Linguistic and Stylistic Aspects of Epic Formulae

in Ancient Semitic Poetry and Biblical Narrative

Frank H. Polak

This paper seeks to apply some of the concepts of Discourse Analysis to the

study of such stereotyped phrases as the Ugaritic wyšu gh wyṣḥ and the Hebrew
‫ויבך‬/‫וישא קלו ויקרא‬.1 Phrases of this type consist of two clauses in parataxis
that are linked together by a functional relationship which is comparable to the
role of case in traditional syntax, such as instrumental or comitative,2 although in
the phrases at hand this relationship relates to consecutive clauses rather than to
an integrated sentence. Since such expressions are found in biblical narrative and
in ancient Semitic epic poetry, such as Ugaritic, their analysis should contribute
much to our understanding of the relationship between these corpora.

1. The Structure of a Formulaic Expression

Cassuto has pointed to a number of stereotyped expressions in Biblical Hebrew
that are matched by similar phrases in Ugaritic texts:3 /‫וישא קלו – ויקרא‬
‫ ויאמר‬- ‫ויבך ;וישא עיניו – וירא ; ויקח – וילך ;ויען‬. Each of these
phrases is frequent in biblical narrative, and corresponds to a similar expression
in Ugaritic and/or Akkadian epic poetry.4 The phrase ‫וישא עיניו – וירא‬

1 In particular I refer to R. E Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse (2nd ed.; New York: Plenum
Press, 1996); idem, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic
Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39—48 (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989); C. S. Smith, The
Parameter of Aspect (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 43; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991). On
Halliday and Chafe see notes 46, 57–59 below.
2 In this respect, then, the present study follows C. J. Fillmore, “The Case for Case,” in Universals
in Linguistic Theory (ed. E. Bach and R. T. Harms; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968)
1–88; Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 153–218.
3 U. M. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies (2 vols.; transl. by I. Abrahams, Jerusalem: Magnes,
1973–75) 1.7–16; 2.16–59; 69–109; see also: F. M. Cross, “The Epic Traditions of Ancient Israel:
Epic Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions,” in The Poet and the
Historian. Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. R. E. Friedmann; HSSt. 26,
Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 13–39; G. del Olmo Lete, Mitos e Leyendas de Canaan segun
la Tradicion de Ugarit, (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1981) 36–37, 54–58. See also note 8
below.
4 These phrases are quoted in the third pers. masc., in the wayyiqtol mode, but can refer to any
person, number, tense and mode, since their definition is mainly lexical, as explained in note 8
below.
 286
occurs 25 times in Biblical Hebrew prose, followed either by the presentation
particle ‫הנה‬,5 e.g., ‫( וישא עיניו וירא והנה שלשה אנשים נצבים עליו‬Gen.
18:2); or by the direct object,6 e.g., ‫ותשא רבקה את עיניה ותרא את יצחק‬
(Gen. 24:64).7 This set phrase constitutes a conventional formula,8 since it is
equivalent to the simple expression ‘to see,’ and forms a well-defined pattern that
is frequent in a number of narrative sections,9 in a wide range of contextual
situations (such as the perception of guests coming in a theophanic context, of
the future husband, or of a messenger arriving to announce someone’s death).
The closest parallel to this phrase is found in the Old Babylonian version of

the Gilgamesh epic: iššīma īnīšu ītamar awīlam, ‘he -i.e. Enkidu- lifted his eyes
and saw the man'; ( Gilg. Penn. Rev i, lines 3–4).10 A further parallel is found in

5 So also Gen. 18:12; 22:13; 24:63; 31:10;. 33:1; 37:25; Exod. 14:10 (Sam ‫וישאו בני ישראל את‬
‫ עיניהם ויראו והנה מצרים נסעים אחריהם‬for MT ... ‫ עיניהם והנה מצרים‬...; LXX kai«
aÓnable÷yanteß oi˚ ui˚oi« Israhl toi√ß ojfqalmoi√ß oJrw◊sin kai« oi˚ Ai˙gu/ptioi
e˙stratope÷deusan ojpi÷sw aujtw◊n); Josh. 5:13 (MT; for the LXX see note 6 below); 1 Sam.
6:13; 2 Sam. 13:34; 18:24; and for prophetic vision: Zech. 2:1, 5; 5:1, 9; 6:1; Dan. 8:3; 10:5.
6 So also Gen. 13:10, 14 (‫ )מן–המקום אשר–אתה שם צפנה‬and Gen. 22:4; 24:64; 31:12; 33:5; 43:29; Num.
24:2; Josh 5:13 (LXX LXX kai« aÓnable÷yaß toi√ß ojfqalmoi√ß ei•den a‡nqrwpon e˚sthko/ta
e˙nanti÷on aujtouv); Judg. 19:17; 2 Chron 21:16 (// 4QSama at 2 Sam 24:16).
7 See also the poetic and rhetoric instances in Deut. 3:27 (‫ ;) וראה בעיניך‬4:19; Jer. 13:20; on
passages in Zechariah and Daniel 8—10 see note 5 above. In the Deutero-Isaianic summons the
imperative wāw introduces an object clause (Isa. 40:26; so also Jer. 3:2; Zech. 5:5); for the
introduction to an independent clause (‫ )וראי כלם נקבצו באו–לך‬see Isa. 49:18; 60:4.
8 For this definition see my paper “Epic Formulas in Biblical Narrative: Frequency and
Distribution,” in Les actes du second colloque internationale Bible et Informatique: mèthodes,
outils, résultats (Jerusalem, 9–13 Juin 1988) (ed. R. Poswick et al.; Genève: Champion-Slatkine,
1989) 435–488, esp. 438–41. The present definition is lexemic rather than morphological (in
terms of tense, person, and number), since the main prosodic characteristic of Hebrew poetry,
parallelism, relates to semantics rather than to morphology. For a similar adaptation of the Parry-
Lord definition see K. Reichl, “Old English: Formulaic Diction in Old English Epic Poetry,” in
Traditions of Heroic and Epic Poetry. Volume Two: Characteristics and Techniques (ed. A. T.
Hatto; London: Modern Humanities Research Association, 1989) 42–70, esp. 44–46.
9 These phrases are found in the Abraham Cycle (Gen. 12—13; 15—16; 18—22; 24; 7 instances/
26 instances of ‫ ראה‬Qal: 26.92 %; 13 instances ‫נשא‬: 53.85 %; ‫ עין‬28 instances: 25 %), the Jacob
tales (Gen 25:20–34; 27; 28:10 — 33:20; 4 instances/ 24 instances of ‫ראה‬: 16.67 %; 10 instances
of ‫נשא‬: 41.67%; ‫ עין‬16 instances: 25 %), the Joseph narratives (Gen 37; 39; 40—45; 2 instances/
35 instances of ‫ראה‬: 5.71 %; 14 instances of ‫נשא‬: 14.29 %; ‫ עין‬15 instances: 13.33 %), the Saul-
David tales (1 Sam 1—6; 9—11; 13—30; 2 Sam 1—5; 9—13; 15—17; 18—21; 24; 1 Kings 1—
2; 4 instances/ 105 instances of ‫ראה‬: 3 %; 41 instances of ‫נשא‬: 9.76 %; ‫ עין‬86 instances: 4.65
%). By comparison, in the tales of the Northern Prophets (1 Kings 17—22; 2 Kings 2—10) we do
not find any example for this phrase, even though we count 51 cases of ‫ראה‬, 15 of ‫ נשא‬, and 24
of ‫עין‬. In the remaining parts of Kings (1 Kings 3—16; 2 Kings 11—25) we note 29 cases of
‫ראה‬, 17 of ‫ נשא‬, and 52 of ‫עין‬, but not a single example of the phrase under consideration.
 287
Hittite myth: nu Ellalluš šakuwa karpta nuza TUR-an šakwiškizzi ('So Enlil lifted
the eyes and saw the 'small one').11 Although the variants found in the Ugaritic
texts are far more intricate from a prosodic and syntactic point of view, they
preserve the basic sequence of ‘lifting the eye’ and ‘seeing,’ in parataxis, with ˁn
‘to see:’
wyšu ˁnh aliyn bˁl / wyšu ˁnh wyˁn / wyˁn btlt ˁnt / nˁmt bn aḥt bˁl
‘So Powerful Baˁal lifted his eyes, and lifted his eyes and saw, and saw the Girl ˁAnat,
12
loveliest among the sisters of Baˁal’ (CAT 1.10 II 13–16)
wtšu ˁnh btlt ˁnt / wtšu ˁnh wtˁn / wtˁn arḥ
‘So the Girl ˁAnat lifted her eyes / and lifted her eyes and saw / and saw a cow’ (CAT
1.10, II 26–27)

