Inclusio in the Hebrew Bible a Historical-Developmental Approach

BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV

THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF BIBLE, ARCHEOLOGY AND ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

INCLUSIO IN THE HEBREW BIBLE A HISTORICAL-DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE

ANTHONY CHAPMAN

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

DR. SHAMIR YONA

OCTOBER 2013

BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV

THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF BIBLE, ARCHEOLOGY AND ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

INCLUSIO IN THE HEBREW BIBLE A HISTORICAL-DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE

ANTHONY CHAPMAN

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF

DR. SHAMIR YONA

Signature of Student: ______Date: ______

Signature of Supervisor: ______Date: ______

Signature of Chairperson of the Committee for Graduate Students: ______Date: ______

OCTOBER 2013

Abstract:

A historical neglect and mis-appropriation of the inclusio rhetorical figure has led to misunderstandings regarding the structure of many Biblical passages. A comprehensive re-appropriation and in-depth historical study of inclusio is useful in understanding the structure and design of many Biblical texts, thereby restoring correct interpretation, as well as appreciation of the intended beauty, technical design, and artistic nuance present in the Hebrew Scriptures. Our analysis takes place in five stages:

First, beginning in its origins in classical rhetoric, the study of inclusio is outlined all the way up through the 19th century, during which period inclusio was primarily known as epanalepsis. Definitions by rhetoricians, Christian scholars, and Jewish rabbis are examined, together with many relevant examples of inclusio.

Second, the conflicting definitions of inclusio in present day Biblical scholarship are contrasted and evaluated, showing both the strengths and weaknesses of modern Biblical scholarship in comparison with the classical approach.

Third, the information gleaned from our historical survey is used to rebuild a clear and accurate definition of inclusio for use in Biblical scholarship:

Inclusio is the intentional repetition of clearly recognizable elements at

the beginning and end of a composition or one of its parts.

Fourth, inclusio “strength” is discussed, and criteria are developed for appraising the rhetorical strength of an inclusio. All inclusios are not created equal, and each should be judged on its own merit.

Fifth and finally, a number of examples of inclusio are examined according to our definition and criteria, both in short segments and in longer sections. Priority is given to prose examples, to show that inclusio is not primarily a “poetic” phenomenon, as some scholars have suggested.

Thanks תודות

Without the following people, this project would not have been possible:

Irene – every day that begins and ends next to you is a day worth living (even if I don’t make it to bed till 3 am  )

Shamir – when you first introduced me to inclusio several years ago, I had no idea it would take over my life! Your understanding and appreciation of ancient Hebrew poetry have been inspirational, instrumental, and indispensable along this journey.

Dad and Mom – my love for the Bible and for its Author is due to you

My 4 Little Monsters – who prayed every night for their Daddy to finish his thesis

Common sense is not so common.

~ Voltaire

iii

Contents

Thesis Statement: ...... 1

I. Introduction ...... 1

II. Inclusio Through the Centuries ...... 3

A. Classical and Christian Definitions ...... 3

1. Inclusio and Epanadiplosis ...... 3

2. Epanalepsis ...... 6

3. Summary of Classical Definitions ...... 20

B. Rabbinical Definitions ...... 21

1. Joḥanan Ben Nappaḥa ...... 21

2. Moses Ibn Ezra ...... 22

3. RaMḤaL ...... 26

C. Scholarly Definitions ...... 27

1. Early Biblical Scholarship ...... 27

2. Modern Biblical Scholarship ...... 48

D. The Cultural Background of Inclusio ...... 59

III. A Clearer Definition ...... 68

A. Terminology ...... 68

B. Definition ...... 71

C. Criteria for Evaluation: Inclusio Strength ...... 73

1. Primary Criteria ...... 74

2. Secondary Criteria ...... 78

IV. Practical Examples of Inclusio Evaluation ...... 80

A. Inclusio in Short Segments ...... 80

B. Inclusio in Longer Units ...... 101

Conclusion ...... 119

Bibliography ...... 120

Bible Versions Referenced in this Work

ASV - American Standard Version

ESV - English Standard Version

JPS - Jewish Publication Society Version, 1917

KJV - King James Version

LEB - Lexham English Bible

LXX - Septuagint

MT - Hebrew Masoretic Text

NASB - New American Standard Bible

NET - New English Translation

NIV2011 - New International Version, 2011

NRSV - New Revised Standard Version

RSV - Revised Standard Version

SBLGNT - Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament

All quotes from MT were taken from the digital Westminster Leningrad Codex as found at www.tanach.us, and all quotes from the Greek New Testament were taken from SBLGNT as found at www.biblegateway.com. JPS was accessed through www.mechon-mamre.org, and LXX was accessed through Accordance Bible Software. All other versions were accessed through www.biblegateway.com.

Thesis Statement:

I. Introduction

What is inclusio? Simply put, inclusio is repeating the beginning at the end.

This rhetorical device has been referred to by both classical and Biblical scholars by many different names, but the most prevalent term used by scholars in the

Biblical field has been inclusio.1

Inclusio is a Latin noun derived from the verb includo, “to shut up, shut in, confine, enclose, imprison, keep in.”2 Therefore, the word inclusio could be translated literally as “a shutting up, confinement,”3 and it is used to mean

“inclusion” in the well-known Latin legal phrase, “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” (The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another).4 In the discussion

1 Additional terminology and reasons for inclusio as the preferable term will be discussed below.

2 Lewis and Short, “in-clūdo,” n.p.

3 Lewis and Short, “inclūsĭo,” n.p.

4 Bouvier, “Inclusio,” 2:2139. Google lists over 181,000 instances of this exact phrase.

Google Search, “inclusio unius…,” n.p.

1 presented here, the term inclusio will be used to describe the intentional repetition of clearly recognizable elements at the beginning and end of a composition or one of its parts. The term includitur will be used to describe the enclosed material within the inclusio. In this quote from Paul Harvey,5 for example:

Thus, the repetition of “times like these” creates an inclusio around the includitur.

The goals of this paper are fivefold:

. First, to trace the historical development of the study of inclusio, from the

time of classical rhetoric till today;

. Second, to analyze and contrast conflicting definitions of inclusio found in

present day Biblical scholarship;

. Third, to clearly define inclusio for use in Biblical scholarship;

. Fourth, to provide a clear framework for evaluating the rhetorical strength

of an inclusio;

. Fifth, to analyze examples of different types of inclusio.

Through our investigation, we hope the Biblical scholar will become better enabled to identify, evaluate, and appreciate the technical and artistic nuance of inclusio.

5 Corliss, “Paul Harvey,” n.p.

II. Inclusio Through the Centuries

A. Classical and Christian Definitions

Our discussion begins with an in-depth historical survey of inclusio, both in rhetorical studies in general, and in Biblical studies in particular. Tracing the historical treatment of inclusio helps to reveal its general neglect, yet progressive development through various eras. What is learned along the way will be invaluable in leading us to a clearer understanding of this remarkable figure of speech.

1. Inclusio and Epanadiplosis

In Kessler’s well-known article, “Inclusio in the Hebrew Bible,” he equates inclusio with the Greek figure epanadiplosis, and states: “The classical definition called for verbal identity at the extremities of the literary unit, though allowances were made for such variables as case endings.”6 In all likelihood, Kessler is here referring to the work of Roman rhetorician Julius Rufinianus, from the fourth century AD,7 who gives the following definition:

Epanadiplosis est, cum idem verbum in eadem sententia & primum est, &

extremum… Latine dicitur inclusio.8

Epanadiplosis is, when the same word in the same sentence is first and

last… In Latin it is called inclusio.9

6 Kessler, “Inclusio,” 44.

7 Browning, “Oratory,” 755-6. The date of Rufinianus’ activity is somewhat uncertain, but many scholars place him in the fourth century AD.

8 Rufinianus, “De Schemata,” 31.

To clarify his definition further, Rufinianus provides four examples, all taken from Virgil (emphasis mine):

Ceasaris & famam & nomen tot ferre per annos, Tithoni prima quot abest

ab origine Caesar.10

Ante nouis rubeant, quam prata coloribus, ante.11

Unum illud tibi nate dea, proque omnibus unum.12

Ipsum obtestemur, veniam que oremus ab ipso.13

Clearly, Kessler is relying heavily on Rufinianus as his classical authority: repetition of one word only, at the exact beginning and end of one sentence, with allowance for variations in the repeated word in the first and fourth examples.

However, Kessler fails to mention the fact that this is the only time either of the

9 The translation is mine.

10 Virgil, Georgics 3, lines 47-48. In many of these Latin examples, and those in the coming pages, it is difficult to preserve the inclusio structure in English translation. In this case,

Harrison translates (I have included the previous line to provide context): “[Yet in due course I will gird myself to tell of the burning battles] of Caesar and carry his name in fame through as many years as Caesar is distant from his origin in Tithonus.” Harrison, Generic

Enrichment, 155-6.

11 Virgil, Georgics 4, line 306. “Before the meadows grow red with new colors, and before.”

Translation in Nappa, Reading, 190.

12 Virgil, The Aeneid, III, line 435. “One thing alone I will foretell to you, son of a goddess, one thing for all.” Translation in Henry, The Vigour, 67.

13 Virgil, The Aeneid, XI, line 358. “Let us appeal to the man himself, beg him for permission.” Translation by Ahl, Aeneid, 278.

4 terms “inclusio” or “epanadiplosis” appears in the works of the ancient Greek or

Latin rhetoricians, both before and after Rufinianus.14 In fact, it seems that neither of these words was used by any rhetorician other than Rufinianus until the

1500’s, when his works were “rediscovered,” along with several other minor Latin rhetoricians.15 After that time, the terms epanadiplosis and inclusio begin to appear in dictionaries and other works, such as Nathan Bailey’s Universal

Etymological English Dictionary of 1730:

EPANADI’PLOSIS [with Rhetoricians] is a figure, when they begin and end

a sentence with the same words, as Kind to his friends, and to his enemies

kind. In Latin this figure is called Inclusio.16

So, it would appear that the terms inclusio and epanadiplosis remained neglected from the fourth century AD through to at least the sixteenth century.

Does this neglect indicate that rhetoricians were unaware of this figure during that extensive period of time? Not at all - they simple called it by another name: epanalepsis.

14 Aristotle uses ἐπαναδίπλωσις (epanadiplosis) to simply mean repetition, not as a rhetorical figure [An. pr. Book 1 Chp 38]. Tiberius Rhetor, a Greek rhetorician from the third or fourth century AD, defines epanadiplosis as a synonym for ἀναστροφὴ (anastrophe):

“the last word of a sentence that is repeated at the beginning of the following sentence.”

(De Figuris, Walz 8:552-3, my translation). This figure is usually called anadiplosis; see

Rowe, Handbook, 130. In Biblical research, however, it has been called the “terrace

Yona, The) ”שרשור“ pattern” (Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 208-9), and in Hebrew

Many Faces, 20).

15 Mack, Renaissance Rhetoric, 210-11.

16 Bailey, Dictionarium, n.p. This appears to be a second volume meant to expand and complement the first dictionary published by Bailey in 1721.

2. Epanalepsis a. Early Rhetoricians

The Greek term ἐπανάληψις (epanalepsis) means “a taking up again,”17 and is used in Modern Greek simply as “repetition,” as is shown by the phrase: Η

επανάληψη είναι μητέρα της μαθήσεως (Repetition is the mother of all learning).18

The earliest Greek and Latin rhetoricians used the term epanalepsis in the same way, to generally describe various types of repetition. For example, in the early first century AD, Rutilius Lupus produced a Latin abridgement of a Greek rhetorical manual which is no longer extant.19 In his abridgement, Rutilius defines epanalepsis in the following way:

EPANALEPSIS. Hoc schema fieri solet, cum id quod dictum semel eft, quo

grauius sit, iteratur. Id interdum fit uno verbo: interdum plurium verborum

coniunctione. Verbum sic iteratur.20

EPANALEPSIS. This figure is usually formed, when that which has been

said is once again repeated, to give it more weight. Sometimes this occurs

with one word, sometimes with several words together. So the word is

repeated.21

17 Evans et al., “Epanalepsis,” 438.

18 A large number of Google search results for the term ἐπανάληψις are related to this phrase, which is the Greek translation of the Latin maxim, Repetitio est mater studiorum.

See Wikiquote, “Latin Proverbs,” n.p.

19 Winterbottom, “Rutilius Lupus,” 1340.

20 Lupus, “De Figuris I,” 3-4.

21 The translation is mine.

From this definition, and from the examples that Rutilius gives, which have not been repeated here due to space requirements, it is clear that Rutilius views epanalepsis as any repetition that strengthens the words of the speaker, without defining the exact placement of the repeated word or words. Not very long after

Rutilius Lupus, at the end of the first century, Quintilian completed his Institutio

Oratoria, “the largest handbook on rhetoric that has survived from antiquity.”22 For

Quintilian, epanalepsis was simply a general word for repetition, iteratio:

ταυτολογία id est eiusdem verbi aut sermonis iteratio… interim mutato

nomine ἐπανάλημψις dicitur, atque est et ipsum inter schemata.23

ταυτολογία (tautology), which means the repetition of a word or phrase…

is sometimes given another name, ἐπανάληψις (epanalepsis), under which

appellation it is ranked among figures.24

So, the earliest rhetoricians used the word epanalepsis as a broad term for any repetition, not in the specific sense of inclusio. However, in the fourth century, an alternate definition of epanalepsis is presented. On the one hand, Julius

Rufinianus, who defined epanadiplosis as inclusio, as noted above, defines epanalepsis in the earlier, broader sense:

Epanalepsis, est eorundem verborum simul positorum, eiusdemque

sententiae post multa interiecta cum aliqua periodi conclusione facta

repetitio… Latine haec figura dicitur resumptio vel repetitio.25

22 López, “Quintilian,” 307-8.

23 Inst. 8.3.50-51.

24 Translation by Harold Butler: Quintilian, Inst. 8.3.50-51.

Epanalepsis is the repetition of several words together, in the same

sentence, after an intervening thought is concluded… In Latin this figure is

called Resumptio or Repetitio.26

Rufinianus, however, was not destined to be the most prominent rhetorician of the fourth century; that distinction was reserved for Aelius Donatus.27 His students include famous ancient scholars such as Jerome and Servius, and his

Ars Grammatica was one of the most influential and widespread texts on rhetoric and grammar for many centuries.28 Donatus defines epanalepsis differently than those who came before him:

Epanalepsis est verbi in principio versus positi in eiusdem fine repetitio.29

Epanalepsis is the repetition of a word placed at the beginning of a verse

at its end.30

To illustrate his definition, Donatus gives one example taken from Virgil:

ante etiam sceptrum Dictaei regis et ante31

25 Rufinianus, “De Schemata,” 30.

26 The translation is mine.

27 Kaster, “Donatus,” 494-5.

28 Graves, Jerome's Hebrew, 14-15.

29 Ars Major 3.5, in Keil, ed., Donatus, 398.

30 The translation is mine.

31 Virgil, Georgics 2, line 536. “Even before the Dictaean king took up his scepter, and before.” Translation from Apostol, “Rome's Bucolic,” 127.

Clearly, the figure that Donatus refers to here as epanalepsis is the same figure that Rufinianus calls epanadiplosis and inclusio, but Donatus chooses to take what was previously used as a more general term and make it more specific, although he retains the general Latin term repetitio, and does not use the term

“inclusio”.32 In the following centuries, the term epanalepsis was used much more frequently for “repeating the beginning at the end,” and is still defined according to Donatus in most dictionaries of rhetoric today.33 Several examples from over the centuries will help illustrate this, and will also help establish the connection between epanalepsis and Biblical scholarship. b. Early Christian Rhetorical Study

The first Biblical scholars to analyze the rhetorical devices in the Bible confined themselves to the rules of Greek and Latin rhetoric, and in this way were blind to anything outside of those defined borders. As will be seen, their strict classical definition of epanalepsis was so limited that it did not allow them to see the Hebrew artistic nuance that should have guided their analysis. However, their work still represents an important first stage in the development of our understanding of inclusio, and should not be ignored. Unfortunately, many present-day Biblical scholars have ignored the rich history of Biblical rhetorical study, causing an imbalance in their understanding of inclusio, as we shall discuss later on. Therefore, it is worthwhile to visit the development of early

32 Meynet states that Donatus and “Rufinus” (a misspelling of Rufinianus?) use the term inclusio, but I could find no evidence of this, or of anyone else but Rufinianus using the term inclusio for a rhetorical figure until the 1500’s. Meynet, Treatise, 36, note 40.

33 For example, The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (Princeton 2012) and the Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (Oxford 2001) both follow Donatus in their definition of epanalepsis. See Evans et al., “Epanalepsis,” 438-9, and Peters, “Epanalepsis,” 250-1.

Christian and Jewish treatment of these ideas in our quest for historical understandings and misunderstandings of inclusio. We begin with a survey of

Christian rhetoricians, and then examine Jewish rabbinical understandings.

Isidore of Seville

In the early 7th century, Isidore of Seville produced his encyclopedic

Etymologiae,34 which contains one of the earliest recorded attempts to apply classical rhetorical analysis to the Biblical text. However, he gives only one

Biblical example in his short discussion of rhetorical figures,35 which is unfortunately unrelated to his definition of epanalempsis (a later Latin spelling of epanalepsis):

Epanalempsis est sermonis in principio versus positi eiusdem in fine

replicatio.36

Epanalepsis is a repetition of the same word at the beginning and end of a

verse.37

Crescit amor nummi quantum ipsa pecunia crescit.38

Grows the love of money as wealth itself grows.39

34 For more historical information on Isidore, see the introduction by Stephen Barney.

Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae (English), pp. 3-10.

35 De schematibus - Etymologiae, I.xxxvi.1-22, found on pages 58-60 of the translation by

Barney et al., Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae (English).

36 Etymologiae, I.xxxvi.11.

37 Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae (English). 1.36.11, p.59.

38 Juven. 14, 139

This definition is practically identical to that of Donatus. Although he gives a different example than Donatus, Isidore clearly follows Donatus in his understanding of epanalepsis.

Venerable Bede

In the early eighth century, Venerable Bede composed a short work entitled

De Schematibus et Tropis, the “figures” and “tropes.” It seems that Bede was one of the first, if not the first, to write a rhetorical handbook for analysis of the

Scripture, stating that his goal was, “to demonstrate by means of examples collected from Holy Writ that teachers of secular eloquence in any age have not been able to furnish us with any of these figures and tropes which did not first appear in Holy Writ.”40 Bede structures his work after that of Donatus,41 and the majority of Bede’s definitions of rhetorical devices are verbatim quotes from

Donatus.42 Epanalepsis is an example of this:43

39 This translation is based on that by Barney et al., Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae

(English), but I have rearranged it to better show the epanalepsis.

40 Bede, De Schematibus et Tropis. In Tanenhaus, “Bede - A Translation,” 240.

41 Brown, A Companion to Bede, 23-24.

42 Tanenhaus, “Bede - A Translation,” 238.

43 There are actually two main versions of Bede’s De Schematibus et Tropis. I am following the one found in Pithoi, Antiqui Rhetores. The version included in most printed editions contains a definition of epanalepsis that has been changed slightly to match Isidore’s

(sermonis instead of verbi), and all examples from Virgil have been removed. It seems more likely that the Virgil would have been removed rather than added due to religious sensitivities, so I prefer Pithoi’s version. Theoretically, it is possible that Bede himself

Επανάληψις est verbi in principio versus positi in eiusdem fine repetitio.

Ante etiam sceptrum Dictaei regis, & ante.

As is clearly seen, Bede copies his definition and first example from Donatus, which has been translated and discussed above. Bede then gives two additional examples from the Bible, quoted from the Latin Vulgate, one from the New

Testament (Phil. 4:4), and the other from the Psalms (82:1):

Simile est illud: Gaudete in domino semper, iterum dico gaudete. Et in

Psalmo: Deus quis similis erit tibi? ne taceas, neque compescaris Deus.

Similar is this: Rejoice in the Lord always, again I say, Rejoice. And in the

Psalm: O God, who will be like unto you? Be not silent or still, O God.44

Therefore, Bede is the first of the extant Christian authors to provide concrete examples of inclusio from the Hebrew Bible and also from the New Testament.

Matthew of Vendôme

In the mid-twelfth century, Matthew of Vendôme, also known as Matheus

Vindocinensis, gives this brief definition of epanalepsis in his Ars Versificatoria, the earliest known example of a standard artes poeticae, the student poetry manuals produced in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries:45

published two editions, an earlier with Virgil’s examples, and a later without them.

However, if a later editor made the changes, I think there can be no doubt that this is the more original version. For more on the extant editions of this work, see Giles, “Preface,” iii.

44 This is my translation of the Latin.

45 Parr, “Introduction,” 6-9.

Epanalensis est vocabuli in principio versus positi in eiusdem terminatione

replicatio.46

Epanalepsis is the duplication at the end of a verse of a word placed at its

beginning.47

While Vendôme does not offer any Biblical examples, only giving the same example from Juvenal as Isidore, he is another of the many early Christian scholars to follow the more narrow definition of epanalepsis originating from

Donatus. Thus, we find that the narrow classical definition of epanalepsis dominated the Christian rhetorical and poetic study from the fourth century onward. c. Seventeenth Century Developments - Glassius and Alsted

In the seventeen century, two outstanding Latin works illustrate epanalepsis, one a Biblical hermeneutical manual, and the other an encyclopedia. The first of these works is Philologia Sacra by Salomo Glassius, initially published in 1623.

Glassius was a German Jew who converted to Lutheran Christianity,48 and became a widely influential university professor and author in Jena till his death in

1656.49 In the following centuries, Philologia Sacra came to be so greatly valued in the study of the Scripture, that Scottish minister William Orme wrote glowingly

46 Vendôme, Ars Versificatoria, 3.6, Munari 167

47 Vendôme, Ars Versificatoria - English. 3.6, p.80.

48 Bullinger, Figures, viii.

49 Albrecht-Birkner, “Glassius,” n.p. Also, de Gruyter recently published a 575 page anthology dedicated to the influence of Glassius’ Philologia Sacra. See: Bultmann, et al.,

Hebraistik.

13 in 1824: “to the present day it [Philologia Sacra] has not been superseded by anything more calculated to explain and elucidate the Bible.”50 Glassius includes this definition of epanalepsis:

EPANALEPSIS, resumtio Latine, est, qua eadem vox in principio & fine

sententiae repetitur.51

EPANALEPSIS, resumtio in Latin, is the same word repeated at the

beginning and end of a sentence.52

While slightly more concisely written than the definitions of earlier authors,

Glassius’ definition is practically the same as that used since Donatus. The first examples Glassius provides follow this definition exactly (emphasis his):

DEUS e caelis prospexit, super filios אלהים - (Ps 53:3 (Eng v. 2 .

.DEUM אלהים hominum, ut videret, an sit intelligens requirens

.vanitas הבל vanitas vanitatum omnia הבל - Eccl 1:2 .

.bonum est nomen pra oleo bono טוב שם משמן טוב - Eccl 7:2 .

. Rom 8:24 - Spes autem, qua cernitur non est spes.

. Phil 4:4 - Gaudete in Domino semper, & iterum dico, gaudete.53

50 Orme, Bibliotheca, 208.

51 Glassius, Philologia Sacra, 5:1994.

52 The translation is mine.

53 Glassius, Philologia Sacra, 5:1994. Glassius seems to be using a Latin translation that is very similar to the Vulgate, but is different in several small ways.

Interestingly, Glassius inserts the Hebrew words from the Old Testament passages into his Latin text, but does not insert the Greek words into the New

Testament passages. Perhaps this indicates that he is using the Hebrew text as a basis for identifying the examples from the Hebrew Scriptures, but is not looking to the original Greek text when identifying New Testament examples. In addition, he uses the Hebrew versification in the Psalms and not the standard Vulgate versification from that time, showing his preference for original language study of the Hebrew Bible.

After supplying the above examples, which conform exactly to his definition of epanalepsis, Glassius adds a short addendum:

Sic Christus Marc. XIII, 35. 37. paraenesin suam exorditur & finit eodem

verbo, γρηγορεῖτε, vigilate. Huc referendum, cum integra sententia, in

principio & fine totius sermonis repetitur. Ut quod Psal. VIII, 2. incipit, &

vers. 10. finit his verbis: Domine Domine noster, quam illustre est nomen

tuum in universa terra. Psal. CIII, 1. incipit, & v. 22. finit, hac apostrophe:

Benedic anima mea Domino.54

Thus Christ, in Mark 13:35-37, begins & ends his exhortation by the same

word, γρηγορεῖτε, “watch.”55 Here must [also] be mentioned, when an

entire sentence is repeated at the beginning and end of a discourse.

54 Glassius, Philologia Sacra, 5:1994.

55 Mark 13:35-37 γρηγορεῖτε οὖν, οὐκ οἴδατε γὰρ πότε ὁ κύριος τῆς οἰκίας ἔρχεται… ὃ δὲ

ὑμῖν λέγω πᾶσιν λέγω· γρηγορεῖτε. (SBLGNT) Stay alert, then, because you do not know when the owner of the house will return… What I say to you I say to everyone: Stay alert!”

(NET)

Psalm 8 begins and ends with these words: “O LORD, our Lord, how

glorious is Thy name in all the earth!” Psalm 103 begins and ends with this

refrain: “Bless the LORD, O my soul.”56

These examples are longer than the previous ones, and do not fit the classical definition of one word repeated at the beginning and end of one sentence. It is as if Glassius knows that these examples do not match his definition very well, but wants to include them somewhere, and this is the best place he can find. In this way, Glassius is one of the first (if not the first) to identify inclusio in longer sections as a unique figure worthy of discussion. As seen above, enclosing a paragraph or longer by the repetition of a word or phrase is outside of the classical definitions of epanalepsis or epanadiplosis, and Glassius is one of the first to recognize this phenomenon. However, he refrains from classifying it under a different name, and folds it into his discussion of epanalepsis.

