[JSOT 96 (2001) 3-27]

ISSN 0309-0892

VERBAL RESONANCE IN THE BIBLE AND INTERTEXTUALITY*

Gershon Hepner
1561 Reeves Street, Los Angeles, CA 90035, USA
E-mail: gwhepner@yahoo.com

Introduction
Thy cheeks are comely with circlets, thy neck with pearls (Song 1.10). R.
Levi said in the name of R. Hanina: This refers to the various sections of the
Torah which are linked to one another or lead on to one another or leap to
one another or show analogies to one another or are related to one another.
(Cant. R. 1.10.3)
Inner-biblical intertextuality has been the focus of intensive scholarly
investigation since 1934 when Robert demonstrated the exegetical inter-
relationship between Deuteronomy and Proverbs.1 Sandmel2 and Seelig-
man3 suggested a theoretical basis for the phenomenon in the early 1960s,
and since then Sarna,4 Toeg,5 Fishbane,6 Zakovitch,7 Levinson,8 and

* Two extraordinary midwives, Linda Roer Hepner, who is uncomfortable with

cherubs except her own, and Abigail Hepner Gross, breathed life into this work. For
their help in my midwife crisis of them let it be said: And they let the children live
(Exod. 1.17).
1. A. Robert, Les attaches littraires bibliques de Prov. 11X, RB 43 (1934), pp.
42-68, 172-204, 374-84; 44 (1935), pp. 334-65, 502-25.
2. S. Sandmel, The Haggadah Within Scripture, JBL 80 (1961), pp. 105-22.
3. I.L. Seeligmann, Voraussetzung der Midraschexegese, in G.W. Anderson (ed.),
Congress Volume, Copenhagen 1953 (VTSup, 1; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1953), pp. 150-81.
4. Nahum Sarna, Psalm 89: A Study in Inner-Biblical Exegesis, in Alexander
Altmann (ed.), Biblical and Other Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1963), pp. 29-46. Sarna was the rst scholar to use the term inner-biblical exegesis,
whose signi cance I will discuss below.
5. Aryeh Toeg, Num 15:22-31: Midrash Halacha, Tarbiz 43 (197374), pp. 1-20
(Hebrew).
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and
370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.
4 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

Sommer9 have shed much light on the phenomenon. Awareness of inter-

textuality is largely based on the recognition of lexical analogies. Various
principles of exegesis are found in classical rabbinic texts, including 13
principles attributed to the second-century Tanna Rabbi Ishmael who
called his second rule hw# hrzg, lexical analogy. According to the
rabbinic paradigm, lexical analogies link two pericopes containing an
identical word, shedding light on the meaning of the word and hence the
pericopes in which it appears.10 While the Rabbis commonly made lexical
analogies when they found the identical word root present in two narra-
tives, they occasionally made them even when words share only two of
the three root consonants. The present study indicates that linkages some-
times derive from resonances between words that share only two conso-
nants and also stresses the role of wordplay which has been found not
only in the Bible11 but in other ancient Near Eastern texts, because many
of the linkages are dependent on it.
Biblical exegesis has classically distinguished between peshat, the plain
meaning of the text, and derash, the applied meaning. Weiss Halivni has
demonstrated that the explanation of the word peshat as plain meaning
was introduced by medieval exegetes but was not operative during the
talmudic period and claims that its meaning in Tannaitic, Amoraic and
Stammaic literature is context,12 indicating that the peshat is the mean-
ing of a word that may be derived from its context.13 Verbal resonances
extend the context of a verse beyond its immediate context, enabling the
reader of biblical narratives to nd a peshat that can only be spotted by

6. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1985).
7. Yair Zakovitch, An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Interpretation (Even-Yehuda:
Reches Publishing House, 1992) (Hebrew).
8. Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
9. Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 4066
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998).
10. For its use by the Qumran sectaries see Eliezer Slomovic, Towards an Under-
standing of the Exegesis of the Dead Sea Scrolls, RevQ 7 (196971), pp. 5-9.
11. A. Guillaume, Paronomasia in the Old Testament, JSS 9 (1964), pp. 282-90.
12. David Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rab-
binic Exegesis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 52-88.
13. See b. t. ab. 63a; Yeb. 11b, 24a.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 5

taking cognisance of other contexts where similar language is used. Such

linkages may transform the signi cance of texts and be helpful in estab-
lishing their source and date.

Categories of Resonances
This paper demonstrates that lexical analogies creating verbal resonances
fall into ve main categories. These ve categories of resonance will be
discussed in turn.

1. Repetition of Identical Word Roots

In the rst category, a verbal resonance exists between two words that
share three consonants even though they may not have a common root.
This kind of resonance is the basis of the classical lexical analogy de-
scribed in the introduction.
When Abraham excuses himself to Abimelech for not having told him
that Sarah was his wife as well as his half-sister he says:
And it happened that when the gods made me wander from the house of my
father I said to her: This is Kdsx, your kindness, which you should do for
me. To every place where we come say concerning me: He is my brother.
(Gen. 20.13)
The Holiness Code uses the word dsx in the description of incest
between brother and sister:
And any man who marries his sister, the daughter of his father or mother
and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, that is dsx, a disgrace,
and they shall be cut off before the eyes of their people. He uncovered the
nakedness of his sister; he must bear his iniquity. (Lev. 20.17)
The word dsx means disgrace not only in Lev. 20.17 but also in Prov.
14.34 and 25.10. In Aramaic the cognate word )dsx translates the
Hebrew hprx (disgrace), in Gen. 30.23 and 34.14.14 Davids daughter
Tamar uses the word to describe the disgrace she suffers as a result of her
incestuous rape by her half-brother Amnon (2 Sam. 13.13), highlighting
the linkage! Abrahams use of the word dsx to describe his relationship
with Sarah suggests that it is based not only on lovingkindness, the usual
meaning of dsx, but also on disgrace, and implies that Abraham realizes

14. For bilingual wordplay see Gary A. Rendsburg, Bilingual Wordplay in the
Bible, VT 38 (1988), pp. 354-57; idem, Word Play in Biblical Hebrew: An Eclectic
Collection, in Scott B. Noegel (ed.), Puns and Pundits (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press,
2000), pp. 137-62 (141-44).

