Choreographing Embedded Dialogue in Biblical Narratives

Story of Tamar and Amnon (2 Sam 13:1–19)

Categorization is implicit in the mental exercise associated with positioning. As part of the process of addressing someone else, one natural step is to sort your discussant partner into relevant categories based on gender, social status, and role within the community. In addition, interactants also predicate their speech based on positioning each other in terms of personal relationship and relative power levels (i.e., father/son, patron/client; Day & Kjaerbeck: 21). However, there are examples within the biblical narrative when this “pre-positioning” process is temporarily transcended by the elements and circumstances that occur within the narrative. For instance, the assumed positions and identities of Amnon and his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam 13:1–19) take a drastic and unexpected shift during their dialogue (Matthews & Benjamin, 349–63). (See the table in the opposite column.) In a tension-edged scene (2 Sam 13:11–17), Tamar rises above her status as a mute, female relative, who has been placed in a position of subservience to Amnon by her royal father David, and takes on a self-appointed, authoritative stance (Bamberg 2004: 136). Her new identity as a wisdom figure is part of her strategy to forestall Amnon's attempts to force her to engage in intercourse (Trible: 45). She chides her ardent brother that “such a thing is not done in Israel” (13:12). She then admonishes him to engage in right action: “Speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you” (13:13). Finally, after he has brutally raped her and orders her to be cast from his house, she makes a final plea not to be consigned to social oblivion and perpetual shame (13:16). While none of her statements has any apparent effect on Amnon, what are important are her efforts to control the situation by re-positioning herself and assuming a new identity.

For his part, Amnon never acknowledges Tamar's efforts. He consistently predicates his speech and his responses based on his perceived identity as a dominant male, free to satisfy his own self-indulgent desires. The loathing that he expresses may be a reaction to her presumption in positioning herself with an authoritative identity, and may also be a petulant reaction to her chiding remarks. Throughout their discourse, while Tamar attempts to shift her identity, ultimately she is unsuccessful and, in fact, it is Amnon who re-positions her, transforming her from a “virgin daughter of the king” (13:18) into a pitiful (now damaged socially and physically) shadow of herself. Plus, Amnon demonstrates through his obstinacy and single-minded obsession how he is able to reject her attempts to position him in a child's or student's role. In this way he demonstrates that membership and identity categories can be disputed (Day & Kjaerbeck: 21–22). Like the depiction of the “fool” in Isaiah (Isa 32:5–6), Amnon maintains the traditional social distinction between them and asserts his social and physical dominance over her through his brutal treatment (Gray: 51).

Story of David and Shimei (2 Sam 16:5–10)

A particularly shocking reversal of identity and the shifting of power relations appear in the Story of David and Shimei (2 Sam 16:5–10). The first spatial clue to what will transpire is the reference to David retreating from Jerusalem to Bahurim in Benjaminite territory, the tribal domain of King Saul. Reduced to the status of a political exile by his rebellious son Absalom, David is confronted by Saul's kinsman Shimei, who verbally abuses the king, curses him for wrenching the throne from Saul's household, and even casts stones as a form of judicial gesture (see Num 14:10; 15:35; Deut 13:10). The aggressive manner in which Shimei confidently asserts that Yahweh has “repaid” (hēshīv; 16:8a) David for his bloody treatment of the house of Saul is echoed, although with more hope than confidence by David as he continues his march into exile (16:12b; Brueggemann: 177). Shimei's speech indicates that there was a simmering hatred of “the usurper” among some of the Benjaminites and his jubilant cry for David to “get out!” must have been too tempting to suppress even in the face of potential retaliation (Auld: 515).

Despite this disrespectful treatment, casting David as a social inferior and a criminal, David does not address Shimei directly. His only reaction is to the offer made by Abishai to dispatch the “noisy dog” who has dared to address his king in this way (16:9; see Exodus 22:27 on cursing the ruler). David, in his remark to his lieutenant, now positions himself as an authoritative figure and one who upholds Yahweh's “governance of history” (Brueggemann: 180). He sharply rebukes the zealous Abishai for usurping God's role as judge (16:10a). Then David immediately shifts his identity once again to that of a penitent, one deserving the harsh labels and stones cast at him by Shimei (16:10b). David's conciliatory tone accepts what Yahweh, through the voice of Shimei, has said (16:11; Cartledge: 575–76). Placing emphasis on the word “perhaps,” David expresses the hope that Yahweh will see his penitence and will ultimately turn (hēshīv) this disaster/curse into a blessing and a restoration of fortunes (16:12; compare Jer 21:2; Amos 5:15; Jonah 1:6).