In other cases the construction opens with a subordinated temporal clause, bnši
ˁnh with the verb ph in the apodosis to indicate visual perception:
bnši ˁnh wyphn / balp šd rbt kmn / hlk kṯr kyˁn / wyˁn tdrq ḫss
Lifting his eyes he saw him / over thousand šiddu, ten thousand kuman / he saw the going
13
of Kṯr, the pace of Ḫasis (CAT 1.17 V 9–11);
In spite of the differences in pattern, all these expressions consist of a basic
phrase, wyšu ˁnh - wyˁn / wyph modified by hypotactic constructions and
expanded by parallel clauses.14
The upshot is that a phrase which makes its first appearance in the Old

10 PBS X, plate LXV, Rev i, l. 3–4; see my paper “On Prose and Poetry in the Book of Job,” JANES
24 (1996) 61–97, esp. 95–96. As far as I know the Akkadian and Hittite phrases have not been
noticed before.
11 Quoted according to H. G. Güterbock, “The Song of Ullikummi - Revised Text of the Hittite
Version of a Hurrian Myth,” JCS 5 (1951) 135–161; ibid., 6 (1952) 8–42; there: I iv, l. 10–11 (p.
157).
12 This pattern occurs in condensed form in CAT 1.3 IV 39–40: hlk ah˙th bˁl yˁn / tdrq ybnt abh.
And similarly: bnši ˁnh wtphn / hlk bˁl aṯr{t}t ktˁn / hlk btlt ˁnt / tdrq ybmt [limm] (CAT 1.4 II 12–
16).
13 See also CAT 1.19 I 28–31; III 14–15, 28–29. In the Aqhat epic all instances of visual perception
are related to set phrases that include the verbs ˁn, ph, or ḥdy, whereas in the Kirta epic these
verbs are used freely. In the Baal epic 6 out of 9 verbs in 6 passages with √ˁn consist of set
phrases (67 %), whereas only 1 out of 4 passages with ph is related to such patterns and the 2
instances of ḥdy are not formulaic. On the incidence of conventional patterns in Ugaritic epic
poetry see K. T. Aitken, “Oral Formulaic Composition in the Aqhat Narrative,” UF 21 (1989) 1–
16; “Word Pairs and Tradition in an Ugaritic Tale,” UF 21 (1989) 17–38.
14 The literary elaboration of basic formulae in Ugaritic epic poetry has been analyzed by W. G. E.
Watson, “Introductions to discourse in Ugaritic narrative verse,” Aula Orientalis 1 (1983) 253–
61.
 288
Babylonian version of Gilgamesh, recurs in the same form in Hittite epic and in
biblical narrative, whereas it serves as the basic pattern underlying a number of
Ugaritic stereotyped phrases. How to account for the resemblance between these
phrases in various languages and literary corpora? It has been suggested that such
collocations merely represent a commonality of language, since no direct
connection exists between the languages involved.15 However, the lack of
linguistic affiliation is outweighed by the obvious literary interconnection since
the Old Babylonian, Hittite and Ugaritic passages all represent mythic, epic
poetry. This argument is buttressed by the various poetic elaborations in the
Ugaritic epic.16 These considerations suggest that the set phrases at hand
represent a common literary tradition that goes back to the Old Babylonian
period.17
Functional analysis strengthens the assumption of a common literary
background. These phrases stand out because of a number of particular features:
1. In all cases the perceiving subject (the ‘agentive’) is identical in both
clauses, but is only mentioned explicitly in the opening clause (if an explicit
subject exists), whereas the second clause indicates the object of perception, as
the goal of the action (the ‘objective’).

2. The verbal predicate of the opening clauselet,18 wyšu/wtšu / ‫ותשא‬/‫ וי‬/ išši,

serves to introduce an object, īnī / ˁn / ‫עין‬, that is instrumental for visual

perception,19 and thereby indicates the commencement of the perception, as an

15 N. Na’aman, The Past That Shapes the Present. The Creation of Biblical Historiography at the
End of the First Temple Period and After the Destruction (Yeriot 3; Jerusalem: Orna Hess, 2002)
37 (Hebrew).
16 For the various formulae phrases with ‫השתחוה‬, not taken into account by Na’aman, see below.
17 Poetic pairs that cross linguistic boundaries between Akkadian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic,
and Biblical Hebrew have been studied by Y. Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word Pairs in Biblical
and Ancient Semitic Literatures (AOAT 210; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1984) 50–52; 540–606. Skendi discusses patterns of oral poetry occurring
both in Serbo-Croatian and Albanian, including translations (S. Skendi, Albanian and South
Slavic Oral Poetry [Philadelphia: American Folklore Society, 1954; repr. New York: Kraus,
1969] 46–71).
18 The term ‘clauselet’ refers to elliptical and minor clauses; see also S. Eggins and D. Slade,
Analysing Casual Conversation (London: Cassell, 1997) 89–96; J. Miller and R. Weinert,
Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 22, 35–
94.
19 Reif argues that in sequences of this kind, ‫ נשא‬has lost its specific content, assuming the meaning
‘to activate’ (S. C. Reif, “A Root to Look up? A Study of the Hebrew nsíˀ ˁyn,” VTSup 36 [1985]
230–44). Eskhult points out the same process for √sbb (M. Eskhult, “The Verb sbb as a Marker of
Inception in Biblical Hebrew,” Orientalia Suecana 47 [1998] 21–26, esp. 24–26). On other
inceptive elements see note 38 below.
 289
inceptive element.20
3. The resulting phrase is best characterized as a two-step construction in
which the information regarding agentive, instrumental and objective is
articulated in an inceptive opening clause,21 and a complementary closure
pointing to the main action.22
4. The semantic connection between instrument (‘eye’) in the inceptive
clause, and main action (‘seeing’) creates a symmetry, which is underlined by the
balance of agentive and objective, and thus results in parallelism.

2. Some Additional Set Phrases

This basic structure is also found in additional formulae of Ugaritic, Akkadian
and Biblical Hebrew, such as the frequent expression of the Ugaritic epic for
‘calling aloud,’ wyšu gh wyṣḥ (‘so he raised his voice and called’).23 In this phrase

20 The inceptive aspect is defined and analyzed by C. S. Smith, The Parameter of Aspect, 35, 48–
49. This aspect of the present formula is noted by S. E. Loewenstamm, “The Expanded Colon in
Ugaritic and Biblical Verse,” Comparative Studies in Biblical and Ancient Oriental Literatures
(AOAT 204; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980) 281–
309, esp. 289, n. 16.
21 Smith (The Parameter of Aspect, 61–61, 75–79) characterizes a verb indicating inceptive or
durative aspect or accomplishment, e.g., ‘to begin,’ ‘to continue’, ‘to stop,’ as super-lexical
morpheme (rather than as lexeme). In the Akkadian, Ugaritic and Hebrew phrases at hand, the
construction is slightly different, since these morphemes belong to different clauses. In this case
we may speak of super-clausal morphemes. This concept should include the Old Babylonian use
of preliminary predicates to indicate modifications in the main predicate as studied by F. R.
Kraus, Sonderformen Akkadischer Parataxe; Die Koppelungen (Mededelingen van de
Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde, N. S. 50:1;
Amsterdam: North Holland, 1987) 10–37 (note op. cit., 15–16 on the preliminary use of šurrûm,
‘to begin,’ and ṣabātum, ‘to make a beginning with’). Whereas super-clausal morphemes entail
the distribution of the syntactic roles over a number of coordinate clauses, the super-lexical
morpheme pertains to well-formed sentences. The way in which some African languages use
serial verbs for the expression of syntactic roles has been analyzed by T. Givón, “Prolegomena to
any sane creology,” in Readings in Creole Studies (ed. I. F. Hancock; Ghent: Story-Scientia,
1979) 3–35, esp. 13–18, 28–30.
22 The gradual distribution of the information over adjacent clauses is analyzed in my paper “The
Lāqaḥ-Nātan Formula: Some Additional Comments,” Shnaton, Annual for Biblical and
Ancient Near Eastern Studies 7–8 (Jerusalem: Newman, 1984) xii–xiii, 179–86 (Hebrew with
English Summary); see now also E. L. Greenstein, “Some Developments in the Study of
Language and Some Implications for Interpreting Ancient Texts and Cultures,“ in Semitic
Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century (ed. Sh. Izre’el;
IOS 20; Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002) 441–79, esp. 445–46.
23 The Aqhat tale contains 9 instances of this phrase (e.g., CAT 1.18 I 23; 1.19 III 11; also 1.15 III
27). In the Baal myths one notes 4 cases as against 5 occurrences of gm –kyṣḥ (e.g., 1.4 VII 52;
 290
the addressee is not noted in the introduction, but only in the opening of the
quoted speech, e.g., w[...] bn ilm mt ˁm aliyn bˁl yšu gh wyṣḥ / ˁlk b[ˁ]lm pht qlt;
(‘And [...] Divine Mot to Powerful Baˁal;24 he raised his voice and called: Due to
you Baˁal I faced shame’; CAT 1.6 V 9–12). In Biblical Hebrew the same
structure is manifested by the phrase ‫ ויקרא‬- ‫וישא קולו‬,25 in the introduction
to Jotham’s parable to the Shechemites ‫וישא קולו ויקרא ויאמר להם שמעו‬
‫( אלי בעלי שכם‬Judg. 9.7; ‘and he lifted his voice, and cried aloud and said to
them, Listen to me, you lords of Shechem,’ NKJV and NRSV). In this passage
the addressees are indicated by the additional clauselet ‫ויאמר להם‬, ‘and said to
them,’ whereas their identity is stated in the opening of the address itself, ‫שמעו‬
‫( אלי בעלי שכם‬Listen to me, you lords of Shechem). The restriction on the
mention of the addressee, then, forms a significant correspondence to the
Ugaritic formula.
In the Ugaritic epic this constraint fits some instances in which the speaking
person gives free way to his feelings, without addressing anyone in particular,
e.g., yšu gh wyṣḥ/ aṯbn ank wanḫn (‘He lifted his voice and proclaimed, I can sit
and I can rest;‘ CAT 1.6 III 17–18; and similarly CAT 1.17 II 11–13). The
emotional overtones also stand out in a similar Hebrew formulaic phrase
indicating weeping, ‫( וישא את קולו ויבך‬Gen. 29:11); ‫ותשא את קלה ותבך‬
(Gen21:16); ‫( וישאו העם את קולם ויבכו‬Judg. 2:4).26