In 1630,57 only seven years after Glassius published his Philologia Sacra, another German professor and theologian, Johann Heinrich Alsted, published what has been called “the true parent of all the Encyclopædias.”58 Alsted was a prolific author within the German Reformed movement in the seventeenth century, and the culmination of his work was his Scientiarum Omnium

Encyclopædiæ, meant to be a comprehensive compilation of all known

56 The translation is mine, except for the Biblical verses, which are taken from JPS.

57 Klein, “Alsted,” n.p. There is some disagreement about whether this work was first published in 1629 or 1630. Klein follows Cole in favor of 1630; see Cole, A Neglected

Educator, 3. However, De Morgan states it was written in 1629; see De Morgan, A

Budget, 2:282.

58 De Morgan, A Budget, 2:282.

16 knowledge.59 Alsted includes a large section dedicated to rhetoric, and his explanation of epanalepsis is more highly developed than any of those before him, marking a significant milestone in the evolution of this understanding. First,

Alsted presents a short, single-sentence definition, and then expands upon it. His initial short definition is as follows:

Epanalepsis est repetitio eiusdem soni in principio & fine, siue eiusdem,

siue diversæ sententiæ.60

Epanalepsis is the repetition of the same sound at the beginning and end,

whether of the same or several sentences.61

Alsted’s definition is different than those before him in two ways. First, he says

“sound” instead of “word,” recognizing the phonological importance of the repeated material. Second, he formulates his definition to allow for more than one sentence to be surrounded by the epanalepsis. Even in this short definition,

Alsted breaks new ground, and moves toward a more modern understanding of inclusio. Furthermore, Alsted expands his definition by giving the following rules for epanalepsis:62

Epanalepsis quatuor habet formulas. Epanalepsis has four forms:

59 Klein, “Alsted,” n.p.

60 Alsted, Encyclopædiæ, 1:383.

61 The translation is mine.

62 Alsted, Encyclopædiæ, 1:384.

1. Repetuntur syllabae: ut, Repeated syllables. For example,

Saluti eorum potius consulam, quam voluntati.63

2. Est circularis resumtio unius dictionis ut, It is the circular repetition of one word. For example,

Vidimus tuam victoriam praeliorum exitu terminatam gladium vagina vacuum in urbe non vidimus.64

Aeque pauperibus prodest locupletibus aeque.65

Quorsum igitur haec disputo, quorsum?66

3. Est circularis resumtio plurium dictionum: ut, It is the circular repetition of several words. For example,

Phosphore redde diem: quid gaudia nostra moraris? Caesare venturo, Phosphore redde diem.67

Huc pertinet epanalepsis illa, qua integra sententia posita in principio, repetitur in fine: ut Psal. 8. haec sententia posita in principio & fine Psalmi:

63 Cicero, in Verrem, 2.2.11. “For I shall consult their safety rather than their inclination.”

Translation by C. D. Young. See Cicero, The Orations.

64 Cicero, pro Marcello, 6. “We have seen your victory close in the field where it was won and have never seen a sword drawn within our walls.” See Cicero, Select Orations, 516-7.

65 Horace, Epistles, 1.1.25. “Equally beneficial to the poor as well as the rich.” (My translation).

66 Cicero, Post Reditum in Quirites (To the Citizens after his Return), 2.5. “To what end, then, am I arguing? To what end?” (My translation).

67 “Phosphorus, bring back the day. Why do you retard our joy? Caesar is coming:

Phosphorus, bring back the day.” Translation by Bailey in: Martial, Epigrams II, 174-5

(Book 8.21).

Here [in this category] belongs that epanalepsis, in which the entire sentence placed at the beginning is repeated at the end, such as, in Ps. 8, this sentence is placed at the beginning and end of the Psalm:

Iehova Domine noster, quam magnificum est nomen tuum in universa terra!68

4. Est epanalepsis circuliformis; quae repetit quidem eandem vocem, sed nonnihil immutatam: ut, It is “circuliform epanalepsis,”69 in which the very same word is repeated, but is altered a little.

Dixi de rebus magnis: nunc de maioribus dicam.

To sum up these rules, Alsted allows for epanalepsis to be made of a sound repeated, of one word repeated, of several words repeated, or of different lexical forms of the same root to be repeated. In addition, he allows for the enclosed section to be as short as one sentence, or as long as an entire Psalm. Clearly,

Alsted provides here the most well-developed, clear definition of his time. Even though his definition is broader than those that came before him, he does not make it too broad and lose the unique character of epanalepsis. This balanced and clear definition will be helpful in our later discussion as we seek out the proper definition of inclusio for use in Biblical scholarship.

As a final example of epanalepsis, we will consider a particularly entertaining definition set to rhyme in John Stirling’s English rhetorical manual for students,

68 Alsted is using the Latin translation of the Bible by Tremellius and Junius, completed in

1579, rather than the Vulgate. See Psalmi Davidis. 8-9. Also: Campi, “Tremellius,” n.p.

69 Perhaps, “epanalepsis of circular grammatical forms.”

19 first printed in 1733,70 and later used in a number of universities, including

Columbia:71

Epanalepsis words doth recommend

The same at the beginning and the end.72

3. Summary of Classical Definitions

In summary of what has been discussed till now, we have seen that while the terms epanadiplosis and inclusio are mentioned by Rufinianus in the fourth century, it is the word epanalepsis that is primarily used to describe this figure of speech from the fourth century to the seventeenth century. This figure is almost always described throughout that period as the repetition of a single word at the beginning and end of a single sentence or verse, as Kessler notes.73 Sometimes slight variations of the word are allowed, sometimes they are not. However, in the seventeenth century, we begin to see an awareness of repetition at the beginning and end of longer sections in the Bible, as is shown by Glassius and Alsted.

Alsted modifies his definition to allow for these longer sections, while Glassius does not. Now, we will turn to several Rabbinic authors who will add another perspective to our examination of the study of inclusio through the centuries.

70 Moran, Eighteenth-Century, 225-9.

71 Court, The Scottish Connection, 25.

72 Sterling and Holmes, A System, 4.

73 Kessler, “Inclusio,” 44. See discussion above.

B. Rabbinical Definitions

1. Joḥanan Ben Nappaḥa

In Jewish Rabbinic literature, several different rabbis note the rhetorical figure of inclusio in their work, although they do not refer to it by that name, or by the name epanalepsis.74 The first of these is Joḥanan Ben Nappaḥa, a rabbi from the third century, who taught in Tiberias and is quoted extensively in both the

Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud.75 In the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate

Berakot, folio 10a, he is credited with the following:76

כל פרשה שהיתה חביבה על דוד פתח בה באשרי וסיים בה באשרי פתח

באשרי דכתיב )תהילים א( אשרי האיש וסיים באשרי דכתיב )תהילים ב(

אשרי כל חוסי בו:77

Every chapter that was particularly dear to David he commenced with

'Happy' and terminated with 'Happy'. He began with 'Happy', as it is

written, 'Happy is the man' (Psalm 1:1), and he terminated with 'Happy', as

it is written, 'happy are all they that take refuge in Him' (Psalm 2:12).78

In other words, Rabbi Joḥanan is claiming that Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 are

אשרי meant to be seen as one unit, because the first verse of Psalm 1 begins with

74 I am indebted to Shamir Yona for pointing out many of these Rabbinic sources in the important chapter on inclusio in his doctoral dissertation “Expanded Repetition Patterns of

Roots and Words in Biblical Poetry.” See Yona, “Expanded Repetition,” 236-7.

75 Wald and Gray, “Johanan,” 11:370.

76 The attribution is given in the last line of folio 9b.

77 Talmud, "Berakot," n.p.

78 Berakoth: English. Folio 10a.

(happy), and the last verse of Psalm 2 begins with the same word. While Rabbi

Joḥanan’s analysis may or may not be correct,79 this is the earliest witness, and possibly the only witness up till the nineteenth century, to the use of repetition at the beginning and end to define the boundaries of a scriptural passage. Glassius and Alsted described the phenomenon they saw in the Biblical text, but Rabbi

Joḥanan is performing textual analysis based on the repetitions found within the text, as is done in present-day Biblical scholarship! Perhaps Biblical research of inclusio would be much more advanced if Rabbi Joḥanan’s input had been recognized and appreciated earlier on.

2. Moses Ibn Ezra

Moving ahead almost a thousand years, Moses Ibn Ezra was a Jewish poet80 who authored many works during the second half of the eleventh century and into the beginning of the twelfth.81 His work “The Poetry of Israel” contains a short section on a poetic figure he describes in this way:82

כונת השער הזה היא, שהמשורר יתחיל את הבית במלה, ואותה המלה בעצמה

היא גם בחתימת הבית... בעלי המסורת שבנו קבעו את מספר הפסוקים אשר

79 For a discussion of scholars that see Ps. 1-2 as a unified introduction to the Psalter as a whole, see Howard, The Structure, 202-4.

80 Not to confused with the famous commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra.

81 Bekkum, “Ibn Ezra, Moses,” n.p.

82 For more discussion about Moses Ibn Ezra and the other forms of repetition he wrote about, see Yona, The Many Faces, 22.

בהם המלה הפוחתת דומה למלה החותמת, ואמרו שהמספר עולה לשלשים

ושמנה. 83

The intention of this figure is that the poet will begin the verse with a word,

and the same exact word is also [found] at the close of the verse… The

Masoretes that [were] among us discovered the number of verses in which

the opening word is similar to the closing word, and they said the number

is thirty-eight.84

Ibn Ezra provided the following five examples, the first of which is apparently his own, while the last four are from the Masoretic list he mentions:

Ps 34:10 יְר֣ אּו ֶאת־יְה ָ֣וה ְקד ֹ ָׁ֑שיו ִּכי־ ֵ֥אין ַ֝ מ ְח ֗סֹור ִלי ֵר אָֽיו׃

Isa 53:6 כֻּלנּוּ֙ כ ָ֣צ ֹאן ת ִ֔ ִּעינּו ִֵּ֥איש ְל ד ְר ּ֖כֹו פ ִָּׁ֑נינּו וַֽיהו ה ִּה ְפ ִָּ֣גי ע בִ֔ ֹו ּ֖את עֲו ֵ֥ן כֻּלָֽנּו׃

Judg 11:1 וְיִ ְפ ֣תח ה ִּג ְל ע ִּ֗די הי ה ִּג ָ֣בֹור ִ֔ חיִּל וְהּ֖ ּוא ֶבן־ ִּא ָ֣שה זֹו ָׁ֑נה ו ֵ֥יֹו ֶלד ִּג ְל ּ֖עד אֶת־יִ ְפ תָֽח׃

Eccl 1:2 ֲה ֵ ֵ֤בל ֲה ב ִּלי ם ָא ָ֣מר קֹהִֶ֔ לֶת ֲה ֵ֥בל ֲה ב ִּּ֖לים ה ֵ֥כ ֹל ה ָֽבֶל׃

Lam 2:12 ְל ִאמ ֹּ ת םּ֙ יַֹֽאמְרִ֔ ּו א ּ֖יה ד ָ֣גן ו ָׁ֑ייִּן ְב ִּ ַֽה ְת ע ְט ָ֤פם כֶ ַֽח לל ִּב ְרח ֹ ָ֣בֹות ִ֔ ִּעיר ְב ִּה ְש ת ָ֣פ ְך נ ְפ ִ֔ שם ֶאל־ ּ֖חיק ִאמ ֹּ תָֽם׃

Ps 34:10 Fear Yahweh, you his saints, for there is no lack for those who fear

him. (LEB - Eng v. 34:9)

Isa 53:6 All of us have wandered about like sheep; we each have turned to

his own way; and Yahweh let fall on him the iniquity of us all. (LEB)

.This book was originally written in Arabic .(176-7) קעו-קעז ,Ibn Ezra, Shirat Yisrael 83

84 The translation is mine.

Judg 11:1 Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a valiant warrior, but he was the

son of a harlot. And Gilead was the father of Jephthah. (NASB)

Eccl 1:2 “Vanity of vanities!” says the Teacher, “Vanity of vanities! All is

vanity!” (LEB)

Lam 2:12 To their mothers they say, “Where is the bread and wine?” as they

faint like the wounded in the public squares of a city, as their life is

being poured out onto the bosom of their mothers. (LEB)

From his definition and from his examples, it becomes apparent that Ibn Ezra is speaking specifically about single verses that begin and end with same single word. In his own example (Ps 34:10 - Eng v. 9), he allows for repetition of the

an imperative ,יְר֣ אּו same root in a completely different form: the verse begins with

a nominal construct form (to those who , ִלי ֵר אָֽיו verbal form (Fear!), and ends with fear him). However, in the four examples from the Masorah, the repetition is of the exact same word, with allowances only for the addition of single-letter words to the repeated word, such as waw and lamed. This is probably due to the fact that these lists were used by the Masoretes to “regulate all aspects of the copying and use of Bible manuscripts,”85 and exact repetitions served as mnemonic devices to assist them in this goal, while less precise repetitions would not be as useful.

As noted above, Ibn Ezra is familiar with a Masoretic list of thirty-eight places in which a verse begins and ends with the same word. The Masoretic scribal notes were originally transmitted orally, but were most likely in written form by the

85 Kelley, Mynatt, and Crawford, The Masorah, 1.

24 time of Moses Ibn Ezra.86 Unfortunately, this complete list of thirty-eight inclusios is no longer extant. In Ginsburg’s The Massorah, Ginsburg compiles two lists which together contain a total of twenty-one examples of this figure.87

Interestingly, only one of the examples quoted by Ibn Ezra is found in these lists.

So, Ginsburg’s Massorah provides us with twenty new verses that begin and end with the same word: Gen 9:3, Exod 26:24, Exod 32:16, Lev 7:19, Lev 23:42, Num

3:33, Num 8:12, Num 31:40, Num 32:1, Num 32:41, Deut 31:3, Josh 15:25, 1

Sam 26:23, 2 Sam 9:12, 2 Sam 19:8, 1 Kgs 22:48, 2 Kgs 23:25, Esth 7:7, Neh

11:21, and 1 Chr 9:8. Several of these will be discussed in more detail below, in our analysis of inclusio in short segments.

While Moses Ibn Ezra’s definition is similar to the classical rhetorical definition of epanalepsis, in that both speak about a single word at the beginning of a single short segment, they differ in one significant way. For classical rhetoricians, the segment usually consisted of one sentence, one line, or one concise thought, as seen in the examples of Donatus, Isidore, etc. given above. For Ibn Ezra and the

Masoretic scribes, they are referring to one pre-defined Biblical verse, and many of these verses in the list above are longer than one sentence or thought. The classical definition looks to the content to set the boundaries, the other looks for repetition along pre-defined boundaries. While both approaches can be useful, it is preferable to let the content define the boundaries of Biblical material, rather than assume that the present verse divisions are always accurate. Later on, we

86 While the exact date of the Masorah as a written document is unknown and debatable, all the scholars seem to agree that it must be before the ninth century AD. See Kelley,

Mynatt, and Crawford, The Masorah, 15-16.

.(ו 98§) 4:341 ,(מ 424 §) 2:215 ,(ו Ginsburg, The Massorah, 1:415-6 (§ 98 87

25 will examine several examples of inclusio that call into question the traditional verse divisions (Isa 50:4 and Jonah 3:1-4). However, it often is useful to look at the traditional verse divisions as a starting point for seeking out inclusio structures. Therefore, the Biblical student today should learn to identify inclusio both according to content, and also according to the present verse divisions.

3. RaMḤaL

Rabbi Moshe Ḥayyim Luzzatto (RaMḤaL) was a controversial Jewish rabbi, author, poet and playwright in the early 1700’s.88 In his work Leshon Limmudim

duplication at the) כפל הקצוות he describes a poetic figure which he calls extremities):89

קראוהו ראדיפיאמינטי, בלשון לאטין קונדופליקאציו, נקראהו כפל הקצוות. גדרו

שיהיו שני קצוות המאמר אחד. פירושו שהמלה אשר בה החלנו המאמר בה נגמור

אותו.90

It has been called redipiamento, in Latin conduplicatio. We will call it

duplication at the extremities. Its definition is that the two extremities of a

statement will be one. The meaning of this is that the word with which we

started the statement, with that [same word] we will finish it.91

88 Dan and Hansel, “Luzzatto,”13:281-6.

89 For the full list of figures that Luzzatto wrote about, see Yona, The Many Faces, 22-23, see also n. 20 on p. 22.

90 Luzzatto, Leshon Limmudim, 40.

91 The translation is mine.

Luzzatto gives only one example to complement his definition, Psalm 47:7

(English v. 6):

ַז ְמ ֣רּו ֱאֹל ִָּ֣הים ַז ֵ ֵּ֑מרּו ּ֙ !Sing praises to God, sing praises

ַז ְמ ֖רּו ְל מ ְל ָ֣כנּו ַז ֵמָֽרּו׃ !Sing praises to our King, sing praises

(RSV)

It is uncertain whether he meant to emphasize the repetition at the beginning

or at the beginning and ,( ַז ְמ ֣רּו ֱאֹל ִָּ֣הים ז ָׁ֑מרּו ז ְמ ּ֖רּו ְל מ ְל ָ֣כנּו ַז ֵמָֽרּו׃) and end of the verse

In either case, however, it is .( ַז ְמ ֣רּו ֱאֹל ִָּ֣הים ַז ֵ ֵּ֑מרּוּ֙- ַז ְמ ֖רּו ְל מ ְל ָ֣כנּו ַז ֵמָֽרּו׃) end of each line clear that he is speaking here about the same figure Johann Alsted refers to as epanalepsis, and that Rufinianus calls epanadiplosis and inclusio.

These Jewish sources broaden our understanding by giving a parallel approach to that of classical rhetoric, giving examples of inclusio from the Hebrew

Bible that fit the definitions of one word repeated at both ends of one verse. In addition, Rabbi Joḥanan in the Talmud stands out from the rest, using inclusio as a tool to help understand the structure of the Biblical text, which has been the primary focus of modern Biblical scholars in reference to inclusio, as shall be seen next.

C. Scholarly Definitions

1. Early Biblical Scholarship

In the late nineteenth century, there was a surge in the study of the rhetorical figures used in the Bible, as is evidenced by the publishing of three major works on the subject, two in 1896, and one in 1898.

Richard J. Moulton

A professor of English literature, Richard J. Moulton first published The

Literary Study of the Bible in 1896, and then a second edition with corrections and expansions in 1899. In this monograph, he describes the “envelope figure,” defining it as a type of parallelism:

Two forms of parallelism are especially attractive to the genius of Hebrew

literature. One is the Envelope Figure, by which a series of parallel lines

running to any length are enclosed between an identical (or equivalent)

opening and close… The figure in its completest form belongs rather to the

oratory than the poetry of the Bible.92

In other words, Moulton’s “envelope figure” can enclose a section “of any length,” provided the intervening material is in “parallel lines.” In one sense,

Moulton breaks new ground and describes a figure that stands outside of the classical rhetorical definitions, which have focused primarily on single sentences.

Because of this, he evidently sees the need to introduce a completely new term.

However, Moulton also neglects the obvious connection between the historical approach and that of his own; that the envelope figure is a magnified version of the epanalepsis of classical rhetoric. Moulton gives several examples of the envelope figure, the first of which is from the New Testament:93

92 Moulton, The Literary Study, 57-58.

93 Interestingly, Moulton offers this New Testament quotation as an example of “Hebrew literature.”

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn

bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good

fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit,

nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good

fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by

their fruits. (Matt 7:16-20 NASB)

This is an excellent example of an exact phrase repeated to “envelope” a clearly defined unit. However, besides the fact that all the lines are focused on the fruit metaphor, how are they “parallel lines”? True, a type of antithetical parallelism is present in some of the lines, as in:

So every good tree bears good fruit,

But the bad tree bears bad fruit.

Other lines, though, do not show any type of parallelism, such as “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” Perhaps, by

“parallel lines,” Moulton means that all the lines address the same subject, fruit?

In any case, the rather vague idea of “parallel lines,” doesn’t give much solid ground to clarify our understanding of the “envelope figure.”

Is Inclusio Parallelism?

Furthermore, is it accurate to call inclusio a type of parallelism at all? Because other scholars have followed in Moulton’s footsteps and labeled inclusio as a form of parallelism, it is appropriate to briefly address this question. For example,

Adele Berlin states that, “inclusio, in which the first and last lines of a text contain the same words or phrases, is actually a form of parallelism and should be

29 recognized as such.”94 However, it is our opinion, that inclusio is not a form of parallelism, but rather a form of exact repetition.

In order to answer this question, the relationship between parallelism and repetition in general must be considered: is repetition a form of parallelism, or is

החזרה והתקבולת parallelism a form of repetition? Avishur, in his landmark work

(The Repetition and the Parallelism), sees an evolutionary process in the development of parallelism:

התפתחה התקבולת מן החזרה בצלעות החרוז... התקבולת אינה אלא שינוי

וגיוון סגנוני של החזרה המונוטונית האופיינית לשירה העתיקה. השינוי במילים

החוזרות בכיוון מילים נרדפות הוא שיצר את התקבולת ואת צמדי המילים, אבני

היסוד בבניין התקבולת95.

Parallelism developed out of [exact] repetition in the half-lines of the

couplet… Parallelism is nothing more than stylistic change and

variation of the monotonous repetition [that was] characteristic to

ancient poetry. The change in the repeated words to synonymous

words created parallelism and word pairs, the building blocks of

parallelism.96

Avishur’s describes here a progressive theory of the development of repetition, from the simple to the complex. This theory could be understood as follows:

94 Berlin, Dynamics, 3.

95 Avishur, Repetition, 27.

96 The translation is mine.

Exact Repetition No usage of word pairs Jimmy crashed my car! ↓ ↓ Jimmy crashed my car!

Partial Repetition Development of word pairs Jimmy crashed my car! ↓ ↓ Jimmy crashed my vehicle!

Parallelism Dependence on word pairs Jimmy crashed my car! He wrecked my vehicle!

Even if Avishur’s theory of the evolutionary development of parallelism is difficult to prove,97 his keen insight into the difference between parallelism and repetition must be appreciated. For Avishur, it is “the change in the repeated words” (emphasis added) that differentiates parallelism from repetition. This agrees entirely with the founder of the study of parallelism, Lowth, who defines parallelism as the expression of “the same thing in different words”98 (emphasis added). Thus, repetition is not a form of parallelism – parallelism is a form of repetition. Parallelism is constructed through word pairs and other synonyms, while repetition is just that – an exact repetition of the same thing. True, exactly repeated words do appear within parallel lines (what Avishur might see as partial repetition), but it is the differences in the lines that allow it to be called parallelism.

Consider, for example, Prov 1:20

ָ֭ ח ְכמֹות ב ָ֣חּוץ ת רָֹׁ֑ נ ה ;Wisdom cries out in the street

ב ַ֝ רְ חֹב֗ ֹות ִּת ֵ֥תן קֹול ַּֽה׃ (in the squares she raises her voice. (NRSV

These two lines work together to describe one action in different yet complementary words: wisdom calling out in public places. As Berlin says, “The

97 After all, the Hebrew Scripture is itself a witness to the simultaneous usage of exact repetition, partial repetition, and parallelism in both early and late texts.

98 Lowth, Lectures, 34.

31 parallel structure subdivides the action into a continuous but yet overlapping sequence” (emphasis hers).99 On the other hand, if a line is simply repeated verbatim, it creates an entirely different effect, as in 1 Kings 18:39, describing the people’s response to fire from heaven burning up Elijah’s altar:

ו י ְר א כ ל־ה ע ִ֔ ם וַֽיִּ ְפ ּ֖לּו על־ ְפנ י ֶָׁ֑הם ו ָ֣י ֹא ְמ ִ֔רּו

יְהו ה הָ֣ ּוא ה ֱאֹל ִ֔ ִּהים

יְה ּ֖ וה הֵ֥ ּוא ה ֱאֹל ִּ ַֽהים׃

And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said,

“The LORD, he is God;

the LORD, he is God.” (RSV)

Here, the exact repetition provides emphasis, underscoring the great fear of

saw/feared”). They are saying it over and“ וירא the people (note the wordplay over, hoping that they won’t be burned up next for their unfaithfulness! If this same verse was constructed using parallelism, instead of repetition, the second line would be different, perhaps something like:

יהוה הוא האלהים The LORD, he is God

יהוה צבאות הוא אדונינו The LORD of Hosts, he is our Lord

The slight variations in the second line change the overall impact of the two lines together, giving the impression that the people accept Yahweh as their own, and sing about it. Because the same idea is restated differently, this version would be considered parallelism, while the first is not. To balance this statement, it is important to note that the other extreme is also true: parallelism is not

99 Berlin, Dynamics, 14-15. She is referring Yael’s actions described in Judg 5:26-27.

32 parallelism if there is no semantic correspondence between the lines at all. So, parallelism is a form of indirect repetition – saying the same thing a different way.

In contrast to parallelism, inclusio is a form of exact repetition. It is purposeful, direct repetition, intentionally placed at the beginning and end of a section. In inclusio, the more exact the repetition, the clearer the inclusio, and the stronger its effect. Evaluation of inclusio strength will be discussed at greater length below, but for now, consider Moulton’s example above. In Matt 7:16-20, the phrase “You will know them by their fruits” (ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς) is repeated verbatim at the exact beginning and end of the section, which makes this inclusio so clear and convincing. If, at the end of the section, these words were instead approximated, and Jesus had said something like, “Therefore, the heart of a man is seen by the fruit of his life,” the inclusio would become much harder to identify, much weaker, much less convincing. The lack of exact repetition would make it doubtful that this should be considered inclusio at all.