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

6 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

that he violates the Holiness Code by his marriage to his half-sister.15 The
union foreshadows the incestuous marriage between David and Abigail,
and suggests that the birth of Isaac from this incestuous union parallels
that of other ancestors of David, including Moab and Ammon, who are
born to Lots daughters from an incestuous union with Lot, and Perez born
to Tamar from an incestuous union with her father-in-law Judah.
After Simeon and Levi sack Shechem, Jacob says to them:
Mtrk(, you have caused anguish, to me, to make me stink among the
dwellers of the land, among the Canaanite and Perizzite, while I am few in
number. (Gen. 34.30)
The word Mtrk( implies that Jacob is not protesting the violence of
Simeon and Levi but the way they have violated the Deuteronomic law of
proscription (Deut. 7.25-26) in the same way that Achan does in the book
of Joshua in the Valley of rwk( (Achor, Josh. 7.24, 26). His anguish is
caused by the fact that they have not ful lled this law by removing alien
gods, which he commands them to do (Gen. 35.2).16
When Eli learns that Hannah has prayed for a son he says to her:
Go in peace and the God of Israel give you Ktl#, your request, which
tl)#, you have asked, from him. (1 Sam. 1.17)

Because the word Kl)# (your request) is spelled without an aleph its
resonance with the name of hl# (Shelah) is highlighted. It is the rst of
many wordplays on l)# (1 Sam. 1.20, 27 [2], 28 [2]), linking the po-
tential of near-death of a son to be born to Hannah to Shelah whom Judah
considered to be a loaner, fearful that God would snatch him away from
him in the same way that he had snatched two older sons, Er and Onan
(Gen. 38.11). The verbal resonance explains the lack of aleph in Ktl#
(your request) and implies that Eli, the last Mushite High Priest,17 is in
fact praying that Hannahs son will be a failure no less than hl# (Shelah)

15. Abrahams incestuous marriage with his half-sister Sarah foreshadows that of
David with his half-sister Abigail (see Jon D. Levenson and Baruch Halpern, The
Political Import of Davids Marriages, JBL 99 [1980], pp. 507-18).
16. Scholars such as Zakovitch (An Introduction, pp. 30-33) miss the signi cance
of the linkage between Gen. 35.1-4 and the Dinah narrative because of their failure to
recognize the way that the verb rk( links Jacobs anguish to the law of proscription
and therefore erroneously attribute these verses to a different source.
17. Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of
the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 73, 197-
215, 223-34, 237; idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), pp. 45, 57, 59.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 7

born in byzk (Chezib, Gen. 38.5), a place whose very name means fail-
ure,18 for Samuels success would, and does, lead to his failurea zero
sum game in Shiloh! A similar linkage occurs when the Shunammite
woman who fears that God is going to take the life of her son, another
loaner, says to Elisha:
ytl)#h, did I ask, a son from God? Did I not say: do not hl#t, deceive,
me? (2 Kgs 4.28)
God nearly kills her son in the way that Judah fears that he might kill hl#
(Shelah), after having killed his older two sons Er and Onan (Gen.
38.11).19 In this case, the resonance is even clearer because the Shunam-
mite alludes to btzk (Chezib):
Nay, my Lord, man of God, do not bzkt, disappoint, your handmaiden.
(2 Kgs 4.16)
The name of hl# (Shelah, Gen. 38.5, 11), also links Judahs third son
to Boaz. When Boaz rst encounters Ruth he tells his servants:
And even hl#t-l#, deliberately let fall, for her some of the bundles. (Ruth
2.16)
The words wl#t-l# (deliberately let fall) resonate with the name of
hl# (Shelah). In contrast to Judah, who refuses to allow hl# (Shelah)
to ful ll the levirate law, Boazs words wl#t-l# (deliberately let fall,
Ruth 2.16) indicate that he is willing to let Ruth have relations with her
husbands closest kinsman, as Judah should have allowed hl# (Shelah)
to do with Tamar. The kinsman fails to do so, fearing that he will become
the third man to act as Tamars levir, killed by Ruth and Orpah who had

18. When Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron kills the Midianite princess
ybzk (Cozbi, Num. 25.18), whose name resonates with byzk (Chezib), God makes
him the leader of the priesthood instead of Moses (Num. 25.12-13), ironically fore-
shadowing the way that he removes Eli, the last Mushite High Priest, from his priest-
hood because of the misconduct of his sons Phinehas and Hophni.
19. A similar threat to the life of Benjamin occurs when Joseph asks his brothers
whether they have another brother, this being reported with the words l)# lw)# (ur-
gently asked, Gen. 43.7). This is not only an allusion to lw)# (Saul), a descendant of
Benjamin, but to hl# (Shelah), implying that Joseph was preparing the sacri ce of
Jacobs third son following his loss of two, Joseph and Simeon, for Joseph had taken
Simeon hostage (Gen. 42.33-33), jeopardizing Benjamins life as Judah feared Tamar
was jeopardizing that of Shelah! Joseph not only has many links with Judahs daughter-
in-law Tamar, but also foreshadows Davids daughter Tamar in many ways, such as
sharing a colored tunic with her (Gen. 37.2; 2 Sam. 13.19).

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

8 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

ostensibly caused the deaths of their husbands, the sons of Elimelech (Ruth
R. 7.10). However, when Boaz steps in to ful ll the role of the closest
kinsman his action echoes the way that Judah inadvertently lls the shoes
of Shelah (pun intended, based on Deut. 25.9 and Ruth 4.8!).20 The narra-
tives I have associated with that of Judah and Shelah all share a single
word which is enough to create a plausible linkage when the word is rare,
as is the case with the root hl#. Finally, it should be noted that a similar
linkage exists regarding Isaac. He is a loaner like Shelah, because the
verb dqp (took account, Gen. 21.1) resonates with Nwdqp (pledge), as
in Lev. 5.21-26, mentioned in a law that Sarah violates when she denies to
God that she will have a son (Gen. 18.12-15). Before God demands that
Abraham return Isaac to him he plants an l#) (tamarisk, Gen. 21.33) a
word that resonates anagrammatically with l)# (borrow), signifying
that he realizes that Isaac is a loaner even before God commands him to
return Isaac in the near-sacri ce. Interestingly, the word l#) (tamarisk)
appears only twice again, both times in connection with lw)# (Saul),
whose name resonates anagrammatically with it. He is buried underneath
an l#) (tamarisk, 1 Sam. 31.13), highlighting the fact that he, too, was
a loaner!21
Another verbal resonance of the rst category links a narrative in the
book of Samuel to a Deuteronomic law. The Deuteronomist says:
When YHWH your God will expand your territory as he has said to you and
you say: I would like to eat meat, because K#pn hw)t, your being longs, to
eat meat, then you may eat according to all K#pn tw), the desire of your
beingand you may eat in your gate according to all K#pn tw), the desire
of your being Only qzx, take care, not to eat the blood, because the blood
is the life. Do not eat the life with the meat. (Deut. 12.20, 21, 23)
The author of Samuel alludes to this law, implying that the two sons of
Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, violate it:
And he [the person who had offered a sacri ce in the sanctuary in Shiloh]
would say: Let them turn the fat to smoke right now, and then take for
yourselves whatever K#pn hw)t, your soul desires. But he would say: No,
give it now; if not, I will take it hqzxb, by force. (1 Sam. 2.16)

20. Judahs prayer for the coming of hly# (Shiloh, Gen. 49.10) is an oblique
prayer for the ful llment of the frustrated role of hl# (Shelah), which Boaz facili-
tates!
21. See L.D. Hawk, Saul as Sacri ce: The Tragedy of Israels First Monarch,
Bible Review 12 (1996), pp. 20-25, 56 (20).