also 1.15 IV 2, fragmentary). We note two instances of ytn gh bky (1.16 I 13–14; II 35–36 in
identical context; cf. Gen. 45.2). For ytn gh, ‘he called,’ see 1.2 IV 6.
24 On the structure of this clause see M. S. Smith, “The Baal Cycle,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry
(ed. S. B. Parker; SBL Writings from the Ancient World 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 174, n.
190.
25 In poetic sections one notes the interesting inversion ‫( לא יצעק ולא ישא ולא ישמיע בחוץ קולו‬Isa.
42:2, with the expansion ‫)ישמיע‬. The second verb can take the form of ‫רנן‬: ‫המה ישאו קולם ירנו‬
(Isa. 24:14); ‫( צפיך נשאו קול יחדו ירננו‬Isa. 52:8).
26 So also Gen. 27:38; Judg. 21:2; 1 Sam. 11:4; 24:17; 30:4; 2 Sam. 3:32; 13:36; Job 2:12; Ruth 1:9,
14; and similarly Num. 14:1 (combined with ‫)ויתנו את קולם‬. In the Joseph tale note ‫הרימתי קולי‬
‫( ואקרא‬Gen. 39:15, 18), for which see also Isa. 40:9 (with ‫ ;)אמר‬Isa. 58:1 (with ‫ ;)הגיד‬Ezek
21:27 (followed by ‫ בתרועה‬and preceded by ‫ ;לפתח פה ברצח‬in the LXX touv dianoi√xai sto/
ma e˙n bohvØ, implying the root ‫ צרח‬or ‫ צוח‬for which cf. Isa. 42:11, ‫ ויצוחו‬/boh/sousin). In the
Abraham tales, this is the only instance of ‫בכה‬. In the Jacob cycle we note one additional
instance of this verb: 33:4 ‫ויחבקהו ויפל על צוארו וישקהו ויבכו‬, following the formulaic phrase
‫ וישקהו‬- ‫( ויחבקהו‬see Gen. 29:13; 48:10 and CAT 1.19 II 14–15: bṣql yḥ[bq] wynšq). In the Jacob
tales ‫ קול‬occurs in 7 verses (28.57 %), and in the Abraham tales in 6 cases (16.67 %). In the
Joseph narrative we note 5 instances, including (45:2) the formulaic phrase ‫ויתן את קלו בבכי‬. In
the Saul-David narratives we encounter 40 instances of ‫( קול‬with 5 instances of the formula: 12.5
%), and 25 of ‫ בכה‬Qal (20 %).
 291
The structural relationship with the previous formulae is indicated by the
following table:

function/phrase inceptive instrumental Main action Objective

perception wyšu /‫וישא‬ ‘nh / ‫עיניו‬ wy‘n /‫וירא‬ +

calling yšu /‫וישא‬ gh / ‫קלו‬ wy%‹/ ‫ויקרא‬ –

weeping ‫וישא‬ ‫קלו‬ ‫ויבך‬ –

These set phrases manifest the same structure as the formula wyšu ˁnh - wyˁn /
‫ וירא‬- ‫וישא עיניו‬. In both cases the information is divided over two clauselets,
the first of which mentions the instrument involved in the main action (the
voice/the eye), and the second the action itself (calling aloud/seeing). One notes
the stepwise conveyance of the information by two clauselets (within one
colon). Another notable feature is the inceptive aspect of the first clauselet, with

wyšu as predicate.27 The correspondence between instrument (‘voice’) and action

(‘calling’) is found in the present construction as well, in this case in half-line
parallelism.
This complex structure is also evident in the Akkadian epic introduction to
direct speech, e.g.,28 anu pīašu īpušamma, issaqar ana qurādi denlil (‘Anu opened
his mouth and spoke to hero Enlil’). In this formula the opening of the mouth is
mentioned in the first, inceptive, clause, whereas the act of speaking, for which
the mouth is instrumental, is mentioned in the second clause, together with the
addressee. Thus the information is distributed in the same way as found in the

phrase ‫ וירא‬- ‫ וישא עיניו‬. The inceptive function of wyšu/ išši is matched by
that of īpušamma.
The Jacob tales include an additional example of this pattern: ‫וישא יעקב רגליו‬
‫ וילך ארצה בני קדם‬/ (Gen. 29:1: ‘Jacob lifted his feet and went to the land of
the Easterners’ - Fox).29 The inceptive predicate ‫ וישא‬with agentive and

27 For a similar structure see Ugaritic wyprq lṣb wyṣḥq (CAT 1.6 III 16; 1.17 II 10), rendered by
Smith (“Baal Cycle,“ 158) as ‘he breaks into a smile and laughs;’ by S. B. Parker (“Aqhat,” in
Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 55) as ‘he breaks out into laughter’.
28 Atram-ḫasis I II 111–112 and passim; see K. Hecker, Untersuchungen zur Akkadischen Epik
(AOATS 8; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974) 174. The phrase pīam epēšum also
occurs as an independent idiom, meaning ‘to open the mouth’, ‘to object’ (AHw 226, epēšum 7a),
e.g., AEM I/2, 365 (text 499, line 8 pēšu ul īpuš...mādiš uqīl. On the function of such formulae in
context see M. E. Vogelzang, “Patterns Introducing Direct Speech in Akkadian Literary Texts,”
JCS 42 (1990) 50–70.
29 E. Fox, The Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: A New
 292
instrumental (‫ )רגליו‬is followed by main predicate, ‫וילך‬, and local modifier,
‫ארצה בני קדם‬, all in the rhythmic and semantic balance of parallelism. In
Ugaritic this phrase is matched by tšu knp btlt ˁnt / tšu knp wtr bˁp / tk aḫ šmk
(CAT 1.10 II 10–12; ‘The Girl Anat raised her wings, raised her wings and set
off, flying, for the meadows of Šamak’).
In Biblical Hebrew a compound structure of this type is also manifested by the
phrase ‫ ויקח‬- ‫וישלח ידו‬, (‘he stretched out his hand and took’), e.g.,30
‫( פן שלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים‬Gen. 3.22);
What if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life?);
‫( וישלח אהוד את יד שמאלו ויקח את החרב מעל ירך ימינו‬Judg. 3:21)
Reaching with his left hand, Ehud drew the dagger from his right side.
‫( וישלח ידו ויקחה ויבא אתה אליו אל התבה‬...) ‫( ותשב אליו אל התבה‬...) ‫היונה‬
But the dove (...) returned to him to the ark ... So he put out his hand, and took it and
brought it into the ark with him (Gen. 8:9; NJPS / NRSV).
In the last case the information is presented in three steps: stretching out the
hand, taking the dove and bringing it in. The inceptive aspect of the first clause
is obvious, for putting out the hand precedes taking, and is instrumental for the
main action. Although this stereotyped expression is not paralleled by any
formulaic phrase in Ugaritic or Akkadian, its literary background is transparent
by virtue of the Akkadian parallels of the Deluge tale.
The first, inceptive clause of the pattern can also indicate the accompanying
person/object, as a comitative, e.g., ‫ויקח‬: ‫ ויקח העבד את רבקה וילך‬− ‫וילך‬
(Gen. 24:61); ‫ויקח דוד את החנית ואת צפחת המים מראשתי שאול וילכו‬
‫( להם‬1 Sam. 26:12).31
This pattern is also found in the Ugaritic epic of Kirta: qḥ tpk byd/ [m]rqṣtk

Translation with Introductions, Commentary and Notes (London: Harvill, 1995).