The primary and strongest form of inclusio consists of clear, exact repetition. As

David Freedman notes, “Inclusion in its basic form is characterized by the exact repetition of key words or phrases” (emphasis added).100 While some scholars have attempted to point out examples of inclusio based on word pairs or synonyms, many of these remain unconvincing, especially in longer sections.101

Thus, it is inaccurate to define inclusio as a type of parallelism, because inclusio is centered on direct repetition of exactly the same words, while parallelism is centered on indirect repetition through use of word pairs and other synonyms.

100 Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, 46.

101 See the examples taken from Dahood below, for example.

Although Moulton was mistaken in his designation of “envelope figure” as parallelism, his work remains of great importance to the Biblical field, as one of the first modern Biblical scholars to recognize the uniqueness of inclusio around larger sections and its importance in understanding the structure of Hebrew

Scripture.

David Heinrich Müller

The same year that Moulton published The Literary Study of the Bible, professor David Heinrich Müller of the University of Vienna published Die

Propheten in Ihrer Ursprünglichen Form (The Prophets in Their Primitive Form), a

250 page work dedicated to “the fundamental laws of primitive Semitic poetry.”102

Müller focuses primarily on examining the structure of various passages from the

Biblical prophets, from the Koran, and from cuneiform inscriptions. He also includes a small section with examples from the Greek New Testament and

Greek tragedy.

Müller uses three main tools in defining boundaries of “strophes,” or stanzas, within these texts. The first he calls responsion, in which neighboring stanzas

“respond” to one other. For example, in Amos 8:4-8, the rich are described as

- מ ֵ֥פל ּ֖בר and selling (מ ֹאזְ ֵ֥ני ִּמ ְר ַֽמה) oppressing the poor by using deceitful scales

“the refuse of the wheat” (RSV). Yahweh’s “response” is in the unit after the next

(vs. 11-14 by Müller’s division), when Yahweh vows to bring a metaphorical famine. Müller calls this responsion, stating, “Als Strafe dafür, dass die Reichen

102 The full title of his book is: Die Propheten in Ihrer Ursprünglichen Form: die

Gründgesetze der Ursemitischen Poesie, Erschlossen und Nachgewiesen in Bibel,

Keilinschriften und Koran, und in Ihren Wirkungen Erkannt in den Chören der Griechischen

Tragödie

34 nach den Dürftigen schnappen und die Armen im Lande unterdrücken, sendet

Gott den Hunger in's Land.”103 (As punishment on the rich for snatching after the needy and oppressing the poor in the land, God sends hunger into the land.104)

Müller’s second tool is concatenatio, or the linking of the end of one stanza with the beginning of the following stanza. For example, Müller divides Isa 10:5-

32 into five stanzas, the first of which ends with v. 11. Between v. 11 and v. 12, which begins the next unit, Müller notes the following three connections: the word

:יְ ב ָ֤צע and ֲע צ ֶ ַֽבי ה and the phonological similarity between עשה Jerusalem,” the root“

Isa 10:11 ֲה ֹ֗לא כ ֲא ֵֶ֥שר ע ִ ִׂ֛שי ִתי לְשֹמְרּ֖ ֹון וְ ֶל ֱא ִּלי ֶָׁ֑לי ה כן ֶא ֱע ֶ ֶׂ֥שה ִלירּו ש ַ ִ֖לם וְ ַל ֲע ַצ ֶבָֽי הּ֙׃ ס

Isa 10:12 וְהי ֗ה ִּכַֽי־יְ ַב ַ ֵ֤צע אֲדֹנ י אֶת־כל־ ָֽמַ ֲע ֵׂ֔ ֵשהּו ְב ֵ֥הר ִּצ ּ֖יֹון ּו ִבירּו ש ִֵּ֑לם אֶפְקֹ֗ ד על־ ְפ ִּרי־ ג ֹ ֶדל

ְל ָ֣בב ֶ ַֽמ ֶלְך־ א ִ֔שּור וְ על־ ִּת ְפ ֶּ֖א ֶרת רֵ֥ ּום עי נַֽיו׃

Isa 10:11 Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to

Jerusalem and her idols?'

Isa 10:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed

His whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish

the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of

his haughty looks.

These connections link the end of the first strophe (v. 11) with the beginning of the second strophe (v. 12), and constitute what Müller calls concatenatio.105 A

103 Müller, Die Propheten, 70.

104 This is my translation.

35 similar rhetorical figure used to connect single verses and lines is the “terrace pattern,” usually called anadiplosis in classical rhetoric.106

While Müller’s analysis of responsion and concatenatio has been influential to some extent within Biblical scholarship, his greatest and longest-lasting influence has been through his discussion of inclusio. As Meynet says, even though Müller did not invent the term inclusio, “the fact remains that its modern usage is due to

Mueller [sic].”107 Müller never offers a distinct, unified definition of inclusio, but rather defines it primarily through the discussion of his many examples. However, he does offer this comparison of concatenatio and inclusio:

Vermittelt die Concatenatio die Verbindung zweier Strophen, so bildet die

Inclusio die Grenze, die Absperrung gegen den danebenstehenden

Organismus. Die Concatenatio hebt den individuellen Charakter zweier

strophischen Organismen auf, die Inclusio schliesst und grenzt das Wesen

einer Strophe ab und betont den individuellen Charakter derselben.108

Whereby Concatenatio conveys a connection between two strophes, the

Inclusio builds the borders, the perimeters, over and against a juxtaposing

element. Concatenatio highlights the individual character of two strophic

105 Müller, Die Propheten, 84-6. For more extensive discussion of Müller’s concatenatio as a “transitional technique,” see Parunak, “Transitional Techniques,” 525-548.

106 For “terrace pattern”, see Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 208-13. For anadiplosis in classical rhetoric, see Rowe, Handbook, 130. See also our note 11 above.

107 Roland Meynet, Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric, 36, note 40. Meynet chooses not to use the term inclusio in his writing, but instead uses “extreme terms.”

108 Müller, Die Propheten, 200.

elements, whereas Inclusio closes and sets the boundaries of the essence

of the strophe and emphasizes its individual character.109

Müller’s approach is preferable to Moulton’s in several ways. First, Müller chooses to use the word inclusio, showing appreciation for the classical rhetorical background that stands behind his examination of the text. However, he is not confined by that term, but breathes new life into it by offering a new definition.

Müller’s definition is entirely different in focus than any of those studied up till now. Instead, of searching for words repeated at the beginning and end of lines or verses, Müller emphasizes finding elements that build borders, perimeters, and boundaries of unique stanzas by emphasizing their individual character. This brings him closer to Alsted’s approach seen earlier, in that he looks for repetition of words, roots or phonological elements. Müller’s focus is on the greater literary structure, and he uses inclusio as a means to try to discover the form that was originally intended by the author. Biblical scholarship has followed in his footsteps ever since, and in this sense Müller is undoubtedly the father of the inclusio as it is thought of today.110

Throughout his book, Müller points out twenty-three different cases of inclusio in the Old Testament and two examples in the New Testament, plus examples

109 This is my translation.

110 While there may have been others who used the term inclusio in this way before Müller,

I was up to this point unable to find any record of them. Even if Müller was not the first to define inclusio in this way, its popularity in Biblical scholarship today is due to his work.

37 from the Koran, cuneiform inscriptions, and Greek tragic poetry.111 Most of these consist of one or two words that are repeated somewhere within the first and last lines of the strophes. Many of his examples are based on repetition of the same root, and not repetition of the same exact word, although he provides examples of exact word repetition as well. Some of his examples are more convincing than others, and sometimes his division of strophes is debatable, but overall, his arguments are sound and persuasive.

For example, Müller notes that in Jeremiah 46, “darf man in dem Orakel über

Aegypten in der zweiten Strophe einen Fall deutlicher Inclusio erkennen.”112 (In the oracle concerning Egypt one may identify a clear case of Inclusio in the second strophe.113) Müller identifies vv. 14-24 as the “oracle,” and divides it into two stanzas, vv. 14-19 and vv. 20-24. Looking at the second stanza, two words

צפון Egypt) and) מצרים ,are repeated in both the beginning and ending lines

(north):

ֶע ְג ֵ֥לה יְ ַֽפה־ ִּפ ּ֖יה ִמ ְצ ֵּ֑ריִם ֵֶ֥ק ֶרץ ִּמ צ פ֖ ֹון ֵ֥בא ב ַֽא׃ גם־ ְש ִּכ ֶָ֤רי ה ְב ִּק ְר ב ּה ְכ ֶע ְג ָ֣לי מ ְר ִ֔ בק ִּ ַֽכי־ גם־

ֵ֧ה מה ִּה ְפ נּו ֵ֥נסּו י ְח ּ֖דיו ֹלָ֣ א ע ָׁ֑מדּו ִָּ֣כי יֵֹ֥ום אי דם ֵ֥בא ֲע לי ֶּ֖הם ֵ֥עת תפְקֻד ַֽם׃ קֹו ּ֖לּה כנ ָ֣חש י ָׁ֑לְך

ִּכַֽי־ ְב ָ֣חיִּל י ִ֔ לכּו ּו ְב ק ְר ֻדמֹו ת ָ֣באּו ִ֔ לּה ְכח ֹ ְט ּ֖בי ע ִּ ַֽצים׃ כ רְתָ֤ ּו י ְע ר ּה נְאֻם־יְהו ִ֔ה ִּּ֖כי ֹלָ֣ א יַֽ ח ָׁ֑קר ִָּ֤כי

רב ּו ַֽמַא ְר ִ֔ ֶבה וְ ֵ֥אין ל ֶּ֖הם ִּמ ְס ַֽפר׃ ה ֹ ִּּ֖בי שה בת־ ִמ ְצ ֵּ֑ריִם נִּ ְת ּ֖נ ה ְב ֵ֥יד עם־צ פָֽ ֹון׃

111 Müller’s book has no index, but he speaks about inclusio on thirty-three pages: 51, 79,

86, 87, 121, 126, 130, 138, 141-3, 156, 158, 172, 179, 181, 184, 192, 194, 200, 202-7,

209, 210, 218, 219, 231, 241, and 249.

112 Müller, Die Propheten, 204.

113 This is my translation.

“A beautiful heifer is Egypt, but a gadfly from the north has come

upon her. Even her hired soldiers in her midst are like fatted calves;

yea, they have turned and fled together, they did not stand; for the day

of their calamity has come upon them, the time of their punishment.

“She makes a sound like a serpent gliding away; for her enemies

march in force, and come against her with axes, like those who fell

trees. They shall cut down her forest, says the LORD, though it is

impenetrable, because they are more numerous than locusts; they are

without number. The daughter of Egypt shall be put to shame, she

shall be delivered into the hand of a people from the north.” (RSV)

Müller does not discuss why he calls this a “clear” (deutlicher) inclusio.

However, looking at this stanza, several things stand out:

north) are exactly repeated in the) צפון Egypt) and) מצרים The two words .1 first and last lines. Although not the precise first and last words of the strophe, intentionality is clearly seen in their placement near the beginning and end.

2. Neither of the two repeated words appears anywhere else within the strophe. They only appear at the extremities of the unit, and thus are unique.

3. Both words are nouns in the absolute state in the first line, and in the last line they are both inside a construct chain as the genitive noun (nomen rectum, or

בת־מצרים north) in v. 20 become) צפון Egypt) and) מצרים annex). The terms

people of the north) in v. 24. The author) עם־צפון daughter of Egypt) and) intentionally varied the usage of the nouns in the last line, while leaving them both in the same exact written form.

4. The strophe is unified in subject matter and style, through use of animal metaphors. The surrounding material does not contain animal metaphors.114

5. The previous stanza (v. 14-19) is surrounded by a very similar inclusio, with

Memphis). Müller does not appear to) נֹף Egypt) and) מצרים :two nouns repeated notice this inclusio, or at least neglects to discuss its presence.

מצרים In the previous stanza (v. 14-19), like in the second stanza, the word .6

daughter of Egypt) at the end of the stanza in) בת־מצרים Egypt) of v. 14 becomes)

Egypt) at the beginning of each) מצרים v. 19. This forms a type of symploce, with

.daughter of Egypt) at the end of each stanza) בת־מצרים stanza, and

7. The boundaries of the entire literary unit (v. 14-24) are clearly outlined by

The word which the LORD- ה ד ב ר ֲא ֶָ֣שר ִּד ֶָ֣בר יְהו ִ֔ה...) formulaic openings in v. 13

.(…The LORD of hosts said - ָא מ ר יְהו ָ֨ה צְב א֜ ֹות...) spoke…”) and v. 25

Considering these seven factors, it is easy to understand why Müller considers this a “clear” inclusio, and it surprising that others do not.115

Ezekiel chapter 19 is another of Müller’s examples, which presents a rather different style of inclusio, built as a technical frame, outside of the primary content found in the chapter.

114 The possible allusion in v. 15 to Apis is not metaphorical, if it is to be accepted as a reference to Apis at all. For further discussion of this possibility, see Galvin, Egypt, 196-7.

Perhaps the fact that the animal metaphors appear exclusively in the second strophe may strengthen Galvin’s argument that this is not a reference to Apis.

115 For example, Lundbom sees a completely different structure here, which also makes use of an inclusio, but is much less convincing. Lundbom, Jeremiah, 80-81. In this case, I believe that Müller’s interpretation is correct, and Lundbom’s is invalid.

The first verse of Ezekiel 19 states:

וְ א ת ה ָ֣שא ִקי ֵׂ֔ נה ֶאל־נְ ִּשי ּ֖אי יִּ ְש ר ַֽאל׃

Take up a lament concerning the princes of Israel (NIV2011)

While the last half of the last verse in the chapter, v. 14b, says:

ִ ֶׂ֥קי נה ִּּ֖היא ו ְת ִֵּ֥הי לְ ִקי נ ָֽה׃

This is a lament and is to be used as a lament. (NIV2011)

The first thing that stands out in this case is the inclusio formed by the

lament). However, this example is different) קינה verbatim repetition of the word from the previous one, in that the first and last lines of Ezek 19 are not part of the prophetic poetic content, but form a technical, formulaic frame for that material.

As Müller states, “Die Einrahmung besteht in der Inclusio, welche die Zeilen am

Anfang und am Ende mit einander bilden.”116 (The Framing is constituted by the inclusio, which the lines at the beginning and end form together.117) Müller sees an additional inclusio in Ezekiel 19, which he calls a “strophic inclusio.” According to Müller, strophic inclusio is based on strophic patterns within the larger literary unit. Müller divides Ezekiel 19 into 11 stanzas, which he graphs in the following way:118

1 + (4 + 2 + 4 + 2 + 4) + (3 + 2 + 4 + 3) + 1

116 Müller, Die Propheten, 204.

117 The translation is mine.

118 Müller, Die Propheten, 205, 210.

In other words, the internal content of chapter 19 is divided into two larger units, each made up of stanzas of a varying number of lines. At either end of this internal structure, there are two short, single-line stanzas: one at the beginning and another at the end. While the division of the internal strophes is debatable, the single-line structure of the opening and closing formulas is beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in this case, the strophic structure complements the formulaic framework, and strengthens the inclusio formed by the word repetition

lament). However, if there are no other supporting factors, it is doubtful) קינה of that repetition within the strophic structure alone could form a very strong inclusio, simply because of the subjective and debatable nature of strophic analysis. In any case, Müller rightly recognizes a strong inclusio in Ezek 19.

The effect of Müller’s work on inclusio research can hardly be underestimated.

Müller was able to take a step back and see the wider picture, realizing, like

Alsted, that inclusio can consist of repeated elements – not just words or phrases.

Through his many examples, he illustrates the true potential of inclusio in determining the boundaries of stanzas and larger literary units.

E. W. Bullinger

The final scholar from the end of the nineteenth century to be considered in this survey is E. W. Bullinger. In 1898, he published Figures of Speech used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated, in which he attempts to catalog most of the rhetorical figures of classical rhetoric, giving examples from the Bible. He systematically discusses over 200 individual figures of speech,119 finding at least several examples for each one. Among these, Bullinger has two categories

119 Or so he claims, Bullinger, Figures, ix.

42 relevant to this discussion, epanadiplosis and epadiplosis.120 First, he discusses epanadiplosis, to which he applies the English term “encircling,” also noting that it is known in Latin as either inclusio or cyclus.121 Clearly, he is following

Rufinianus, and defines epanadiplosis as, “the same word repeated both at the beginning and at the end of a sentence.” In this way, Bullinger confines himself to a classical definition of the figure, and ignores inclusio in larger sections. Further, twenty of his thirty-three examples are taken from Ginsburg’s Masorah,122 and the remainder generally fit the definition of one word at the exact beginning and end of one sentence or verse. However, he does give several examples that fall outside of this definition, such as Ps 27:14:

ַק ֵּ֗ ֵּוהּ֙ ֶאל־יְ ֫ה וֶׂ֥ה ;Wait for the Lord

ָ֭ ֲח זק וְי ֲא ָ֣מץ ִּל ֶָׁ֑בָך be strong and take heart

וְַ֝ ַק ֵּ֗ ֵּוהּ֙אֶ ל־יְהו ָֽה׃ (and wait for the Lord. (NIV2011

In this case, Bullinger allows for more than one word to be repeated at the beginning and end. In addition, in four examples he allows for groupings of several verses together, such as Mark 13:35-37, previously noted by Glassius as being surrounded by the word γρηγορεῖτε (“Stay alert”).123 Bullinger also cites

James 2:14-16:

120 Bullinger also discusses epanalepsis and prosapodosis, but defines them in ways that are unrelated to our discussion of inclusio. Bullinger, Figures, 206, 394.

121 Bullinger, Figures, 245-9.

122 He marks all examples taken from the Masorah with an asterisk. Bullinger, Figures, note at bottom of page 245.

123 See our note 54 above.

Τί ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ

δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν

καὶ λειπόμενοι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς, εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν· Ὑπάγετε

ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερμαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, μὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ

σώματος, τί ὄφελος;

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not

works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of

daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and

filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it

profit? (RSV)

Here, an entire stanza is surrounded by the two-word phrase, “τί ὄφελος.” Out of all Bullinger’s examples, this comes closest to resembling Moulton’s “envelope figure” or Müller’s “inclusio.” However, Bullinger does not feel comfortable including sections any larger than this within his discussion of epanadiplosis, expressly stating that, “The repetitions at the beginning and end of distinct portions, or independent passages (such as Pss. viii., ciii., etc.)” do not belong to epanadiplosis, but “belong rather to the subject-matter and are classed under

Correspondence.”124 In spite of this note, Bullinger does not discuss “repetitions at the beginning and end of distinct portions” anywhere in his chapter entitled

“Correspondence.”125 While he does discuss the use of repetition to discern the overall structure of larger literary units, he does not put forth anything similar to the inclusio of Müller.

124 Bullinger, Figures, 249.

125 Bullinger, Figures, 364-93. Within this chapter, his discussion of chiasmus is the closest he comes to examining repetition at the beginning and end of larger sections.

Bullinger has one more category that is relevant to this discussion, which he labels “epadiplosis,” or “double encircling.” This is simply double epanadiplosis,

“when Epanadiplosis occurs at the beginning of and end of successive sentences.”126 Bullinger only gives two examples for this figure, the first of which is Ps 47:7 (v. 6 in English), which was noted earlier by Rabbi Moshe Ḥayyim

Luzzatto. Bullinger’s second example is from the New Testament, Romans 14:8a:

ἐάν τε γὰρ ζῶμεν, τῷ κυρίῳ ζῶμεν,

ἐάν τε ἀποθνῄσκωμεν, τῷ κυρίῳ ἀποθνῄσκομεν.

For both if we live, to the Lord we live;

if we die, to the Lord we die: 127

This short bicolon actually contains examples of several figures of repetition.

First, it is an example of anaphora, with the repetition of ἐάν τε (“if”) at the beginning of each line. Next, it is an example of mesophora, with the repetition of

τῷ κυρίῳ (“to the Lord”) in the middle of each line. Finally, as Bullinger notes, it contains two, parallel, single-line examples of inclusio.

Summary of Early Biblical Scholarship

So, at the end of the nineteenth century, three authors, Moulton, Müller, and

Bullinger, composed three works containing three different approaches. Moulton identifies repetition at the beginning and end as a helpful tool in recognizing literary units. However, he does not connect this figure with classical rhetoric, and so proposes a brand new name, the “envelope figure.”

126 Bullinger, Figures, 250.

127 This translation is based on the RSV, with “For both” added to reflect the Greek γὰρ, and the words rearranged to show the Greek word syntax.

Müller sees the same phenomenon that Moulton sees, but recognizes a connection with classical rhetoric, and thus brands it “inclusio,” reminiscent of the classical study of epanadiplosis and epanalepsis. In addition, Müller, like Alsted, sees inclusio as being built by repeated elements, instead of only repeated words, which is an important step in our understanding of inclusio.

While both Moulton and Müller identify a phenomenon that is larger than the scope of classic rhetorical definitions, Bullinger confines himself to the terms and definitions of classical rhetoric, and so largely ignores larger structures enclosed by repetition. Bullinger essentially represents the last of the major Biblical scholars to take the approach of Bede, in trying to present examples from

Scripture through the eyes of secular, classical rhetoric. In contrast, Moulton and

Müller represent the beginnings of a different approach, which attempts to identify the figures inherent in the Scriptural text as they are, outside of the definitions previously given by classical rhetoric. It is this second approach which has been embraced and validated by Biblical scholars from the end of the nineteenth century till now, as is clearly seen in this often-quoted statement by Muilenburg from 1969:

What I am interested in, above all, is in understanding the nature of

Hebrew literary composition, in exhibiting the structural patterns that are

employed for the fashioning of a literary unit, whether in poetry or in prose,

and in discerning the many and various devices by which the predications

are formulated and ordered into a unified whole. Such an enterprise I

should describe as rhetoric and the methodology as rhetorical criticism.128

128 Muilenburg, “Form Criticism,” 8.

It is precisely this interest in “structural patterns” that has brought inclusio to a place of prominence in Biblical study. Proper understanding and exegesis is first and foremost dependent on proper understanding of the structure of the passage at hand, and inclusio is an indispensable for identification of the proper structure.

We are grateful to Moulton and Müller for laying the foundation for study of inclusio in passages larger than one short verse.

However, does this mean that inclusio in short segments should be ignored, and the classical foundation of inclusio, as well as the work of scholars such as

Bullinger should be laid aside? Unfortunately, in the quest of modern Biblical scholarship to identify larger structural patterns, inclusio in shorter segments has largely been disregarded over the last century. For example, Longman only recognizes inclusio around either “a stanza or the whole poem,”129 and even

Müller does not offer any examples of inclusio that he cannot identify as unique stanzas. While several scholars, such as Watson130 and Yona,131 do include examples of inclusio in short segments in their works, most scholars only refer to inclusio in longer sections. This betrays a historical rift and imbalance, and it is our opinion that the Biblical scholar should learn to identify and appreciate any length of inclusio. Therefore, as we build and clarify our definition later on, we will strive to define inclusio in a manner that shows appreciation for both long and short texts, and we will supply meaningful examples of both.

129 Longman, “Inclusio,” 323.

130 Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 285.

131 Yona, “Expanded Repetition,” 236-263.

2. Modern Biblical Scholarship

Before we discuss the views of modern Biblical scholars regarding inclusio, let us take a moment to consider what has been reviewed up to this point. In its classical beginnings, inclusio was strictly defined and limited to one sentence or thought, primarily used for emphasis, rather than delimitation. Early Christian scholars took this definition and tried to analyze scripture accordingly, while

Jewish scholars looked for mnemonic devices and so found verses that begin and end with the same word. In the 17th century, Glassius recognized larger sections in the Scripture enclosed by repeated lines, and then Alsted expanded his definition to include those larger sections. In the late 19th century, Moulton and Müller realized that these repetitions were useful for understanding and discovering literary rhetorical divisions that were more ancient than the chapter and verse divisions in our Bibles today. So we have discovered a slow but steady progression in our understanding of inclusio from the 4th to 19th centuries, and a movement from conservative to more liberal definitions. Now, we will step into the

20th and 21st centuries in order to discover whether that progression continues, or has stalled. We will begin with Mitchell Dahood.

Mitchell Dahood

In the Anchor Bible commentary on the Psalms, published 1966-70, Dahood catalogues 105 examples of inclusio throughout his three volumes.132

Interestingly, in the first volume, he labels all his examples “inclusio;”133 in the second volume, he prefers the English term “inclusion,” using the word “inclusio”

132 Kessler gives an in-depth discussion of Dahood’s examples. Kessler, “Inclusio,” 44-46.

133 See Dahood’s index, Dahood, Psalms I, 327.

48 only once;134 and in the third volume, he exclusively uses the term inclusion, not even mentioning the Latin term in his index.135 In the first volume, he defines inclusio as “a rhetorical device also called ‘cyclic composition,’ in which the author returns to the point where he began.”136 This definition is rather unclear and very broad, and it appears to be the only definition given by Dahood throughout all the three volumes. As Kessler notes, “Dahood… has extended his understanding of inclusio well beyond the classical definition.” Several examples will easily illustrate this. Concerning Psalm 48, he writes: “Verses 2-3 form a strophe, beginning with l yhwh and closing with mele r b, a neat example of inclusio.”137

ג דֵ֤ ֹולּ֙יְה ו֣ה ּו ְמ ֻה ָ֣לל מְ אָֹׁ֑ ד

ְב ִֵּ֥עיר ַ֝ ֱאֹל ֗ הינּו הר־ ק ְד ַֽשֹו׃

יְ ֵ֥פה נֹוף מְשׂ֪ ֹוש כל־ ָ֫ ה ֵ֥א ֶרץ

הר־ ָ֭ ִּציֹון י ְר ְכ ָ֣תי צ פָׁ֑ ֹון

ַ֝ ִּק ְר֗י ת ֶ ֣מ ֶלְךּ֙ר ָֽב׃

Great is the LORD, and most worthy of praise,

In the city of our God, his holy mountain.

