[JBL Article] “He Said, He Said”: Repetition of the Quotation Formula in the Joseph Story and Other Biblical Narratives

[Jason Hare]

Did anyone else read the article that just came out in the most recent volume of Journal of Biblical Literature entitled “‘He Said, He Said’: Repetition of the Quotation Formula in the Joseph Story and Other Biblical Narratives” by Richard Steiner?

It addresses the strangeness of expression in a few places in the Bible that have וַיֹ֫אמֶר followed by another וַיֹ֫אמֶר. Notice the expression in the following:

Genesis 37:21-22

וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ׃ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ הַשְׁלִ֣יכוּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֤וֹר הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְיָ֖ד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־ב֑וֹ לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַֽהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו׃

Wouldn't it have been more natural to read the text continuously as one speech instance?

וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵ֫הוּ מִיָּדָם וַיֹּ֫אמֶר לֹא נַכֶּ֫נּוּ נָ֫פֶשׁ ... אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם הַשְׁלִ֫יכוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־הַבּוֹר הַזֶּה

And Reuben heard and saved him from their hand, and he said, "Let us not strike him mortally.... Do not spill blood. Cast him into this pit."

Steiner suggests, in accord with a few ancient commentators, that the repetition of ויאמר indicates a pause that (in this case) means that the first was his thought and the second was his speech to his brothers. In other words, "and he said to himself, 'Let us not kill him," and he said to his brothers, 'Don't spill his blood, but cast him into the pit.'" According to this latter statement, he was including himself in the groupthink of killing Joseph, but he didn't want them to be personally responsible (let him die of natural causes or by the hand of someone else).

Did you read the article? What do you think of the argument?

[Kirk Lowery]

I haven't read the article yet, but the first thought that came to me was "dittography". Does Steiner address the textual evidence?

Otherwise, taking it as it stands, I see no textual evidence to support the idea that the first speech act was not verbal. I would have thought that the Hebrew would express someone's thought(s) differently. A simple וַיֹ֫אמֶר by itself defaults to audible speech, no?

[Jason Hare]

Oh, he does. The article is very interesting. He pulls commentary and discussed other similar texts. It's definitely worth the read. I spent some time on it today and really enjoyed.

[ducky]

We can see it in two way:

At first, they wanted to kill Joseph and throw him in one of the holes. (37:20)
וְעַתָּ֣ה ׀ לְכ֣וּ וְנַֽהַרְגֵ֗הוּ וְנַשְׁלִכֵ֨הוּ֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד הַבֹּר֔וֹת
And Reuven said to himself (thought) that he must save his life, (37:21)
וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיַּצִּלֵ֖הוּ מִיָּדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לֹ֥א נַכֶּ֖נּוּ נָֽפֶשׁ
And then changed his brothers' plan by saying them that they would throw Joseph in the hole but not kill him. (37:22)
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֣ם ׀ רְאוּבֵן֮ אַל־תִּשְׁפְּכוּ־דָם֒ הַשְׁלִ֣יכוּ אֹת֗וֹ אֶל־הַבּ֤וֹר הַזֶּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּמִּדְבָּ֔ר וְיָ֖ד אַל־תִּשְׁלְחוּ־ב֑וֹ לְמַ֗עַן הַצִּ֤יל אֹתוֹ֙ מִיָּדָ֔ם לַֽהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ אֶל־אָבִֽיו

And notice that at the second ויאמר it is said ויאמר אליהם - "he said to them"
But on the first ויאמר - it is just ויאמר.
so this difference may support the different view of these two ויאמר

On the other hand, we can see this as both statements were verbal.
As the first one was more general - as "throwing it in the air" and get their attention.
While after he got their attention, (as if they asked: "so what would we do with him?"), He then Told THEM (ויאמר אליהם) to throw him alive to one of the holes.

So the change here between the two ויאמר can relate to the position of the conversation between Reuven and his brothers.
First, just one voice from many. therefore it is just ויאמר.
But then, he got their attention, and so - it is ויאמר אליהם - and He Told Them

[Jason Hare]

That's a good observation. The author calls up other instances of ויאמר without a change of subject between two speech instances. For example, the angel speaking to Moses from within the bush says:

Exodus 3:5-6

וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אַל־תִּקְרַ֣ב הֲלֹ֑ם שַׁל־נְעָלֶ֨יךָ֙ מֵעַ֣ל רַגְלֶ֔יךָ כִּ֣י הַמָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁ֤ר אַתָּה֙ עוֹמֵ֣ד עָלָ֔יו אַדְמַת־קֹ֖דֶשׁ הֽוּא׃ וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אָֽנֹכִי֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י אָבִ֔יךָ אֱלֹהֵ֧י אַבְרָהָ֛ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֖ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֣י יַֽעֲקֹ֑ב וַיַּסְתֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנָ֔יו כִּ֣י יָרֵ֔א מֵֽהַבִּ֖יט אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִֽים׃

It is suggested that after the first ויאמר we are to understand that Moses obeyed the order to remove his shoes. He told him to remove his shoes, then paused, then started to speak again.

There have been other suggestions about how to understand the verse regarding Reuben's speech to his brothers. Steiner takes them into account and divides the arguments into synchronic and diachronic approaches, settling on the latter. His conclusion includes the following:

The facts are best explained by taking the repetition of ויאמר in Gen 37:21–22 as signaling a change in the discourse parameters, with regard to both type (from internal to external) and addressee (from self to other). In verse 21, Reuben speaks to himself in his mind, revealing his true feelings. In verse 22, by contrast, Reuben addresses his brothers, trying to persuade them that he, too, wants Joseph dead, as long as that result is achieved without their spilling blood.

Another incredible analogy can be drawn from 1 Samuel 18:21, which has Saul speaking to himself (without בלבו) and then speaking to David:

1 Samuel 18:21

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר שָׁא֜וּל אֶתְּנֶ֤נָּה לּוֹ֙ וּתְהִי־ל֣וֹ לְמוֹקֵ֔שׁ וּתְהִי־ב֖וֹ יַד־פְּלִשְׁתִּ֑ים וַיֹּ֤אמֶר שָׁאוּל֙ אֶל־דָּוִ֔ד בִּשְׁתַּ֛יִם תִּתְחַתֵּ֥ן בִּ֖י הַיּֽוֹם׃

And Saul said (to himself), "I will give her to him and she will be a snare for him. Let the Philistines' hand be upon him." And Saul said to David, "In two [women] you have become my son-in-law this day."

All in all, the article is well written, though sometimes sources are just poured onto the page without context creation. Either way, I took a lot away from it and thought you guys might also enjoy it.

[ducky]

Very nice.

So I suggested two ways to see it, and your two examples complete the two suggestions.