30 So also Gen. 22.10; Judg. 15.15; 1 Sam. 17:49; 2 Kings 6:7; Ezek. 8:3 (‫;וישלח תבנית יד ויקחני‬
note also Ezek. 10:7); altogether 8 instances of the formula proper.
31 So also Gen. 12:19; 14:11, 12; 22:2, 3, 6; 24:10 (MT); 51; 34:17; 36:6 (in the Esau genealogy);
42:33; Exod. 12:32; 17:5; Josh. 9:11; Judg. 18:24; Sam. 24:3; 26:11, 12; 2 Sam. 4:7; 1 Kings
16:31 (non-comitative use); 2 Kings 4:29; 8:8; 9:1; Jer. 36:14; Jer. 41:12; Ezek. 3:14; Job 42:8
(altogether 29 cases); variant forms: ‫ללכת‬/‫ויצא‬/‫ויקח‬: Gen. 11:31; 12:5; with intervening ‫שים‬: Gen.
9:23; Deut. 26:2; 2 Sam. 13:19; with the hiphil (‫)הוליך‬: Num. 17:11 (with intervening ‫ ;)שים‬Josh.
24:3; 2 Kings 25:20 (=Jer. 52:26); with intervening ‫קום‬: Judg. 19:28 (cf. Gen. 24:10 LXX); 1
Sam. 9:3; Jer. 13:4; as an inclusio (with ‫ )שלח‬Gen. 21:14; 1 Sam. 6:8; 2 Kings 5:24. See also Y.
Avishur, “Literary Formulae in the Narration of a Journey in the Bible and in Ugaritic
Literature,” Studies in Biblical Narrative (Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archeological Center Publication,
1999) 225–38.
 293
bm ymn / lk šr ˁl ṣrrt (CAT 1.16 I, ll. 41–42;32 ‘take your drum in your hand, your
tamborin in your right hand, and go, perform on the hills’).33 The inceptive
aspect of this phrase is demonstrated by the fact that one equips oneself with the
utensils or persons necessary for the business at hand, before undertaking any
further action.34 Parallelism is based on the semantic connection between the
verbs that both represent movement, even though ‫ הלך‬indicates movement
itself, whereas ‫ לקח‬has a causative component. 35
The verb ‫ הלך‬also occurs in the main clause of the set phrase ‫ וילך‬- ‫ויקם‬,
in which ‫ ויקם‬marks the inception of the movement;36 the main clause indicates
the direction, such as, ‫( ותקם דברה ותלך עם ברק קדשה‬Judg. 4:9); ‫ושאול‬
‫( קם מהמערה וילך בדרך‬1 Sam. 24:8); ‫( ויקם יואב וילך גשורה‬2 Sam.
14:23).37 The two clauses may also indicate the two parties to the conflict , such
as ‫( ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם‬Num. 16:25),38 or the people in the

32 For this reading see E. L. Greenstein, “New Readings in the Kirta Epic,“ in Past Links: Studies in
the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East (ed. Sh. Izre’el, I. Singer and R. Zadok;
IOS 18; Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998) 105–23, esp. 112–13. Note the Ugaritic verse with
the predicate aḫd in the first clause, followed by idk lytn pnm (CAT 1.10 II 6–9).
33 The comitative function of such clauses is clarified by an alternative phrase in Ugaritic, in which
the pronominal predicate ˁmk parallels the imperative qḥ: wat qḥ ˁrptk rḥk mdlk mṭrk / ˁmk šbˁt
g†lmk t◊mn ḫnzrk / ˁmk pdry bt ar (...) idk pnk al ttn tk g†r knkny (CAT 1.5 V 6–13).
34 A similar idiom in Old Babylonian letters is analyzed by Kraus, Sonderformen Akkadischer
Parataxe, 57–58.
35 In one case the second clause mentions the state of mind of the person affected: ‫ורוח נשאתני‬
‫( ותקחני ואלך מר בחמת רוחי‬Ezek. 3:14).
36 The inceptive use of this verb has been studied by L. W. Dobbs- Allsopp, “Ingressive qwm in
Biblical Hebrew,” ZAH 8 (1995) 31–54; see also M. Eskhult, “The Verb sbb as a Marker of
Inception” (note 19 above). ‫ קום‬also occurs in the set phrase ‫וישתחו‬-‫ויקם‬: Gen. 23:7 (Abraham
was sitting down, of course); 1 Sam. 25:41; Exod. 33:10. On analogous verbs in Ugaritic and
Akkadian see note 40 below.
37 ‫ויקם‬-‫וילך‬: Gen. 22:3, 19, 24:10; 25:34; 28:2; 38:19; 43:8; Num. 16:25; 22:20, 21; 24:25; Deut.
10:11; Josh. 18:8; Judg. 13:11; 19:3, 10, 28, 28; 1 Sam. 3:6, 8; 9:3; 16:13; 17:48; 18:27; 21:1;
23:16, 23:24; 28:25; 31:12; 2 Sam. 3:21; 6:2; 13:15; 15:9; 17:23; 1 Kings 1:49, 50; 2:40; 14:4,
12, 17; 17:9, 10; 19:3, 21; 2 Kings 4:30; 8:1; 10:12; Jer.13:4, 6; Jonah 1:2; 3:2, 3; Mic. 2:10;
ˁCant. 2:10, 13; Ezra 10:6 (altogether 59 cases); with intervening verb: Gen. 24:61 (‫ ;)רכב‬Exod.
12:31 (‫ ;)יצא‬Num. 22:21 (‫ ;)חבש‬1 Sam. 25:42 (‫ ;)רכב‬1 Kings 2:40 (‫ ;)חבש‬14:2 (‫ ;)שנה‬19:8
(‫ ;)ויאכל וישתה‬2 Kings 8:2 (‫ ;)עשה‬with ‫התהלך‬: Gen. 13:17; Exod. 21:19; Josh. 18:4; 2 Sam.
11:2; with the infinitive construct: Judg. 19:5, 7, 9.
38 The Ugaritic and Akkadian analogues of this formula are problematic. Ugaritic has the verb
tbˁ, ‘to depart,’ e.g., CAT 1.5 II: 13–14 tbˁ wla yṯb ilm / idk lytn pn m ˁm bn ilm mt; 1.6 IV 6–8:
ttbˁ btlt ˁnt, idk lttn pnm ˁm nrt ilm špš (cf., e.g., 1.2 I 19). In the imperative this verb indicates
the inception of an action, e.g., CAT 1.5 II: 8: tbˁ rgm lbn ilm mt (and cf., e.g., 1.2 I: 13). In
Akkadian the related verb tebûm, meaning, like ‫קום‬, to stand up, occurs together with alāku,
as an inceptive. See also Kraus, Sonderformen Akkadischer Parataxe, 38–39. In the Mari letters
note AEM I/2, 69 (text 311, lines 32–33: umma anākū[ma] tibi atlak (‘thus I said, stand up and
go’). It is a notable fact that in official negotiations in Ida-Maraṣ the party who wants to
 294
subject’s company, e.g., ‫( קום לך אתם‬Num. 22.20); ‫ויקם וילך מנוח אחרי‬
‫( אשתו‬Judg. 13:11; and similarly Gen. 24.61). The balance between the
clauselets is complemented by the semantic connection between the two verbs,
that belong both to the field of movement.
The inceptive aspect is also involved in the phrase ‫ ויאמר‬- ‫ ויען‬which
serves as the introduction to direct speech, even when not preceded by an
utterance that is to be answered;39 for instance, when David gives his orders
regarding Saul’s encampment ‫'( ויען דוד ויאמר אל אחימלך החתי‬and
David spoke up and said to Achimelech the Hittite,' 1 Sam. 26:6; adapting NKJV
‘answered and spoke’); or when the Danite scouts fill their mates in about the
Ephod at Micah’s home: ‫ויענו חמשת האנשים ההלכים לרגל את הארץ‬
‫‘( ויאמרו אל אחיהם‬Then the five men who had gone to spy out the country,
of Laish, spoke up, and said to their brethren;’ Judg. 18:14; adapting NKJV). In