Beautiful in its loftiness, the joy of the whole earth,

Like the heights of Zaphon is Mount Zion,

The city of the Great King. (NIV2011)

134 Dahood, Psalms II, 67. He does include it in the index as “inclusio or inclusion,” 393.

135 Dahood, Psalms III, 482.

136 Dahood, Psalms I, 5.

137 Dahood, Psalms I, 292.

In this case, Dahood bases his inclusio off the semantic proximity of the words

which is witnessed by their identical English translation “great,” and ,רב and גדול

רב ,King). Indeed) מלך Yahweh) and) יהוה also the correspondence of the words

constitute a word pair seen elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, such as in גדול and

Ezek 38:15b:

ק ֵ֥הל ג ד֖ ֹול וְ ֵ֥חיִּל ר ָֽב׃ (a great company and a mighty army (JPS

Yahweh), such as in Ps) יהוה king) is at times placed parallel to) מלך ,Also

47:7, mentioned above by Luzzatto:

ַז ְמ ֣רּו ֱאֹל ִָּ֣הים ַז ֵ ֵּ֑מרּו ּ֙ !Sing praises to God, sing praises

ַז ְמ ֖רּו ְל מ ְל ָ֣כנּו ַז ֵמָֽרּו׃ !Sing praises to our King, sing praises

(RSV)

Because Dahood’s example in Ps 48:2-3 has the support of these two word pairs, it may have some validity. However, there is no phonological repetition at all, which makes it very difficult for the ear to grasp. Therefore, this remains a rather weak example of inclusio, and is not nearly as strong as inclusio of exact repetition.

Many of Dahood’s other examples, however, are completely untenable, and should not be called inclusio at all. For example, in Psalm 2, Dahood translates

,(in v. 1 as “forgather,” which is normally translated “uproar” (JPS, NASB ר גְשָ֣ ּו

“conspire” (NIV2011, RSV) or “rage” (KJV, ESV, ASV). In 2:12, at the end of the

as “assembly,” which is normally translated דֶ֗רֶ ְך Psalm, he translates the word

“way” (JPS, KJV, NASB, ESV, ASV).138 Space does not allow an in-depth

138 Dahood, Psalms I, 14.

50 discussion of these rather unorthodox translations, but suffice it to say that they have not been widely adopted. In any case, based on these unconventional

דֶ֗רֶ ְך and ר גְשָ֣ ּו translations, Dahood establishes a semantic connection between and calls it inclusio! These words are not a recognized word pair, nor are they synonyms, nor are they even close to belonging to the same semantic field. Even if Dahood’s imaginative translations can be substantiated, would the audience that heard or sang this song have been able to appreciate this as inclusio? In order to call this inclusio, Dahood would need to show that:

1. First, the audience would interpret each of these common words in the

special, secondary sense claimed by Dahood, which is outside their

normal usage in Biblical Hebrew.

2. Second, they would have understood a connection between these two

words, which normally have no semantic connection.

3. Finally, they would have felt the sense of enclosure that is brought about

by a clear inclusio.

However, Dahood does not even attempt to convince us of this in his discussion. Similarly, many of Dahood’s other examples are remarkably poor illustrations of inclusio, and seem to be rather forced or contrived, while he ignores or neglects many examples of inclusio based on clearer repetition, such as Psalm 8.139

Therefore, we find that Dahood has expanded the definition of inclusio beyond useful limits. Instead of being overly conservative/classical in his definition,

139 Dahood, Psalms I, 48-52. This seems to be especially true in his first volume, while in the third he notes many more examples in general.

Dahood has swung too far to the other extreme. Dahood’s interpretation of inclusio is too broad to be useful, and “pushes the envelope” too far.

Jack Lundbom

In 1975, Jack Lundbom published his doctoral dissertation, devoting approximately one-third of it to the study of inclusio in Jeremiah, providing in- depth examination of thirty examples. Lundbom defines inclusio as a device that

“balances the end of a unit with its beginning,”140 and includes this important discussion explaining his approach:

“Not all inclusios are the same. Most consist of repeated vocabulary or

phraseology at the beginning and end of a unit. But in the case of Hos 8:9-

13, Freedman correctly points out that the final line is not mere repetition

of the line which opens the poem; the two lines are complementary, being

broken parts of a standard bi-colon which the poet uses for purposes of

inclusio. The inclusio must therefore not be defined too narrowly. It is

necessary only to show continuity with the beginning, and that this

continuity be taken as a deliberate attempt by the author to effect

closure.”141

While Lundbom is similar to Dahood in that he prefers a broad definition, he makes some important statements that are central to developing a proper understanding of inclusio:

“Not all inclusios are the same” – Without a doubt, there are many variations of inclusio, and these must be allowed for in any definition.

140 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 3.

141 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 29.

“Most consist of repeated vocabulary or phraseology” – As noted above, inclusio is a form of repetition, and more exact repetition results in a clearer, stronger inclusio.

“At the beginning and end of a unit” – This is the defining unique element of inclusio that sets it apart from other forms of repetition. The closer the repetition to the beginning and end of the unit, the stronger the inclusio.

“A deliberate attempt by the author” – In seeking to identify an inclusio, an important motivation is to identify the intentions of the author of the inclusio. The importance of identifying intentionality will be discussed in further detail below.

These statements help clarify our understanding and hone our sense for the nuance of inclusio. However, Lundbom also makes several statements that should be questioned:

“Broken parts of a standard bi-colon” can be used “for purposes of inclusio.” – Is it accurate to assume that every device that fulfills the same

“purpose” as inclusio should be called inclusio? While Hosea 8:9a and 13b may

“complement each other impressively,”142 as Freedman states, there is no clear repetition between them. So should this be called inclusio if there is no repetition?

Inclusio is just one of many different ways of forming the boundaries of a text, and every frame is not an inclusio – only a frame based on repetition should be called inclusio.

“Continuity with the beginning” should “be taken as a deliberate attempt by the author to effect closure.” – “Continuity with the beginning” may take

142 Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, 46.

53 many forms, and may or may not signify closure. For example, in the account of the exodus, before most of the plagues, Yahweh commands Moses to go before

Pharaoh and tell him “Let my people go.”143 This shows clear continuity with the beginning of Moses calling,144 but does not show any closure – it signifies the next part of the story, in a type of anaphora. Therefore, “continuity with the beginning” is too broad of a description for inclusio – it is repetition of the beginning at the end that defines inclusio.

Overall, Lundbom presents a clear picture and a strong analysis of inclusio, even if his definition is slightly too broad. Lundbom analyzes inclusio on three

“levels” within the book of Jeremiah: the overall structure of the book, the speeches as larger units, and the stanzas within the speeches.145 On the whole,

Lundbom’s examples are much stronger than Dahood’s, and one illustration from each of Lundbom’s “levels” will be discussed here.

First, Lundbom points out a very large scale inclusio that frames the entire book of Jeremiah (except for ch. 52, which is a “historical epilogue” copied from 2

Kings 24:18-25:30):146

Jer 1:1 ִד ְב ֵ ֶׂ֥ריּ֙יִ ְר ְמ י֖הּו ֶבן־ ִּח ְל ִּק ָׁ֑יהּו ִּמן־ ה ַֽכ ֹ ֲהנִּי ם ֲא ֶָ֣שר ב ֲענ ִ֔תֹות ְב ֶּ֖א ֶרץ ִּבנְי ִּ ַֽמן׃

Jer 51:64b עד־ ּ֖הנ ה ִד ְב ֵ ֶׂ֥ריּ֙יִ ְר ְמ י ָֽהּו׃

143 For example Ex 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13 etc.

144 Exodus 3:10, 18.

145 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 29.

146 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 39-41.

Jer 1:1 The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in

Anathoth in the land of Benjamin,

Jer 51:64b Thus far are the words of Jeremiah. (JPS)

דברי ירמיהו As Lundbom states, “Everything within these limits is taken to be

(the words of Jeremiah), which includes Jeremiah’s own words as well as words about Jeremiah.”147 Lundbom believes that Seriah the scribe should be identified as the scribe that inserted the subscription in 51:64b. This inclusio is similar to that found in Ezekiel 19 discussed above by Müller – these lines form a technical, formulaic frame, and the inclusio strengthens this frame. In other words, it would have been possible to write a similar closing line without repeating verbatim the first two words of the book, but including the repetition provides clarity and strength to the technical frame, and allows it to be identified as inclusio.

In Jeremiah 10:6-7, Lundbom finds this textbook example of inclusio:148

ֵמ ֵ ֶׂ֥איןּ֙כ מ֖ ֹוָך יְה ָׁ֑וה ג דֵ֥ ֹול א תה וְג דֵ֥ ֹול ִּש ְמ ָּ֖ך ִּב ְגבּו ַֽרה׃

ִָּ֣מי ֹלָ֤ א ִּיַֽ ר ֲא ָך ֶָ֣מ ֶלְך הגֹוִ֔יִּם ִֵּ֥כי לְָךּ֖ י ָׁ֑א תה

ִָּ֣כי ְב כל־ ח ְכ ֵ֧מי הגֹו ִּים ּו ְב כל־ מ ְלכּו ּ֖תם ֵמ ֵ ֶׂ֥איןּ֙כ מָֽ ֹוָך׃

There is none like You, O LORD;

You are great, and great is Your name in might.

Who would not fear You, O King of the nations?

Indeed it is Your due!

147 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 39.

148 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 60-61.

For among all the wise men of the nations

And in all their kingdoms,

There is none like You. (NASB)

This “doxology” poem is placed between two poems mocking false gods, and is set apart by this ideal inclusio – exact repetition at the precise beginning and end of the stanza.

Lundbom also notes a small number of single-verse inclusios, such as Jer

5:21:149

ִש ְמעּו־ ָ֣נא זִֹ֔ את ֵ֥עם ס ּ֖כל וְ ָ֣אין ָׁ֑לב עי ָ֤ניִּם ל הֶם וְֹלָ֣ א יִּ ְר ִ֔אּו ָא ְז ֵ֥ניִּם ל ֶּ֖הם וְֹלֵ֥ א יִ ְש מָֽעּו׃

Hear this, (you) foolish and senseless people,

they have eyes but will not see,

they have ears but will not hear:150

in qal is repeated in different forms, at the beginning it is שמע The root imperative plural, “Hear!”, and at the end it is in third person plural imperfect “will hear.” The repetition of this root emphasizes the irony of this verse – “Hear this,

יראו you who will not hear!” Most, if not all, English translations translate the verbs

will see” and “will hear”) in present tense,151 as in NASB: “Who have“) ישמעו and eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear.” However, the imperfect tense in the Hebrew provides a slightly different emphasis – “they have ears but

149 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 73.

150 This is my translation.

151 JPS, NASB, RSV, ASV, KJV, NIV2011, ESV, NET all translate present tense here. In fact, I could not find a single translation that translates the imperfect.

56 they will not hear.” This heightens the irony and intensity intended by this verse, and also adds to the effect of the inclusio – both imperative and imperfect deal with future action.

Not all of Lundbom’s examples are as clear-cut and exemplary as these three, but most are. As a whole, his interpretation of inclusio is much more solid than that of Dahood, and Lundbom does not over-extend the definition of inclusio as often as Dahood unfortunately does.

Hiebert, Longman III, Campbell, and Kessler

Dahood and Lundbom are not the only two scholars of the 20th and 21st centuries who disagree in their definition of inclusio. In fact, as inclusio has become a more well-known phenomenon, it seems that every Biblical scholar feels obliged to come up with his or her own terminology and definition for this figure. For example, Theodore Hiebert prefers the term “inclusion,” and defines it in an extremely broad manner, as “the repetition of themes and motifs, of key words and phrases, of syntactic patterns, of parallelistic verse structure, and of phonetic elements” that link “the beginning and end of a poem or of a section or subsection within the poem.”152 By Hiebert’s definition almost any kind of similarity can be called inclusio, although he only allows it in “a poem,” wrongly excluding inclusio in prose.

A different approach is taken by Campbell, who defines inclusio as “a stylistic technique in which an author returns to a word, phrase or motif he has already used in order to bracket what lies between the two uses and round it off.”153 In

152 Hiebert, “The Use.”

153 Campbell, Ruth, xix.

57 this way, Campbell justifies calling any unique repetition of a word an inclusio, no matter where it is placed in the composition. He goes so far as to look for words that appear only twice in the book of Ruth, and then call them “inclusio.”154 While these repetitions do refer back to the previous material, they do not provide any sense of borders or boundaries. There is no doubt that there is a connection between these repetitions, but they should in no way be considered inclusio if they do not stand at or near the beginning and end of a definable unit.

At the other end of the spectrum, Tremper Longman III states that,

“An inclusio is a repeated phrase or whole line that stands at the beginning

and end of a poetic unit. Some scholars use the term inclusio to include

repetition of a mere word or even a similar root at or near the beginning of

the poem or unit of a poem, but this extends the concept too far.”155

Perhaps, this very conservative definition is a response to the overly liberal definitions of others, but Longman swings much too far in the other direction, discounting scores of clear inclusios noted in Biblical scholarship. See, for example, our discussion of Micah 2:6-11 below, a very clear inclusio based on the repetition of one root. In addition, Longman makes the same error as Hiebert, defining inclusio as only appearing in poetry.

Martin Kessler noticed the discrepancies of inclusio definition and interpretation in Biblical literature. In his short but pointed article “Inclusio in the

Hebrew Bible,” he noted some of the inherent problems with broad interpretations of inclusio, and called for a more definitive study of this figure, “so that its precise

154 Campbell, Ruth, 13.

155 Longman, “Inclusio,” 323.

58 relationship to similar literary features may be defined with precision.”156 Yet, since the time Kessler wrote his article, the study of inclusio in Biblical scholarship has not become clearer, but has become muddier. Even Lundbom, in an essay included at the beginning of the second printing of his Jeremiah dissertation, in 1997, writes, “Some scholars use inclusio to refer to almost any repetition, but the term should be reserved for repeated or balanced vocabulary or else a clear return of thought that brings about closure.”157

This study is in part a response to Kessler’s call for clarity, and hopes to offer new practical insights in the identification and evaluation of inclusio. Before that can be properly accomplished, however, we must explore the background of inclusio on a more theoretical level, and discuss the cultural factors that contribute to the widespread occurrence of inclusio in the Hebrew Bible.

D. The Cultural Background of Inclusio

Orality – Susan Niditch and Casey Davis

Throughout the history of modern Biblical scholarship, it has been assumed that orality has had an influence on the Hebrew Scriptures.158 The precise nature of that influence has recently been under much discussion,159 and Susan Niditch has emerged as one of the leaders of this dialogue, with her proposal that “the

156 Kessler, “Inclusio,” 48.

157 Lundbom, Jeremiah, xxxv-vi.

158 Weeks, “Literacy, Orality,” 465, 469.

159 Kelber offers a comprehensive review of seven recent books on the subject of orality in

Scripture, although some are more concerned with the NT than the OT. Kelber, “Orality,” n.p.

59 products of Israelite writing are to be appreciated in the context of an oral-literate continuum.”160 In other words, orality and literacy existed side-by-side, each influencing the other. She attempts to describe a “sliding-scale” approach to orality and textuality, in which “the benefits of writing… come to be appreciated more and more over the course of Israelite history, yet even the latest Biblical works still give evidence of orally based aesthetics and attitudes.”161 One of the primary evidences of “orally based aesthetics,” according to Niditch, is repetition, which “serves to unify the work and to reiterate essential messages or themes.”162 While repetition is “typical of orally composed works, it also characterizes works composed in writing that participate in the same aesthetic as do orally composed works.”163 It appears that Niditch is building her argument on

Walter Ong, who states that repetition “characterizes oral thought and speech,” and “keeps both speaker and hearer surely on the track.”164 Ong explains further:

“In a primary oral culture, to solve effectively the problem of retaining and

retrieving carefully articulated thought, you have to do your thinking in

mnemonic patterns, shaped for ready oral recurrence. Your thought must

come into being in heavily rhythmic, balanced patterns, in repetitions or

antitheses, in alliterations and assonances, etc… In an oral culture, to

think through something in nonformulaic, non-patterned, non-mnemonic

160 Niditch, Oral World, 60.

161 Niditch, Oral World, 108.

162 Niditch, Oral World, 10.

163 Niditch, Oral World, 11.

164 Ong and Hartley, Orality, 40.

terms, even if it were possible, would be a waste of time, for such thought,

once worked through, could never be recovered with any effectiveness,”165

Niditch balances this, noting that while repetition is a mnemonic device, it also

“has to do with matters of meaning and stylistic preferences.”166 Niditch, however, does not seem to notice the special role of inclusio as a form of oral repetition in oral Israelite culture, though she does mention inclusio several times in her books.167

On the other hand, another researcher of oral culture, Casey W. Davis, goes so far as to say that “word repetition in the form of inclusio and chiasm is the most common oral method of signifying structure.”168 This statement is somewhat exaggerated, and does not seem to take into account the complexity of the “oral- literate continuum” described by Niditch, in which “the oral and written coexist and influence the form and function of one another.”169 In spite of this, Davis’ basic principle is sound: inclusio is both a witness to orality in the surrounding culture, and proof that written texts were meant to be consumed aurally by a hearing audience, rather than a reading audience. In his time, Lundbom did not feel comfortable differentiating between whether inclusio came from “a period of oral

165 Ong and Hartley, Orality, 34-5.

166 Niditch, Oral World, 11.

167 Niditch, Judges, 14, 178. Also, Niditch, Oral World, 20.

168 Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism, 88. While the main focus of Davis’ study is the oral background of New Testament works, he bases his work on Ong’s and his statement here is meant to be understood in a general way.

169 Niditch, Judges, 18.

61 tradition or… from the hand of a writing scribe.”170 However, even if a text was written down privately before it was heard publicly, inclusio cannot be understood properly if divorced from the oral aesthetic to which it belongs. In an oral environment, inclusio accomplishes several goals:

1. It helps the oral reciter/performer remember the structure of the work.

2. It helps the audience understand the structure of the work.

3. It reinforces the key words by repeating them at two of the most important

junctures of the work or section – the beginning and end.

4. It provides a point in which the audience can participate by joining in the

second time around, especially in cases of repeated longer phrases.

Thus, inclusio is native to an oral environment, and the written Biblical texts that contain inclusio were primarily intended to be heard, as cues for the listening audience.

The Cyclical Human Experience

Inclusio develops not only out of orality, but also as a poetic expression of human experience. Life on earth is governed by cycles, and these cycles become patterns that help people make sense of life. Sunrise and sunset look very similar, but one signals the beginning of daylight and the other the end. A key is turned in the ignition at the beginning of a drive, and then that same key is turned in the ignition again, signifying the end of the journey. In Western culture, people shake hands when they say “hello” and then again at “goodbye,” indicating the beginning and ending of a meeting. In Eastern culture, bowing the head performs this same function. On a macro scale, human life begins in total dependency, and

170 Lundbom, Jeremiah, 29.

62 usually also ends in total dependency. This truth is often expressed colloquially and appears in pop-culture. Will Smith’s music video for his song “Will 2k” is an example of this: “My daddy told me one time, you never know where you going,

‘til you know where you been.”171 In this sense, inclusio is built into the human psyche, and thus is naturally expressed in various art forms, as an expression of how people innately order their lives. Because of this universality, inclusio can be found in Ugaritic and Akkadian poetry,172 in the poetry of T.S. Eliot,173 in the speeches of Martin Luther King,174 in the Koran,175 in modern fiction,176 and in popular music.177 Movies tend to have visual inclusios, in which they begin and

171 Will Smith Featuring K-Ci, “Will 2K,” http://youtu.be/VT_GG7q3vhs, 0:30, accessed 17

Sep 2013.

172 Hurowitz, “Samsuiluna A,” 195, 204; and Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 283-4.

173 Quinn, Figures of Speech, 89. Quinn’s example is from “Triumphal March,” which can be found in Eliot, Poems and Plays, 85-7.

174 Durgut, "I Have a Dream", 7.

175 Müller, Die Propheten, 54; and El-Tahry, “Textual Integrity,” 78-104.

176 For example, The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton begins and ends with the same exact sentence. Hinton, The Outsiders, 1, 180.

177 For example, in “Yesterday” by Paul McCartney, verses 1 and 2 begin and end with the word “Yesterday,” and the third verse begins and ends with “suddenly.” The Beatles, Help!, originally released 1965. Many songs also begin and end with the same musical theme, forming a musical theme. For example, “Just Give Me a Reason” by P!nk, Nate Ruess, and Jeff Bhasker, from the 2012 album The Truth About Love, begins and ends with a solo piano line which is not repeated elsewhere in the song.

63 end with same scene. For example, the 2013 film Side Effects opens and closes with very similar scenes178 (see next 2 pages):

178 Burns, Side Effects.

Opening scene, zooming in to a room in a medical building

Closing scene, zooming out from a jail cell

Therefore, we find that inclusio is a universal phenomenon which naturally developed, and still develops, as an artistic expression of the universal cyclical human experience.

The Israelite Agricultural Cycle

Ancient Hebrew culture seems to have been particularly fond of inclusio, as evidenced by the abundance of examples found throughout the Hebrew Bible.

Other evidence of cyclical thinking in the Bible can be seen in the highly developed schedule of sacrifices and feasts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, in the cyclical structure of the book of Judges,179 and in the book of Ecclesiastes, especially in the “time for everything” section in chapter three.180 Agriculture in ancient Israel also depended on understanding the yearly cycle of seasons, as is witnessed by the tenth century Gezer calendar, possibly “the earliest extra-

Biblical Hebrew document”:181 “months of vintage and olive harvest; months of sowing; months of spring pasture; month of flax pulling; month of barley harvest; month of wheat harvest and measuring; months of pruning; month of summer fruit.”182 Thus, inclusio can be seen as a natural poetic expression of ancient

Israelite agricultural existence.

In summary, inclusio developed out of orality, out of the cyclical nature of the human experience, and specifically out of the cyclical nature of agricultural life that existed within the ancient Israelite cultural milieu. In this environment,

179 Brettler, “Cyclical,” 115-8. See also Jobling, The Sense II, 47-8.

180 Brettler, “Cyclical,” 112-5.

181 Brettler, “Cyclical,” 114.

182 Gibson, Textbook I, 2.

67 inclusio was not an external figure of speech, but was a natural and internal expression of Biblical authors, scribes, and oral reciters. This cultural backdrop of inclusio must be taken into account when constructing a working definition of inclusio.

III. A Clearer Definition

Our proposed understanding of inclusio will consist of three parts: the proper terminology, a clear definition, and practical criteria for evaluating examples of inclusio.

A. Terminology

In this paper, several alternative terms have already been mentioned: inclusio, epanadiplosis, epanalepsis, envelope figure, encircling and inclusion. Some other terms used in Biblical scholarship include: ring composition,183 frame,184 cyclic composition,185 bracketing,186 and extreme terms.187 However, the most prevalent term used by scholars in the Biblical field is inclusio. This is clearly confirmed by searching the relevant terms in JSTOR within the “religion” discipline. On 9

September, 2013, the following results were noted:

183 Douglas, Thinking, 1-2.

184 Zeelander, Closure, 62-65.

185 Dahood, Psalms I, 5.

186 Lowery, Revelation's Rhapsody, 130-2.

187 Meynet, Treatise, 132-4, 177-8.

Search Term Number of Results

Inclusio 260

“ring composition” 28

“ring structure” 14

“extreme terms” 26

“envelope structure” 13

“envelope figure” 2

epanalepsis 6

epanadiplosis 1

“cyclic composition” 1

Inclusio is the clear choice of most scholars. Some other terms that have been used are simply too broad and return far too many results that have no relation to inclusio:

Search Term Number of Results

Frame 6,202

Inclusion 5,415

Encircling 367

Bracketing 344

Envelope 344

Therefore, in a solely practical sense, the term “inclusio” is preferable because it has been most used by Biblical scholars, and especially because it provides a unique search term that is easy to find in journals and electronic books.

Examining the inherent meanings of some of these words may also be helpful in selecting the appropriate term. As mentioned above, the Latin meaning behind

69 inclusio, “to shut in, confine, enclose, etc.” perfectly describes this rhetorical figure. The phrase “ring structure” or “ring composition” usually refers to a wider structure resembling inclusios layered inside of other inclusios, like a large chiasmus.188 While the term “envelope figure/structure” does nicely describe inclusio, it has not been very popular, and “envelope” by itself is far too broad. In addition, “envelope figure” shows a complete disconnect from classical rhetoric, while “inclusio” maintains that connection. “Frame” is too imprecise – there are more ways to “frame” a composition than through repetition, and inclusio is just one type of frame. The other terms are either too broad, or have not been popular among Biblical scholars at all.

McKnight states that the term inclusio should only be used for longer sections, and prefers “epanalepsis” for shorter segments,189 such as Phil 4:4, mentioned above by Bede and Glassius. However, McKnight defines both terms in the same way, and asserts that they have the same purpose, stating: “The inclusio and epanalepsis tend to make texts stand apart from their surrounding [sic].”190

Therefore, his distinction in terminology seems to be rather artificial. On the one hand, a slight distinction in purpose between the two does exist; namely, that inclusio in shorter segments can at times be used for emphasis rather than delimitation. However, both long and short segments enclosed by inclusio

188 Douglas, Thinking, 2. “Ring composition is the large-scale, blown-up version of the same structure [as inclusio].”

189 McKnight, “Inclusio,” 406. This approach is also taken by some rhetorical and poetic scholars outside the Biblical field, as in Quinn, Figures of Speech, 88, and Peters,

“Epanalepsis,”250.

190 McKnight, “Inclusio,” 406.

70 function according to the same rules. Therefore, the term “inclusio” rises above the rest as the most suitable label, in both long sections and short segments.