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 9

While the author of Samuel makes it clear that Hophni and Phinehas
violate the Holiness Codes prohibition of eating meat before offering the
fat to God (Lev. 17.3-6), he also implies that they also violate the Deuter-
onomists prohibition of eating blood also mentioned by the Holiness
Code because the words K#pn hw)t are common to both (1 Sam. 2.16;
Deut. 12.20), while the word hqzxb (by force, 1 Sam. 2.16) alludes to
qzx
22
the word (take care, Deut. 12.23). Failure to pour blood on the
altar echoes a Priestly prohibition regarding murder:
And you shall not wpynxt, pollute, the land on which you are because blood
Pynxy, will pollute, the land and the land will not be puri ed from the blood
which is shed on it except by the blood of the one who spilled it. (Num.
35.33)
The names of ynpx (Hophni) and sxnp (Phinehas) both resonate
anagrammatically with the verb Pnx (pollute), thus implying that they
Pnx (pollute) the land by not pouring on the altar the blood of the sacri-
ces whose meat they eat. The way that the blood of all domestic animals
which are slaughtered for their meat must be offered on the altar as a ran-
som echoes this Priestly law in Num. 35.33, as Milgrom points out,23
explaining that the rationale of pouring the blood of well-being offerings
on the altar is not to expiate sins but to expiate the killing of the animal,
an act which would be considered murder if its blood were not poured on
the altar as a ransom. Hophni and Phinehas pollute the land like murderers
by not pouring the blood of their sacri ces on the altar. The attribution of
the narrative of Hophni and Phinehas to a Judean scribe who ourished in
the tenth or ninth century24 must be regarded with great suspicion in view
of the evidence that links it to a Deuteronomic law probably written cen-
turies later.

2. Resonance of Dissimilar Words that Share Two Consonants

In the second category, verbal resonances occur between words when they
share only two of the three consonants that are the root of most Hebrew
words.

22. The term w#pn tw) (the desire of his being, Deut. 18.6) describes the Levites
desire for meat in the sanctuary, suggesting that the phrase K#pn hw)t (1 Sam. 2.16)
re ects the desire of Hophni and Phinehas to receive the portion due to them according
to Deuteronomic law.
23. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1722 (AB, 3a; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000),
pp. 1474-75.
24. Richard Elliot Friedman, The Hidden Book in the Bible: Discovery of the First
Prose Masterpiece (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), p. 197.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

10 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

When Sarah asks Abraham to send Hagar away because she feels that
Hagar has slighted her the Torah says:
And Sarai said to Abram: ysmx, this outrage done against me, is on account
of you. (Gen. 16.5)
The word ysmx (this outrage done against me) resonates with the word
tmx (waterskin) found only in the second expulsion narrative of Hagar
(Gen. 21.14, 15, 19), describing the waterskin that Abraham gives Hagar.
The verbal resonance highlights the contrast between Abrahams attempt
to save the lives of Hagar and Ishmael and Sarahs sense of outrage
causing their expulsion.
The word Myprt (teraphim) the household gods that Rachel seques-
ters from Labans possession (Gen. 31.19, 34, 35), resonates with the
words Pr+ Pr+ (torn, yes, torn to pieces) which Jacob uses to lament
the disappearance of Joseph (Gen. 37.33). Jacob swears that whoever has
stolen the Myprt should die, not knowing that his beloved wife Rachel is
responsible for the theft (Gen. 31.32). As a result, Rachel dies in child-
birth (Gen. 35.18-19). When Jacobs sons show their father Josephs coat
that they have dipped in the blood of a goat, Jacob uses language indicat-
ing that he recalls the oath he made about the Myprt, crying out:
Pr+ Pr+, torn, yes, torn to pieces, is Joseph. (Gen. 37.33)

The verbal resonance between Jacobs cry Pr+ Pr+ and the word Myprt
implies that he attributes what he believed to be the death of Joseph to the
mistaken oath that he inadvertently swore to Laban concerning his Myprt
just as he attributed Rachels death to these words. Jacob attributes the
death of Rachel to this law about mistaken oaths in Lev. 5.4-6 since her
name implies that she is the hb#k N)ch-Nm hbqn (female from the
ock, ewe-lamb) that the law requires as reparation offering for a false
oath (Lev. 5.6). Since that law says that a goat may also serve as the
sacri ce he may have attributed Josephs near-loss to the same oath, since
the law and Josephs brothers slaughter a goat ritually, dipping Josephs
tunic in its blood (Gen. 37.31).25
After Amnon has raped his half-sister Tamar she begs him to plead to
their father, King David, saying that he would not withhold Amnon from
her. She uses the word yn(nmy (withhold me, 2 Sam. 13.13), which reso-
nates with the name of Nwnm) (Amnon) with an exchange of the aleph for

25. The law in Lev. 5.6 speci es a female goat, but Joseph has many feminine as-
pects, linking him inter alia to Judahs daughter-in-law Tamar and Davids daughter
Tamar so that Jacob may have seen him as a female goat!

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 11

an ayin.26 The author of Samuel also uses the verb (nm in 1 Sam. 25.26,
34, to allude to the incestuous relationship between David and his half-
sister Abigail. The narratives are also linked by the ytprx (my shame,
1 Sam. 25.39; 2 Sam. 13.13), con rming the view that Davids marriage
with Abigail was incestuous. In both cases the word is an allusion to the
Janus word dsx in the law of the Holiness Code prohibiting incest (Lev.
20.17).

3. Resonance of Anagrams
In the third category, verbal resonances occur between words whose
consonants have metathesized. The fact that such resonances occur
indicates that resonances do not depend on aural similitudes.
God says that since Man is alone he will nd an rz( (helper or
warrior) for him (Gen. 2.18, 20). The word resonates anagrammatically
with (rz (seed, Gen. 1.11 [3], 12 [3], 19 [4]), a keyword in the First
Creation narrative. It thus links the Second Creation narrative to the rst
by implying that Woman would provide Man with the (rz (seed) from
which Man would multiply in accordance with the commandment to be
fruitful and multiply, a commandment that is addressed to conjoined Man-
Woman in the First Creation narrative (Gen. 2.18, 20). When God takes a
(lc (side, Gen. 2.22)27 from conjoined Man-Woman he repositions
Woman to be wdgnk (Gen. 2.18, 20), a word that probably means ahead of
him (cf. wdgn, Josh. 6.5; 20; 2 Sam. 22.13; 1 Kgs 21.10, 13; Eccl. 4.12).
By apposing Woman to Man thus they are able to have sexual intercourse,
becoming one esh (Gen. 2.24), something that was impossible while
she was his (lc (side). The word (lc (side) occurs 37 times to denote
the side of the Tabernacle and its holy appurtenances throughout the Heb-
rew Bible in Exodus, Kings and Ezekiel, and its use implies that Woman
is a living tabernacle. When Mans (rz (seed) enters Woman, his rz(
(helper), it is as if it enters the holy Tabernacle, becoming, as it were,
holy seed. Con rmation of the signi cance of this anagrammatic verbal
resonance can be found in the Covenant between the Pieces when Abram
says to God:

