in R. D. Bergen, ed., Biblical Hebrew and DiscourseLinguistics (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994),p. 75; and C. H. J. Van der Merwe, “Discourse Linguisticsand Biblical Hebrew Grammar,” in R. D. Bergen, ed., BiblicalHebrew and Discourse Linguistics (Dallas: Summer Institute ofLinguistics, 1994), p. 28._

53. I admit to somedifficulty here in rendering the terms Mydm andNwyr#. The former is a generic wordfor “garment,” and the latter is typically translated“body armor” or “coat of mail.” In thepresent instance, it appears that Mydm mustbe a body-suit with some protective function and that Nwyr# would then be the breastplate. Notethat M. J. Fretz, “Weapons and Implements of Warfare,” ABD6 (1992), p. 894, allowed for dm =“armor” and Nwyr# = “breastplate.”In any case, the exact designations of these terms in the presentcontext is not the main concern here, since however oneunderstands them, it is clear that the helmet should be donnedlast._

54. For the Iliadreferences, see J. P. Brown, Israel and Hellas (BZAW 231;Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), pp. 163-170. For numerousexamples from medieval literature, see F. Buttin, Du costumemilitaire au moyen age et pendant la renaissance (Memoriasde la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona 12; Barcelona:Real Academia de Buenas Letras, 1971), pp. 15-16, 20, 154-159. Inaddition, the final placement of the helmet can be inferred fromnumerous medieval artworks depicting the wearing of armor; abasic introduction, with many illustrations, is C. Ffoulkes, TheArmourer and His Craft (Boston: Small, Maynard, 1912). I takethis opportunity to thank Pierre Terjanian, Andrew W. MellonCuratorial Fellow in European Arms and Armor at the PhiladelphiaMuseum of Art, for his assistance in this matter and for thesereferences to medieval literature and art. Even Mark Twain got itright in his very detailed description of donning armor, endingwith the helmet, in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’sCourt (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 134-135(in Chapter XI entitled “The Yankee in Search of Adventures”)._

55. See, for example, D. M.Gunn, The Fate of King Saul (JSOTSS 14; Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1980); and M. Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: ALiterary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels(Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1983); as well as the succinct remarksby J. Rosenberg, “1 and 2 Samuel,” in R. Alter and F.Kermode, eds., The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 127-128._

56. Fokkelman, NarrativeArt and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. 2: TheCrossing Fates, p. 176, noted, “The line concerning thebronze helmet already makes us suspect that something is notquite right, for it is too similar to v. 5a, Goliath’s line,and is also followed by the armour (5b-38c).” This is a finepoint, but it is not clear to me whether or not he was guided aswell by the unusual verbal syntax. Though in “Appendix I:Accounting for the selected text,” Fokkelman (p. 727) calledattention to F. E. Konig, Historisch-comparative Syntax derhebraischen Sprache (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1897), pp. 529-530,who considered our example “eine Digression,” with thecomment: “so ist ausmalend-epexegetisch 1 S 17 38: und zwargab er. ” This insight from Konig is close to my ownreading of the passage, and I am happy to have been anticipatedby this classic scholar (I came to the Konig reference only inthe last stage of preparing this article). See also H. J. Stoebe,“Die Goliathperikope 1 Sam. xvii 1 - xviii 5 und dieTextform der Septuaginta,” VT 6 (1956), p. 407._

57. For further treatment,especially on the translation issue, see G. A. Rendsburg, “TheLiterary Approach to Bible and Finding a Good Translation,”in F. W. Knobloch, ed,. Biblical Translation in Context (Bethesda,MD: CDL Press, forthcoming)._