Bargaining in Tov (Judges 11,4-11):
The Many Directions of So-called Direct Speech

  In the world of representation the language of discourse is quite distinct from the world of things, for speech and thought are part of subjective experiences and not merely images of reality. When speakers speak, they image, mediate, and frame their own words as well as the words of others. Re-presented speech is thus a mimesis of discourse. When Jephthah and the elders of Gilead bargain in the land of Tov, their words are mediated to us, filtered through the narrator's own verbal, sociocultural, thematic, aesthetic, persuasive, and moral design. The words spoken in Tov by their very form entail indirections because the speakers communicate with us through someone else. Jephthah and the elders speak, but their words are of another's devising. Their discourse is speech within speech, a perspectival montage. Any one speech event actually entails two levels of communication by two communicators with two perspectives, and one, the narrator's, is always hidden and possibly ironic. Such levels are important to recognize in Judg 11,4-11 because the narrator often works in self-imposed silence. Overt words may hide multiple perspectives, and the layers of quotation may even manifest themselves as triple talk since a character can always speak something other than his or her own mind.

  We do well to develop an eye for dissimilarity because speech and thought are often at odds in the bargaining scene between Jephthah and the elders. We and the dialogists hear the words spoken, but are left to figure out what lies behind them. In this communication web, even listeners exert influence and shape the words uttered by the speakers. Hearing itself is part of the dialogue, and we will also consider how another's speech is received. The dialogue scene opens with the introduction to opponents at war.

⁴And in time the Ammonites waged war against Israel. ⁵And when the Ammonites waged war against Israel, the elders of Gilead went to take Jephthah from the land of Tov. ⁶And they said to Jephthah, Come and be for us General that we may fight against the Ammonites. ⁷But Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, Are you not the ones who hated me and expelled me from my father's house? So why have you come to me now when you are in dire straits? ⁸And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, Precisely because of this, now we turn to you that you may go with us and fight against the Ammonites, and you shall be for us Governor over all the inhabitants of Gilead. ⁹And Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, If you turn me to fight against the Ammonites, and Yhwh gives them over to me, I myself will be your Governor. ¹⁰And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, Yhwh is listening between us. Indeed, what you say, certainly we will do. ¹¹And Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him over them Governor and General. And Jephthah spoke all of his words before Yhwh at Mizpah ¹.

  This scene is preceded by an account of Jephthah's expulsion from his ancestral home by his half-brothers. Born the illegitimate son of a harlot, Jephthah finds himself hounded out of Gilead. He flees to the land of Tov, probably in the region of the Yarmuk ² outside the land of Israel, and, while in exile, gains a reputation as a warrior. "Empty" ³ men rally around and fight with him in Tov (11,3). (The place name, ironically charged, means "good.") When the Ammonites threaten Gilead, the elders scout around for a military leader. Jephthah, who by now has proven himself, emerges as their candidate. At this stage they are not concerned about his parentage or the campaigns he has conducted with the "empty" men. He has the one thing they so desperately need: military prowess, the ability to quickly assemble and lead an organized military contingent ⁴. His contingent can counterattack the Ammonites, and, should he fall in battle, the Gileadites will suffer no great loss.

  The dialogue that ensues as part of this scene's perspectival shifts in narration and quotation demonstrates the Bible's art of diplomacy, the bargainers' shrewdness with offers and counter offers in the world of give-and-take. The narrator invests both Jephthah and the elders with bargaining power, and both sides' use of language is managed as a set of oppositions. They give as little as possible while taking all they can get; he will reject their first offer outright. When the momentum for battle escalates, the elders of Gilead approach Jephthah with the plan of taking (xql) him from the land of Tov. This taking will be accomplished through speech, and the bargaining is the first of four conversation scenes wherein Jephthah dominates. In 11,6- 11 Jephthah converses with the elders of Gilead, in 11,12-28 he (through his messengers) speaks to the king of Ammon, in 11,35-38 Jephthah talks with his daughter, and 12,1-4 records Jephthah's dialogue with Ephraim ⁵. Each speech event is significant because the narrator could, if he would, tell us much more from the omniscient point of view. But here the narrator delegates the storytelling responsibility to the characters themselves. The plot advances through their filtered words, and the resulting insets call attention to the web of perspectives and competing interests, the offers and counter-offers, and, from our side, the fun of it all.