26. Ramban gives other examples of the exchange of aleph and ayin in Deut. 21.14
and a similar verbal resonance occurs in Jer. 51.37, where Nw(m (the abode) and Ny)m
(without anyone) are juxtaposed.
27. The word (lc means side 37 times in the Bible, and the translation rib is
based on a midrash that has no foundation on the peshat, even though modern com-
mentators and translators continue to use it.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

12 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

Oh YHWH my God, what can you give me since I am childless, and the
domestic of my household is Damascus rz(yl), Eliezer. (Gen.15.2)
This is the only time the Torah uses the name rz(yl) (Eliezer). The
name highlights Abrams desire for (rz (seed), as he says in the next
verse:
And Abram said: Here, to me you have not given (rz, seed, and here, my
domestic will inherit me. (Gen. 15.3)
There are two further links between the pericopes that validate the signi-
cance of the anagrammatic resonance. First, God promises Abram to be
his Ngm (shield, Gen. 15.1), a word frequently associated with rz( (Deut.
33.29; Pss. 18.31, 34; 28.7; 33.20; 115.9, 10, 11; Isa. 41.10). Second, the
word hmdrt (deep slumber) is common to both pericopes (Gen. 2.21;
15.12). It is therefore clear that the nal element of the name rz(yl)
(Eliezer), rz(, is meant to resonate anagrammatically with the word (rz
(seed), highlighting Abrams lack of it!
The narrative in which Leah acquires conjugal time with Jacob in return
for My)dwd (love-apples) that she gives Rachel (Gen. 30.14 [2], 15
[2], 16) echoes the narrative in which Jacob acquires Esaus birthright by
trading a dish of lentils that Esau describes as hzh Md)h Md)h (the red,
red stuff, Gen. 25.30). The anagrammatic resonance between My)dwd and
hzh Md)h Md)h implies that the way Rachel trades the opportunity to
have sex with Jacob for the sake of immediate grati cation from the
My)dwd (love-apples) echoes the way Esau trades his birthright for the
sake of immediate grati cation from hzh Md)h Md)h (the red, red stuff).
In order to guarantee his payment for Tamars sexual services Judah
offers her an Nwbr( (pledge), a word that appears only three times in the
Hebrew Bible (Gen. 38.17, 18, 20). It resonates anagrammatically with
Nwb(r (starvation), a word that appears only three times (Gen. 42.19, 33;
Ps. 37.19). Joseph mentions it twice to his brothers as the cause of their
problem that brings them to Egypt (Gen. 42.19, 33). The anagrammatic
resonance between these words indicates that the way that the Nwb(r
(starvation) unites Josephs brothers with Joseph echoes the way that the
Nwbr( (pledge) unites Judah with Tamar. The word Nwb(r is a word-
play, containing the name of r( (Er) and the word Nb (son). The link-
age between the Nwbr( (pledge) which Judah gives Tamar and the Nwb(r
(starvation) that brings Josephs brothers to Egypt implies that the Nwb(r
facilitates the building of the house of Israel in the same way that the

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 13

Nwbr( Judah gives Tamar facilitates the building of the house of Judah!28
Awareness of the anagrammatic resonance between the name of twr
(Ruth) and the verb rwt (scout) enables the reader to recognize how
the sexual relationship between Ruth and Boaz echoes a law in Numbers
probably legislated by the author of the Holiness Code:29
Speak to the Israelites and say to them that they should make a tassel on
ypnk, the wings, of their garments throughout their generations, and put on
the tassel, Pnkh, at each wing, lytp, a twine, of tlkt, blue-violet. And
you shall have the tassel to see it and remember all the commandments of
YHWH and perform them. And you shall not wrwtt, scout, after your hearts
and after your eyes as you whore after them. (Num. 15.38-39)
Ful llment of this commandment violates the prohibition of mixing wool
and linen (Lev. 19.19; Deut. 22.11), because dyed bers in the ancient
Near East were woolen whereas the basic ber for garments was linen. The
commandment is therefore a mandate that all Israelites should be as holy
as the priests to whom the Priestly author gives a monopoly of such a for-
bidden mixture (Exod. 28.6; 3739; 39.29).30 Describing the union
between Boaz and Ruth the author of Ruth says:
And it was in the middle of the night, and the man [Boaz] was startled
tplyw, and twisted himself, and here, a woman was lying at his feet. And he
said: Who are you? And she said: I am twr, Ruth, your handmaiden. And
you shall spread Kpnk, your wing, over your handmaiden, because you are
the redeemer. (Ruth. 3.8-9)
This description echoes the law in Numbers in several ways:
1. The word tplyw (and twisted himself), describing the way that an
intoxicated Boaz entwines himself with Ruth in the middle of the
night, echoes the word lytp (twine, Num. 15.38), which resonates
anagrammatically with it.

28. The words tyb (house, Gen. 43.16 [2], 17, 18, 19 [2], 24, 26 [2]; 44.1, 4,
14; 45.2) and Pswy (Joseph, Gen. 37.2 [2], 3, 5, 13, 17, 23 [2], 28 [3], 29, 31)
appear together 26 times in the rst and second part of the Joseph narrative, linking the
way that Pswy tyb (the house of Joseph) saves the house of Judah in the Joseph nar-
rative to the way that Noah saves humankind with the hbyt (ark), a word that appears
26 times.
29. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1722, pp. 1354, 1459, 1596; idem, Leviticus 2327
(AB, 3b; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2001), p. 2325.
30. See Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Pentateuch: Numbers (Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society, 1996), p. 413.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

14 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

2. The word Kpnk (your wing) echoes the words ypnk (the wings)
and Pnkh (at each wing) in Num. 15.38.
3. tlkt (blue-violet) resonates with Ktlk, htlk, htlkl, hytlk
and hytlkw denoting daughter-in-law in Ruth 1.6, 7, 8, 22 [2];
2.20, 22 [2]; 4.15.
4. The name of twr (Ruth), the woman who causes Boaz to entwine
himself with her, resonates anagrammatically with the word wrwtt
(scout) in a verse that prohibits whoring (Num. 15.39).
The linkage established by the verbal resonances suggests that the author
of Ruth considers her conduct to be an act of holiness rather than deprav-
ity, because the law in Numbers concludes with the words:
yrkzt N(ml, in order that you shall remember, and perform all my com-
mandments and be My#dq, holy, to your God. (Num. 15.40)
The words wrkzt N(ml (in order that you shall remember, Num. 15.40)
may also be read in order that you may exercise your virility, based on
the fact that the root rkz can denote the membrum virile (Isa. 57.8;
Ezek. 16.17). It is used verbally in Exod. 34.19 and, as Rendsburg points
out, by First Isaiah when he uses the words yrkzt N(ml (in order that
you may be fornicated, Isa. 23.16).31 When Ruth lies with Boaz she
ful lls the law in Num. 15.40 by accepting Boazs membrum virile, the
author of Ruth interpreting the word wrkzt (you shall remember) in
Num. 15.40 as you may be attached to a male. Ruth and Boaz sublimate
their intercourse intertwining in a way that the Deuteronomic law prohibits
when it forbids Ammonites and Moabites to enter the community of God
(Deut. 23.4),32 becoming My#dq (holy) like the Israelites when they
wear a garment that is intertwined in a manner forbidden to all but the

