Adele Berlin is one of the scholars whose work fundamentally changed the direction of my studies. Her Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative described ideas like characterization and point of view that captivated my attention for years to come. If you have not yet read this book, DO IT. If you have not read it recently, read it again. Her work in the area of participant reference formed the point of departure for a third of my dissertation.

The one draw back to her work is that there is little in the way of methodology for determining when these features are present and when they are not. This accounted for another third of my dissertation, developing a description of the semantic requirements governing participant reference in Biblical Hebrew.

I want to take a look at the pragmatic use of redundant reference to participants in Genesis 24 to explicitly indicate changes in the current center of attention in the narrative. As I demonstrated in my JNSL article, center of attention need not remain stagnant, but can shift as the role of primary initiator shifts within the story. The nice thing about studying such thematic devices is that they are accessible to folks only working in English, though the redundant elements are commonly “smoothed over” by the translators. This post will demonstrate the exegetical value of these devices.

Several principles summarize the core components of participant reference:

  1. Be brief: use the shortest expression available to refer to a participant. This means that when a participant is first introduced, something like “Steve Runge, host of NTDiscourse.org…” would suffice. It provides what will function as my “primary referring expression “Steve”, and an anchor to connect me to the world of the discourse (host of…).
    Once you know who is being talked about, the briefest expression is typically a pronoun like “he,” which is often a suffix or prefix in BH.
  2. Be clear: use the most precise expression available for reference. This means that if I am introduced as “Steve,” you would expect that to be the primary label used, rather than “host of…” or “the former carpenter.” You will see switches in news articles as a means of both varying the style and reinforcing the person’s role in the story.

At times, these principles conflict with one another. For instance, if there are two male participants interacting and they are going to switch roles, it typically takes an overt reference to at least one of them to disambiguate who is doing what to whom. Thus, being clear outweighs the value of being brief. Middle-schoolers often struggle with BOTH principles, but I digress. 🙂 There is a third principle, but I will refer you to my article or dissertation if you want more detail.

With these principles in place, let’s take a look at some of the examples from Genesis 24. Here is the text of the NASB, abridged a bit:

1     Now Abraham was old, advanced in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in every way.

2     Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, “Please place your hand under my thigh…(snip)”

5     The servant said to him, “Suppose the woman is not willing to follow me to this land; should I take your son back to the land from where you came?”

6     Then Abraham said to him, “Beware that you do not take my son back there! (snip)

9     So the servant placed his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to him concerning this matter.

Note that Abraham is the only participant with a proper name, which often (but not always) serves as an indicator of a participant’s significance. Berlin talks about “names without faces” and “faces without names” to describe the different options. “The servant” is a face without a name, whereas Nahor is essentially a name without a face.

Also note that “the servant” has a epithet rather than a proper name. This tends to keep attention focused on the named participants. Consider the “the foreman who oversees the reapers” in Ruth 2. Attention remains focused on Ruth and Boaz as named entities. The foreman is not salient, his job is simply to pass on information to Boaz. Calling him “Bob” would have been briefer, but it risks distracting attention from the key participants.

Another thing about epithets versus proper names is that the former allow—even require at times—connection to another participant. In this case, he is anchored to Abraham as “his servant,” implying that Abraham is the current center of attention. Anchoring relations can be specified with a proper name, but it requires using an often redundant epithet, as seen in v. 9 with “Abraham his master.”

Did you catch the switch? Who was anchored to whom as the story opened? What happens as the charge is given to the servant?  Verse 2 has the servant explicitly anchored to Abraham, whereas the references in vv. 5-6 do not provide any explicit indicators. The default expectation regarding anchoring is that the status quo remains until the writer indicates otherwise. It seems as though there is a switch in the anchors and corresponding center of attention at the point the servant begins to implement his charge. Is this just a fluke, “stylistic variation?” Let’s keep reading and find out.

10 Then the servant took ten camels from the camels of his master, and set out with a variety of good things of his master’s in his hand; and he arose and went to Mesopotamia, to the city of Nahor.

11     He made the camels kneel down outside the city by the well of water at evening time, the time when women go out to draw water.

12     He said, “O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, please grant me success today, and show lovingkindness to my master Abraham…snip…14 may she be the one whom You have appointed for Your servant Isaac; and by this I will know that You have shown lovingkindness to my master.”

Alas, we find intentionality betrayed in the variation! Now even Abraham the patriarch is referred to using an epithet, both in vv. 10 and the end of 12. With reported speeches, it is quite normal for the speaker to be the center of reference, to be “ego-centric” as it were. The best indicators of center of attention will be found in narrative proper, but speeches carry the same kinds of possibilities.