The episode consists of the narrator's frame in vv. 4-6a and 11 (note the duplication of "going," Klh vv. 5, 11), and five insets wherein the elders initiate and conclude the dialogue (elders-Jephthah-elders-Jephthah-elders). The speeches are tightly woven with the narrator interrupting only to shift our attention from one side to the other in this tit-for-tat interchange. But even here, the narrator is not completely effaced; the reception acts are staged in a way that reminds us of the presence of all sides in this narrator-speaker-addressee exchange: and Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead / and the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah / and Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead / and the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah ⁶.

  The elders of Gilead had judicial and political responsibilities, but they functioned primarily only in times of tranquil existence. In this state of emergency they find themselves without a military unit. The effect of Ammonite aggression against the clan of Gilead results in an unsettled and disorganized military, and the narrator stresses the point at the beginning with duplicated references to the Ammonites waging war against Israel. With a crisis on hand it is necessary to transfer power to a military leader who can mobilize the troops and wage war. Jephthah, it appears, is the only one within or outside Gilead who might be counted on for leadership. The very fact that they come to the man who had earlier been driven out of Gilead suggests their desperation, but the dialogue that follows shows, eager for assistance though they are, they still have the wits to buy Jephthah at the lowest possible price.

  The scene's play of perspectives is obvious at the start. From the narrator's point of view, the issue of imminent war with the Ammonites is stressed both by the duplicate reference in vv. 4-5 and its prominent place before the forecasted taking of Jephthah. From the reader's side, this repetition is informational redundancy. Events in the world swell in the representation as more duplication yields less of what's new and sharpens the reader's sense of superfluity. The emphasis on war is modified in the perspectival shift of v. 6 as the elders introduce the idea of a prize and speak of the threat only once. They will make him General (Nycq) so that they might win in fighting against the Ammonites. The elders have confidence that Jephthah can organize a military response against the Ammonites and bring victory for the Gileadites.

In this case, Jephthah's potential rise to power is not unlike that of other individuals in the book of Judges whose strength and military prowess are combined with traits and habits that make them unlikely candidates for leadership. Like the bound-in-the-right-hand Ehud and the ever-testing Gideon who precede him and the often distracted mighty deliverer Samson who will follow, Jephthah is an unexpected choice, and the knowledge we possess of him makes him all the more unlikely. A prize now awaits the exiled son, but their offer, of course, falls short of the commanders' (r#) forecast that whoever fights the Ammonites will be Governor (#)r) over all the inhabitants of Gilead (10,18). If we assume the elders are aware of the commanders' forecast which certainly seems plausible based on their counter-offer in v. 8 we begin to see them as shrewd negotiators. Once the perspective shifts from the commanders, we hear the elders asking much, but offering little. The office of General will last only as long as the battle itself, and if he falls on the battlefield they suffer no loss. This son of a prostitute, exiled by his brothers, living in a land outside Gilead with "empty" men, they know, but never say, is expendable.

Jephthah responds to their plea with two rhetorical questions, and with them begins the process of firmly stipulating for the recognition of his authority: Are you not the ones who hated me and expelled me from my father's house? So why have you come to me now when you are in dire straits? The first question concerns the past; the second the present. Their full weight makes clear that if negotiations are to proceed, they will be on Jephthah's terms. Information is conveyed at two levels: the answer to your request is No, and the reason is that people do not seek help from those they have rejected, just as victims of rejection do not assist rejectors ⁷. Rejection is a two-way street: you rejected me; I now reject you.

Jephthah's choice of the word "expelled" (#rg) in the opening question serves as a reminder of past actions and is now a powerful bargaining tool. But from the reader's side the word looks back in narrative time to the dialogue between Yhwh and Israel in 10,10-16. While Jephthah is a potential deliverer, Yhwh is a proven deliverer against Israel's enemies: Did I not deliver you from the Egyptians and from the Amorites, from the Ammonites and from the Philistines, Yhwh had asked in 10,11. After the Israelites cried out from the oppression of the Egyptians, Amorites, Philistines, Sidonians, Amalekites, and Maonites, God delivered them, but left little hope for future deliverance in the wake of yet a new cycle of rejection: Yet you have abandoned me and worshiped other gods; therefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry to the gods whom you have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your distress, Yhwh says in 10,13-14.