31. See Rendsburg, Bilingual Wordplay, pp. 155-56.

32. It is likely that ym(n (Naomi) was an ynm( (Ammonite) because of the
anagrammatic resonance. Boazs union with Ruth is forbidden not only because Ruth is
a Moabite but because Naomi is an Ammonite. The MT in Ruth 3.3-4 also implies that
Naomi accompanies Ruth when Ruth lies with Boaz, suggesting that Boaz lies with
both women. Since Boaz calls Ruth my daughter on the rst occasion that he ad-
dresses her (2.8) and when he lies with her (2.11), his relationship with Ruth echoes
that of Lot with his daughters, mothers of Moab and Ammon, as the author implies
when he says that he came to her +lb (secretly, Ruth 3.7), a word that resonates with
+wl (Lot)! Boazs relationship with Ruth also echoes that of Judah and Tamar be-
cause he lies with a daughter-in-law, albeit not his own but of the woman who accom-
panies Ruth when he lies with her. The word hrwmth (exchange, Ruth 4.7) is clearly
an allusion to Tamar, like the explicit reference to her in Ruth 4.12.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 15

priests. When Ruth follows Naomi from Moab and accepts her God (Ruth
1.16) she implies a willingness to perform all Gods commandments in
accordance with the law in Num. 15.39.33 The verbal resonances used by
the author of Ruth imply that Ruth and Boaz ful ll the law of holiness by
entwining in the forbidden manner of wool and linen, making them both
My#dq (holy) in the same way that the combination of wool and linen
makes the Israelites My#dq when a Pnk (wing) of their garments is en-
twined with a lytp (twine) of tlkt (blue-violet), so that God himself
can facilitate conception initiated by the intercourse of Boaz with Naomis
hlk (daughter-in-law).

4. Missing Resonances
Sometimes a lesson may be learned from the absence of a resonance when
the reader expects one, as Helen Vendler has explained while analyzing
Shakespeares sonnets.34 She has shown that every sonnet has a keyword
but that sometimes it is missing. For example, in the 67th Sonnet the word
live appears in various forms in the three quatrains but is absent in the
couplet. She calls this sonnet a defective keyword sonnet and explains
that the deletion of live from the couplet is deliberate, giving the sonnet
its special meaning. I will illustrate this phenomenon with two examples,
one simple and one complex.
A simple example is the allusion Moses makes to the Deuteronomic law
of warfare at the end of Deuteronomy:
Be strong and bold, w)ryt-l), do not fear, Mhynpm wcr(t-l)w, and do not
dread their presence, because YHWH your God, the one who goes with you,
will not fail you and not abandon you. (Deut. 31.6)
This echoes the Deuteronomic law of warfare when the Deuteronomist
commands the priest who leads the Israelites into battle to say:
Let your heart not be soft, w)ryt-l), do not fear, do not tremble -l)w
Mhynpm wcr(t, and do not dread their presence, because YHWH your God
is the one who goes with you to ght with you against your enemies
(y#whl, to deliver, you. (Deut. 20.3-4)

The word (y#whl (to deliver) is a keyword in the law of warfare, con-
cluding it for emphasis. Unlike the verbs )ry and Cr(, which are found in

33. The name of twr (Ruth) resonates not only with rwt (scout) but also hrwt
(Torah)!
34. Helen Vendler, The Art of Shakespeares Sonnets (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1997), p. xv.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

16 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

other ancient Near Eastern texts to inspire and encourage kings,35 the verb
(#y is not. While this may ostensibly explain its absence in Deut. 31.6
there is another explanation. The missing resonance is supplied in the
next verse when Moses addresses (#why (Joshua):
And Moses spoke (#whyl, to Joshua, and said to him before the eyes of all
Israel: Be strong and bold, for you will bring this people to the land which
he has sworn to their fathers to give them and you will give it to them as a
possession. And YHWH is the one who will go before you. He will be with
you. He will not fail you or abandon you. Know not fear or be terri ed.
(Deut. 31.7-8).
The name of (#why (Joshua), which resonates with (y#whl (to de-
liver), supplies the missing resonance, highlighting the fact that Joshua
will enable God to ful ll his promise (y#whl (to deliver) when the Is-
raelites ght battles in the conquest of Canaan.
A second, more complex, example of missing resonance links Joseph
to Elijah, explaining Elishas mysterious statement when he sees Elijahs
ascent to heaven in a chariot. There is a striking parallel between the
Joseph narrative, where Joseph is seized in Dothan (Gen. 37.17) for pro-
viding secret information to his father, the leader of Israel, and the Elisha
narrative, where Elisha is seized in Dothan for providing secret informa-
tion to the king of Israel (2 Kgs 6.12-13).36 This parallel, supported by
many other verbal resonances which also link both narratives to Dothan
the rebel who rebels against Moses and goes down to Sheol as Jacob sus-
pects Joseph has done (Gen. 37.35; Num. 16.33),37 suggests that Joseph

35. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), p. 45.
36. The word hbd (defamation, Gen. 37.2) links Josephs report to his father
Israel to the hbd which the scouts bring the Israelites concerning the land of Canaan
(Num. 13.32; 14.36, 37), and implies that Joseph predicts that his brothers will behave
like the scouts, which is why he calls them Mylgrm (spies, Gen. 42.9, 14, 16)! He
predicts to his father Israel that they will defame the land of Israel like the scouts,
reporting like the scouts that it is a land that consumes (tlk)) its inhabitants (Num.
13.32) when they say that it is a land without lk) (food, Gen. 42.10). The words
h(r Mtbd (their evil defamation, Gen. 37.2) do not mean a bad report about them,
as generally thought, but describe the fact that at the very beginning of the Joseph
narrative Joseph acts as a prophet like Elisha.
37. Dothan echoes the Akkadian ditanu or didanu, the abode of the mysterious
beings called Rephaim (W.T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Funerary Text RS 34:126, BASOR
232 [1978], pp. 65-75).