Check out the anchoring of Isaac! He is connected to neither the servant nor Abraham, but to YHWH. Isaac is referred to using epithets throughout the time in Nahor, the most common being “my master’s son.” He is not again referred to as “Isaac” until the servant returns with Rebekah in v. 62, without any anchoring relation connecting him to another. The one exception is the servant’s response to Rebekah’s question about whom it was that was standing out in left field. He answers, “He is my master.”  Do not miss the significance of this. At the point that Isaac gets married, the servant’s master switches as well. Someone with more background in ANE customs could probably make some points here, so leave a comment if you have one.

Another interesting series of switches in the center of attention is found in the discussion with Rebekah’s family (yes, I consider her the center of attention w.r.t. the folks in Nahor). Rebekah is first introduced into the story at v. 15 as “Rebekah who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor.” But there is a switch to a generic reference just before the initiating role shifts from Rebekah to Laban, who sees an opportunity in the making.

28 Then the girl ran and told her mother’s household about these things.

29     Now Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban; and Laban ran outside to the man at the spring.

30     When he saw the ring and the bracelets on his sister’s wrists, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, saying, “This is what the man said to me,” he went to the man; and behold, he was standing by the camels at the spring.

There is a lot going on here, so I will just hit the main points. Note that Rebekah is called “the girl,” most likely representing how Abraham’s servant views her. The comment in v. 15 is from the narrator directed to the reader. Most of the time, narratives are told from the perspective of one or more of the participants. Here, we experience things from the servant’s point of view, as he hopes “the girl” is the right one for his master’s son.

Take a look at the shift in anchoring relations and expressions as Laban takes over as the primary initiator. In v. 30 he sees the bling on “his sister;” then hears “Rebekah his sister’s” report. Note we have reference to her using a simple epithet in place of a proper name, and a proper name + redundant epithet. This double reference ensures that the attentive reader does not miss the coming switch in initiators. Again, the consistency in reference betrays an intentionality and craft on the writer’s part. Such usage is not required, it is a bonus, one of the many wonderful treats found in Hebrew narrative, and less so in the NT.

But wait, there is more! We must not neglect the change in reference to “the servant.” We know he is Abraham’s servant, he knows he is too. However, to Laban, he is just a dude standing by the well until he hears more from him. So who does Laban go to meet? “The man.” Read Genesis 12  and check out how Sarah is referred to the whole time Abraham is lying about her true connection to him. She is called “she” or “the woman,” nothing that connects her to Abraham. We get to see her from the Egyptians’ point of view. Once they figure out who she is, Sarah is called “wife” repeatedly in a series of clauses. Again, consistency betrays intentionality.

One final section that exhibits wonderful goodness is found in vv. 50 ff. Discussions have been going on between the servant and Laban/Bethuel. There is soon a shift from the latter two back to Rebekah.

50 Then Laban and Bethuel replied, “The matter comes from the Lord; so we cannot speak to you bad or good.

51     “Here is Rebekah before you, take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken.”

52 When Abraham’s servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the ground before the Lord.

53     The servant brought out articles of silver and articles of gold, and garments, and gave them to Rebekah; he also gave precious things to her brother and to her mother.

54     Then he and the men who were with him ate and drank and spent the night. When they arose in the morning, he said, “Send me away to my master.”

55     But her brother and her mother said, “Let the girl stay with us a few days, say ten; afterward she may go.”

56     He said to them, “Do not delay me, since the Lord has prospered my way. Send me away that I may go to my master.”

57     And they said, “We will call the girl and consult her wishes.”

58     Then they called Rebekah and said to her, “Will you go with this man?” And she said, “I will go.”

59     Thus they sent away their sister Rebekah and her nurse with Abraham’s servant and his men.

At the beginning of this section, Laban and Bethuel are explicitly referred to using proper names, without any anchoring relation. We are given explicit indication that Rebekah is the new center of attention by the shift in reference to her family as “her brother and her mother” in vv. 53, 55. There is a brief reversal in v. 59 with “their sister Rebekah” before she leaves. Note also the enhanced reference to the servant as “Abraham’s servant” in vv. 52 and 59, reminding the reader that all of this activity ties back to the charge that Abraham gave him at the beginning of the chapter.

I know this has been a long post, but it takes a certain amount of background before it all makes much sense. If you are interested in reading more about these issues, portions of my dissertation are available. The final chapter provides a reading and discussion of Gen 27. The JNSL article is meant as something of an executive summary.

Most of these devices are present in the Greek NT, and have been annotated in the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. They are also formally described in my forthcoming Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. If you can understand this blog post, you will benefit from either of these resources. Using a cross-linguistic approach to language description allows for appropriate comparison of different languages based on the discourse function that the device accomplishes.

I would appreciate hearing from you if you have examples of comparable usage from either Greek or Hebrew, canonical texts or not. These devices are much more prevalent than you might think, but we just tend to read over them, missing the wonderful detail of the literature. Post a comment if you have an example, even if it is a question about a certain usage.

There are also some NT posts under the heading of “thematic highlighting” if you want to learn more. A great post to start with is “The many faces of ‘this‘” in three parts.

Isn’t grammar beautimous?