B. Definition

At this point, considering all we have learned from our historical survey, we are ready to compile our definition of inclusio. Scholars through the centuries have vacillated between the extremes of recognizing the diversity of variations

(allowing for very broad definitions) and having a rigid system of categorizing, such as applying Latin rhetoric to ancient Semitic poetry. As Kessler states, “Our starting point must be the classical definition of inclusio which calls for verbal identity, with allowances for case endings, gender, number, etc., at the extremities.”191 However, we do not want to make the same mistake as Bede and most other classical rhetoricians up to Bullinger, and limit our definition too much.

On the other hand, we do not want to make same mistake as Dahood and

Hiebert, and widen our definition too much. Like Alsted and Müller, we want to appreciate the early classical rhetoricians, and also let the rhetorical figures found in the Hebrew Bible speak for themselves. We want to keep in mind the oral and aural nature of ancient Hebrew culture, and not only appreciate this as a “literary” phenomenon. In addition, we do not want to make the same mistakes as Hiebert and Longman in confining inclusio to “poetry,” but allow for its presence in prose as well. Finally, we want our definition to be applicable to both long sections and short segments enclosed by inclusio. Therefore we propose the following definition, and will explain each of its parts below:

191 Kessler, “Inclusio,” 48.

Inclusio is the intentional repetition of clearly recognizable

elements at the beginning and end of a composition or one of its

parts.

Intentional – The study of inclusio assumes that Biblical authors purposefully planned these repetitions, and that they are not simply random repeated elements within the text. The clearer the inclusio, the stronger the case is for its intentionality.

Repetition – Inclusio belongs to the family of exact repetition. The more exact the repetition, the stronger the inclusio. Inclusio should not be considered a form of parallelism, which is built on saying the same thing differently, as discussed above.

Clearly Recognizable Elements – The study of inclusio assumes that the primary audience of the compositions found in Scripture was a listening audience.

Any repeated element reputed to form an inclusio must be one that could be identified by hearing it. Thus, for the most part, repeated grammatical structures should not be considered inclusio, because the repetition is so abstract that it would be hard to hear. The repeated elements can be short or long, but must be long enough to leave an impression on the ear.

At the Beginning and End – The uniqueness of inclusio from other forms of repetition is found in this arrangement. The closer the repeated elements are placed to the exact beginning and end, the stronger the inclusio.

Of a Composition or One of its Parts – the composition can be verbal or oral, poetry or prose. Inclusio can be used to enclose long sections or short

72 segments; from a short, single thought within part of a single verse, up to a whole book.

C. Criteria for Evaluation: Inclusio Strength

Not all instances of inclusio have the same rhetorical force. It is preferable to think in terms of a sliding scale or a gradient when measuring the strength of an inclusio, rather than a simplistic black-and-white approach, which says “this is inclusio and this is not.” A “strong” inclusio has a much greater effect on its audience than a “weak” inclusio, and thus a “strong” inclusio is much more helpful in determining literary units than a “weak” one. While a “strong” inclusio can clearly delineate the boundaries of a section, a “weak” inclusio can only contribute to other indicators in understanding of the structure of a passage. A weak inclusio should never be considered a convincing proof for the delineation of a literary unit, especially if other factors indicate otherwise. Indeed, there is a point where the repetition is so weak that it should not be considered an inclusio at all, as in Dahood’s examples analyzed above.

Using our definition above as a basis, criteria can be identified to help determine the strength of a given inclusio. The goal in determining inclusio strength is to attempt to ascertain the intentions of the author in each specific circumstance. In certain cases, the author of the inclusio made his intentions abundantly clear, and this is a strong inclusio. A strong inclusio is a very convincing factor in ascertaining the structure of a composition. In other cases, the author did not make the inclusio very clear, creating a weak inclusio. In this case, perhaps the author’s intention was only to hint at a section division, instead of strongly defining one.

1. Primary Criteria

The three primary considerations in determining the strength of an inclusio are exactness, positioning and uniqueness.

Exactness of the Repetition – the more exact the repetition, the stronger the inclusio. Consider the following English example using the word “heal”:

heal ↔ heal - same exact word stronger

heal ↔ healed - same word, different conjugation

heal ↔ health - same root

heal ↔ heel - homophone (same sounds)

heal ↔ cure - synonym (same meaning) weaker

Perhaps the best way to understand exactness of repetition is through the lens of linguistics. A word is a combination of sounds that represent an idea. The sounds are the phonological aspect of the word, and the meaning behind them is the semantic aspect. In exact repetition, both the phonological and the semantic aspects are repeated, creating a much stronger impression than if only one of them is repeated:

Only Phonological Both Phonological and Only Semantic Repetition Semantic Repetition Repetition

Weaker Stronger Weaker

homophones exact repetition synonyms

repeated sounds repeated sounds and repeated meaning meaning Examples: pair……pear pair……pair pair……couple core……corps core……core core……center לא...... בל לא...... לא לא...... לו

Thus, the exactness of the repetition should be thought of in a continuum, with the more exact as the stronger and less exact as the weaker.

Positioning of the Repetition – In order to build an inclusio, the author must creatively position words in an order outside of their normative syntax, showing clear intentionality and purpose. Therefore, as a general rule, the closer the repetition to the precise beginning and end of the unit, the stronger the inclusio.

This rule is especially applicable in shorter segments. In a single line, if the repetition does not occur at the exact beginning and end, the effect is lost entirely. In longer segments, there is more room for flexibility, although if the repetition does not appear within the first and last lines of the section, the inclusio is considerably weakened.

In some places, intentionality in placement can be seen in several other configurations, in which the author purposefully positions the repetitions in a place other than the exact beginning and end. It is not uncommon to find instances of anaphoric inclusio, in which the repetition begins the first line, and also begins the last line. Another possibility is the epiphoric inclusio in which the repetition ends the first line, and also ends the last line. These can be understood in this way:

Standard Inclusio Anaphoric Inclusio Epiphoric Inclusio x______x______x ______x x______x

All three of these are very intentional ways of positioning the repetition, and so should be considered strong inclusios. The goal is to understand the intentions of the Biblical authors, who often vary their use of inclusio, and the Biblical 75 scholar must be open to recognize these variations, especially those that show clear intentionality.

Uniqueness of the Repetition – As a general rule, the Biblical authors make the repeated elements of the inclusio more prominent by avoiding these elements within the enclosed material and in the surrounding material. A perfect example of this is found in Micah 2:6-11, discussed below, in which a root is repeated in the opening and closing lines of that section, and nowhere else in the entire book.

Therefore, a unique repetition makes a stronger inclusio.

In addition, inclusio should not be confused with leitwortstil (keyword style), in which “the keyword(s) is (are) distributed through the poem or periscope.”192 If inclusio is present in the same section as leitwortstil, it becomes necessary for the repetition to be placed at the exact beginning and end of the section, in order to distinguish it from leitwortstil alone.

Leitwortstil leitwortstil + Inclusio __x______x______x______x______x______x ______x_____x__ __x______x______x______x

An example of this type of inclusio is suggested by Kessler, who notes that

Yahweh) appear at the) יהוה Ps 27 is enclosed by the one word inclusio, the beginning and end.193 However, God’s name is repeated many times throughout the Psalm, and thus, this is not a very strong example of inclusio. In other words,

192 Kessler, “Inclusio,” 44.

193 Kessler, “Inclusio,” 45.

76 it is uncertain whether the author intended to create an inclusio, or whether it was unintentionally formed as part of the leitwortstil.

As a last note regarding uniqueness, inclusio should also be distinguished from refrain, as Shamir Yona states:

פזמון חוזר הוא חזרה על משפט או יותר פעמיים לפחות, ובתנאי שהחזרה אינה

בקצות היחידה )במקרה כזה מדובר במעטפת ספרותית/אינקלוזיו(.194

A refrain is the repetition of a sentence or longer at least twice,

provided the repetition does not occur at the extremities of the unit (in

which case it would be a literary envelope/inclusio).195

A good illustration of a refrain can be seen in Amos 4:6-13, in which the

”,Yet you have not returned to Me“) וְ ַֹֽלא־ ש ְב ֵֶ֥תם ע ּ֖די נְאֻם־יְהו ַֽה׃ emphatic phrase declares the Lord. NASB) is repeated five times.196 At times a refrain can fulfill an inclusio-like function, when it appears at the beginning and the end, as well as in the middle of a unit, but it still should be called a refrain in those cases. The distinctive character of inclusio demands that the repeated elements appear only at the beginning and end of the section.

Therefore, the three main considerations in judging the strength of an inclusio are: 1. the exactness of the repetition, 2.the positioning of the repetition, and 3. the unique nature of the repeated elements with the context.

194 Yona, The Many Faces, 28 note 71.

195 The translation is mine.

196 The refrain appears in verses 6b, 8b, 9b, 10b, and 11b.

2. Secondary Criteria

While the above criteria are the most important in discerning inclusio strength, there are several other considerations that should be taken into account.

Length of Repetition – As a general rule, the longer the repeated elements, the stronger the inclusio. In single verses and other short segments, the repetition must be short to leave room for the intervening material. In longer sections, the repetition must be longer in order to help remind the audience of the beginning.

Unity of the Enclosed Content – If the includitur is unified in subject matter, and is different in subject matter from the surrounding material, it can help a weak inclusio to be more convincing. If the includitur contains subject matter that is the same as the surrounding material, a strong inclusio can be weakened.

Other Delimiters – At times, there are other markers within the composition that help delimit and delineate sections. For the most part, these include formulaic expressions such as, “In the year that King…” such as in Isaiah 6:1. If other delimiters present a conflict with an inclusio, they can weaken the inclusio.

Or, if they support the inclusio, they can strengthen it. Other delimiters can also include visual cues within a written text, such as the “open” and “closed” parasha divisions in the Masoretic text.

These criteria are not hard and fast rules, but provide guidelines for judging where any certain inclusio falls on the sliding scale from strong to weak. A view of all the criteria is helpful, as seen in the following graph:

IV. Practical Examples of Inclusio Evaluation

Now that a solid working definition and criteria have been established, an application of these principles should be applied and tested. The following examples have been arranged in two categories: first, short segments, and second, longer sections. Within these categories, the examples have been ordered from simple to more complex, rather than following the more standard separation between poetic and prose examples. In fact, more examples have intentionally been included from what have commonly been considered prose books, in order to show the pervasiveness of inclusio in prose as well.

Our primary interest in analyzing these examples is to evaluate the inclusio structures themselves. Most scholars have not taken the time to closely examine these structures, even if they do mention their existence in their research.

Therefore, only in some cases will previous scholarship be helpful in our analysis.

A. Inclusio in Short Segments

The first category of examples to be considered is inclusio in short segments.

Historically speaking, these are the examples noted by early Christian and Jewish sources, but mostly ignored by modern scholarship, as seen in the previous historical survey. Because of the proximity of the repeated elements, they are perhaps easier to identify than inclusio in longer segments. The purpose of inclusio in shorter segments is sometimes different than that in longer sections, in that it can serve less as a delimiter and more as a device for emphasis. However, the criteria for evaluation remain the same, for all practical purposes.

Genesis 9:3

כל־רֶ מֶ ש ֲא ֶָ֣שר הּוא־ ִ֔ ח י Every moving thing that lives

ל ֵֶ֥כם יִּ ְה ֶּ֖יה ְלָא ְכ ָׁ֑לה ,shall be for you as food

ְכ ֶָ֣י ֶרק ִ֔ ע ֶשב ,As the green plants

נ ֵ֥ת ִּתי ל ֶּ֖כם אֶת־כָֹּֽל׃ I have now given you everything.197

This example is from Ginsburg’s Massorah,198 and was also listed by

Bullinger.199 According to the three primary criteria given above, this should be

everything) is exactly) כל considered a strong inclusio, because (1) the word repeated, (2) it has been intentionally positioned precisely at the beginning and end of the verse, and (3) the repeated word is unique in the verse, not used again within the includitur. Note that while the repetition is exact phonologically, there is

In the beginning of the verse, it is in .כל slight semantic change in the usage of

is in כל ,referring to all animal life. At the end of the verse ,רֶ מֶ ש construct form with the absolute state, and is widened in meaning to imply all plant and animal life; hence the need to include the English word “now” in the translation. Looking at our secondary criteria, the length of the repetition is very short, made up of only one two-letter word. However, in a short segment like this, a shorter repetition is effective, and perhaps even preferable. While the content is unified within the verse, the same subject matter is also discussed in the previous and next verse.

197 This translation is based on LEB.

.(מ Ginsburg, The Massorah, 2:215 (§ 424 198

199 Bullinger, Figures, 245.

Therefore, this inclusio is primarily meant to provide emphasis, highlighting the

is now permissible to eat.200 (כל) fact that everything

This inclusio also serves as a circular frame for the pivot phrase found at the

as the green plants). A pivot is a “word (or) ְכ ֶָ֣י ֶרק ִ֔ ע ֶשב ,center of the verse expression) which concludes the first parallel stich and simultaneously opens the second one.”201 So the verse should be understood in this way:

כל־רֶ מֶ ש ֲא ֶָ֣שר הּוא־ ִ֔ חי

ל ֵֶ֥כם יִּ ְה ֶּ֖יה ְלָא ְכ ָׁ֑לה ְּכ ֶֶ֣י ֶרק ֵ֔ ע ֶשב

ְּכ ֶֶ֣י ֶרק ֵ֔ ע ֶשב נ ֵ֥ת ִּתי ל ֶּ֖כם אֶת־כָֹּֽל׃

Every moving thing that lives

shall be for you as food, as the green plants,

As the green plants, I have now given you everything.

The inclusio focuses the sentence on the pivot phrase, and heightens the poetic beauty of the verse, helping it stand out from the surrounding material.

Most scholars have not recognized this inclusio, and primarily have ignored it in their discussion. In his 1910 commentary on Genesis, Skinner derides the second half of this verse as “a slavish repetition”202 of Gen 1:29, which does indeed contain this same phrase:

ִּהנ ה נ ַ֨ ַת ִתיּ֙ל כֶֶ֜ םּ֙ אֶת־כל־ ָ֣ע ֶשב ׀ ז ֹ ָ֣ר ע ֗ ֶז רע...

Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed…

200 Note the lack of distinction between clean and unclean. The emphasis is everything.

201 Sivan and Yona, “Pivotal Use,” 443.

202 Skinner, Genesis, 170 – lower apparatus.

should be provided in 9:3, as in the ה Skinner suggests that the definite article

Samaritan Pentateuch.203 While it is true that this is a very unique construction found nowhere else in Hebrew Scripture,204 Skinner betrays his lack of appreciation for repetition in general and inclusio in particular. Firstly, the exact phrase from Gen 1:29 is purposefully repeated in order to remind the audience of

God’s previous vegetarian law – 9:3 is too unique to be an accidental structure.

I gave) in 9:3, but no) נתתי plant) is placed before the verb) עשב Then, the word words are altered, which more effectively reminds the audience of Gen 1:29:

Gen 1:29 נ ָ֨ ת ִּתי לכֶ֜ ם ֶאת־ כל־ ָ֣ע ֶשב

Gen 9:3 ִ֔ ע ֶשב נ ֵ֥ת ִּתי ל ֶּ֖כם אֶת־כַֹֽל

is broken in 9:3, creating the (כל־עשב) The construct relationship from 1:29

in 9:3 כל unique structure found in 9:3. In this way, the last repetition of represents two broken construct relationships – both the construct found at the beginning of 9:3, and that found in 1:29. The construct relationships are broken, and so is God’s original directive to eat only plant life.

Additionally, the author of the inclusio purposefully leaves off the definite particle to strengthen the inclusio, by effectively making the first and last words of

,would still be considered an inclusio הכל ↔ כל ,the verse exactly identical. True

203 Although neither BHS nor BH note this difference, it is presented as the standard reading in Gall’s edition of Sam. Pent. Gall, Der Hebräische, 13.

in absolute state appears only here; even with the definite כל with את כל The phrase 204

,this remains a unique construction, appearing only in 12 places: Lev 1:9 (את הכל) article

1:13, 8:27; Deut 2:36; Josh 11:19; 2 Sam 19:31; 1 Kings 14:26; Eccl 3:11, 7:15, 10:19,

11:5; and 2 Chr 12:9.

83 but a single letter addition to a two-letter word creates quite a large phonological

.הכל ↔ כל than by כל ↔ כל difference. A stronger inclusio is formed by

So, this unique structure is used to build a strong inclusio around this verse, to focus the verse on the central pivot phrase, and to emphasize the connection and disparity between the new dietary directive and the earlier one found in Genesis

1:29.

Exodus 26:24

וְ ִי ָֽ ְה ֣יּו ַֽת ֹ ֲא ִּמי ם ִּמ ְל מ ט ה ,And they shall be double beneath

וְי ְח ֗ דו יִ ְה ֵ֤יּו ת ִּמי ם על־ר ֹא ִ֔שֹו and together they shall be complete

ֶאל־ ה ט ּ֖ב עת ה ֶא ָׁ֑חת ;to its top to the first ring

כן יִ ְה ֶי֣ה ִּל ְשנ י ִ֔ ֶהם :thus it shall be with the two of them

ִּל ְש ֵ֥ני ה ִּמ ְקצ ֹּ֖ע ֹת יִ ְהיָּֽו׃ the two corners they shall be.205

This is another example from The Massorah,206 but is not mentioned by

Bullinger, nor by other Biblical scholars.207 The likely reason for this is that this is an illustration of a weak, rather than strong inclusio, as will be shown in our analysis. In Exodus 26:24, the repetition is exact, leaving aside the waw consecutive (and) at the beginning of the verse. The positioning is precise, at the very beginning and end of the verse. To accomplish this, the author had to intentionally invert the normal syntax in the last line, as compared to the rest of the verse. However, the repeated word is not unique; it is repeated two additional times within the includitur. In addition, the repeated word is the very common verb

205 This translation is based on NASB.

.(ו Ginsburg, The Massorah, 4:341 (§98 206

207 In my survey of research I could not find any analysis of this verse as inclusio.

to be), which appears many times in the surrounding passage, as a keyword) היה

(leitwortstil). This lack of uniqueness is alone enough to considerably weaken the inclusio– the repeated word does not really stand out in the surrounding material at all. In addition, this verse is clearly part of the same stanza as the surrounding material, and is focused on the same subject matter. Therefore, in spite of the exact repetition at the precise beginning and end, this is a rather weak inclusio. It does not provide much emphatic force, and clearly doesn’t delineate a separate section.

In truth, this inclusio is likely only a secondary effect resulting from the chiastic parallelism in the last two lines of the verse:

כן יִ ְה ֶי֣ה ִל ְש ֵני ֵׂ֔ ֶהם :thus it shall be with the two of them

ִל ְש ֵנֶׂ֥י ַה ִמ ְקצ ֹּ֖ע ֹּת יִ ְהיָּֽו׃ the two corners they shall be.208

Thus, every inclusio is not of the same strength, and should be recognized as such. While the positioning of the word is still clearly purposeful in this case, the author is not making a strong statement about the structure of the material. This example illustrates that not every repetition at the beginning and end of a segment should be held up as a strong example of inclusio – each case must be analyzed on its own merits.

208 This translation is based on NASB.

Exodus 3:18

וְ ש ְמ ּ֖עּו ְלק ֶָֹׁ֑לָך ּו בא ָ֡ ת א ת ה וְ ִּז ְק ָ֨נ י יִּ ְש ר ֜ אל ֶאל־ ֶָ֣מ ֶלְך ִּמ ְצ ֗ריִּם ו ֲא מ ְר ֶָ֤תם א לי ו

יְהָ֞ו הּ֙ ֱאֹל ֵ ֵ֤הי הָֽ ִע ְב ִר ִיי םּ֙ נִּ ְק ָ֣רה ע ִ֔ ל ינּו

וְ ע ֗ תה נַֽ ֲל כה־ ָּ֞נ א ֶָ֣ד ֶרְך ְש ָֹ֤ל ֶשת י ִּמי ם ב ִּמ ְד ִ֔ בר

וְנִּזְ ְב ּ֖חה ַֽל יה וֶׂ֥הּ֙ ֱאֹל ֵהָֽינּו׃

And they will listen to your voice, and you will go, you and the elders of

Israel, to the king of Egypt, and you will say to him,

‘Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews has met with us,

and now let us please go on a journey of three days into the desert,

and let us sacrifice to Yahweh our God.’ (LEB)

In this example, we find a strong case of inclusio in a quotation within the

אלהים ,verse. Two divine epithets together are repeated, but the second term

appears in construct form, but there אלהים God) is slightly varied. In both places) is a progression from distant to near: at the beginning, Yahweh is “God of the

Hebrews,” at the end Yahweh is “our God.” Two elements from the first line

the Hebrews + on us) are folded together into the first person - עלינו + העברים)

God) in the) אלהים plural possessive pronoun suffix which is attached directly to

our God) represents a semantic repetition) אלהינו last line). In this way, the suffix

the Hebrews), and as well as both a phonological and semantic) ,העברים of

on us). The repetition is positioned at the precise beginning) עלינו repetition of and end of the segment, and is unique – neither of these Divine names appears in the includitur. One other delimiter is present in this segment which helps strengthen this inclusio – the repeated phrase stands as the first and last words of the quote. This also unifies the enclosed material and differentiates it from the surrounding material. Therefore, this inclusio is quite strong, serving both as a

86 delimiter of the segment, and as a tool to emphasize Yahweh as the God of the

Israelites. Yahweh is commanding Moses to emphasize to Pharaoh that Yahweh

God is confronting him by name, not mere man. This is especially significant after

Exodus 3:13-15, when God confirms His name as Yahweh to Moses.

God’s command to Moses, as seen in this verse, is fulfilled two chapters later in Exodus 5:3, where a variation of this same inclusio appears:

ו ָ֣י ֹא ְמ ִ֔רּו

ֱאֹל ֵ ֶׂ֥הי ה ִּע ְב ִּּ֖רים נִּ ְק ָ֣רא ע ָׁ֑ לינּו

ָ֣נ ֲל כה נ ָ֡ א דֶרֶ ְך ְש ָֹ֨ל ֶשת י ֜ ִּמים ב ִּמ ְד ֗ בר

וְנִּזְ ְב ח ה ַֽליה ָ֣וה ֱאֹל ֵׂ֔ ֵהינּו

ָ֨ ֶפן־יִּ ְפ ג ִ֔ ענּו ב ֶּ֖ד ֶבר אֵ֥ ֹו בֶח ַֽרֶ ב׃

And they said,

“The God of the Hebrews has been called out against us.

Please let us go on a three-day journey into the desert,

and let us sacrifice to Yahweh our God,

lest he strike us with plague or with sword.”209

There are several discrepancies between these verses. The most obvious

,(God) אלהים difference is that the inclusio is formed of only the general title

.God), as in 3:18) אלהים Yahweh) and the title) יהוה instead of the personal name

This immediately brings to mind the documentary hypothesis, based in part on the different Divine names that appear in the Pentateuch. In this case, however, it is unlikely that the variance in the use of God’s name is due to different sources,

209 This translation is from LEB, but I have exchanged “met with” for “called out against,” to

.נקרא more accurately reflect the Hebrew

87 because firstly, the repetition is too exact between the inclusios, and secondly, other repeated terminology around these verses points to the same source (i.e.

“the king of Egypt” in 3:18 and 5:4). In addition, the source critics themselves identify these verses as belonging to the same source, although they disagree about which source it is. The classic view as presented by Noth identifies both of these as J, but advocates 3:18 as a later addition to J because of its “predictive” nature in relation to 5:3.210 Concerning chapter 5, Noth asserts that 5:3-19 derives from “a special and presumably extremely old narrative version” in which the elders of Israel are the ones who approach Pharaoh, not Moses and Aaron.

He assumes that 5:1-2, plus the mention of Moses and Aaron in 5:4 were inserted by J into this material.211 Friedman, on the other hand, disagrees with

Noth, and presents a different opinion, in which 3:18 and 5:3-23 belong to E, while only 5:1-2 are the work of J.212 A completely different view is proposed by

Johnstone, who suggests that both 3:18 and 5:3 were later insertions by D!213 All three of these views assume that 5:3 is from a separate source than 5:1-2. While it is not the goal of this paper to discuss the and evaluate the source documents of the Pentateuch, our simple inclusio gives some evidence that Exodus 5:3 is dependent on both 3:18 and 5:1-2, in contradiction to all three of these theories.

210 Noth, Exodus, 41. In agreement with Noth is Coats, Exodus 1-18, 51. However, others disagree, such as Whybray, who argues that Noth’s “conclusion that the story belongs to a pre-Moses stage of the tradition goes far beyond the evidence.” Whybray, The Making,

193-4.

211 Noth, Exodus, 55.

212 Friedman, The Bible, 123, 126.

213 Johnstone, Exodus, 82.

As mentioned above, the inclusio in 5:3 is formed by only one Divine name

.Yahweh + God), as in 3:18 - אלהים + יהוה) God), instead of two - אלהים)

According to our criteria, this variation weakens the inclusio, because there is less repeated material. More importantly though, this variation takes the emphasis of the inclusio off of Yahweh’s authority as seen in 3:18, and instead draws attention to the relationship between God and the Hebrews. This effect is even stronger in the Septuagint version of Exodus 5:3, in which the name of

Yahweh does not appear at all.214 This is especially striking when viewed in the context of 5:1-2, in which Pharaoh refuses to recognize Yahweh’s Divine authority, and mockingly says, “Who is Yahweh? … I do not know Yahweh.”

Thus, removing Yahweh from the inclusio presents a capitulation to Pharaoh on the part of Moses and Aaron: “Fine, you don’t have to recognize Yahweh as an authority over you – but he is the God of the Hebrews, our God, and maintains authority over us, so please let us obey our God.”