Ugaritic this function is fulfilled by wyˁn alone,40 e.g., [mk] bšbˁ šnt wyˁn [dnil mt]

rpi (CAT 1.19 IV 17–18: [then,] in the seventh year [Danil, man of] Rapiu,
spoke’).41 But the full formula occurs in two Old Aramaic fables that are
recounted in a remarkably colloquial tone (Aḥiqar 110; –119):42
Aḥiqar 110 ‫ ואמר לאריא‬/ ‫ ענה חמרא‬/ The ass answered and said to the lion

speak stands up (AEM I/2, 55 [text 302, line 37], 57 [text 303, lines 10’, 13’, 16’]).
39 See S.A. Meier, Speaking of Speaking. Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup
46; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 168–79, and cf. Judg. 18:14; Isa. 14.10; 21:9; Num. 11:28; Deut. 21:7;
25:9; 26:5; 27:14; 30:22; 1 Kings 3:27; Hag. 2:14; Zech. 4:6; Job 3:2 and passim; but at 1 Sam.
18:7 HALOT justly identifies √‫ עני‬as √g†ny ‘singing,’ as also found in 1 Sam. 21:12; 29:5; cf. 1
Sam. 9:17.
40 The weakened meaning of yˁn in Ugaritic is discussed by Watson, “Introductions to discourse in
Ugaritic narrative verse,” 254 (note 14 above). It seems that this use is related to turn taking: in
terms of Conversation Analysis an answer to a previous remark implies a new turn (e.g., CAT 1.3
V 19, 25–26, 29). If someone begins to speak, he initiates a framework in which he takes the first
turn; see, e.g., I. Hutchby - R. Wooffitt, Conversation Analysis, (Cambridge UK: Polity Press,
1998) 47–54.
41 Parker, “Aqhat,” 76; so also, e.g., CAT 1.2 IV 7; 1.4 VII 37–38; 1.5 I 11–12 (Smith, “Baal
Cycle,” 103, 137, 141); CAT 1. 15 II 12; 1.16 IV 9, V 23 (E. L. Greenstein, “Kirta,” in Ugaritic
Narrative Poetry, 24, 37, 38). In Ugaritic the verb √ˀmr is rare, and does not fulfill the same
function as the Hebrew verb. CAT 1.16 I 20 indicates that its place is taken by √rgm with
neutralized meaning as against Akkadian ragāmu.
42 CAP 216 (and cf. lines 121, 166, p. 218). Kottsieper argues that these proverbs were composed
in the Aramean Kingdom of Damascus (U. Kottsieper, Die Sprache der Aḥiqarsprüche [BZAW
194; Berlin-New York: W. de Gruyter, 1990] 244–246). The use of this formula in an animal
fable is reminiscent of the use of similar phrases in Akkadian fables of this type. This formula is
extremely frequent in the Aramaic Sarmuge tale: R. C. Steiner - C. F. Nims, “Assurbanipal and
Shamash-shum-ukin - A Tale of Two Brothers in Aramaic in Demotic Script,” RB 92 (1985) 60–
81.
 295
lines118–119 / ‫ אתי ואכסנכה משכי‬/ ‫ עני נמרא ואמר לענזא‬/ ‫נמרא פגע לענזא והי עריא‬
‫ גלדי לא תלקחן מני‬/ ‫ למנ לי נסיכי‬/ ‫]ענת[ ענזא ואמרת לנמרא‬
The leopard met the goat when she was uncovered. The leopard spoke up and said:
‘Come, and let me cover you with my hide.’ The goat [answered] and said to the leopard:
‘What need do I have for that, my prince? Don’t take my skin from me.’
These expressions manifest the same structure as the biblical phrases. An
inceptive opening clause, indicating the speaker, is balanced by the main clause
mentioning the addressee. Thus the narrator clarifies the roles of both sides in
the dialogue, and underscores the initiative of the first speaker. The semantic
correspondence between the verbs results in parallelism.43
Thus, ancient Semitic epic poetry and Biblical Hebrew narrative present a
number of formulae that share a common structure:
(1) The information is spread over two clauses, of which the first indicates
the initial stage of the action, as an inceptive. The mention of the person
executing this action (‘agentive’) can be important as indication of the
initiative.44
(2) The main action is indicated in the second clause, but some of the
function1s implied by this clause (the ‘case’ roles) are indicated in the inceptive
clause, such as the tools used for the main action (instrumental) and the person/
object accompanying this action (comitative). Addressee and direction (locative)
are mentioned in the second clause.
(3) This two-step construction suits parallelism, because of the semantic
connection between the instrumental of the first clause and the predicate of the
main clause (eyes/see; voice/shout; mouth/speak; hand/take), or the semantic
correspondence of the verbs at hand (‫ וילך‬- ‫ ויקם‬,‫)ויען – ויאמר‬. The
agentive of the first clause is often counterbalanced by objective, addressee,
comitative or locative in the main clause.
Accordingly, the phrases under consideration are all characterized by the use
of two clauses to convey information that is related to a single action, and could
be expressed by a single predicate with its arguments.45 The use of a number of

43 In Akkadian epic poetry we meet the phrase apālum – awātam zakārum , e.g., šar tamḫāri, rev.
6’: Sh. Izre’el, The Amarna Scholarly Tablets (Groningen: Styx, 1997) 67.
44 For the legal formula, išši -iddin,much in use in deeds from Ugarit, and matched by Biblical
Hebrew ‫ ויתן‬- ‫ ויקח‬, see J. C. Greenfield, “Našû-Nadānu and its Congeners,” in ˁAl Kanfei Yonah.
Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology (2 Vols.; ed. S. M. Paul, M. E.
Stone and A. Pinnick; Jerusalem: Magnes Press / Leiden: Brill, 2001): 2.720–24; idem, “Aramaic
HNṢL and Some Biblical Passages,” ibid., 1.214–16; Polak, “The Lāqaḥ·- Nātan Formula” (note
22 above).
 296
independent clauses to indicate one single action suggests that the basic structure
of ancient Semitic epic poetry and Biblical Hebrew narrative is the open-ended
clause complex,46 rather than the formal sentence, in which relations between
the participants are projected on a closed predicate-argument construction. The
correspondences and similarities of these patterns are summarized by the
following table:
function/ inceptive instrumental/ main objective/
phrase comitative action locative/
addressee

perception wyšu / ˁnh / wyˁn / +

‫וישא‬ ‫עיניו‬ ‫וירא‬
calling wyšu / gh / wyṣḥ/ –
‫וישא‬ ‫קלו‬ ‫ויקרא‬
weeping ‫וישא‬ ‫קלו‬ ‫ויבך‬ –
travel ‫וישא‬ ‫רגלו‬ ‫וילך‬ +
taking ‫וישלח‬ ‫ידו‬ ‫ויקח‬ +
expedition ‫ויקח‬ + ‫וילך‬ optional
addressing īpušamma pīašu issaqar +
speaking wyˁn / agentive/ – / optional
‫ויען‬ optional ‫ויאמר‬
departure ‫ויקם‬ agentive/ ‫וילך‬ optional
optional

In view of this analysis we have to clarify the poetic and conventional

nature of these constructions, and their relationship to the style of prose
narrative.

3. Formulaic Language and Poetic Convention

45 On Smith’s analysis see note 21 above. By means of participles and case endings the LXX turns
such clause sequences into single sentences, e.g., ‫ ואשא עיני וארא בחלום‬/ kai« ei•don toi√ß
ojfqalmoi√ß aujta» e˙n tw◊ˆ u¢pnwˆ kai« i˙dou\ oi˚ tra¿goi (Gen. 31:10; ‫ ואשא‬not represented, with
toi√ß ojfqalmoi√ß as the instrumentalis of kai« ei•don / ‫)וארא‬. In Exod. 14:10 the LXX has toi√ß
ojfqalmoi√ß (the instrumental dative) attracted to the predicate oJrw◊sin ‘they see by their eyes’.
In Deut. 4:19 ‫ עיניך‬is not reflected by the Greek (kai« mh\ aÓnable÷yaß — ei˙ß to\n oujrano\n kai«
i˙dw»n to\n h¢lion for MT ‫)פן תשא עיניך השמימה וראית את השמש‬. Additional cases of such
contraction with transposition are analyzed by F. H. Polak - G. Marquis, A Classified Index of the
Minuses of the Septuagint, Part I: Introduction (Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies
4; Stellenbosch: Print24.com, 2002) 62–63. Note also the variance between Num. 21:23 (‫ויאסף‬
‫ וילחם בישראל‬/ ‫ ויבא יהצה‬/ ‫ ויצא לקראת ישראל לקראת ישראל המדברה‬/ ‫ )סיחן את כל עמו‬and Deut
2:32 (‫)ויצא סיחן לקראתנו הוא וכל עמו למלחמה יהצה‬.
46 This is the term used by M. A. K. Halliday, Spoken and Written Language (2nd. ed.; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1989) 72–86.
 297
The parallelism of the clauses of which the various epic formulae consist, is only
to be expected in the context of Ugaritic and Akkadian epic poetry. But in
biblical prose narrative the semantic, syntactic and rhythmic balance of these
phrases constitutes a particular stylistic constellation,47 which suggests that they
represent conventional formulae of epic language, common to epic poetry, and
to ancient Hebrew narrative.
The connection between formulae of this type and poetic convention is
further indicated by some set phrases involving ‫השתחוה‬,48 with the verbs ‫קדד‬
or ‫ נפל‬as inceptives in the opening clause, such as, ′‫ויקד האיש וישתחו לה‬
(Gen. 24:26); ‫( ותקד בת שבע אפים ארץ ותשתחו למלך‬1 Kings 1:31);49

‫( ויפל לאפיו אצרה וישתחו שלש פעמים‬1 Sam. 20:41); ‫ותפל לאפי דוד על‬

‫( פניה ותשתחו‬25:23); ‫( ותבא ותפל על רגליו ותשתחו ארצה‬2 Kings

4:37).50 The Ugaritic parallel of these phrases consists of two cola that include

four verbs: lpn il thbr wtql / tštḥwy wtkbdh (CAT 1.4 IV 25–26).51 The
introduction ‫( ותבא‬2 Kings 4:37) is matched by the following verse from the