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 17

echoes Elisha, but other verbal resonances indicate that Joseph also echoes
Elijah. The Torah says:
hn#mh tbkrmb wt) bkryw, and he (Pharaoh) made him ride in the chariot
of the second-in-command, and they called out before him: Krb), steward!
And he was appointed over all the land of Egypt. (Gen. 41.43)
The Torah implies certain connections with the word Krb) (steward), a
hapax related to the Akkadian word abarakku (steward), a term that cer-
tainly applies to Joseph, for Pharaoh commands him to provide for the
people like a steward (Gen. 41.40).38 It resonates anagrammatically with
the word tbkrm (chariot), and echoes the word b) (father), a common
word which the Torah uses most unusually to denote the position to which
God appoints Joseph over Pharaoh:
And now, it was not you who sent me away here but God, and he appointed
me b)l, as a father, to Pharaoh and as a lord of all his house, and ruler of
all the land of Egypt. (Gen. 45.8)
The title b) (father) is unknown in ancient Egypt.39 In Gen. 45.8 it
implies that God appoints Joseph as Pharaohs prophet in the same way
that he appoints Moses as prophet to another Pharaoh and Elijah as pro-
phet to Ahab! The title implies that Joseph echoes Elijah, an b) (father)
whom Elisha calls yb) yb) (my father, my father):
And while they were walking and talking, here, #)-bkr, a chariot of re,
and horses of re separated them both, and Elijah ascended to heaven in the
whirlwind. And Elisha saw and cried out: wy#rpw l)r#y bkr yb) yb), my
father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen. (2 Kgs 2.11-12)
The meaning of the phrase wy#rpw l)r#y bkr (the chariot of Israel and
its horsemen) is unclear.40 Pharaohs gift of the tbkrm (chariot) implies

38. As a steward, Joseph echoes Abrahams servant, the Torah using the word l#m
(ruler) for both (Gen. 24.2; 45.8). Both men swear oaths on their lords thigh (Gen.
24.2; 48.29), swearing to ensure that their lord or his master will return to Canaan.
Jacob sends Joseph to see the Mwl#, of his brothers and their ock (Gen. 37.14 [2]),
and he ends up as the l#m (ruler) of Egypt! That may be why he tells his brothers in
Gen. 45.9 to report this to Jacob!
39. See J. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1959), pp.
114-15. The Bible applies the word yb) to non-prophetic leaders in 1 Sam. 24.12;
2 Kgs 5.13; Isa. 22.21.
40. The phrase wy#rpw l)r#y bkr echoes an exclamatory phrase popular during
the Aramean wars of the mid-ninth century. See K. Galling, Der Ehrenname Elisas und
die Entrckung Elias, ZTK 53 (1956), pp. 129-48; see M.A. Beek, The Meaning of

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

18 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

that he hopes that Josephs tbkrm (chariot) will take him around Egypt
in the way that Elijahs #)-bkr (chariot of re) takes Elijah to
41
heaven. It evokes the power of the divine presence because it resonates
with the word Mybwrk (cherubs) between whose wings it resides above
the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25.18, 19 [3], 20 [2], 22). It also fore-
shadows the way that Josephs body is placed into an Nwr) (ark, Gen.
50.26), a word that otherwise only denotes the Ark of the Covenant, im-
plying that the veneration of Joseph after his death foreshadows the
veneration of that Nwr) (ark), above which the divine presence hovers
between the Mybrk (cherubs)!
The word wy#rpw (and its horsemen, 2 Kgs 2.12) is a missing reso-
nance since it does not appear in the narrative describing Pharaohs gift
of the chariot to his steward Joseph even though it echoes other language
in the verse. The Torah supplies the missing resonance when it says that
Pharaoh calls Joseph xn(p tnpc (Zaphenath-paneah). While the mean-
ing of this name is obscure, it means revealer of the hidden according to
Josephus (Ant. 2.6.1), both Targums, the Peshi ta and Saadiah, and we
will see that a close reading of the narrative justi es this interpretation,
implying that Joseph is not only like Elijah riding in the heavenly chariot
to heaven but like the interpreters of Gods words denoted by the word
wy#rpw (and its horsemen) in the description of Elijah. The term #rp
not only means horseman but make distinct or interpret, in two cases
in the Torah where Moses requires oracular advice:
And he placed him [the blasphemer] rm#mb, in the guardhouse, #rpl, to
interpret, to them according to the word of YHWH. (Lev. 24.11)
And they placed him [the wood-gatherer] rm#mb, in the guardhouse,
because it had not been #rp, interpreted, what should be done to him.
(Num. 15.34)
Josephs oneiric powers (Gen. 41.9), demonstrated by the way he inter-
prets (#rp) dreams in a rm#m (guardhouse, Gen. 40.3-5), makes him
analogous to the people whom Elisha describes as wy#rpw (and its horse-
men, 2 Kgs 2.12), a word that can also mean and its interpreters. The
verb #rp (interpret), semantically similar to Aramaic r#p (interpret,

the Expression The Chariots and the Horsemen of Israel (II Kings ii 12), OTS 17
(1972), pp. 1-10.
41. Joash, king of Israel, also uses the same language that Elisha applies to Elijah to
Elisha (2 Kgs 13.13). The Elisha tradition associates him with chariots (2 Kgs 6.14, 15,
17), just as it does Joseph, whereas it does not do this to Elijah.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 19

Eccl. 8.1), and the verb rtp (interpret)42 resonates with the word rm#m,
(guardhouse) with which it shares two consonants, while the latters third
consonant, mem, is a labial consonant that is related to the labial pe in
#rp (interpret). When Pharaoh names Joseph xn(p tnpc (Zaphenath-
paneah), he echoes the word wy#rpw (and its horsemen, 2 Kgs 2.12),
because Joseph has demonstrated his ability to interpret (#rp) when he
interpreted the dreams of Pharaohs cupbearer and baker. Pharaohs use of
the verb Npc (hide) when naming Joseph implies that he regards Joseph,
the interpreter of dreams, as the discoverer of hidden secrets comparable
to those of the divine chariot that Ezekiel is famous for revealing but to
which the author of Kings also alludes with his use of the term wy#rpw
(and its horsemen). The name tnpc (Zaphenath) also links Joseph to
Moses whose mother hides him at birth using the verb Npc (Exod. 2.2, 3),
foreshadowing the way that Moses, too, would become a discoverer of
hidden secrets!43 It parallels Elishas use of the word wy#rpw (and its
horsemen) when describing Elijahs chariot and explains the absence of
the word wy#rpw when Pharaoh gives Joseph the chariot. The link between
the words xn(p tnpc (Zaphenath-paneah) and wy#rpw when wy#rpw is
translated not as its horsemen but its interpreters af rms that Joseph is
the interpreter of Pharaohs secrets, foreshadowing Elijah, the interpreter
of Gods secrets whose ascent to heaven parallels Josephs burial in an
Nwr) (ark) above which God resides between the Mybrk (cherubs).