Jethro and Moses (Exodus 18:13–27)

In the dialogue between Moses and his Midianite father-in-law Jethro (Exod 18:13–27), Moses has become the established leader of his people as they make their way out of Egypt, but family protocol still requires him to accept instruction from his father-in-law (ḧōtēn). Their familial relationship is graphically demonstrated when Moses takes the initiative to go out to meet Jethro and submissively “bowed down and kissed him” (18:7; Carpenter: 97). It is also repeatedly reinforced, being explicitly mentioned thirteen times in this chapter. Identity, as always, is multi-faceted, but at the micro-level certain characteristics transcend politics and the repetition of a kinship label is a clear indicator to the audience of its importance. In addition, the degree to which Jethro can bring rhetorical force (“belief-inducing energy”) to his arguments will also be a determinant in whether Moses accepts their logic or chooses to maintain his current methods (Schudson: 165).

The pericope parallels an earlier story of shared governance found in Numbers 18:16–30. The Numbers tradition, which predates the Exodus tradition, is primarily concerned with the “sacralization” of the judiciary, while both texts deal with the reorganization of judicial procedures (Cook: 291–95). The dialogue in Exodus 18 begins when a newly arrived Jethro witnesses how Moses is attempting to mediate, on his own, all of the petty disputes that have arisen among the people. Recognizing this as an inefficient use of Moses' time and energy, Jethro first tries to break Moses' single-minded assumption that he must be responsible for all leadership tasks in managing the people. Then, speaking in his identity as Moses' father-in-law and taking on the role of sage and elder, he recommends a series of steps outlining a new judicial protocol. In this way the self-imposed burden is lifted from Moses' shoulders and shared out among seventy men appointed for the task of hearing minor disputes (Num 18:19–23). Harmony is restored, and Moses can focus on the tasks ahead (Ber: 154). (See the table on the following page.)

Jethro initiates their interaction by stepping forward and asking his son-in-law, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, while all the people stand around you from morning until evening?” (Exod 18:14). In this social context, Jethro's remarks are not simply a request for information. They are a methodical conversation strategy designed to accomplish change through the proposition of logical behavior. With this as an example it is possible to assert that “utterances may be viewed as objects, which speakers use to accomplish particular things in their interactions with others” (Hutchby & Wooffitt: 19). And, in this case, “colliding points of view” are highlighted through the use of irony as a means of expressing that contrast of opinions (Shilikhina: 192)

Jethro adds to his moral authority as father-in-law by clothing himself in the identity and the wisdom of a sage. He intentionally employs a form of cutting irony designed to attract Moses' attention to his current, unsatisfactory procedure and asks him to stop and think about his actions. His use of words is also significant since they take on the tone of a near insult: “What do you think you are doing to the people!” (compare Gen 3:13; 12:19; 26:10; and 28:25). Of course, the effectiveness of Jethro's questions is dependent upon Moses' recognition of Jethro's communicative intentions and his assertion of an authoritative identity. Irony is most effective when the recipient understands the pedagogical purposes behind its usage (Leggitt & Gibbs: 3–4).

Note that according to the mutually understood social patterns of this community it is likely that only Jethro could have questioned Moses in this manner. No one else had the social standing to do so without dire consequences. There are three narrative clues in the earlier part of this chapter that help to establish Jethro's authority in this scene and provide him with a high level of recognition and respect: (1) the story-teller incredibly repeats the title, “Moses' father-in-law” (ḧōtēn) instead of the name Jethro, throughout the chapter (18:1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 17, 24, 27); (2) the storyteller reminds the audience of their social relationship by having Jethro use his kinship title when he alerts Moses of his imminent arrival in the camp (Exod. 18:6); and (3) Jethro makes a singular statement of faith in Yahweh's power following Moses' recitation of the exodus events (18:10–11) and then officiates over the sacrifice rather than allow either Moses or Aaron to do so, while these leaders of the Israelites are portrayed as joining Jethro in a covenant meal before Yahweh (18:12; see Meyers: 137).

The pattern of social organization in that ancient, traditional society would require this show of respect and would be a signal that both Jethro and Moses are following established speech and kinship protocols (Matthews & Benjamin 1993: 7–9). When Moses responds, he does so in the manner and identity of a son-in-law, who accepts Jethro's authority and does not dispute what his father-in-law has observed. That helps to explain why Moses submissively outlines his current three-fold procedure without further comment: the people come to me to inquire of God, I decide the disputes between persons brought to me, and I teach them God's statutes (18:15–16).

Perhaps in frustration at Moses' failure to provide any detailed explanation for his actions, Jethro takes a further rhetorical step by first providing a stern judgment of his own on what Moses is doing (18:17; Ber: 165; compare Prov 17:26; 18:5): simply saying it is “not good.” Then, matching Moses' three-fold speech pattern with a three-fold response of his own, the father-in-law tells him “you will surely wear yourself out … the task is too heavy … you cannot do it alone” (18:18). In this way, Jethro expands upon his kinship-based identity, adding a further layer to experiential authority.