Baal Cycle km ġlmm wˁrbn / lpˁn ˁnt hbr wql / tštḥwy kbd hyt (CAT 1.3 III 9–10:
‘like servants then enter, at the feet of Anat bow down and fall, prostrate yourself
and honor her’).52 The sustained sequence of four verbs in parallelism (two cola

47 Hence these features are in no way to be explained as mere commonalities, that are expectable
everywhere and at any time, as maintained by Na’aman, The Past That Shapes the Present, 37
(see note 15 above).
48 See my “‫וישתחו‬: A Group Formulas in Biblical Prose and Poetry,” in Sha‘arei Talmon: Studies in
the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. M.
Fishbane, E. Tov, and W. Fields; Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) xix, 81*–91* (Hebrew
with English Summary); “Epic Formulas in Biblical Narrative and the Fountainheads of Ancient
Hebrew Narrative,” Teˁudah 7 (Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects, 1992) 9–53, esp. pp.
22–24, 36–37.
49 For ‫ וישתחו‬- ‫ ויקד‬see also Gen. 24:48; 43:28; Exod. 4:31; 12:27; 34:8; Num. 22:31; 1 Sam. 24:9;
28:14; 1 Kings 1:16; in liturgical context: Neh. 8:6; 1 Chron. 29:20; 2 Chron. 29:30 (altogether
14 instances; cf. 2 Chron. 20:18, infinitive with parallelism ‫ נפל‬/ ‫)קדד‬. In Akkadian qadādu ‘to
bend’ (CAD, Q, 45) could also serve as inceptive: appāšu liqdud, ina erṣete lippalsiḫ (E. Ebeling,
Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier, I. Texte [Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1931] 71–
72, text 18, column 2, line 13; see also l. 3).
50 For ‫ וישתחו‬- ‫ ויפל‬see also Josh. 5:14 (MT; LXX kai« ∆Ihsouvß e¶pesen e˙pi« pro/swpon e˙pi« th\n
ghvn); 1 Sam. 20:41; 2 Sam. 1:2; 9:6; 14:22; Job 1:20; Ruth 2:10 (altogether 9 cases; and cf. 2
Chron. 20:18, for which see note 18). In Ugaritic note lpˁn il ltpl / ltštḥwy pḫr mˁd (CAT 1.2 I
30–31; cf. line 15: al tpl al tštḥwy).
51 So also CAT 1.4 VIII 26–29; 1.6 I 36–38; 1.17 IV 50–51 (and in partial reconstruction: CAT 1.1
II 15–16; III 2–3, 24–25; 1.2 III 5–6).
 298
in half-line parallelism) can only be explained as formulaic convention. The
Hebrew set phrases, then, represent residues of this convention. This conclusion

is underpinned by the linguistic consideration, that the verb hštḥwy, as a Št stem

from √ḥwy, fits Ugaritic, in which the shaphel is a productive form, rather than
the Hebrew in which this stem is not active anymore, apart from the present
verb.53 Since the Hebrew language does not lack adequate terms for kneeling
and prostration, such as ‫ כרע‬and ‫נפל על פנים‬,54 it seems less likely to assume
that this lexeme was borrowed from another language. Probably it is an
inheritance of ancient Northwest Semitic poetry,55 of which the Ugaritic epic is
the prime representative.56

4.Poetic Formulae and Narrative Discourse

At this juncture the question arises, how to describe the connection between
prose narrative and the formulaic tradition of Northwest Semitic epic poetry. Is
it possible to point to stylistic structures that are common to prose and poetry? In
our view, the requested characteristics pertain to the spread of information.
The way in which the information is divided over the clauses can be
analyzed with the help of Halliday’s concept of lexical density, which he defines
as the number of content words per sentence relative to the number of clauses.

52 Rendering according to Smith, “Baal Cycle,” 109.

53 For this analysis see M. S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baˁal Cycle, Vol. I: Introduction with Text and
Commentary of KTU 1.1—1.2 (VTSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 168, n. 95; M. Gruber, Aspects of
Non-Verbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (Studia Pohl 12; 2 Vols.; Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1980) 1.90–92; as against J. A. Emerton, “The Etymology of hštḥwy,” OTS 20
(Leiden: Brill, 1977) 41–55; S. Kreuzer, “Zur Bedeuting und Etymologie von hištaḥāwāh/
yštḥwy,” VT 35 (1985) 39–70.
54 For ‫ כרע‬see, e.g., Gen. 49:9; Judg. 5:7; Isa. 10:4; Ps. 72:9 in poetry; and in prose, e.g., Judg. 7:5–
6; 11:35; 2 Kings 1:13; 9:24; Ezra 9:5, and with ‫השתחוה‬: Ps. 22:30; 95:6; in inverse order: Esth.
3:2, 5; 2 Chron. 7:3; 29:29. The phrase ‫ נפל על פנים‬is found in a number of places: Judg. 13:20;
1Kings 18:7; Gen. 17:3, 7; Lev. 9:24; Num. 14:5; 16:4, 22; 17:10; 20:6; Josh. 7:6, 10; Ezek. 1:28;
3:23; 9:8; 11:13; Dan. 8:17; and with ‫השתחוה‬: Ruth 2:10.
55 It would be difficult to derive these phrases directly from biblical poetry, which presents us with
different phrases, such as ‫כרע‬, or ‫השתחוה‬-‫בוא‬: Ps. 5:8; 86:9; 95:6; 132:7; 1 Chron. 16:29; also
found in prose: Gen. 42:6; 1 Sam. 2:36 (infinitive); 2 Sam. 14:33; 1 Kings 1:23, 53; 2 Kings
2:15; 2 Chron. 24:17; and in cultic context 2 Sam. 12:20; 2 Kings 5:18 (infinitive; so also Jer. 7:2
MT; 26:2; Ezek. 46:9).
56 See J. C. Greenfield, “The ‘Cluster’ in Biblical Poetry,” in ˁAl Kanfei Yona, 2.789–98, esp. 797–
98. In Pope’s view Ugaritic represents a stage of language before the differentiation of Canaanite
and Aramaic (M. H. Pope, “Review of M.C.A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds. Ugaritic and Hebrew
Descriptions of the Divine,” Probative Pontificating in Ugaritic and Biblical Literature.
Collected Essays (ed. M. S. Smith; UBL 10; Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1994) 293–301, esp. 294.
 299
The larger the number of clauses over which the content words are spread, the
lower the lexical density of the sentence.57
Thus the formulaic phrases under consideration stand out by their low

density. The expression anu pīaśu īpušamma, issaqar ana qurādi denlil contains 6
content words on 2 clauses, yielding a density of 3. The density is even lower in
the phrase ‫( ותשא רבקה את פניה ותרא את יצחק‬Gen. 24:61). In this stretch
we count 5 content words in 2 clauses (density 2.5). For such a low number of
content words per sentence Halliday uses the term ‘lexical sparsity.’
The distinction between texts with high and low density is of utmost
importance for their stylistic and sociolinguistic categorization. Halliday finds
that spoken language is characterized by low density, whereas high density is
characteristic of written language.58 Writing typically enables the writer to
include a large number of content words in one closed, formal sentence, either
as predicate or argument, or as the elements of a noun group. By contrast, since
conversation is dependent on instantaneous production by the speaker and
immediate comprehension by the listener, most clauses in spoken discourse
contain only few content words, and, by consequence, only few of arguments
and noun groups. Sparsity, then, is the hallmark of spontaneous spoken
language. By the same token, though analyzing from a different angle, Chafe
concludes that spontaneous spoken language tends to include a limited quantity
of information per clause.59
Analysis according to syntactic criteria shows that the distinctions proposed
by Halliday and Chafe also hold true in biblical narrative.60 This typology is

57 Halliday, Spoken and Written Language (note 46), 61–67, 79–81; F. H. Polak, “Parameters for
Stylistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew Prose Texts,” in Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch
AIBI-6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique “From
Alpha to Byte”. University of Stellenbosch 17–21 July, 2000 (ed. J. Cook; Leiden: Brill, 2002)
259–81, esp. 271; A. B. Lord, “Characteristics of Orality,” Oral Tradition 2 (1987) 54–72.
58 Halliday’s findings form a continuation and confirmation of Chafe’s analysis, e.g., W. L. Chafe,
“Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing and Oral Literature,” in Spoken and Written
Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy (ed. D. Tannen; Norwood NJ: Ablex, 1982): 35–53;
“Linguistic Differences Produced by Differences Between Speaking and Writing,” in Literacy,
Language and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Writing and Reading (ed. D. R. Olson
et al.; Cambridge UK, 1985) 105–23, esp. 108–11 and, more recently, Discourse, Consciousness
and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing
(Chicago, 1994) 41–70, 108–69, 224–300.
59 Chafe, Discourse, Consciousness and Time, 108–35. See also Miller and Weinert, Spontaneous
Spoken Language, 22–71, 79–132; D. Biber and S. Conrad, “Register Variation: A Corpus
Approach,” in The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (ed. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. E.
Hamilton; Oxford: Blackwell, 2001) 175–96.
60 See my papers, “The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical
 300
based on four parameters:

(a) The number of independent, explicit arguments, that is to say, subject,

direct/ indirect object, and modifier, in the form of a noun, a noun phrase, a
particle with pronominal suffix (‫ בו‬,‫)אתו‬,61 or in the form of a subordinate
clause.62 Thus we note clauses with no explicit argument: ‫( ראית ותשמח‬1 Sam.
19:5); with one argument: ‫( ועמדה לפני המלך‬1 Kings 1:2); with four
arguments: ‫( תמיד‬4) ‫( על שלחני‬3) ‫( לחם‬2) ‫( ואתה תאכל‬1) (2 Sam. 9:7).