Jephthah's first response and the parallels in dialogue and context with 10,10-16 make it clear that the elders are, indeed, desperate men.

  From a rhetorical perspective, Jephthah's mention of expulsion makes the point that rejection carries its price. It also duplicates the narrator's reference from v. 2. Sons of the same father, the brothers had previously expelled Jephthah from their house with stern words: You shall not inherit anything in our father's house for you are the son of another woman. Their previous action has present implications: why have they come to him now? Jephthah's speech is, of course, a response and as such invites comparison with the elder's opening in v. 6. They had stressed unity in their opening words to him: be for us, we may fight. For his part, Jephthah dwells on the idea of separation as he matches their double plea with a counter double punch: you hated and you expelled. That is, in his first question, he counters their double verbal forms "come" and "be" with you "hated" and "expelled." The pronominal forms in his follow-up question continue the theme of separation. Why have you come to me now that you – not we – are in dire straits? In this second question the interrogative why ((wdm) also serves a distinct rhetorical purpose. When this word is used, the clauses that precede it state undeniable facts; the clause that follows it calls into question an assumption by indicating incredulousness that certain actions should follow, given the situation. Thus the rhetorical question makes clear that rejection itself makes the terms of the demand impossible to fulfill. Why should I deliver you? ⁸

  While Jephthah's No sounds emphatic, the elders understand that in the world of negotiation No may mean Maybe. Since they perceive that his words, like theirs, conceal thoughts (might a counter-offer sound better?), the bargaining proceeds to a new level. They duplicate their previous theme of urgency in v. 8, and to it they add flattery: You are the only one who can successfully wage war against the Ammonites. They match him on his own terms. Why have you come to me now (ht(), he had asked. They respond that it is precisely because of their dire straits that they now (ht() turn to him. In this stage of the negotiations, after Jephthah's words "you hated" and "you expelled," they increase the drama with new words in dialogue. Previously they "came" to Jephthah, an image that is presented from three perspectives early in the scene: first by the narrator (Klh v. 5), then by the elders (Klh v. 6), and finally by Jephthah himself ()wb v. 7). They now "turn" (bw#) to him after rejecting and disinheriting him. While Jephthah had referred to the past explicitly, they mention it only obliquely in their reference to (re)turning, a word that often carries profound religious overtones. It suggests turning away from (their) previous actions and mistakes while concomitantly turning to a new modus operandi. This turning works in two directions simultaneously. They (re)turn to him now, but it is Jephthah – not the elders – who has gone away!

  Their sudden turn of heart is revealed in their turn of words. With the original title of General (Nycq) off the negotiating table, they propose to make him Governor (#)r). The first offer denotes a military leader whose tenure is limited by the time of war. This latest offer of #)r is for political office and assures a term lasting indefinitely, beyond the restoration of peace times ⁹. Indeed, Jephthah will hold power "for six years" (12,7). They had originally hoped to secure Jephthah's services for less, but, fight with us now, they implore him, and be established as our chief political officer later. Whereas they had originally proposed that he be their General that they might fight, they now reverse the order: he will fight and then become governor. In the first instance, a title would be given before battle. Now after (re)turning to him, the new, bigger prize will be awarded subsequently. Having failed in their opening petition, they now duplicate to the letter the commanders' original forecast that the one who fights the Ammonites shall be Governor over all the inhabitants of Gilead (10,18). If he accepts their counter-offer, he will be ruler over the entire region with authority in peace times as well, just as Saul will later be head (#)r) over all the tribes of Israel (1 Sam 15,17).

  But the elders' speech is also significant for what it omits. They do not specify that he must win the battle in order to secure the title, and, while they have offered him military and civil leadership, they stop short of reinstating him as heir (cf. vv. 2 and 7). With talks in progress, no need to introduce the subject of defeat in battle, and they can always introduce reinstatement in a possible future round. Perhaps the one who has heard that he will not inherit anything from his father's house (v. 2) will be persuaded by this latest offer of a perpetual office. In dialogue, the elders are for the moment content with returning to their earlier strategy of emphasizing unity while carrying the tactics even further: you may go with us, you shall be for us Governor over all. This repetitious call for unity, they remind him, is for the single purpose of waging a successful campaign against the Ammonites.