The second difference between these two versions has been overlooked by most scholars, and while it is a small difference, it creates a large effect. In 3:18,

while in 5:3, Yahweh “has ,(נקרה עלינו) ”Yahweh literally “has happened upon us

Though they are extremely similar .(נקרא עלינו) ”been called upon us phonologically, these two words have very different meanings. Verse 3:8 is

is found in )נקרה על-( obviously the more unique, and no other structure like this the Hebrew Bible. For this reason (lectio difficilior - the difficult reading is

214 LXX Ex. 5:3: καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Ὁ θεὸς τῶν Εβραίων προσκέκληται ἡμᾶς•

πορευσόμεθα οὖν ὁδὸν τριῶν ἡμερῶν εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, ὅπως θύσωμεν τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν,

μήποτε συναντήσῃ ἡμῖν θάνατος ἢ φόνος. (And they say to him, “The God of the

Hebrews has summoned us. We will travel then a three days’ journey into the wilderness in order to sacrifice to our God, lest death or murder meet us.” NETS)

89 preferable), it seems that commentators like Noth, and modern Bible translators have interpreted 5:3 as a scribal error, assuming that both 3:18 and 5:3 originally

has “met”).215 This serves Noth’s theory particularly well, who) נקרה contained assumes the oldest layer of this tradition to be one of God meeting with the

Israelites in Egypt, without the presence of Moses.216 However, according to

BHS, the opposite is true in all the old versions: the Samaritan Pentateuch, the

has) נקרא Septuagint, the Targums, and the Vulgate all read both 3:18 and 5:3 as

“summoned,” as LXX translates). While it is possible that these versions are interpreting the difficult variant found in 3:18 by the less difficult variant found in

was in the Vorlage of these ancient נקרא it is equally probable that ,5:3 translations, at least in 5:3, and possibly also in 3:18.

Taking this into account, we would like to suggest that Exodus 5:3 is an

literally “to be called ,נקרא על intentional word play based off of 3:18. The phrase upon someone or something,” can convey several shades of meaning. The most common is a sense of ownership, as is seen in the many verses where God’s name is “called upon” a person or place. A famous instance of this is found in 1

Kings 8:43, concerning Solomon’s temple:

... וְ ל ד עת ִּכי־ ִש ְמָךּ֙ ִנ ְק ראּ֙ ַעל־ ַה ַביִת ה ֶזה ֲא ֶשר בנִּי ִּתי

…and to know that your name has been invoked over this house that I

have built. (LEB)

215 All the Exodus commentators mentioned above, and all the Bible translations I consulted (JPS, RSV, NASB, LEB, NIV2011, and even KJV) assumed this, and I did not find any real discussion of the variant.

216 Noth, Exodus, 55.

is indeed נקרא This sense of ownership would be the sense implied in 3:18, if the original reading. However, there is another shade of meaning to this phrase, which conveys a nuance of threat, as is seen in Isaiah 31:4a:

כ ֲא ֶָ֣שר יֶ ְה ֶג ה הַא ְרָ֨י ה וְ ה ְכ ֜ ִּפיר ע ל־ ט ְר ֗פֹו ֲא ָ֨ ֶשר יִ ק ֵ ֵ֤ראּ֙ ע ליוּ֙ ְמ ָֹ֣לא ר ִֹ֔ ִּעים...

As a lion or young lion growls over its prey when a band of shepherds is

called out against it…

In other words, in Exodus 5:3, God is represented as having been summoned or called out against the Hebrews in a threatening manner, intending to hurt them, not Pharaoh, if they don’t comply. This is made abundantly clear by another variance between 3:18 and 5:3, the added last line, which stands like a stuttering addition outside the inclusio: “lest he strike us with plague or with sword.” Not that the effect of the word play is heightened if MT is faithful in

the slight difference in the words - נקרא and 5:3 as נקרה representing 3:18 as makes the word play more obvious.

The final difference to be noted between 3:18 and 5:3 is the removal of the

now) from 5:3. While 3:18 is formulized as an urgent statement of) עתה adverb power (“Yahweh has declared, now we are going to go…”), 5:3 is a much weaker statement, and comes across as almost begging (“our God, whom you don’t have to listen to, is going to hurt us if we don’t go, so please let us go.”)

All these factors unite together to heighten the intensity of Moses and Aaron’s botched first appearance before Pharaoh. In 3:18, Yahweh commands Moses to make Pharaoh understand that Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews is confronting him. This strong statement begins and ends with Yahweh, and is a proclamation - not a request. However, in 5:3, Moses and Aaron shrink back from Pharaoh’s 91 mockery in 5:2, and fail to rightly deliver Yahweh’s message. Instead of threatening Pharaoh, they apologetically state that their own God is threatening them! Instead of emphasizing Yahweh’s divine authority, and showing him in a positive light, they paint Yahweh in a negative light, as a weak tribal God of the

נקרה Hebrews. Therefore, the weakened variation of the inclusio, the word play of

now) are rhetorical) עתה the additional last line, and the removal of ,נקרא / variants meant to accentuate Moses and Aaron’s capitulation and dismal failure in their first audience with Pharaoh. Additionally, these factors point to Exodus 5:3 as a dependent, intentional variant of 3:18, best understood in the context of 5:1-

2, and so should be viewed as part of the same source.

Genesis 39:1

וְּ֙יֹו ֵ ֖סףּ֙הּו ַ ֣רד ִמ ְצ ֵּ֑ריְ מה ,Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt

ו יִּ ְק ָ֡נ הּו פֹו ִּטי פ ר ,and bought him Potiphar

ְס ִָּ֨ריס פ ְר ֜ע ֹה ,a court official of Pharaoh

ָ֤שר ה ט ב ִּחי ם ,commander of the guard

ִָּ֣איש ִּמ ְצ ִִּ֔רי ,an Egyptian

ִּמ י ד היִּ ְש ְמ עא ִ֔ ִּלים from the hand of the Ishmaelites

ֲא ֵֶ֥שר הֹו ִר ֻּ ֖דּ֙הּוּ֙ש ָֽמה׃ .who had brought him down there

(LEB)

This strong inclusio is more complex than the previous three we have examined. Instead of just one or two repeated words, there are three elements repeated at the extremities of this verse. However, none are repeated exactly, as is shown in the following comparison:

him – הּו ↔ Joseph – יֹו ֵ ֖סף proper name 3rd sing. masc. pron.

had brought down - הֹו ִר ֻּ ֖דּ֙ ↔ had been brought down - הּו ַ ֣רד 3rd sing. past passive verb 3rd plur. past active

there – ש ָֽמה ↔ to Egypt - ִמ ְצ ֵּ֑ריְ מה ה adv. with directional ,ה proper noun with directional functioning adverbially

go down) stands as the basis of the inclusio, with a slight) ירד The root variation semantically between passive singular and active plural forms. On the

to Egypt) are replaced by semantically) מצרימה Joseph) and) יוסף ,other hand synonymous terms, which are phonologically different, except for the similar

to there). Alone, each of these) שמה to Egypt) and) מצרימה sounding end of would make for a rather weak inclusio, because of the lack of exact repetition.

Together, however, they are much stronger, multiplying the effect of the inclusio on the hearer. Positionally speaking, the repeated elements appear precisely at the beginning and end of the verse. The three repeated elements are also unique in the verse – there are no other similar sounding words or words with similar meanings.

In relation to the surrounding content, two external factors strengthen the inclusio. First, the previous verse plainly ends the preceding narrative about

Judah and Tamar in chapter 38. Second, Genesis 39:2-23 is surrounded by another inclusio, which contains the continuation of the story of Joseph from chapter 37. This inclusio will be examined in detail further down. Therefore, this verse is a self-contained transitional verse, meant to bring us back to Joseph after the intervening Judah and Tamar narrative. The strong inclusio gives more

93 beauty and poetic force to the transition, emphasizing Joseph’s helpless and humbled state: “he was brought down, they brought him down.” Interestingly, the

go down) also ties this narrative to the Judah and Tamar story, as) ירד word

Judah “goes down” away from his brothers (38:1).217 Misunderstanding of this inclusio has led scholars like Alter and others to group this verse together with vs.

2-6, as part of the “introductory narrative frame.”218 However, the proper understanding of the inclusios in this chapter show this verse alone to be the introduction, standing outside the main content of the chapter, which will be further examined later on.

Isaiah 50:4

In Isaiah 50:4, previous scholars mistakenly identified an inclusio, which led to misunderstanding of the structure. Further, a proper understanding of the inclusio identifies a mistaken verse division. The traditional verse division is as follows:

ֲאד ֹ ָ֣ני יְהֹ֗וִּה ָ֤נ תן ִּל י לְשָ֣ ֹון ִלמּו ִֵׂ֔דים

ל ד עת ל עֵ֥ ּות ֶאת־י ּ֖עף ד ָׁ֑בר

י ִָּ֣עיר ׀ ב ָ֣ב ֹ ֶקר ב ֗ב ֹ ֶקר י ִֵּ֥עיר ִּל י אִֹ֔ זֶן

ִּל ְש ּ֖מ ֹ ע כ ִלמּו ִדָֽים׃

The Lord Yahweh has given me a tongue of the learned

To know how to sustain the weary with a word

He wakens, in the morning, in the morning, he wakens my ear

To hear as the learned219

217 For further similarities between Joseph and Judah, see Clifford, “Genesis 37-50,” 219.

218 Alter, Genesis, 224. See also Skinner, Genesis, 457-8.

219 This is my translation.

This inclusio was first noted by Müller,220 and at first glance appears to be a

the learned ones) creates) ִּל מודים strong inclusio. The exact repetition of the word an inclusio around this short stanza, with the repetition placed precisely at the end of the first and last lines. This would be called an epiphoric inclusio according to our definition given above. The repetition is also unique, in that the repeated word does not show up in the includitur, or anywhere else in the chapter for that matter. Avishur, while he does not identify this by the name inclusio, agrees with

221. ִּל מודים Müller that this is a four-line stanza based on the repetition of the word

is in the ִּלמודים Avishur also correctly points out that the first appearance of construct state, while the second is in the absolute state.222 However, both Müller and Avishur fail to consider the surrounding material in their analysis. In Isaiah

50, the subject matter can be divided as follows:

 vs. 1-3 – The Words of Yahweh

 vs. 4-11 – The Words of Yahweh’s Servant

o 4-5a – Yahweh’s Communication to His Servant

o 5b-7 – The Servant’s Loyalty to Yahweh

o 8-11 – The Expression of Yahweh’s Closeness to His Servant

220 Müller, Die Propheten, 180-1.

221 Avishur, Repetition, 172, 314-315.

222 In spite of this difference, Avishur believes that both of these occurrences convey the same semantic meaning of “student,” and are not homonyms, as claimed by David

Yellin. Avishur’s view is the most commonly held position, and is reflected in Avishur,

Repetition, 315.

So, after considering the content, one more line should be added to the stanza noted by Müller, and the rest of verse 5 should stand with verse 6 and following:

4. ֲאד ֹּ נ֣י יְה ֵֹּּ֗וִה נֵ֤ ַתןּ֙ ִליּּ֙֙לְש֣ ֹון ִלמּו ִֵׂ֔דים

ל ד עת ל עֵ֥ ּות ֶאת־י ּ֖עף ד ָׁ֑בר

י ִָּ֣עיר ׀ ב ָ֣ב ֹ ֶקר ב ֗ב ֹ ֶקר י ִֵּ֥עיר ִּל י אִֹ֔ זֶן

ִּל ְש ּ֖מ ֹ ע כ ִלּ֙מּו ִדָֽים׃

5. ֲאד ֹּ נֵ֤י יְהוִ הּ֙ פ ַתָֽח־ ִ ֣ליּ֙אֵֹּׂ֔ זֶן

וְָאנ ִֹּּ֖כי ֹלָ֣ א מ ִָּׁ֑רי ִּתי

ָאחּ֖ ֹור ֹלֵ֥ א נְסּו ַֽג ֹ ִּת י׃

6. גוִּ י נ ָ֣ת ִּתי ְל מ ִ֔ ִּכים ...

4. The Lord Yahweh has given me a tongue of the learned

To know how to sustain the weary with a word

He wakens, in the morning, in the morning, he wakens my ear

To hear as the learned

5. The Lord Yahweh has opened my ear

And I, I did not rebel

I did not turn back

6. I [willingly] gave my back to those who beat me…223

223 This is my translation.

Clearly, the subject matter of the first line of v. 5 fits better with the preceding

And I) in the center) וְָאנִֹּּ֖כי verse – it is almost an exact repetition of 4a. The phrase of v. 5, presents a turning point, emphasizing the contrast between Yahweh’s actions in His call (4-5a), and the prophet’s response (5b-7). In addition, v. 5a forms a stronger inclusio with the first line of verse 4 than the one word inclusio offered by Müller, because there are more repeated elements. Indeed, the same phrase is repeated exactly and is precisely placed at the beginning of the first and last line:

.(my) + sing. noun (tongue || ear) ִ ֣לי + (Lord Yahweh) + verb (Qal) ֲאד ֹּ נֵ֤י יְהוִ הּ֙

According to our definition, this would be labeled anaphoric inclusio, because the most exact repetition occurs at the very beginning of the first and last lines.

אוזן along with the corresponding nouns ,פתח and נתן The corresponding verbs

strengthen the exact repetitions which create the inclusio, because they ,לשון and are grammatically identical, and contain the same number of syllables. The first and last lines also complement each other, in that Yahweh divinely touches the

Servant’s tongue and ear – both necessary for Yahweh’s messenger, who must hear from Yahweh in order to speak His message. Finally, the center line of the five line stanza makes it abundantly clear that this is a chiastic structure, with our anaphoric inclusio sealing both ends. This chiastic structure was unfortunately unrecognized by either Müller or Avishur. Because our inclusio consists of a longer repetition with more repeated elements, because it fits the surrounding content better, and because it functions as a part of the overall chiastic structure of the segment, it is preferable to the four-line structure described by Müller and

Avishur. It is stronger, and overrides Müller’s inclusio based on the repetition of

which is simply a supporting internal element of the chiasmus. In addition , ִּלמודים

97 to contradicting Müller and Avishur’s analyses, this inclusio also disputes the traditional verse divisions and the Masoretic accents which separate v. 5a from 4, and mistakenly place it together with v. 5b.

Jonah 3:1-4

Our last example of inclusio in short segments is a pair of short inclusios which, like the previous example, corrects the traditional verse division.

1. ו יְ ִֵּ֧הי ְד ַבר־יְה וִׂ֛ה ֶאל־יֹו ּ֖נה ש ִֵּ֥נית לא ַֽמ ֹר׃

2. קִׂ֛ ּוםּ֙ ֵ ֶׂ֥לְך ֶאל־ ִנ ָֽינְ ֵו֖ה ה ִָּ֣עיר ה ְגדֹו ָׁ֑להּ֙ ּ֙

ִּו ְק ֵ֤רא א ֶ לי ה

אֶת־ ַה ְק ִרי ֵׂ֔ אה ֲא ֵֶ֥שר ָאנ ִֹּּ֖כי ד ֹ ֵ֥בר א ֶ ַֽליָך׃

3. וַ י֣ קם ֗ יֹונ ה וַ ֵיִׂ֛ ֶלְך ֶאל־ ִנ ָֽי ְנ ֶו֖ה

ִּכ ְד ַ ֣ברּ֙יְה וֵּ֑ה ּ֙

וְ ִנ ָֽי ְנֵּ֗וֵּ֙ה היְ ָ֤תה ִּעיר־ ְגדֹו ל ה ַֽלאֹל ִ֔ ִּהים ַמ ֲה ַ ֖לְך ְש ֵֹ֥ל ֶשת י ִּ ַֽמים׃

4. ו ָ֤י ֶחל יֹונ ה ל ָ֣בֹוא ב ִ֔ ִּעיר ַמ ֲה ַ ֖לְך ָ֣יֹום ֶא ָׁ֑חד

ו יִּ ְק ר א ו י ֹא ִ֔ מר עֹוד ַא ְר ב ִָּ֣עים ִ֔יֹום

וְ ִנ ָֽי ְנ ֵו֖ה נֶהְפ ַֽכֶת׃

1. Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying,

2. “Arise, go to Nineveh the great city

and proclaim to it

the proclamation which I am going to tell you.”

3. So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh

according to the word of the Lord.

Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three days’ walk.

4. Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk;

and he cried out and said, “Yet forty days

and Nineveh will be overthrown”. (NASB)

These verses present Jonah’s second call, which is very similar to the first call, emphasizing God’s compassion on Jonah by giving him a second chance.

The first inclusio (1-3a) is structured chiastically, and is bound by the very clear

the word of the Lord). The second segment (3b-4) is) דברּ֙יהוה repetition of

and Nineveh), and is characterized by the) ונינוה enclosed by the repetition of

day). In both of these inclusios, the) יום leitwortstil based on the repeated keyword repetitions are exact, and precisely placed at or very near the end of each unit.

The repetitions are also unique within their segments. The two segments are

great) עיר גדולה ,(proclaim) קרא ,(walk) הלך linked to each other by repetitions of

.(Nineveh) נינוה city) and

The first of these two inclusios was recognized by Trible, although she failed to recognize the chiastic structure inside of it.224 Furthermore, she did not recognize the second inclusio. Due to this misunderstanding, she posits a confusing overlapping structure in which elements from within the first inclusio are used to create what she labels a “chiastic structure.” This is her diagram of that structure:225

224 Trible, Jonah, 176-7.

225 Trible, Jonah, 177.

Unfortunately, this is not a chiastic structure at all, but only a diagram of repeated words! As shown in our diagram of Jonah 3:1-3a, a chiastic structure requires a reversal of the order of the internal elements, i.e.: a b c d e e’ d’ c’ b’ a’.

However, Trible orders the elements: a b b’ c d e a’ c’ d’ e’. Clearly, there is no way this can be identified as chiasmus. Furthermore, the reader is left confused as to the actual structure of the passage: does the inclusio provide structure, or is it simply a repetition of a phrase inside of another structure? Recognizing the two inclusios which we identified above solves this problem, and provides clear insight into the true structure of the passage. In addition, the two inclusios show that Jonah 3:1-4 is divided inappropriately by the traditional verse divisions, and that these verses should be understood according to the structure set by these two inclusios.

100

B. Inclusio in Longer Units

Through the previous examples, inclusio has been shown to enhance our appreciation of the intended beauty and proper understanding of the Biblical text, even in segments shorter than a single verse. The next group of illustrations will come from longer units. Again, these are ordered from the simple to the more complex; therefore examples from poetry have been mixed together with those from prose texts.

Psalm 8

Perhaps the most familiar example of inclusio is Psalm 8, as mentioned above by Glassius, and Alsted. As Kessler notes, the first line “recurs verbatim in the final verse”226 (different Heb/Eng versification):

2a, 10. יְה ָ֤וה ֲאד ֹ֗נ ינּו ַֽמה־ א ִָּ֣דיר ָ֭ ִּש ְמָך ְב כל־ ה ָׁ֑א ֶרץ

1a, 9. Yahweh, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth (LEB)

This is very strong inclusio: the repetition is exact, the positioning is precise, the phrase is unique in the context, the repetition is long, and the pre-defined boundaries of the Psalm all support this evaluation. However, the content of the

Psalm is somewhat incohesive, especially in regards to verse 3 (Eng 2). This led

Segal to believe that verse 2b (Eng 1b) was a later interpolation from another song, and that the original version of Psalm 8 only included v. 2a and vs. 4-10 (1a and 3-9 Eng.).227 In a similar way, Moulton concluded that v. 2b (Eng 1b) should

226 Kessler, “Inclusio,” 45.

227 Segal, “The Refrain,” 126. Segal calls the repetition around Ps 8 a refrain, rather than an inclusio.

101 be split off and included in the next stanza with v. 3 (Eng 2), which he arranges as follows:

ֲא ֵֶ֥שר ְת ֵ֥נה ַ֝הֹו ְד ָ֗ך על־ ה ש ַֽמיִּם׃

3. ִּמ ִָּ֤פי ַֽעֹו ְל ָ֨ ִּלים ׀ ְוַֽיֹנְ ִּקי ם יִּ ׂ֪ס ְד ָ֫ ת ֵ֥ע ֹז

ְל ֵ֥מ ען צֹו ְר ֶָׁ֑ריָך

ְל ה ְש ִֵּ֥בית ַ֝אֹו֗י ב ּו ִּמ ְתנ ַֽקם׃

Who hast set thy glory upon the heavens!

2. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou established strength,

Because of thine adversaries,

That thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 228

However, in this way, both Segal and Moulton misunderstand several aspects of the nuance and beauty found in this inclusio. Note the distinct parallelism within verse 2 (Eng 1):

יְה ָ֤וה ֲאד ֹ֗נ ינּו ַֽמה־ ַא ִ ֣דיר ָ֭ ִּש ְמ ָך בְכל־ ה ֵּ֑א ֶרץ

┘ ֲא ֵֶ֥שר ְת ֵ֥נה ה֝ ֹודְָּ֙ךֵּּ֗֙ על־ ַה ש מָֽיִם׃

Yahweh, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth,

└ who put your splendor above the heavens. (LEB)

who) clearly identifies v. 2b (Eng 1b) as a subordinate) ֲא ֵֶ֥שר The Hebrew word clause, meant to expand the first half of the verse. There is semantic correlation

your splendor). Lastly, the) הַ֝ ֹודְ ָך֗ majestic is your name) and) א ִָּ֣דיר ָ֭ ִּש ְמ ָך between

228 Moulton appears to be using an early edition of the ASV that precedes the standard

1906 edition. I have reproduced the translation as it appears on page 66 of his book.

Moulton, The Literary Study, 66-67.

102

are a known word pair, forming a merismus meant to ה ש ַֽמיִּם and ה ָׁ֑א ֶרץ words imply the entire cosmos. Therefore, this opening bicolon could be restated:

“Yahweh, your excellent name is glorious throughout the entire cosmos.” The heavens and the earth are compared and contrasted throughout the Psalm, so this word pair provides a key to understanding the content of the Psalm as whole.

Therefore, when the psalmist only repeats the first half of the bicolon at the end, the listener naturally interprets “earth” as a reference to the whole cosmos. While

the earth), this) הארץ this inclusio contains the exact phonological repetition of word conveys a narrower semantic meaning in the first line than in the last line.

One other factor that ties v. 2b to v. 2a is the phonological inclusio found in verse 3 (Eng 2):

ִּמ ִָּ֤פי ַֽעֹו ְל ָ֨ ִּלים ׀ ְו ָֽי ֹּ ְנ ִקי םּ֙ יִּ ׂ֪ס ְד ָ֫ ת ֵ֥ע ֹז

לְ ֵ֥מ ען צֹו ְר ֶָׁ֑ריָך

ְל ה ְש ִֵּ֥בית ַ֝אֹו֗י ב ּו ִמ ְת ַנ ֵקָֽם׃

From the mouth of children and infants you have founded strength

on account of your enemies,

to silence the enemy and the avenger.

This is a rather weak inclusio, because the repetition is not exact, and only phonological, with no semantic correlation. In addition, the repetition is not placed

,ק ,נ at the exact beginning and end. However, the repetition of the three letters

do easily make an impression on the ear when read aloud. The following מ and stanza beginning in v. 4 (Eng. 3) opens a new line of thought, tracing God’s work in creation and his elevation of humankind. This leaves v. 3 (Eng 2) separate as a kind of self-exclamation on the part of the poet: “It’s amazing that You have chosen me, a child, to proclaim Your wonders in the face of evildoers!” The weak 103 phonological inclusio helps to set this apart, and makes the line more memorable in the ears of the hearers.

In summary, v. 2 (Eng. 1) represents an independent opening stanza,

heavens), which is necessary) שמים earth) and) ארץ presenting the key word pair to the understanding of the rest of the Psalm. Verse 3 (Eng. 2) stands as an independent short stanza based on its unique content and a weak phonological inclusio. Finally, the last line of the Psalm is a verbatim repetition of the first line, creating a perfect inclusio around the entire Psalm. Only the first line is repeated instead of the entire parallel structure found in v. 2 (Eng. 1), because the listener has already understood that this Psalm is about God’s glory in the entire cosmos.

Micah 2:6-11

6. ַאל־ ַת ִ ֖טפּו יַ ִטי ֵּ֑פּון ֹלַֽא־יַ ִ ֣טפּו ל ִ֔ א ֶלה ֵֹ֥לא יִּ ּ֖סג ְכ ִּל ַֽמֹות׃

7. ֶהָא ָ֣מּור ַֽבית־י ֲע ֗ק ֹב ֲה ק צ ר ָ֣רּו ח יְהִ֔ו ה ִּאם־ ּ֖א ֶלה מ ֲע ל ָׁ֑ליו ֲה ָ֤לֹוא ְד ב ָ֨רי י י ִ֔ ִּטיבּו ִּּ֖עם הי ֵ֥שר הֹו ַֽלְך׃

8. וְ ֶא ְת ֗מּול ע ִּמ י ְלאֹו ָ֣יב יְקֹו ִ֔ מם ִּמ ָ֣מ ּול ש ְל ִ֔ מה ֶּ֖א ֶדר ת ְפ ִּש ָׁ֑טּון מע ֹ ְב ִָּ֣רים ִ֔ ֶב טח שּו ּ֖בי ִּמ ְל ח ַֽמה׃

9. נְ ָ֤שי ע ִּמ י ְת ָ֣ג ְר ִ֔שּון ִּמ ּ֖בית ַֽת ֲענֻ ֶָׁ֑גי ה מ על ַֽע ֹ ל ִ֔ ֶלי ה ִּת ְק ֵ֥חּו ֲה ד ִּּ֖רי ְלעֹו ַֽלם׃

11. ָ֣קּומּו ּו ְל ִ֔כּו ִֵּ֥כי ֹלא־ ּ֖ז ֹאת ה ְמנּו ָׁ֑חה ב ֲע ֵ֥בּור ט ְמ אה ְת ח ּ֖בל וְ ֵֶ֥ח ֶבל נִּ ְמ ַֽרץ׃

11. לּו־ ָּ֞ ִּאיש ה ֹ ֵ֥לְך רּו ח ו ֶָ֣ש ֶקר ִּכ ִ֔ זב ַא ִ ֣טף ְל ִָ֔ך ל ּ֖ייִּן וְ ל ש ָׁ֑כר וְ ה ֵ֥יה ַמ ִ ֖טיף ה ֵ֥עם ה ֶזַֽה׃

6. “Do not preach” – thus they preach – “one should not preach of such

things; disgrace will not overtake us.”