Of particular significance for conversation analysis is the word choice that appears in these opening statements. Moses' response to Jethro's question, “When they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide” (18:16), and Jethro's rejoinder, spoken in a tone of disapproval, “What you are doing is not good [literally ‘too heavy for you’]” (18:17) all employ the word dābār, which in this legal context refers to Moses' action as “law-dispenser” as well as to the people's disputes that are a threat to order within the community. The choice of this particular word and the common speech pattern each employs represent a conscious effort on the part of the storyteller to highlight the judicial nature of this scene and may presage the giving of the law in Exodus 20:1–17 (Carpenter: 99). It also is likely that the repetitious use of a word play would have appealed to the ears and the minds of the ancient audience in much the same way that alliteration and puns amuse a modern audience (Greenstein: 160–64).

Completing the scene is a forceful cry by Jethro to be heard as he shapes a solution to the problem (18:19). He signals his call to be heard by employing the imperative phrase, “Now listen to me” (‘attâ šěma’ běqôlî). In this way he reasserts control over the conversation, requiring Moses to attend to his words and acknowledge his identity (Meier: 112–18; compare Gen 27:8; Num 16:8; 1 Sam 26:19). Jethro then proceeds to remind Moses of the tasks he has previously laid out for himself: “bringing their cases before God,” teaching “them the statutes” of God and instructing them on “the way they are to go and the things they are to do” (Exod 18:19–20).

The basic psychology of these remarks creates a conciliatory tone that may be intended to soften the earlier, more aggressive and cutting statements that were designed to cut through Moses' single-minded determination to handle all matters himself. Simply put, Jethro is reminding Moses that social life is characterized by conflicts. Therefore discourse analysis, in this case Jethro's analysis of Moses' words, “is involved in establishing one version of the world in the face of competing versions” (Gill: 143). In this way Jethro affirms Moses' authority as the mediator between the people and God by using Moses' own words while noting that he cannot carry out his divine mandate without help.

Following this rhetorical prelude, Jethro's intended agenda is sketched out with the suggestion that Moses appoint seventy God-fearing, trustworthy elders to assist him with his lower level judicial caseload (18:21–22). He then completes his oration with a three-fold claim for the authority of his words of wisdom: (1) assuming that God “so commands you,” (2) that Moses will be able to “endure” and thus finish his task as leader, and (3) “all these people will go to their home in peace,” completing the covenant promise made to them at the time they were brought out of Egypt. Note that at no point does Jethro assume the identity of law-giver or law-dispenser himself. That, he asserts and reaffirms is Moses' task with God's help (Carpenter: 99). However, what is open to revision is Moses' stated employment of his oracular function for all comers. Jethro's plan would reserve that to only the most important matters (Schwartz: 41).

By categorizing his advice as the wise thing to do and framing it as God's plan, Jethro employs a rhetorical device that discourse analysts describe as “inoculation theory.” This is a strategy or speech pattern designed to prevent the dismissal of a position or claim based on the assumption that it is merely an expression of personal interest (Potter: 125–28; compare Ps 107:43; Prov 1:5 and 12:15). Jethro not only presents Moses with a logical alternative to his method of dispensing justice, but is “inoculated” against continuing that practice. He provides him with an argument that both refutes the effectiveness of current practices and makes the case that it is a threat to the well-being of the people and to Moses' carrying out his divine mandate as their leader (Banas & Rains: 5). When Moses quietly accepts and acts on Jethro's advice (18:24–25), the father-in-law has completed his narrative role as sage and can relinquish that identity, reverting back to his kinship role. Having completed his task, Jethro, like Laban, Jacob's father-in-law (Gen 31:55), departs the scene “to his own country,” and is not heard from again (setting aside the events in the alternative story in Num 10:29–32 that uses the name Hobab for Moses' father-in-law; Schwartz: 44).

Conclusions

Conversation is a central aspect of social interaction. That is a truism throughout human history and applies to both live and narrated encounters. As a result, conversation analysis and positioning theory have proven to be useful methods in the interpretation of biblical narratives containing embedded dialogues. It is clear that the speech and actions of the characters in these narratives are choreographed by the biblical writers and editors. But, of course, the use of narrative strategies in crafting stories is not unique to that ancient culture. Story telling is enriched by the inclusion of various types of social interaction, including dialogic exchange and rhetorical devices (patterns of speech, gestures, and the use of irony, metaphor, and tone). What is demonstrated here is the shifting efforts by participants in these dialogic exchanges to position themselves. In this way the story-teller enlivens the characters' function within the narrative by having them attempt to create new or expanded identities for themselves. It is the success or failure of these efforts that drives the narrative to its climax and ultimate conclusion.