5. Numerical Resonances
The number of times a keyword appears is signi cant and may link nar-
ratives. The Rabbis recognized a category of scribes whom they called

42. The verb rtp (interpret) denotes the way that Joseph interprets dreams 13
times7 times that of Pharaohs cupbearer (Gen. 40.5, 8 [2], 12, 16, 18, 22), and 6
times those of Pharaoh (Gen. 41.8, 11, 12, 13, 15 [2]). The verb does not appear any-
where outside the Joseph narrative, but links Balaam to Joseph because he comes from
rwtp (Pethor, Num. 22.5; Deut. 23.5).
43. The name Zaphenath-paneah also links Joseph to Moses because Moses
hidden nature extends from his birth, as I have shown, to his burial (Deut. 34.6), as
implied by the word Nwps (hidden), which probably applies to him in Deut. 33.2.
Deutero-Isaiah also uses the word Pwnc (diadem) to denote Moses in an anagrammatic
wordplay in Deut. 63.3 where the form Pwncw (and a diadem) resonates anagramma-
tically with the word Nwpc (hidden). He therefore highlights the hidden nature of
Moses as the redeemer in the next chapter when according to the LXX he introduces a
pericope describing the exodus by saying: [YHWH] was their savior in all their af ic-
tion; not an envoy or a messenger, his presence saved them (Isa. 63.8-9).

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

20 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

Myrpws, a word that can mean scribes but also can mean counters. They
were allegedly called Myrpws because they counted every biblical word
and letter to determine whether texts had been accurately transcribed. By
counting words and letters it became possible to provide a mathematical
way of screening texts. However, there is another rationale to counting
words that was ostensibly not described by Rabbis in the past. Such count-
ing links narratives, drawing attention to verbal resonances that would not
otherwise be apparent.
Keywords often appear a signi cant number of times, the most common
number being seven or multiples of seven,44 although the use of eight45
and 10 are often equally important. In this article I will illustrate the rarer
frequencies of 9, 11, 13 and 26.
The name of Nbl (Laban) means white. The name appears 54 times
(69) in Genesis, and in no other book of the Bible, four times in the nar-
rative Abrahams servant (Gen. 24.29 [2], 50; 25.20), and 50 times in the
narrative of Jacobs exile to Laban. The word Nbl (white) is a keyword
that appears 18 times (twice 9) in the pericope on scale disease (Lev. 13.3,
4 [2], 10 [2], 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24 [2], 25, 26, 39, 42, 43),46 so
that the name of Nbl (Laban) appears three times as often as the word
Nbl (white) in the description of scale disease. The verb h#p is also a
keyword that appears 18 times in the pericope on scale disease (Lev. 13.5,
6, 7 [3], 8, 22, 23 [2], 27, 32, 33, 35 [2], 44, 48, 51, 53). It means turns
white, and is cognate with the Akkadian words pe and p u, meaning
be white and white lesion.47 The way that the words Nbl (white) and
h#p (be white) appear in frequencies that echo the frequency of the
name of Nbl (Laban) implies that Laban has scale disease, an impression
the Torah con rms when it says that Laban tells Abrahams servant on his
arrival in the course of his mission to nd a bride for Isaac tybh ytynp (I
have cleared the house, Gen. 24.31). The root hnp appears only three times
in the Bible (Gen. 24.31; Lev. 14.26; Ps. 80.10), and the words ytynp
tybh (I have cleared the house) echo language in the pericope of scale

44. M.H. Pope, Number, Numbering, Numbers, IDB, IV, pp. 294-95.
45. See Samuel E. Loewenstamm, The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition (trans.
Baruch Schwartz; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1992), p. 85 n. 31.
46. According to the Rabbis all forms of scale disease are white (m. Neg. 1.1; Mid.
3.4).
47. One text equates qummal/nu, which is scale disease, with p u (Cuneiform
Texts from Babylonian Tablets, 41, 27, 21; W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwrter-
buch [Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 196581], p. 927).

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 21

disease in Leviticus, where the Torah says tybh-t) wnpw (that they clear
the house, Lev. 14.36), commanding the householder to clear a house that
is suspected of having scale disease before the priest comes to examine it
to determine whether it has scale disease. When the Torah says that Laban
clears his house before admitting Abrahams servant it implies that he has
cleared it in the way that a person whose house is affected by scale disease
must clear it before admitting the priest.
The word Nb) (stone), which resonates with Nb (son) and hnb
(build), and can mean testicles in the double plural (Exod. 1.16), ap-
pears 11 times between Jacobs departure from home and his departure
from Laban (Gen. 28.11, 18, 22; 29.2, 3 [2], 8, 10; 31.45, 46 [2]), re ect-
ing the fact that Jacob has 11 sons while in Labans house in Paddan-aram,
as the Torah stresses (Gen. 32.23). The Torah also mentions Mr) Ndp
(Paddan-aram) 11 times (Gen. 25.20; 28.2, 5, 6, 7 [2]; 31.18; 33.18;
35.9, 26; 46.15; 48.7). Jacobs exile in Mesopotamia therefore foreshad-
ows the establishment of the Israelites from 70 of Jacobs descendants in
Egypt (Exod. 1.5; Deut. 10.22). Canaan has 11 sons (Gen. 10.15-18),
echoing the 11 sons of Jacob born in Mesopotamia, the 11 tribes blessed
in Deut. 33.6-26 and the 11 tribes among whom the land west of the
Jordan is divided in Joshua. The words Mym# (heavens) and Mym (water)
appear 11 times each in the rst creation narrative (Gen. 1.1, 8, 9, 14, 15,
17, 20, 26, 28, 30; 2.1; Gen. 1.2, 6 [3], 7 [2], 9, 10, 20, 21, 22), while
the word Myhl) (God) appears with the tetragrammaton 11 times in the
second creation narrative (Gen. 2.4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22),
highlighting the importance of this number in describing the building
blocks of creation, not only of the world and Man but also of Israel and
Canaan.
The number 11 is also important in the narrative of Dinah and Shechem
where the word rwmx, meaning either Shechems father Hamor or ass,
appears 11 times (Gen. 34.2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 18 [2], 20, 24, 26, 28), as does
the name of Hamors son Mk# (Shechem, Gen. 34.2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 18,
20, 24, 26 [2]). The fact that Shechem the son of Hamor threatens the
integrity of Jacobs family by seducing Dinah and that Hamor threatens it
by offering a treaty based on intermarriage is highlighted by the fact that
the words rwmx (Hamor and ass) and Mk# (Shechem) appear the
same number of times as the keywords Nb) (stone) and Paddan-aram in
the narrative describing how Jacob builds a family in Mesopotamia. If
Hamors proposal of marriage were to succeed in violation of the Deutero-
nomic prohibition of intermarriage with Canaanites, Jacobs 11 stones

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

22 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

would turn into 11 asses.48 The fact that both these words appear 11
times, the same number of times as keywords in the narrative describing
Jacobs establishment of a family with 11 sons in Mesopotamia, implies
that the Dinah narrative contrasts the threat to the integrity of Jacobs
family caused by Shechems seduction of Dinah with Jacobs establish-
ment of his family in Mesopotamia.49
The tetragrammaton appears 26 times in ch. 4 of Deuteronomy,50 a num-
ber which equals its numerical value. The word hbt (ark) appears 26
times in the narrative of Noahs Ark (Gen. 6.14 [2], 15, 16 [2], 18, 19;
7.1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23; 8.1, 4, 6, 9 [2], 10, 13, 16, 19; 9.10, 18),
while the word My+# (acacia), the name of the wood with which God
instructs Moses to make utensils for the tabernacle, appears 26 times in
the Exodus (Exod. 25.5, 10, 13, 23, 28; 26.15, 26, 32, 37; 27.1, 6; 30.1, 5;
35.4; 36.20, 31, 36; 37.1, 4, 10, 15, 25, 28; 38.1,6, 7). The linkage thus
established between these two Egyptian loanwords implies that the holi-
ness of Noahs Ark, an entity associated with rpk (expiation), a root
that appears twice in Gen. 6.14 in addition to the resonating hapax rpg
(gopher), foreshadows that of the tabernacle and its utensils whose ra-
tionale is expiation.51