7. Should this be said, O house of Jacob? Is the Spirit of the Lord impatient?

Are these his doings? Do not my words do good to him who walks

uprightly?

8. But you rise against my people as an enemy; you strip the robe from the

peaceful, from those who pass by trustingly with no thought of war.

104

9. The women of my people you drive out from their pleasant houses; from

their young children you take away my glory for ever.

10. Arise and go, for this is no place to rest; because of uncleanness that

destroys with a grievous destruction.

11. If a man should go about and utter wind and lies, saying, “I will preach to

you of wine and strong drink,” he would be the preacher for this people!

(RSV)

-in hiphil, is well נטף This inclusio, based on the repetition of the root recognized by many Biblical scholars. For example, Ehud Ben Zvi states, “This literary unit is demarcated by the envelope of references indicated by the root nṭp in the Hiphil (“to prophesy, preach”).”229 Even those who do not recognize the inclusio in this passage support the division of this unit as vs. 6-11, as Shaw notes: “Almost all scholars divide chapter 2 into three distinct units: (1) vv. 1-5; (2) vv. 6-11; and (3) vv. 12-13.”230

According to our criteria, this is a strong inclusio, even though it is not built on

preach)231 is repeated) נטף repetition of the exact word. In this inclusio, the root more than once in the first and last lines, and is unique to these two lines. In fact,

does not appear anywhere else in all of Micah, even though prophets and נטף other spiritual leaders are mentioned in other places (i.e. Micah 3:5-7). In other

229 Ben Zvi, Micah, 56. Others who recognize this as inclusio include Chisholm, Minor

Prophets, 135; Waltke, A Commentary, 111-12, 123; and Dempsey, “Micah 2-3,” 122.

230 Shaw, The Speeches, 71. See also Jacobs, Conceptual Coherence, 82-3.

,in hiphil means metaphorically “to make words flow, to drivel נטף ,According to HALOT 231 foam at the mouth, meaning to prophesy ecstatically.” Koehler and Baumgartner, HALOT,

.נטף

105 words, the author had the opportunity to use this word in other places in his work, but chose not to in order to allow this inclusio to stand out. While the words

are not placed exactly at the extremities of the נטף containing the repeated root section, they are clearly positioned toward the beginning of the first line, and toward the end of the last line, which is quite sufficient in a section of this length.

The final factor that adds to the strength of this inclusio is the unified subject matter of the includitur. Content-wise, Micah 2 is divided into three clear sections, as noted above by Shaw. These sections can be summarized as follows:

. In vs. 1-5, a prophecy of coming disaster is given, due to the wickedness

of those in power.

. In vs. 6-11 the opponents of the prophet are chastised for their attitude

towards the prophecy given in first segment.

. Verses 12-13 offer a prophecy of the Lord’s ingathering of Israel, after they

have been scattered.

Waltke includes the following helpful discussion in regards to this passage;

The judgment oracle found in verses 6-11, accusing and sentencing the

perversely obstinate house of Jacob, including both its false prophets and

rapacious racketeers, is marked off by (1) the rare word nṭp for

prophesying in an inclusio, (2) its dialogic and theatrical character, (3) its

expanded address to the house of Jacob, and (4) in contrast to verses 1-5

and 12-13, its formal and thematic coherence, involving an introduction (v.

6), the main body (vv. 7-10), and a conclusion (v. 11).232

232 Waltke, “Micah,” 643.

106

Thus, while this section is clearly differentiated from the surrounding material by its content, it is clear, as Waltke notes, that the first and most important delimiter of this passage is the strong inclusio that unmistakably sets its boundaries.

Psalm 139

In Psalm 139 we find another type of inclusio, which we will call expanded- element inclusio, in that the elements from the short first line are expanded when repeated at the end of the Psalm:

1b. יְה וֶׂ֥ה ֝ ֲח ַק ְר ֵּ֗ ַת ִני וַ ֵת דָֽע׃ ════════════ 23. ח ְק ֵ ֣ר ִני ֵ֭ ֵאל וְ ַ ֣דע ְל ב ִָּׁ֑בי

ּ֙ ֝ ְב ח ֵּ֗ ֵנ ִניּ֙ וְ ַ ֣דע ש ְר ע ַֽפי׃

24. ּו ְר ֗ אה ִּאם־ ֶ ַֽד ֶרְך־ ֵ֥ע ֹ ֶצב ִָּׁ֑בי

ַּ֝ונְ ֗ חנִּי ְב ֶָ֣ד ֶרְך עֹו ַֽלם׃

1. Yahweh, you have searched me, and have known: ═══════════════════════════════ 23. Search me, God, and know my heart;

Test me and know my anxious thoughts.

24. And see if there is any offensive way in me,

And lead me in the way everlasting.

Many scholars have studied the structure of Psalm 139.233 Some have used the tem inclusio in describing this passage, 234 and others have noted the

233 For example, in Holman, “The Structure,” 298-9, over 25 scholars are listed on the first two pages. For slightly more modern authors, see Goulder, The Psalms, 238-247, and

Booij, “Psalm CXXXIX,” 1-17.

107 importance of the repetition without labeling it.235 Mays presents the basic view, that the inclusio is “formed by the repetition of the opening declaration, ‘LORD, you have searched me and known me,’ as a petition, ‘Search me, God, and know my heart.’”236 However, there is some disagreement concerning the scope of the inclusio. While all scholars agree with Mays that the basic building blocks of the

,(דרך) ”Prinsloo includes “way ,(ידע) ”and “know (חקר) ”inclusio are “search broadening the scope to v. 1-3 ↔ v. 23-24.237 Wallace adds to these three widening it even further: v. 1-3 ↔ v. 21- ,(קום) ”and “rise up ( ש ְר ע ַֽפי) ”thoughts“

24.238 Holman broadens the scope further, but by a different means, referencing

in v. 21.239 (יהוה) ”in v. 4 and adding “Yahweh (ידע) ”an occurrence of “know

Mays Prinsloo Wallace Holman Scope 1 ↔ 23 1-3 ↔ 23-24 1-3 ↔ 21-24 1-4 ↔ 21-24 (חקר) ”search“ (חקר) ”search“ (חקר) ”search“ (חקר) ”Repeated “search elements (ידע) ”know“ (ידע) ”know“ (ידע) ”know“ (ידע) ”know“

(דרך) ”way“ (דרך) ”way“ (דרך) ”way“

“thoughts” “Yahweh” (יהוה) ( ש ְר ע ַֽפי)

(קום) ”rise up“

234 See for example, Dahood, Psalms III, 298, and Holman, “The Structure,” 301.

235 For example, Goulder, The Psalms, 246, and Booij, “Psalm CXXXIX,” 15.

236 Mays, Psalms, 426.

237 Prinsloo, “Psalms,” 431. See also Vos, Theopoetry, 194.

238 Wallace, Words, 181.

239 Holman, “The Structure,” 301.

108

The disagreement about the nature of this inclusio springs from a misunderstanding of one inclusio and the neglect of another. First, let us examine the larger inclusio enclosing the entire Psalm. The primary repetition is made up

appears in (חקר) ”of two verbs, as noted correctly by Mays. First, the root “search

you searched me), and is repeated in almost the exact same – חֲּ֝֙ ַק ְר ֵּ֗ ַת ִני) in v. 1

search me). The only phonological difference being that – ח ְק ֵ ֣ר ִני) form in v. 23

is removed in v. 23, changing the tense from perfect to ת the Hebrew letter

is unique, not repeated (חקר) imperative, past action to future action. This root anywhere else in the Psalm, and thus provides the primary foundation of the

an ,(בחן) ”stands in parallel to “test (חקר) ”inclusio. In v. 23, however, “search

.(חקר) ”added corresponding element which expands the “search

you have – וַ ֵת דָֽע) know) appears once in v. 1 in) ידע Second, the root

know). It is very interesting to note that like – וְ ַ ֣דע) known240), and twice in v. 23

the only difference in form between v. 1 and v. 23 is the ,(חקר) ”with “search

Also in this case, the tense is changed from past .ת removal of the Hebrew letter action (perfect converted from imperfect by conversive waw) to future action

(imperative). The exact same phonological and semantic changes are made in

is removed, and the past action is exchanged ת both repeated roots – the letter

,is expanded in v. 23 (ידע) ”know“ ,(חקר) ”for future action! Also, like with “search repeated twice in comparison to only once in v. 1. Expanded-element inclusio, in which one member contains an expansion of the repeated elements, has not

240 In English translations this is usually translated in present tense, “know”. Perhaps this is because knowing something in the past implies that knowledge today as well. This is why I have chosen to translate in the past progressive tense: “have known.”

109 properly been recognized by scholarship as unique form. Here, the second member is expanded (v. 23), and the first is condensed (v.1). Another example of expanded-element inclusio can be found in Psalm 136, in which the first member

Give thanks) and Divine titles, each) הֹודּו ,contains an expansion of two elements repeated three times (vs. 1-3), while the last member contains a condensed version of these elements, each repeated only once (v. 26). The misunderstanding and lack of recognition pertaining to this special form of inclusio is the first reason the scholars mentioned above failed to recognize the proper structure of this inclusio.

The second reason their analysis is faulty lies in another of our criteria for

,is not unique to the inclusio described above ,ידע inclusio evaluation. The root but also appears throughout Psalm 139 as a keyword (leitwortstil). As shown in our previous discussion,241 leitwortstil can work hand in hand with inclusio, and here we find an illustration of that phenomenon. This phenomenon of inclusio + leitwortstil, however, has led astray previous analysis. The appearance of the root

in v. 2 has been assumed by scholars to be part of the inclusio (ידע) ”know“ surrounding the Psalm,242 when in in truth, it should primarily be noted as an expression of the leitwortstil of the Psalm. In addition, vs. 2-4 represent a separate first stanza, enclosed by its own inclusio, which has also been previously unrecognized by scholars:

241 See p. 76.

242 So Holman, “The Structure,” 301, and Vos, Theopoetry, 194. Compare Wallace, Words,

181.

110

2. א ָ֣תה ֵ֭י ַד ְע תּ֙ ִּש ְב ִָּ֣תי וְקּו ִָּׁ֑ מ

ֵ֥בנְ תה ַ֝ ְל ר ֗ ִּעי מ ר ַֽחֹוק׃

3. ָא ְר ִָּ֣חי וְ ִּר ְב ִָּ֣עי ז ִָּׁ֑רי ת

ְוַֽ כל־ ְד ר ֵ֥כי ִּה ְס ַֽכנְ תה׃

4. ִָּ֤כי ָ֣אין ָ֭ ִּמ לה ִּב ְלשֹו ִָּׁ֑ני

ֵ֥הן יְַ֝הו ֗ה י ַ ֶׂ֥ד ְע תּּ֙֙ כֻלַּֽה׃

2. You have known my sitting down and my rising up.

You understood my thought from afar.

3. You searched out my wandering and my lying down,

and became acquainted with all my ways.

4. For there is not a word yet on my tongue,

but behold, O Yahweh, you have known it completely.243

is exactly repeated, is י ּ֙ ַד ְע תּ֙ This is quite a strong inclusio, because the word precisely positioned one word after the first word and one word after the last word

is not repeated in this exact (ידע) ”of the segment, and is unique: the root “know form anywhere else in the Psalm. Also, note the phonological connection

it completely) – both are two syllable words ending) כֻלַּֽה you) and) א ָ֣תה between

preceded by q maṣ. Finally, this inclusio is accented by the persistent usage ה in of the past tense, as accentuated in the translation above. All the verbs within this stanza are in perfect, and this only begins to change in v. 5 and following.

The recognition of the inclusio around vs. 2-4 shows that v. 1 stands alone as the opening member of the inclusio around the whole Psalm, that vs. 2-3 function

243 This translation is based on LEB, but I have changed the verb tenses to better reflect the Hebrew.

111

(דרך) ”as an independent internal stanza within the Psalm, and that the roots “way

connect this stanza to the rest of the Psalm, but are not part of (קום) ”and “rise up

(ידע) ”the greater inclusio structure. In addition, the importance of the root “know is underscored by its usage as a key element in the structure of both inclusios.

As identified by our analysis above, this is an expanding-element inclusio, in which the first repetition is condensed, and expanded at the end of the Psalm.

However, what is the extent of this expansion? Does it include only v. 23, or both vs. 23 and 24? It is abundantly clear that the inclusio is widened into the entire bicolon found in v. 23, but should v. 24 also be considered as part of the inclusio?

On the one hand, if the inclusio consists of vs. 1-23, v. 24 is left outside of the structure, standing on its own as a climactic summary statement, as has been suggested by Futato.244 However, there are several reasons to consider vs. 23-24 as one unit meant to close the inclusio. First, the verbs lead into one another in a logical progression: Search me, test me, know me; as a result, you will see my devotion to you, and you will lead me into everlasting life. In addition, a consecutive waw (and) appears at the beginning of each line in v. 24, but not in v.

23, implying the dependency of v. 24 on v. 23. Finally, there is a phonological

.lead me) in v. 24b) ּ֝ו ְנ ֵּ֗ ֵח ִני test me) in v. 23b and) ֝ ְב ח ֵּ֗ ֵנ ִני connection between

Therefore, it is preferable to view vs. 23-24 as a climactic expansion of v. 1, meant to bring the entire Psalm to its conclusion:

244 Futato, Interpreting Psalms, 32-33.

112

Genesis 39:2-23

This passage is surrounded by a rather complex and unique inclusio, which supports and complements the short inclusio in Gen 39:1 as presented above.245

ֵ ַ ִּ ִּ

.vs 2 וַיְ ִ ֵ֤היּ֙יְהו הּ֙ ֶאת־יֹו ֵׂ֔סףּ֙וַיְ ִ ֖היּ֙ ִ ֣אישּ֙ ַמ ְצ ִ ֵּ֑ליחּ֙ויְ ִ֕הי ְב ֵ֥בית ֲאד ֹ ּ֖ניו המ ְצ ִּ ַֽרי׃ ו ָ֣י ְרא ֲאד ִֹ֔נ יו ִֵּ֥כי יְה ו֖הּ֙

- 3

ִא ֵּ֑תֹוּ֙וְכ ֹּ לּ֙ ֲא ֶשר־ ֣הּואּ֙ע ֹּ ֵׂ֔ ֶשהּ֙יְה ו֖הּ֙ ַמ ְצ ִ ֶׂ֥לי ַחּ֙ בְידַֽ ֹו׃

═════ inclu itur: Potiphar’s wife ═════

וַיְ ִ ֵ֤היּ֙יְהו הּ֙ ֶאת־יֹו ֵׂ֔ ֵסףּ֙ו ֵ֥יט א ּ֖ליו ָׁ֑ח ֶסד ו יִּ ָ֣תן ִּח ִ֔נֹו ְב עי ּ֖ני ֵ֥שר בית־ ה ַֽס ֹ ה ר׃ ו יִּ ָּ֞ תן ָ֤שר בית־

.vs 21 ה ס ֹ ה ר ְבי ד־יֹו ִ֔ סף את כל־ ָ֣ה ֲא ִּסי ִִּ֔רם ֲא ֶּ֖שר ְב ָ֣בית ה ָׁ֑ס ֹ הר וְ ָ֨ את כל־ ֲא ֶָ֤שר ע ֹ ִּשי ם ִ֔ שם ּ֖הּוא

- 23 ה ֵ֥יה ע ֹ ֶ ַֽשה׃ ָ֣אין ׀ ָ֣שר בית־ ה ֗ס ֹ הר ר ֶָֹ֤אה ֶ ַֽאת־ כל־ ְמ אּו מ ה בְידִ֔ ֹו ב ֲא ֵֶ֥שר יְה ו֖הּ֙ ִא ֵּ֑תֹו

ַוּ֙ ָֽ ֲא ֶשר־ ֶׂ֥הּואּ֙ע ֹּ ֶ ֖שהּ֙יְה וֶׂ֥הּ֙ ַמ ְצ ִלָֽי ַחּ֙׃

245 See pp. 92-4.

113

Yahweh was with Joseph, and he became a successful man. And

3 he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian. And his master

vs.2 observed that Yahweh was with him, and everything that he did

Yahweh made successful in his hand.

═════ inclu itur: Potiphar’s wife ═════

Yahweh was with Joseph, and showed loyal love to him, and gave

him favor in the eyes of the chief of the prison house. And the chief of

the prison put all the prisoners that were in the prison house into the

23 -

hand of Joseph. And everything that was done there, he was the one vs.21 who did it. The chief of the prison house did not worry about anything in

his hand, since Yahweh was with him. And whatever he did Yahweh

made it successful.246

This unique inclusio is created by two short paragraphs that each begin with the same line, and end with the same line, somewhat like symploce. Therefore, we would like to suggest the title “symplocic” inclusio:

Symploce Symplocic Inclusio x______y x______y x______y ______x______y

Yahweh was with Joseph) is) וַיְ ִ ֵ֤היּ֙יְהו הּ֙ ֶאת־יֹו ֵׂ֔ ֵסף In Gen 39:2-23, the phrase exactly repeated, and is precisely positioned at the beginning of both of these two

יְה ו֖הּ֙ ִא ֵּ֑תֹוּ֙וְכ ֹּ לּ֙ ֲא ֶשר־ ֣הּואּ֙ע ֹּ ֵׂ֔ ֶשהּ֙יְה ו֖הּ֙ ַמ ְצ ִ ֶׂ֥לי ַחּ֙ paragraphs. Meanwhile, the phrase

246 This translation is based on LEB.

114

(Yahweh was with him, and everything that he did Yahweh made successful) is a near exact repetition, and is precisely located at the end of both paragraphs. The paragraphs themselves are positioned precisely at the beginning and end of the narrative concerning Potiphar’s wife, and are connected by repeated keywords, in addition to the longer repeated phrases. In the entire

Joseph narrative, these are the only passages which speak about Yahweh being

“with Joseph” or about Joseph being “successful”. Therefore, these repeated elements are unique. This inclusio is also strengthened by outside delimiters, the first of which is the inclusio discussed above in Genesis 39:1, which stands as an independent transitional verse, and serves as an introduction to this section. The second supporting delimiter is found in Genesis 40:1, which begins a new section

And it happened) ו יְ ֗ ִּהי ַא ח ר ה ְד ב ִָּ֣רים ה ִ֔ א ֶל ה... ,with the well-known introductory phrase that after these things… LEB).

Therefore, we find this to be a strong inclusio, clearly delineating the borders of the passage, and emphasizing Yahweh’s close support of Joseph through all the difficulties he faced.

As Alter notes, “This chapter is the most elegantly symmetrical episode in

Genesis.”247 He does not use the term inclusio, but rather describes the structure as consisting of introductory and concluding “frames,” which contain “recurring thematic key words.”248 However, as noted above in our discussion of 39:1, Alter mistakenly groups v. 1 together with vs. 2-6 as an introductory frame. According to our analysis, v. 1 is an introductory verse that brings us back to Joseph, after

247 Alter, Genesis, 224.

248 Alter, Genesis, 224, 228.

115 the narrative of Judah and Tamar. Then, vs. 2-23 represent the actual content of the plot, enclosed within a unique symplocic inclusio as shown above: vs. 2-3 ↔ vs. 21-23. Following Samuel David Luzzatto (a distant relative of Moshe Luzzatto discussed above), Alter adds the last line of v. 20 to the “concluding frame.” This

,house), which, when placed alongside vs. 21-23 - בית) phrase contains the word

בית creates a “perfect mirror image” of v. 2, according to Alter. However, the word is repeated 18 times throughout this chapter, in over half the verses, as well as

should be בית ,within the repeated segments as shown above. Therefore considered leitwortstil, which, though it does help build the unique character of the passage, is not a reason to include v. 20b within the “concluding frame.”

Jeremiah 44:2-6

Our final case to be examined will be a passage from Jeremiah which beautifully illustrates the exquisite complexity of repetition. This passage is a broad chiasmus, in which the first and last parts function as an inclusio:

2. כֹּה־אָמ רַ֞ יְהוָ ָ֤ה צְבָ אֹות אֱ ֹלה ֵ֣י איִשְרָ ֵ֔ ל

אתֵ֣ ם אִרְ יתֶ֗ ם א ת ָ֤ כָ ל־הָ ָֽרָ עָה אֲש ָ֤ ר ה באתִ י על־יְרֵּ֣ושָ לִֵ֔ ם וְע לַ֖ כָ ל־עָר י ֵ֣ ָ֑ יְהּודָ ה

וְהִנָ ָ֤ם חָרְ בָה היֵֹ֣ום ה ז ֵ֔ ה וְאֵ֥ ין בָה ַ֖ ם יֹוש ָֽ ב׃

3. מִפְנ ֵ֣י רָ עָתֶָ֗ ם אֲשָ֤ ר עָ שּו לְה כְעִס ֵ֔ נִ י לָל ֵ֣ כת לְק ט ֵ֔ ר ל עֲ בַֹּ֖ ד ל אֹלהִ ֵ֣ ים אֲח ָ֑ רִ ים אֲשר לֵֹּ֣ איְדָ עֵ֔ ּום ה ַ֖מָה א ת ם ֵ֥ ו אֲ בֹּת יכ ָֽ ם׃

4. וָא שְל ָ֤ח אֲל יכ ם את־כָ ל־עֲבָד ֵ֣י ה נְבִיאִֵ֔ים ה שְכ ֵ֥ים וְשָ ֹלַ֖ח ל אמָֹּ֑ ר

א ל־נָ ֵ֣א ת עֲשֶ֗ ּו אֵ֛ת דְב ָֽ ר־ה תֹּע בָ ה ֵ֥ ה זַֹּ֖את אֲש ֵ֥ ר נשָ ָֽאתִ י׃ 5. וְלָֹּ֤א שָ ָֽמְ עּו וְ לֹּא־הִטֵּ֣ו א ת־אָ זְנֵָ֔ ם לָשַ֖ ּוב מ רָ ָ֑ ָֽעָתָ ם לְבִלְתִֵ֥ י קט ַ֖ר ל אֹלהִֵ֥ ים אֲח רִָֽ ים׃

6. ו תִת ְָ֤ך יחֲמָתִ וְא פִֵ֔ י ותִ בְע ר בְעָר ֵ֣י יְהּודֵָ֔ הּובְחֻ צַ֖ ֹות יְרָּֽושָלָ ָ֑ם ו יתִהְ ֵ֛ינָ ה ֵ֥ לְחָרְבָ ה ַ֖ לִשְמָמָ ה כ יֵֹ֥ום ה ז ָֽה׃

116

Jeremiah 44:2-6

2. “Thus says Yahweh of hosts, the God of Israel:

‘You yourselves have seen all the disaster that I have brought on Jerusalem, and on all the towns of Judah. And look, they are a site of ruins this day, and there is not in them an inhabitant,

3. because of their wickedness that they did to provoke me to anger by going to make smoke offerings, serving other gods whom they had not known, neither they, you, or your ancestors.

4. And I sent to you all my servants the prophets, over and over again, and sending, saying,

“Please, you must not do this detestable thing that I hate.” 5. But they did not listen and they did not incline their ears to turn back from their wickedness, to not make smoke offerings to other gods.

6. So my wrath and my anger were poured out and burned in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, and they became as a site of ruins, as a desolation, as they are this day.’1

1 Based on LEB. 117

Neither Müller nor Lundbom identified this inclusio in their works cited above.

However, as seen above, it is an intricate structure worthy of attention. First, in the outer level of this passage there is a two-line inclusio, where the two lines together contain extensive repetitions that are exactly or nearly exactly repeated.

These phrases are unique, not repeated elsewhere in the section, and are precisely placed within the first two lines, and last two lines. Thus, this is considered to be a fairly strong inclusio. This inclusio serves as the outer ring of the chiastic structure which defines the whole unit. At the center of the chiasm stands a short inclusio, made of a single line:

וָא שְל ָ֤ח אֲל יכ ם את־כָ ל־עֲבָד ֵ֣י ה נְבִיאִֵ֔ים ה שְכ ֵ֥ים וְשָ ֹלַ֖ח

And I sent to you all my servants the prophets, over and over again, and

sending,

This short inclusio is very strong, in that the root is repeated at the precise beginning and end of the line, and in that the repeated word is unique, not appearing anywhere else in the entire chapter. In addition, the Hebrew syntax is exceptionally intentional and unique, making the statement quite dramatic and emphatic: “Over and over again I sent and kept on sending the prophets to you!”

Thus, inclusio in long sections is shown to be just as valuable as inclusio in short segments in imparting proper appreciation for the beauty and structure of

Biblical texts. Additionally, in four of the five examples discussed above, we have seen short inclusios either inside of or in close proximity to the larger inclusio structures (Psalm 8, Psalm 139, Genesis 39:2-23, and Jeremiah 44:2-6). Proper exegesis and interpretation requires the Biblical scholar to have a refined sense of awareness of these structures.

118

Conclusion

The original authors of the Bible were skilled performers who wrote for aural audiences. Sadly, due to distance, ignorance, or perhaps even scholarly apathy, elements of their art of have been ignored, neglected and temporarily lost.

However, Biblical scholars have begun to recognize and subsequently re- embrace the precise and nuanced art of inclusio, in varying degrees of success through the centuries.