  The negotiating door that Jephthah appeared to close in his first response to the elders in v. 7 is opened with the first word he speaks in v. 9: If you turn me to fight against the Ammonites, and Yhwh gives them over to me, I myself will be your Governor. "If" allows for the possibility that a deal may be struck. In the first round he had used their word "now" (ht() in his response. In the second exchange they made the point that they "turn" to him, and he responds, if you "turn" me. This double borrowing suggests a strategy on Jephthah's part. He takes their words and transforms them to his liking: You wish to talk with me about "now," but before we proceed, let me remind you of the past. Yes, it is true that you "turn" to me with the Ammonites all around, but let me set the context of the turning, Jephthah is saying as he interposes a new element in the causal chain. While they have cleverly avoided the issue of non-victory, he actually introduces success as a condition for the prize as he shifts attention heavenward: if Yhwh gives them over to me. What they are willing to give, he announces, he will earn with Yhwh's help. As Cheryl Exum has observed, Jephthah's statement now lends divine approval to the negotiations by making his appointment as #)r contingent on divine favor ¹⁰. But the introduction of religious language also works at another level. The language of both the dialogists and the narrator leaves no doubt that it is not Yhwh who will make Jephthah Governor. It is humans who carry this entire scene forward. Does this language call attention to problems on the horizon? It is, after all, we now discover, the son of a prostitute, not the elders of Gilead, who perceives that Yhwh determines the outcome on the battlefield. Their silence on this point may suggest their disregard for Yhwh, or, if we take the multiple directions of speech seriously, their silence may issue from their deliberate attempt to keep the bargaining on an earthly, simple-as-possible, appeal-to-his-instincts plane.

  They offered the title of Governor over all Gilead after mentioning the projected fight against the Ammonites. He preserves this causal sequence (fighting > Governor) in his response in v. 9. Let there be no mistake, Jephthah underscores, I will assume office after battle. With reinstatement as family member not on the table (cf. vv. 2 and 7), we might assume that for Jephthah command of a sizable group is better than reinstatement. As the negotiations conclude, the distance and opposition between exiled and elders is almost dissolved at the linguistic level. While Jephthah does not go as far as they had in their opening petition (be for us, we may fight), his previous I-You opposition in v. 7 (you hated me) is much less pronounced at the end. His opening remark in v. 9 is literally "if turning you me," and he closes with the words, "I myself will be for you Governor." The issue of the prize is retained from the elders' offer, but it appears as Jephthah's final word in the scene. Words suggesting a new consensus in opposition to the Ammonites ("you me" and "I for you") precede Jephthah's mention of the prize.

  Now that both parties are satisfied, ready to strike a deal that meets the desires of all, the elders acquiesce completely and quickly. Their final speech is only eight words in the Hebrew: Yhwh is listening between-us; indeed, what-you-say, certainly we-will-do. They now seize upon what they had previously left unsaid. From the one who associated with "empty" men, they have learned a lesson through speech. He had borrowed their words (now, turn); they now adopt his language. Their opening word, just spoken by Jephthah, is the special name Yhwh, whom they announce is listening between both parties. The Yhwh they had overlooked is now foregrounded: the bestowal of the high office, they announce, will hinge upon divine ratification of the proceedings. But again, their language works at more than one level, leaving us with the impression of the multiple directions of direct speech. Does the ceremony properly end as Robert Boling concludes ¹¹, or does it bode trouble? Has Jephthah's leadership been legitimized? Has he merely been given authority to meet an emergency at hand rather than receive a divine call to act as a deliverer? These questions the narrator leaves unanswered for the moment. The spirit of Yhwh will come upon Jephthah subsequently (11,29), but his call to leadership here comes not from God but from the tribal leaders of Gilead. They make the illegitimate son legitimate, and in a book where the divine spirit often descends (Judg 3,10; 6,34; 11,29; 13,25; 14,6.19; 15,14), Yhwh's absence on stage gives the scene a portentous aura.

  They introduce a preposition in the dialogue, Yhwh is listening "between" (Nyb) us, and underscore the new unity. Their language moves in the opposite direction of the narrator's and characters' earlier words (against, take from, hated, expelled), and at the phonological level the preposition sounds in the Hebrew much like the first part of the name of the Ammonites (ynb) which the newly formed coalition opposes. In their final response the elders also affirm that what Jephthah says they will certainly do, and the narrator confirms in v. 11 what their words had hinted at all along: it is the people who make him their leader.