(b) The number of noun groups such as kernel with apposition or attribute, or
nouns in junction: ‫לסיחון‬, ‫ עוג מלך הבשן‬,‫ בעת ההיא‬,‫כל עיר‬, ‫דרך הבשן‬
‫( מלך האמרי‬Deut. 3:1–3); ‫ גוים גדלים ועצמים ממך‬,‫לגוי עצום ורב ממנו‬
‫( ערים גדלת ובצרת בשמים‬Deut. 9:1, 14).

(c) The number of subordinate clauses, such as relative clauses, object clauses,
for example, ‫ להבין בין טוב‬- ‫ לשפט את עמך‬- ‫ לב שמע‬- ‫ונתת לעבדך‬

‫‘( לרע‬Grant, then, your servant an understanding mind to judge your people, to

distinguish between good and bad;’ 1 Kings 3:9).

(d) The number of clauses dependent on subordinate clauses (complex
hypotaxis; a term also used for subordinate clauses with long noun groups
or more than two arguments); such as ‫ועשית לו כאשר עשית לסיחן‬
‫( מלך האמרי אשר יושב בחשבון‬Deut. 3:2: ‘and you will do to him as
you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon’).
According to these parameters texts with high density are characterized by
(a) the frequent use of intricate clauses containing many arguments (typically
around 30 % of all clauses), (b) the high number of noun groups and in
particular long noun groups (often found in almost every clause), and (c) the

Prose,” JANES 26 (1998) 59–105; “The Style of the Dialogue in Biblical Prose Narrative,”
JANES 28 (2001) 53–95; “Parameters for Stylistic Analysis,” 259–71 (note 57 above).
61 But an object suffix does not count as argument, since it is enclitic, and thus does not draw the
attention of the hearer in the same way as the explicit arguments. By the same token, the
possessive suffix is not counted as an attribute. Notably, Longacre (Joseph, 141–42, 155–57)
places the suffixed object pronoun one step lower than the independent pronoun/particle with
suffix. On a theoretical level one must be able to draw the difference between a verbal clause
with explicit object and subject, and a verbal clause consisting of verbal form with object suffix,
e.g., ‫( ותשרתהו‬1 Kings 1:4), ‫( אראנו‬Num. 24:17), indicating the subject by the prefix and the
object by the suffix.
62 Subordinate clauses include, i.a., participle and infinitive clauses. Stretches of character speech
in the form of direct discourse are not counted as argument.
 301
high number of subordinate clauses (often 25–30 % of all clauses), and in
particular (d) of clauses in complex hypotaxis. The style of texts in which these

features are predominant, can be characterized as the complex-nominal style, such

as, e.g.,63
2 Kings 18:17 ‫( את תרתן ואת רב סריס ואת רב‬2) ‫( מלך אשור‬1) ‫וישלח‬
(density 12) ‫( ירושלים‬6) ‫( בחיל כבד‬5) ‫( אל המלך חזקיהו‬4) ‫( מן לכיש‬3) ‫שקה‬
Deut. 34:10 ‫( כמשה‬3) ‫( עוד בישׂראל‬2) ‫( נביא‬1) ‫( ולא קם‬density 9)
‫( אשר ידעו ה‘ פנים אל פנים‬relative)
Esth. 4:7 ‫( אשר קרהו‬relative) ‫( מרדכי את כל‬2) ‫( לו‬1) ‫ (ויגד‬density 13)
‫( אשר אמר המן‬relative) ‫ואת פרשת הכסף‬
‫( לשקול על גנזי המלך ביהודים לאבדם‬complex)
Other texts stand out by (a) the frequency of short clauses, containing mostly a
predicate with one argument (subject, object, modifier or other complement), or
predicate only (typically more than 50 % of all clauses); (b) the low number of
noun groups and in particular, of long noun groups; (c) the low number of
subordinate clauses; such subordinate clauses as do occur, mostly are short and
simple (typically 10–15 % of all clauses). The style of texts in which these

features prevail can be characterized as the rhythmic-verbal style. This style

dominates the cycles of Abraham and Jacob (apart from Gen. 14; 17; 23; 34), of
Samuel, Saul and David (apart from, e.g., 1 Sam 7; 12), and of Elijah and Elisha,64
and thus seems to be characteristic of the classical strata of Biblical Hebrew
narrative. Typical examples are found in the tale of Jacob and the angel (Gen.
32:25–30); Jehudah’s account of Jacob’s fate (Gen. 44:24–29), and the report of
the Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:6–10):

Gen. 32:25–30 ‫ כי לא יכל לו‬- ‫ ויאבק איש עמו עד עלות השחר וירא‬/ ‫ויותר יעקב לבדו‬
(density 1.88) ‫ותקע כף ירך יעקב‬/ ‫ ויגע בכף ירכו‬−‫בהאבקו עמו‬
‫כי אם ברכתני‬/‫ לא אשלחך‬/ ‫ ויאמר‬/ ‫ כי עלה השחר‬/ ‫ שלחני‬/‫ויאמר‬
‫ ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שמך‬/ ‫ יעקב‬/ ‫ ויאמר‬/‫מה שמך‬/‫ויאמר אליו‬/

63 According to our findings (“The Oral and the Written,” 69–76, 92–100; note 60 above) the
complex-nominal style prevails in the narrative parts of Deuteronomy (Deut. 1—4; 9—10; 34), in
the historiography of the book of Kings (1 Kings 3—16; 2 Kings 11—25; so also in Josh. 22—
24), in the Jeremiah Vita (Jer. 26—28; 32; 36:1—43:7) and in prose narrative from the Persian
era, such as the books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel 1.
64 See my papers “Oral and Written,” 63–92, 100–105; “Parameters for Stylistic Analysis,” 259–71
(note 60 above). The sociolinguistic and socio-literary considerations behind this thesis are
explored in my paper “Style is More than the Person: Sociolinguistics, Literary Culture and the
Distinction Between Written and Oral Narrative,” in Biblical Hebrew: Chronology and Typology
(ed. Ian Young; London: T & T Clark, 2003) 38–103.
 ‫‪302‬‬
‫כי אם ישׂראל‪ /‬כי שׂרית עם אלהים ועם אנשים‪ /‬ותוכל‪ /‬וישאל יעקב‬
‫ויאמר ‪ /‬הגידה נא שמך ‪ /‬ויאמר‪ /‬למה זה תשאל לשמי ‪/‬ויברך אתו שם‬
‫‪2 Sam. 1:6–1‬‬ ‫נקרא נקריתי בהר הגלבע ‪ /‬והנה שאול נשען על חניתו‬
‫והנה הרכב ובעלי הפרשים הדבקהו ‪ /‬ויפן אחריו ‪ /‬ויראני)‪(density 1.77‬‬
‫ויקרא אלי‪ /‬ואמר‪ /‬הנני‪ /‬ויאמר לי‪ /‬מי אתה‪ /‬ואמר אליו ‪ /‬עמלקי אנכי‬
‫ויאמר אלי ‪ /‬עמד נא עלי ‪ /‬ומתתני ‪ /‬כי אחזני השבץ ‪ /‬כי כל עוד נפשי בי‬
‫ואעמד עליו ‪ /‬ואמתתהו ‪ /‬כי ידעתי ‪ -‬כי לא יחיה ‪ -‬אחרי נפלו‬
‫ואקח הנזר אשר על ראשו ואצעדה אשר על זרעו ‪ /‬ואביאם אל אדני הנה‬
‫ותאמר אל עבדיך ‪ /‬אם לא ירד אחיכם הקטן עמכם לא תספון ‪Gen. 44:23–29‬‬
‫)‪(density 2.39‬‬ ‫לראות פני‬
‫ויהי כי עלינו אל עבדך אבי ‪ /‬ונגד לו את דברי אדני ‪ /‬ויאמר אבינו‬
‫שבו‪ /‬שברו לנו מעט אכל‪ /‬ונאמר‪ /‬לא נוכל ‪ -‬לרדת‪ /‬אם יש אחינו הקטן אתנו ‪ /‬וירדנו‬
‫כי לא נוכל ‪-‬לראות פני האיש‪ /‬ואחינו הקטן איננו אתנו‪ /‬ויאמר עבדך אבי אלינו‬
‫אתם ידעתם ‪ -‬כי שנים ילדה לי אשתי ‪ /‬ויצא האחד מאתי ‪ /‬ואמר ‪ /‬אך טרף טרף‬
‫ולא ראיתיו עד הנה ‪ /‬ולקחתם גם את זה מעם פני‬
‫וקרהו אסון ‪ /‬והורדתם את שׂיבתי ברעה שאלה‬