I hope to have shown through this historical-developmental survey that the re- appropriation of inclusio through the development of a clear and practical definition, as well as the formation of criteria for evaluating the rhetorical strength of an inclusio, are useful in understanding the structure and design of many

Biblical texts, allowing us to better comprehend, appreciate, and enjoy the intended beauty, technical makeup, and artistic nuance found throughout the

Hebrew Scripture.

119

Bibliography

Ahl, Aeneid. Ahl, Frederick, ed. Virgil Aeneid: A New Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Albrecht-Birkner, “Glassius.” Albrecht-Birkner, Veronika. “Glassius, Salomo.” N.p. in Religion Past and Present Online. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel. Leiden: Brill Online, 2013. Cited 26 August 2013. Online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/r eligion-past-and-present/glassius-salomo- SIM_08683.

Alsted, Encyclopædiæ. Alsted, Johann Heinrich. Scientiarum Omnium Encyclopædiæ. 2 vols. Lugdunum (Lyon): J. A. Huguetan, 1649.

Alter, Genesis. Alter, Robert. Genesis: Translation and Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.

Apostol, “Rome's Bucolic.” Apostol, Ricardo Andres Apostol. “Rome's Bucolic Landscapes: Place, Prophecy, and Power in Aeneid VIII.” Dissertation, University of Michigan, 2009.

Avishur, Repetition. Avishur, Yitzhak. The Repetition and the Parallelism in Biblical and Canaanite Poetry. Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archeological Center Publications, 2002.

120

Bailey, Dictionarium. Bailey, Nathan, George Gordon, and Philip Miller. Dictionarium Britannicum: Or a more Compleat Universal Etymological English Dictionary Than any Extant. Edited by Nathan Bailey. London: Thomas Cox, 1730.

Bekkum, “Ibn Ezra, Moses.” Bekkum, Wout J. van. “Ibn Ezra, Moses ben Jakob.” N.p. in Religion Past and Present Online. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel. Leiden: Brill Online, 2013. Cited 29 August 2013. Online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/r eligion-past-and-present/ibn-ezra-moses-ben- jakob-SIM_10239.

Ben Zvi, Micah. Ben Zvi, Ehud. Micah. Forms of the Old Testament Literature XXIB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Berakoth: English. Berakoth: Translated into English. Edited by I. Epstein. Translated by Maurice Simon. Soncino Babylonian Talmud. London: The Soncino Press, 1935. Cited 28 August 2013. Online: http://www.halakhah.com/berakoth/index.html .

Berlin, Dynamics. Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.

121

Booij, “Psalm CXXXIX.” Booij, Th. “Psalm CXXXIX: Text, Syntax, Meaning.” Vetus Testamentum 55 (1 2005): 1‒19.

Bouvier, “Inclusio.” Bouvier, John. “Inclusio.” Page 2139 in vol. 2 of Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia. Edited by Francis Rawle. Third Revision being the Eight Edition. Kansas City: Vernon Law Book Company, 1914.

Brettler, “Cyclical.” Brettler, Marc. “Cyclical and Teleological Time in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 111‒128 in Time and Temporality in the Ancient World. Edited by Ralph M. Rosen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2004.

Brown, A Companion to Brown, George Hardin. A Companion to Bede. Bede. Edited by John Hines and Catherine Cubitt. Anglo-Saxon Studies 12. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2009.

Browning, “Oratory.” Browning, Robert. “Oratory and Epistolography.” Pages 755‒61 in Latin Literature. Edited by E. J. Kenney. Vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. Edited by P. E. Easterling and E. J. Kenney. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

122

Bullinger, Figures. Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated. London: Messrs Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898.

Bultmann, et al., Hebraistik. Bultmann, Christoph and Lulz Danneberg, eds. Hebraistik – Hermeneutik – Homiletik: Die "Philologia Sacra" im frühneuzeitlichen Bibelstudium. Historia Hermeneutica, Series Studia. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co, 2011.

Burns, Side Effects. Burns, Scott Z. Side Effects. Edited by Steven Soderbergh. Moving Picture. Hollywood: Open Road Films, 2013.

Campbell, Ruth. Campbell, Edward F. Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Anchor Bible 7. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

Campi, “Tremellius.” Campi, Emidio. “Tremellius, Immanuel.” N.p. in Religion Past and Present Online. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel. Leiden: Brill Online, 2013. Cited 28 August 2013. Online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/r eligion-past-and-present/tremellius-immanuel- SIM_026142.

Chisholm, Minor Prophets. Chisholm, Robert B. Interpreting the Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

123

Cicero, Select Orations. Cicero, M. Tullius. Select Orations: Translated into English with the Original Latin. Translated by William Duncan. New Corrected Edition. New York: Evert Duyckinck, 1811.

Cicero, The Orations. ———. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Translated by C. D. Young. London: George Bell & Sons, 1903. Cited 29 Aug 2013. Online: http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:latinLi t:phi0474.phi005.perseus-eng1:2.2.11.

Clifford, “Genesis 37-50.” Clifford, Richard J. “Genesis 37–50: Joseph Story or Jacob Story.” Pages 213‒230 in The Book of Genesis. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen. Vetus Testamentum Supplements 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Coats, Exodus 1-18. Coats, George W. Exodus 1-18. Forms of the Old Testament Literature IIA. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Cole, A Neglected Educator. Cole, Percival. A Neglected Educator: Johann Heinrich Alsted. Sydney: William Applegate Gullick, 1910.

124

Corliss, “Paul Harvey.” Corliss, Richard. “Paul Harvey: The End of the Story.” TIME (1 March 2009) N.p. Cited 6 September 2013. Online: http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,859 9,1882444,00.html.

Court, The Scottish Court, Franklin E. The Scottish Connection: Connection. The Rise of English Literary Study in Early America. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2001.

Dahood, Psalms I. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms I: 1-50. Anchor Bible 16. New York: Doubleday, 1965.

Dahood, Psalms II. ———. Psalms II: 51-100. Anchor Bible 17. New York: Doubleday, 1968.

Dahood, Psalms III. ———. Psalms III: 101-150. Anchor Bible 17A. New York: Doubleday, 1970.

Dan and Hansel, “Luzzatto.” Dan, Joseph, and Joelle Hansel. “Luzzatto, Moses ayyim.” Pages 281‒6 in vol. 13 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. 22 vols. Second Edition. Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2007.

Davis, Oral Biblical Criticism. Davis, Casey W. Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 172. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

125

De Morgan, A Budget. De Morgan, Augustus. A Budget of Paradoxes. Edited by David Eugene Smith. 2 vols. 2nd Edition. Chicago: Open Court, 1915.

Dempsey, “Micah 2-3.” Dempsey, Carol J. “Micah 2-3: Literary Artistry, Ethical Message, and Some Considerations about the. Image of YHWH and Micah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 85 (1999): 117‒28.

Douglas, Thinking. Douglas, Mary. Thinking in Circles: An Essay on Ring Composition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.

Durgut, "I Have a Dream". Durgut, Ismail. "I Have a Dream": An Example of Classical Rhetoric in a Post- modern Speech. Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2008.

Eliot, Poems and Plays. Eliot, T. S. The Complete Poems and Plays: 1909-1950. Orlando: Harcourt & Brace, 1971.

El-Tahry, “Textual Integrity.” El-Tahry, Nevin Reda. “Textual Integrity and Coherence in the Qur’an: Repetition and Narrative Structure in Surat al-Baqara.” Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Toronto, 2010.

126

Evans et al., “Epanalepsis.” Evans, R. O., T. V. F. Brogan, A. W. Halsall, and A. L. French. “Epanalepsis.” Pages 438‒ 9 in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Edited by Roland Greene, Stephen Cushman, Clare Cavanagh, Jahan Ramazani, and Paul Rouzer. Fourth Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

Freedman, Pottery, Poetry. Freedman, David Noel. Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980.

Friedman, The Bible. Friedman, Richard Elliot. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses. New York: Harper One, 2003.

Futato, Interpreting Psalms. Futato, Mark D. Interpreting the Psalms: an Exegetical Handbook. Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.

Gall, Der Hebräische. Gall, August Freiherrn von, ed. Der Hebräische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Giessen: Alfred T pelmann, 1914.

Galvin, Egypt. Galvin, Garrett. Egypt as a Place of Refuge. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2 51. Tübingen: Mohr Siebrek, 2011.

127

Gibson, Textbook I. Gibson, John C. L. Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. Vol. 1 of Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Clarendon: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Giles, “Preface.” Giles, J. A. Preface to Scientific Tracts and Appendix, by Venerable Bede. Edited by J. A. Giles. Vol. 6 of The Miscellaneous Works of Venerable Bede in the Original Latin. London: Whittaker and Co., 1843.

Ginsburg, The Massorah. Ginsburg, Christian D. The Massorah. 4 vols. London, 1880‒1886.

Glassius, Philologia Sacra. Glassius, Salomo. Philologia Sacra. 5 vols. Leipzig: Fridericum Gleditsch & Filium, 1713.

Google Search, “inclusio Google Search, “inclusio unius est exclusio unius.” alterius.” N.p. Cited 6 September 2013. Online: https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%22inclusi o+unius+est+exclusio+alterius%22.

Google Search, ———. “ἐπανάληψις.” No pages. Cited 6 “ἐπανάληψις.” September 2013. Online: https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%E1%BC %90%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%AC %CE%BB%CE%B7%CF%88%CE%B9%CF %82.

128

Goulder, The Psalms. Goulder, Michael D. The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 258. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Graves, Jerome's Hebrew. Graves, Michael. Jerome's Hebrew Philology: A Study Based on his Commentary on Jerome. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Harrison, Generic Harrison, S. J. Generic Enrichment in Vergil Enrichment. and Horace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Henry, The Vigour. Henry, Elizabeth. The Vigour of Prophecy: A Study of Virgil's Aeneid. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989.

Hiebert, “The Use.” Hiebert, Theodore. “The Use of Inclusion in Habakkuk 3.” Pages 119‒140 in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Edited by Elaine R. Follis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 40. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.

Hinton, The Outsiders. Hinton, S. E. The Outsiders. Speak Platinum Edition. New York: The Penguin Group, 2012.

Holman, “The Structure.” Holman, Jan. “The Structure of Psalm CXXXIX.” Vetus Testamentum 21 (3 1971): 298‒310.

129

Howard, The Structure. Howard, David M. Jr. The Structure of Psalms 93-100. Biblical and Judaic Studies 5. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

Hurowitz, “Samsuiluna A.” Hurowitz, Victor. “Literary Structures in Samsuiluna A.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 36:2 (Autumn 1984): 191‒205.

Ibn Ezra, Shirat Yisrael. Ibn Ezra, Moses. Shirat Yisrael. Translated by Halper Ben Zion. Leipzig: Abraham Joseph Shtibel, 1923.

Isidore of Seville, Isidore of Seville. The Etymologies of Isidore Etymologiae (English). of Seville (Etymologiae). Translated by Stephen A. Barney et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Jacobs, Conceptual Jacobs, Mignon R. The Conceptual Coherence. Coherence of the Book of Micah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 322. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Jobling, The Sense II. Jobling, David. The Sense of Biblical Narrative II: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 39. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.

Johnstone, Exodus. Johnstone, W. Exodus. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

130

Kaster, “Donatus.” Kaster, Robert A. “Donatus (1), Aelius.” Pages 494‒5 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. 3rd Edition Revised. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Keil, ed., Donatus. Keil, Heinrich, ed. Donatus: De Arte Grammatica Libri. Vol. IV of Grammatici Latini. Leipzig: Teubner, 1864.

Kelber, “Orality.” Kelber, Werner H. “Orality and Biblical Studies: A Review Essay.” Review of Biblical Literature (12 2007): 25 pages. Cited 19 Sep 2013. Online: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/2120_6744.p df.

Kelley, Mynatt, and Crawford, Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and The Masorah. Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998.

Kessler, “Inclusio.” Kessler, Martin. “Inclusio in the Hebrew Bible.” Semitics 6 (1978): 44‒49.

131

Klein, “Alsted.” Klein, Wolf P. “Alsted, Johann Heinrich.” N.p. in Religion Past and Present Online. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning, Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jüngel. Leiden: Brill Online, 2013. Cited 28 August 2013. Online: http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/r eligion-past-and-present/alsted-johann- heinrich-SIM_00483.

Koehler and Baumgartner, Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner, HALOT. eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Lewis and Short, “in-clūdo.” “in-clūdo.” N.p. in A Latin Dictionary. Edited by Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879. Cited 6 September 2013. Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc =Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentr y%3Dincludo.

Lewis and Short, “inclūsĭo.” “inclūsĭo.” N.p. in A Latin Dictionary. Edited by Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879. Cited 6 September 2013. Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc =Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentr y%3Dinclusio.

132

Longman, “Inclusio.” Longman, Tremper III. “Inclusio.” Pages 323‒25 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings. Edited by Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008.

López, “Quintilian.” López, Jorge Fernández. “Quintilian as Rhetorician and Teacher, Chp 23.” Pages 307‒22 in A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Edited by William Dominik and Jon Hall. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007.

Lowery, Revelation's Lowery, Robert. Revelation's Rhapsody: Rhapsody. Listening to the Lyrics of the Lamb: How to Read the Book of Revelation. Joplin: College Press, 2006.

Lowth, Lectures. Lowth, Robert. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. Translated by G. Gregory. Fourth Edition. London: Thomas Tegg, 1839.

Lundbom, Jeremiah. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. 2nd Edition. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

Lupus, “De Figuris I.” Lupus, Rutilius. “De Figuris Sentiarum, Libro I.” Pages 1‒6 in Antiqui Rhetores Latini. Edited by François Pithoi. Paris: Drouart, 1599.

133

Luzzatto, Leshon Limmudim. Luzzatto, Moses ayyim. Leshon Limmudim. Grodno: Yaakov Yehezkiel, 1836.

Mack, Renaissance Rhetoric. Mack, Peter. A History of Renaissance Rhetoric 1380-1620. Edited by Charles Hope and Ian MacLean. Oxford - Warburg Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Martial, Epigrams II. Martial, Epigrams Volume II: Books 6-10. Translated by Shackleton Bailey. Loeb Classical Library 95. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Mays, Psalms. Mays, James L. Psalms. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994.

McKnight, “Inclusio.” McKnight, Edgar V. “Inclusio.” Page 406 in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Watson E. Mills. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1991.

Meynet, Treatise. Meynet, Roland. Treatise on Biblical Rhetoric. Translated by Leo Arnold. International Studies in the History of Rhetoric 3. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

134

Moran, Eighteenth-Century. Moran, Michael G. Eighteenth-Century British and American Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1994. Cited 24 August 2013. Online: http://www.questia.com/read/27430067.

Moulton, The Literary Study. Moulton, Richard G. The Literary Study of the Bible: An Account of the Leading Forms of the Literature Represented in the Sacred Writings. Revised Edition. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co., 1899.

Muilenburg, “Form Criticism.” Muilenburg, James. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88:1 (Mar 1969): 1‒18.

Müller, Die Propheten. Müller, David Heinrich. Die Propheten in Ihrer Ursprünglichen Form. Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1896.

Nappa, Reading. Nappa, Christopher. Reading After Actium: Vergil's Georgics, Octavian, and Rome. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005.

Niditch, Judges. Niditch, Susan. Judges: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.

135

Niditch, Oral World. ———. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Noth, Exodus. Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.

Ong and Hartley, Orality. Ong, Walter J., and John Hartley. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. 30th Anniversary Edition. London: Routledge, 2012.

Orme, Bibliotheca. Orme, William. Bibliotheca Biblica: A Select List of Books on Sacred Literature. North Bridge: Adam Black, 1824.

Parr, “Introduction.” Parr, Roger P. Introduction: Evolution of the Arts of Discourse to Ars Versificatoria: The Art of the Versemaker, by Matthew of Vendôme. Translated by Roger P. Parr. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1981. Cited 24 August 2013. Online: http://www.questia.com/read/62771433.

Parunak, “Transitional Parunak, H. Van Dyke. “Transitional Techniques.” Techniques in the Bible.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102:4 (Dec 1983): 525‒548.

136

Peters, “Epanalepsis.” Peters, Heiner. “Epanalepsis.” Pages 250‒1 in Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Edited by Thomas O. Sloane. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Pithoi, Antiqui Rhetores. Pithoi, François, ed. Antiqui Rhetores Latini. Paris: Drouart, 1599.

Prinsloo, “Psalms.” Prinsloo, Willem S. “Psalms.” Pages 364‒436 in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Psalmi Davidis. Psalmi Davidis. Translated by Immanuel Tremellius and Franciscus Junius. Berlin: Sumptibus Societatis Bibliophilorum Britannicae et Externae, 1873.

Quinn, Figures of Speech. Quinn, Arthur. Figures of Speech: 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith Inc., 1982.

Quintilian, Inst. Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria, Book 8, With An English Translation. Edited by Harold Edgeworth Butler. Translated by Harold Edgeworth Butler. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1922. Cited 23 August 2013. Online: http://data.perseus.org/texts/urn:cts:latinLit:ph i1002.phi0018.perseus-lat1.

137

Rowe, Handbook. Rowe, Galen O. Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period: 330 B.C.- A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Boston: Brill, 2001. Cited 9 September 2013. Online: http://www.questia.com/read/117545385.

Rufinianus, “De Schemata.” Rufinianus, Julius. “De Schemata lexeos.” Pages 30‒35 in Antiqui Rhetores Latini. Edited by François Pithoi. Paris: Drouart, 1599.

Segal, “The Refrain.” Segal, Moshe Zvi. “The Refrain in Biblical Poetry.” Tarbiz Waw, Bet. Hebrew (1935): 125‒44.

Shaw, The Speeches. Shaw, Charles S. The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 145. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Sivan and Yona, “Pivotal Sivan, Daniel, and Shamir Yona. “Style and Use.” Syntax: Pivotal Use of Extrapositional Syntagms in Biblical Hebrew.” Ugarit- Forschungen 26 (1994): 443‒54.

Skinner, Genesis. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International Critical Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910.

138

Sterling and Holmes, A Sterling, John, and John Holmes. A System System. of Rhetoric, and The Art of Rhetoric Made Easy. Dublin: Alex Stewart, 1806.

Talmud, “Berakot.” Talmud, Babylonian. “Tractate Berakot.” No pages. Cited 3 September 2013. Online: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/l/l1101.htm.

Tanenhaus, “Bede - A Tanenhaus, Gussie Hecht. “Bede’s De Translation.” Schematibus et Tropis – A Translation.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 48 (October 1962): 237‒53.

The Beatles, Help!. The Beatles. Help. London: Parlophone, 1965. Repr., New York: EMI Records, 2009.

Trible, Jonah. Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1994.

Vendôme, Ars Versificatoria - Matthew of Vendôme. Ars Versificatoria: The English. Art of the Versemaker. Translated by Roger P. Parr. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1981. Cited 24 August 2013. Online: http://www.questia.com/read/62771433.

Vendôme, Ars Versificatoria. ———. Ars Versificatoria. In vol. 171 of Storia e Letteratura. Edited by Franco Munari. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1988.

139

Vos, Theopoetry. Vos, Cas J. A. Theopoetry of the Psalms. London: T & T Clark, 2005.

Wald and Gray, “Johanan.” Wald, Stephen G., and Alyssia Gray. “Johanan Ben Nappaḥa.” Pages 370‒72 in vol. 11 of Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. 22 vols. Second Edition. Detroit: Thomas Gale, 2007.

Wallace, Words. Wallace, Howard N. Words to God, Word from God: The Psalms in the Prayer and Preaching of the Church. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 2005.

Waltke, A Commentary. Waltke, Bruce K. A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Waltke, “Micah.” ———. “Micah.” Pages 591‒764 in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. Edited by Thomas Edward McComiskey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Watson, Classical Hebrew Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry. Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984.

140

Weeks, “Literacy, Orality.” Weeks, Stuart. “Literacy, Orality, and Literature in Israel.” Pages 465‒478 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell, and Brian A. Mastin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 420. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011.

Whybray, The Making. Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch : A Methodological Study. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 53. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.

Wikiquote, “Latin Proverbs.” Wikiquote, “Latin Proverbs (in Greek).” N. p. Cited 24 August 2013. Online: http://el.wikiquote.org/wiki/%CE%9B%CE%B 1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BD%CE%B9%C E%BA%CE%AD%CF%82_%CF%80%CE%B 1%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BC%C E%AF%CE%B5%CF%82.

Winterbottom, “Rutilius Winterbottom, Michael. “Rutilius Lupus, Lupus.” Publius.” Page 1340 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth. 3rd Edition Revised. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Yona, “Expanded Repetition.” Yona, Shamir. “Expanded Repetition Patterns of Roots and Words in Biblical Poetry.” Dissertation, Hebrew University, 1998.

141

Yona, The Many Faces. ———. The Many Faces of Repetition. Hebrew. Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, forthcoming.

Zeelander, Closure. Zeelander, Susan. Closure in Biblical Narrative. Biblical Interpretation 111. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

142

תוכן עניינים הצהרת תזה...... 1

I. מבוא...... 1

II. אינקלוזיו לאורך הדורות...... 3

A. הגדרות קלאסיות ונוצריות...... 3

1. אינקלוזיו ו-epanadiplosis...... 3

6 ...... epanalepsis .2

3. סיכום ההגדרות הקלאסיות...... 22

B. הגדרות רביניות...... 21

1. יוחנן בן נפחה...... 21 2. משה אבן עזרא...... 22 3. רמח''ל...... 26

C. הגדרות מחקריות...... 22

1. מחקר מקראי מוקדם...... 22 2. מחקר מקראי מודרני...... 84

D. הרקע התרבותית לאינקלוזיו...... 95

III. הגדרה ברורה יותר...... 64

A. מונחים...... 64

B. הגדרה...... 21

C. קריטריונים להערכה: חוזק האינקלוזיו...... 23

1. קריטריונים עיקריים...... 28 2. קריטריונים משניים...... 24

IV. דוגמאות פרקטיות של הערכת אינקלוזיו...... 42

A. אינקלוזיו ביחידות קצרות...... 42

B. אינקלוזיו ביחידות ארוכות...... 121

סיכום...... 115 ביבליוגרפיה...... 122

תקציר העבודה:

לאורך ההיסטוריה, התופעה הרטורית אינקלוזיו )מסגרת ספרותית( לא קיבלה את תשומת

הלב הראויה לה. יחס זה הוביל במקרים רבים לחוסר דיוקים ואף לטעויות באשר למבנה של

טקסטים מקראיים רבים. מחקר היסטורי מקיף ומעמיק של האינקלוזיו יוביל להבנה נכונה יותר

של המבנה והעיצוב של טקסטים אלה. באמצעותם ניתן יהיה לשחזר את הכוונה, היופי, העיצוב

הטכני והניואנסים האומנותיים שהיו בטקסט העברי המקורי.

המחקר להלן בנוי מחמישה חלקים:

חלק א: תיאור התפתחות מחקר האינקלוזיו, אשר מכונה גם epanalepsis, החל ממקורו

ברטוריקה הקלאסית ועד לתוך המאה התשע עשרה. בסקירת המחקר תיבחנה גם ההגדרות של

הרטוריקנים, חוקרי הנצרות והרבנים היהודיים יחד עם דוגמאות רלוונטיות רבות לאינקלוזיו.

חלק ב, השוואת והערכת ההגדרות הסותרות של האינקלוזיו בחקר המקרא בן ימינו לגישות

הקלאסיות על מנת לעמוד על נקודות החוזק ונקודות התורפה של המחקר המודרני.

חלק ג, מתוך המחקר ההיסטורי עולים נתונים חשובים ומתגבשים לכדי לקט אחד אשר

משמש לבניית הגדרה בהירה ומדויקת לאופן השימוש באינקלוזיו בחקר המקרא:

אינקלוזיו הוא חזרה מכוונת של יסודות מובחנים וברורים, שקיימים בתחילתה

ובסופה של יצירה או באחד מחלקיה.

חלק ד, לצד דיון ב'חוזק' האינקלוזיו, מפותחים קריטריונים להערכת חוזקו הרטורי.

לאינקלוזיו צורות רבות ולכל אחת מאפיינים ייחודים ולכן יש לשפוט ולהעריך כל אינקלוזיו

בהתאם לאופיו.

בחלק חמישי והאחרון, ייבחנו מספר דוגמאות של אינקלוזיו בהתאם להגדרות ואבני הבוחן

שהצבנו, ביחידות טקסט קצרות כארוכות. העדפה ניתנה לדוגמאות מן הפרוזה, על מנת להראות

שהאינקלוזיו אינו בראש ובראשונה תופעה שירית, כפי שהציעו חלק מהחוקרים.

אוניברסיטת בן־גוריון בנגב

הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה

המחלקה למקרא, ארכיאולוגיה, והמזרח הקדום

חקר האינקלוזיו במקרא סקירה היסטורית-התפתחותית

חיבור זה מהווה חלק מן הדרישות לקבלת התואר

"מוסמך למדעי הרוח והחברה" ).M.A(

מאת:

אנטוני צ'פמן

בהנחיית:

ד''ר שמיר יונה

חתימת הסטודנט: ______תאריך: ______

חתימת המנחה: ______תאריך: ______

חתימת יו''ר הועדה המחלקתית: ______תאריך: ______

חשון תשע״ד אוקטובר 3102

אוניברסיטת בן־גוריון בנגב

הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה

המחלקה למקרא, ארכיאולוגיה, והמזרח הקדום

חקר האינקלוזיו במקרא סקירה היסטורית-התפתחותית

חיבור זה מהווה חלק מן הדרישות לקבלת התואר

"מוסמך למדעי הרוח והחברה" ).M.A(

מאת:

אנטוני צ'פמן

בהנחיית:

ד''ר שמיר יונה

חשון תשע״ד אוקטובר 3102