  The narrator, who had opened the scene, closes it with a reference to the consecration ceremony. With a deal struck, the newly appointed leader solemnizes the pledges. The elders' second offer of governor exceeded their first offer of general. They have paid, and, at first glance, at a price no greater than that forecast by the commanders in 10,18. But while it is true that the negotiations cease without any mention of reinstating Jephthah as heir, the people make Jephthah both Governor (#)r) and General (Nycq). He had expressed interest only in the Governorship, and the appointment was to be conditioned upon victory. But the elders give him political office now, even as they appoint him military leader for the crisis at hand. Their haste is accentuated by the narrator's report of their actions. They dispense with Jephthah's condition in v. 9 (if Yhwh gives them) as they confer both titles even before the battle begins. The two titles had been introduced in vv. 6, 8 as General and Governor, but are reversed in the narrator's report of the conferral in v. 11. The issue of perpetuity, so important to the one exiled by his brothers (You shall not inherit anything in our father's house, they told him in v. 2), is thus now foregrounded as the elders willingly bestow the title of perpetuity before making him their leader for the battle at hand.

  They have secured just the kind of rough rider they need, a man who has proven himself in battle and who is also expendable. In the event that the Ammonites kill Jephthah, the elders will suffer no great loss. Indeed, they might even find consolation in being relieved of a permanent governor they would not have otherwise sought. But their offer and counter-offer have been made without any mention of loss at war as the what's-in-it-for-Jephthah possibilities have been articulated.

  The focus in the conclusion is on "words," from the point of view of the elders, Jephthah, and the narrator. The elders pledge to follow Jephthah's word (rbd), and Jephthah speaks (rbd) all his words (wyrbd) before Yhwh ¹². Words can stand for covenant stipulations as in the Deuteronomic formulations, found, for example, in Deut 5,22 ¹³, but a more explicit vowing word, found in an upcoming scene (11,30), is not used here. These words spoken at the sanctuary appear to give the agreement validity, but in this context attention to "words" – none spoken by Yhwh – reinforces the ceremony's this-worldly cast, and, indeed, may once more leave the reader with a sense of complications on the horizon.

  The mention of Mizpah (Mizpeh in 11,29), the last word appearing in the scene, harks back in narrative time to the assembling of troops in 10,17. The exact location of this Mizpah has not been determined, but it may have been a central sanctuary for worshipers south of the Jabbok and east of the Jordan ¹⁴. Our failure to locate this site so central to the Jephthah narrative should not, however, distract us from recognizing its literary function. Based on the root hpc "to look out, watch," the place-name means "Place of Outlook" or "Watch Place," and the attention given it serves to develop the plot ironically ¹⁵. Jephthah will soon fail to "look out" (i.e., "perceive") when he utters an absurd vow and then fulfills it. (Notice in 11,29 that the spirit of Yhwh comes upon Jephthah, but is he aware of it? The vow that follows in vv. 30-31 is capriciously made!) Mizpah will not be mentioned after he sacrifices his daughter. The silence is profound.

  In sum, the unique play of perspectives is manifested as voices, or, more to the point, as mediated speech events framed by the narrator's own point of view in the telling. The characters never speak autonomously, but instead are always part of the narrator's constructed web. The harping on titles has made clear to the bargainers the conditions of Jephthah's acceptance, but the repetition also deprives the audience of other information. Such suppression and the stylistic features of verbal ambiguity in dialogue ultimately shed light on Jephthah himself who emerges in ambiguity. Son of an unnamed prostitute and of a father unidentified and perhaps unidentifiable – he is the son of the personified district of Gilead(11,1) – his enthronement abounds in the narrator's devised ambiguity ¹⁶.

Summary

  This article explores the subject of speech as mediated discourse in the bargaining scene between the elders of Gilead and Jephthah in the land of Tov (Judg 11,4-11). The episode consists of the narrator's frame in vv. 4-5 and 11 and five insets wherein the elders initiate and conclude the dialogue (elders- Jephthah-elders-Jephthah-elders). The narrator informs us that the elders approach Jephthah with a plan of taking (xql) him from the land of Tov. The taking is accomplished through speech that the narrator quotes, and the perspectival shifts in narration and quotation demonstrate the Bible's art of diplomacy. The speeches are tightly woven with the narrator interrupting only to shift our attention from one side to the other in this tit-for-tat interchange. But even here, the narrator is not completely effaced. The reception acts are staged in a way that remind us of the presence of all sides in this exchange. The bargaining thus proceeds through filtered words, and the resulting insets call attention to the web of perspectives and competing interests, the offers and counter offers in the world of give- and-take, and, from our side, the fun of it all.

