Narrative Structure and Technique in the Deborah-Barak Story (Judges Iv 4-221»

NARRATIVE STRUCTURE AND TECHNIQUE IN THE DEBORAH-BARAK STORY (JUDGES IV 4-221»

D.F.MURRAY Southampton

The eclipse of attention and interest within Old Testament scholar ship, which has been the fate of the Deborah-Barak prose narrative in Jdg. iv, was only in part due to the obvious and undoubted lit erary merits of the poem on the same theme in chapter v. In larger measure it was the result of a characteristic preoccupation with his torical questions, coupled with an assumption of the close chrono logical connection of the poem with the events it narrates. This led, by means of an over-hasty comparison of the two "versions", to an almost uniformly negative evaluation of the prose story as an inferior, and probably derivative, historical source2). I should like to redress the balance somewhat, not by indulging in negative evalua tion of the poem, but by suggesting a more fruitful, and certainly more appropriate, way to approach the prose narrative3). This will

1) The following article was read in first draft to the research students' seminar of the Department of Biblical Studies of Sheffield University in February 1976, and excerpts of a second draft to the Winter Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study, December 1976. I am grateful to all who made comments and suggestions. 2) Cf. e.g. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin, 61905), pp. 236-8, ET Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 240-42; G. A. Cooke, The History and Song of Deborah (Oxford, 1892), pp. 1 ff.; and such recent works as H. W. Hertzberg, josua, Richter, Ruth (Gottingen, 21959); and J. Gray, joshua, judges, Ruth (London, 1967), Introduction, pp. 216-20. In this respect, W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (Bonn, 21966), pp. 29-112, is an exemplary exception. 3) It might have been circumspect, in view of the lack of precision of the term "structure" and its cognates in present usage, to have avoided them alto gether, but a more suitable set of terms has not presented itself. As a preliminary orientation for the reader, let me say that I do not refer to the kind of structuralism practised by C. Levi-Strauss and Edmund Leach, but have in mind rather " ... the application of principles derived from certain movements within linguistics to ... units of speech greater than the sentence, such as narrative" (R. Jacobson, "The Structuralists and the Bible", Interpretation 28 [1974], p. 146), which enable the critic, through repeated readings, "to perceive the shape of the work he seeks to interpret" CR. C. Culley, "Structural Analysis: Is it Done with Mirrors?", 156 D. F. MURRAY have its own implications for the comparison and historical evalua tion of the two chapters, but my concern will be, not with such a comparison, but with the logically prior consideration of the prose narrative as an entity in its own right. The first section of the article will seek to elucidate the narrative structure of the story, the second section will discuss the way in which the unity of the story and its purpose have been realized by skilful use of narrative devices, and the final section will seek to draw out some of the implications of my study, both for the partic ular text before us, and for the general issues it raises.

The narrative introduction4), vv. 4f., serves the function of intro ducing the character who initiates the action of the piece, Deborah, and of providing appropriate background information about her. The action itself does not begin until v. 6, and thus vv. 4f. are to a degree comparable in function with the prologue of classical drama, in which the author provides his audience with necessary background information before the action proper gets under way. The plot movement, then, is initiated by 6, where we are apparently to understand that Deborah is at her home, according to the "pro logue" between Bethel and Ramah (v. 5). This locale is maintained throughout the exchange between Deborah and Barak, until a removal to Kedesh is made explicit by 9b. This locale is then maintained in lOa (qdfh), and is not explicitly changed until 11, where both locale and subject are different. Thus one would assume that Kedesh re mains the locale for the whole of 10. However, this is rendered some-

Interpretation 28 [1974], p. 168), and "on the basis of close textual analysis" to demonstrate "the inherent framework from evidence in the text itself" (R. Knierim, "Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered", Interpretation 27 [1973], p.461). 4) There is a problem in regarding v. 4 as the beginning of the narrative. On the one hand, discourse coherence requires that the mention of Sisera in 7 should have been previously prepared, as also that of Harosheth-haggoyim 13 (cf. the preparation for the mention of Wady Kishon in 13 by its mention in 7); but such previous mention occurs only in 2 f. On the other hand, great difficulties arise in seeking to begin the narrative earlier than 4, (with J. S. Ackerman, "Prophecy and Warfare in Early Israel: A Study of the Deborah Barak Story", BASOR 220 [1975], p. 11), not least because 1-3 as a unit constitute a distinct and stereotyped framework introduction, from which formal narrative elements cannot readily be disengaged. There is thus no obvious solution to this difficulty. In any case, it would not affect my discussion to any major extent, and need not be pursued here.