‫‪In these excerpts most clauses are extremely simple. Hypotaxis is rare:‬‬
‫עד עלות השחר ‪,‬כי לא יכל לו ‪,‬בהאבקו עמו ‪Gen. 32: 11.11% -‬‬
‫)‪ (complex subordination‬כי לא יחיה אחרי נפלו ‪2 Sam 1: 8.33% -‬‬
‫לראות פני; לרדת ; לראות פני האיש; כי שנים ילדה לי אשתי ‪Gen. 44: 16.67 % -‬‬
‫‪Noun groups are rare and mostly short:‬‬
‫בכף ירכו ;כף ירך יעקב; עם אלהים ועם אנשים ‪Gen. 32:‬‬
‫הרכב ובעלי הפרשים ;הנזר אשר על ראשו ואצעדה אשר על זרעו ‪2 Sam. 1:‬‬
‫אחיכם הקטן ;עבדך אבי; דברי אדני ;מעט אכל ; אחינו הקטן ; פני האיש ‪Gen. 44:‬‬
‫‪We encounter a number of sequences of short clauses with at most one‬‬
‫‪argument. Two examples from the Jacob tale:‬‬
‫ויאמר‪ /‬שלחני ‪ /‬כי עלה השחר ‪ /‬ויאמר ‪ /‬לא אשלחך‪/‬כי אם ברכתני‬
‫ויאמר אליו‪/‬מה שמך‪ /‬ויאמר ‪ /‬יעקב ‪ /‬וישאל יעקב‬
‫ויאמר ‪ /‬הגידה נא שמך ‪ /‬ויאמר ‪ /‬למה זה תשאל לשמי ‪ /‬ויברך אתו שם‬
‫למה זה ‪The final clauses contain a few pronominal/adverbial arguments:‬‬
‫‪. The tale of the Amalekite contains a‬תשאל לשמי ‪ /‬ויברך אתו שם‬
‫‪series of such clauses:‬‬
‫ויפן אחריו ‪ /‬ויראני‪ /‬ויקרא אלי ‪ /‬ואמר ‪ /‬הנני ‪ /‬ויאמר לי ‪ /‬מי אתה ‪ /‬ואמר‬
‫אליו‪ /‬עמלקי אנכי ‪ /‬ויאמר אלי ‪ /‬עמד נא עלי ‪ /‬ומתתני ‪ /‬כי אחזני השבץ‬
‫‪These segments illustrate the thesis that narratives in the rhythmic-verbal‬‬
‫‪style consist to a large extent of complexes of short, mostly verbal, clauses that‬‬
‫‪are very close to spontaneous spoken language. Indeed, Jehudah’s account and‬‬
‫‪the tale of the Amalekite are represented as character speech. Accordingly, stories‬‬
‫‪in this style probably reflect a substrate of oral narrative.‬‬
‫‪One of the main aspects of rhythmic-verbal style is the spread of‬‬
‫‪information, in accordance with Halliday’s concept of sparsity and Chafe’s‬‬
 303
findings concerning the constraint on the number of data per clause in spoken
language. In the excerpts at hand this tendency is illustrated by a number of
clauses, such as ‫ויאמר‬/ ‫( וישאל יעקב‬Gen. 32:30);65 ‫ ויראני‬/ ‫( ויפן אחריו‬2
Sam. 1:7); ‫ ומתתני‬/ ‫( עמד נא עלי‬v. 9); ‫ואמתתהו ;ואקח הנזר‬/ ‫ואעמד עליו‬
‫ ואביאם אל אדני הנה‬/ ‫( אשר על ראשו ואצעדה אשר על זרעו‬v. 10). The
two-step structure of these clauses matches that of the epic formulae, such as
‫ ויקח‬- ‫וישלח ידו‬. Patterns of this type, inceptive structures, and the

succession of verbal sequences, can be termed ‘sparsity patterns,’ since they tend
towards lexical sparsity and the spread of information. These features, then, are
characteristic of the formulaic register of ancient Semitic epic poetry and the
biblical rhythmic-verbal style alike.
In Biblical Hebrew the formulaic register is prominent in tales in the
rhythmic-verbal style, in particular in the narratives of Abraham and Jacob, and
slightly less so in the Saul-David cycle and the tales of Elijah and Elisha.66 In
narratives in the complex-nominal style epic formulae are hardly ever found,
although a collocation of ‫נשא‬, ‫ עין‬and ‫ ראה‬is instanced by the Esther
novella:67 ‫‘ )ותהי אסתר נשאת חן בעיני כל–ראיה‬And Esther obtained favor
in the sight of all them that looked upon her;’ Esth. 2:15, ASV).68
Consequently, the sparsity characteristic of ancient Semitic epic poetry and
biblical narrative in the rhythmic-verbal style represents more than merely the
predisposition of spoken language. In these literatures spread of information is a
basic principle of stylization. In ancient Semitic and biblical poetry the
preference for low density patterns has been formalized by the conventions of
parallelism, as the rhythmic succession of two balanced cola (or more) in a line,
in semantic and/or syntactic relationship.69 For the epic formulae studied above

65 Additional instances of ‫ אמר‬- ‫שאל‬: Gen. 24:47; 43:27; Judg. 4:20; 20:18; 1 Sam. 19:22; Jer.
48:19 (=LXX); of ‫ לאמר‬- ‫ שאל‬: Gen. 32:18; 37:15; 38:21; 44:19; Ex. 13:14 (//Deut. 6:20); Josh.
4:6; Judg. 1:1; 20:23; 1 Sam. 23:2; 30:8; 2 Sam. 2:1; 3:13; 5:19 (= 1 Chron. 14:10); Jer. 36:17.
66 See my papers “Frequency and Distribution” (note 8), 458–70; “Fountainheads of Ancient
Hebrew Narrative” (note 48), 18–20. A similar style is displayed by the Aramaic Midrash
Aggadah, e.g., Wayyiqra Rabbah and Eichah Rabbah, and in American oral narrative, e.g., R. M.
Dorson, Buying the Wind. Regional Folklore in the United States (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1964) 41, 169.
67 ‫רגל‬, ‫ נשא‬and ‫ הלך‬occur together in Josh. 4:18, in three unconnected clauses.
68 The fact that such random combination of ‫ נשא‬and ‫ ראה‬occurs only once in the biblical corpus,
exactly fits the statistical expectation (“Frequency and Distribution,” 443).
69 These tendencies go a far way to explain the limitation of the colon in Biblical poetry to two
explicit constituents (apart from the predicate), as proposed by M. P. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse
Structure (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 78–80.
 304
formalization according to the patterns of parallelism is determinant. Biblical
narrative does not meet the semantic and/or syntactic conditions of parallelism
in the same way as poetry.70 But the preservation of the epic formulae and the
structures on which they were patterned, indicates appreciation of sparsity and
the rhythmic succession of balanced, short clauses that is characteristic of the
rhythmic-verbal style. Thus, the rhythmic stylization of balanced sparsity

patterns represents the common Stilwollen of the ancient Semitic epic and
classical biblical narrative.

Additional note to p. 291 (not in the printed text):

In Biblical Hebrew one notes a number of additional phrases in which the mouth (‫ )פה‬occurs in the
inceptive clause, as instrumental for the main action, and in particular for eating, ‫ותפתח הארץ את‬
‫( פיה ותבלע אתם‬Num. 16:32, cf. 16:30; 26:10; Deut. 11:6); ‫פצה פיך ואכל את אשׁר אני נתן אליך‬
(Ezek. 2:8; cf. 3:2); and for speaking on a particularly festive occasion, e.g., Ps. 51:17 (‫אדני שׂפתי‬
‫ ;תפתח ופי יגיד תהלתך‬so also Ps. 78:2), or after a long period of silence, e.g., ‫אחרי כן פתח איוב את‬
‫( פיהו ויקלל את יומו‬Job 3.1; see also Isa 53:7; Ezek. 24:27; 33:22; Dan. 10:16; and, possibly, Isa.
10:14); see my “Epic Formulas in Biblical Narrative and the Fountainheads of Ancient Hebrew
Narrative,” Teˁudah 7 (Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects, 1992) 9–53, esp. 48–49
(Hebrew with English summary); “Prose and Poetry in the Book of Job” (note 10), 95–97 (with
references to parallels in Targum and Midrash) .

70 F. I. Andersen, “What Biblical Scholars Might Learn from Emily Dickinson,” in Words
Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honor of J. F. A. Sawyer (ed. J. Davies, G. Harvey, W. G.
E. Watson; JSOTSup 156; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 52–74.