¹ The translation of Judg 11,4-11 is my own. In other passages cited, I quote from the NRSV.

² A. MALAMAT, "The Period of the Judges", The World History of the Jewish People, 3 (ed. B. MAZAR) (Tel Aviv 1971) 157.

³ The Hebrew word qra carries various shades of meaning: idle, worthless, vain (BDB, 938). R. G. BOLING (Judges [AB 6A; New York 1975] 165, 171, 196, and cf. Judg 9,4) translates the word as "mercenaries." J. A. SOGGIN (Judges: A Commentary [OTL, trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia 1981] 203) renders it as "adventurers."

⁴ A. J. HAUSER, "Unity and Diversity in Early Israel before Samuel", JEvTS 22 (1979) 298.

⁵ Jephthah also initiates speech in 11,30-31, but in contrast to the other four dialogue scenes, the addressee, Yhwh, does not respond verbally.

⁶ This highlighting trend continues in the three subsequent exchanges (11,12- 28.35-38; 12,1-3), but occasionally in Judges the addressee's name is omitted. In 16,20, for example, the narrator identifies only the speaker. It is Delilah who names Samson. This shift in narrative technique in chap. 16 adds drama to the narrator's account of the Philistines who seize Samson and gouge out his eyes.
   For a study that combines research on the Jephthah narrative in the areas of composition history, literary genre, historicity, redaction history, and archaeology, cf. the work of P.A. KASWALDER, La disputa diplomatica di Iefte (Gdc 11,12-28): La ricerca archeologica in Giordania e il problema della conquista (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Analecta 29; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing, 1990).

⁷ D. MARCUS, "The Bargaining between Jephthah and the Elders (Judges 11:4-11)", JANES 19 (1989) 98.

⁸ D. MARCUS, "Bargaining," 97.

⁹ The two titles appear in parallel in Mic 3.1, but are not to be construed as synonyms; cf., Z. WEISMAN, "Charismatic Leaders in the Era of the Judges", ZAW 89 [1977] 404-405 n. 29). The terms are also found in extra-biblical documents: qatsin in Ugaritic documents as a Canaanite loanword in Egyptian inscriptions (kd/tn), denoting a commander of a chariot; and rт'sh denotes heads of nomadic tribes (resu, ra'sani) in Assyrian sources (MALAMAT, "Period", 322 n. 7). The general-governor distinction is maintained with slight variations among modern commentators (BOLING, Judges, 198; MALAMAT, "Period", 15, H. N. ROSEL, "Jephtah und das Problem der Richter", Bib 61 [1980] 251-55; H. N. ROSEL, "Die `Richter Israels': Rьckblick und neuer Ansatz", BZ 25 [1981] 203).

¹⁰ C. EXUM, "The Tragic Vision and Biblical Narrative: The Case of Jephthah", Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (ed. C. EXUM) (Semeia Studies; 1989) 73-74.

¹¹ BOLING, Judges, 198.

¹² At the end of the negotiation scene which immediately follows, the narrator reports that the king of the Ammonites does not heed the words ( uyrab:dI%) of Jephthah (11,28).

¹³ BOLING, Judges, 199.

¹⁴ BOLING, Judges, 48-D3, 199) locates it in the vicinity of Jebel Jel`ad and Khirbet Jel`ad. Cf. MALAMAT, "The Period," 158 and J. GRAY, Joshua, Judges, Ruth (NCB; Basingstoke / Grand Rapids 1986) 316.

¹⁵ L. R. KLEIN, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges (JSOTS 68 – Bible and Literature; Sheffield 1989) 88.

¹⁶ An earlier draft of this paper was presented in the Biblical Criticism and Literary Criticism Section at the National Society of Biblical Literature Meeting in San Francisco, 24 November 1997. I wish to thank Professors James Ackerman, Dwaine Greene, and Burke Long for helpful comments on this paper.