48. The word (drpc (frog), which appears 11 times (Exod. 7.27-29; 8.1-9) in the
narrative of the Plagues links the swarming of the frogs to that of the Israelites, because
for both species the Torah uses the verb Cr# (swarm, Exod. 1.7; 7.28).
49. A large cluster of verbal resonances links the narrative of the Danites capture
of Laish and the installation of Micah as a priest in Laish/Dan (Judg. 18) to that of the
seduction of Dinah. The name of hkym (Micah), which resonates with Mk# (She-
chem), appears 11 times (Judg. 18.2-4, 13, 15, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 31)! The connection
is curious since Micah echoes Shechem less than Levi who, by taking Shechems idols,
causes Jacob anguish together with Simeon (Gen. 34.31; 35.2).
50. See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111 (AB, 4a; Garden City, NY: Double-
day, 1991), p. 223.
51. In the laws of the puri cation of the sanctuary on Yom Kippur, the root rpk
(expiate) is a keyword, appearing 14 times (Lev. 16.6, 10, 11, 16, 17 [2], 18, 20, 24,
27, 30, 32-34). It resonates with the word trpk (atonement dais), denoting the solid
gold slab that is placed on top of the Ark, which the Torah mentions seven times in the
pericope (Lev. 16.2 [2], 13, 14 [2], 15 [2]). The way Noah covers (rpk), the Ark
with rpk (pitch) foreshadows the way that the tabernacle will help to expiate (rpk),
from the atonement dais (trpk).

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 23

Discussion
The use of verbal resonances creates verbal analogies comparable to
52
analogies upon which Mary Douglas has shown the logic behind laws of
Leviticus to be based. They re ect the fact that biblical logic often re ects
presentational thought based on the creation of analogies rather than
discursive reasoning.53 They play a structural role in the text, enhancing
its semantic complexity similar to the role of music in poetry. Diane Kel-
sey McColley notes that poetrys verbal harmonies, both audible and
cognitive, resemble the composition of Renaissance polyphony; though
reading linearly, one is conscious of an extraordinary density of verbal
resonances that form vertical harmonies.54 The observation that McColley
makes about poetry is very applicable to biblical narratives. The vertical
harmonies created by verbal resonances extend the context of each nar-
rative beyond its own pericope to others that are linked to it by analogies
created by those resonances, elucidating the plain meaning of texts, re-
ecting the analogic thinking that Mary Douglas has identi ed in the Bible.
Throughout the nineteenth century biblical scholars held that biblical
narratives were composed of a series of primary units which were re-
dacted secondarily to provide the text of the Bible. This view is changing.
Verbal resonances enable the biblical reader to appreciate the unity of
biblical narrative cycles rather than focusing on them as a series of dis-
parate units. Many misreadings of biblical narratives can be prevented if
the reader becomes aware of the hermeneutic implications of the reso-
nances woven into the biblical matrix.
Biblical Hebrew has comparatively few roots55 and builds its large
vocabulary by in ecting them. Because of the relative paucity of roots,

52. Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999),
p. 20.
53. For the distinction between presentational and discursive see Suzanne K.
Langer, Philology in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite and Art
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942).
54. Diane Kelsey McColley, Poetry and Music in Seventeenth-Century England
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 78. See also William Freedman,
The Origin of the Musical Novel (Atlanta: University of Georgia Press, 1978).
55. Jonas Greenberg has described the restriction on the patterning of phonemes in
the triconsonantal verbal roots of Semitic languages (J.H. Greenberg, The Patterning
of Root Morphemes in Semitic, Word 6 [1950], pp. 162-81). He based his study
mainly on a study of some 4000 Arabic roots but his work is very helpful in an under-

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

24 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

words are more likely to resonate with one another in Biblical Hebrew
than in languages that have a larger reservoir of unrelated roots; as a re-
sult, some resonances are likely to occur by coincidence.56 The plausi-
bility of the signi cance of resonances is increased under the following
circumstances:
1. When there is a cluster of resonances;
2. When one of the resonating words is unusual or used in an unusual
manner;
3. When one of the resonating words is a keyword in the narrative,
being repeated many times, often with a change in the ordering of
the root letters, to become what Buber terms a Leitwort;57
4. When the number of times a keyword appears in one narrative
echoes that in which a different keyword appears in another.
Fishbane warns that where narratives are typologically related verbal
echoes of early texts in later sources may not constitute a traditio-traditum
dynamic but rather share a common Wortfeld, providing a thesaurus of
terms and images that are shared and differently employed by distinct
literary circles.58 He points out that while this theoretical possibility should
act as a methodological hedge against uncritical assumptions of literary
interdependence, it does not invalidate any speci c examples of aggadic
exegesis. Sommer points out that even when the use of common traditions
by two texts is unlikely, it can be dif cult to con rm that parallel vocab-
ulary results from borrowing rather than coincidence:
The argument that the author alludes, then, is a cumulative one: assertions
that allusions occur in certain passages become stronger as patterns emerge
from those allusions. The critic must weigh evidence including the number
of markers and their distinctiveness, the presence of stylistic or thematic
patterns that typify the authors allusions, and the likelihood that the author

standing of Biblical Hebrew. See also J. Kurylowicz, Verbal Aspect in Semitics, Or

42 (1973), pp. 114-20.
56. Regina Schwartz writes: Governed by the logic of similitude, but with no laws
to legislate what constitutes the similar, typological thinking can, with enough ingen-
uity, make anything t anything else (Regina M. Schwartz, The Curse of Cain [Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press, 1997], p. 172). Her comment is powerful but the
power of verbal resonances should deter the biblical reader from exegetical nihilism.
57. Martin Buber, Leitwortstil in der Erzhlung des Pentateuchs, in Werke. II.
Schriften zur Bibel (repr., Munich: Ksel, 1964 [1936]), pp. 1131-49.
58. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, p. 288.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 25

would allude to the alleged source. The weighing of such evidence (and
hence the identi cation of allusions) is an art, not a science.59
It is ultimately up to the reader to determine whether the linkages rep-
resent an intentional sharing by linked texts of a common literary tradition
and Wortfeld or the unintentional in uence of one text on another or
merely sheer coincidence. While some of the linkages established by
verbal resonances may be the eisegetic, anfractuous products of creative
philology,60 the phenomenon of verbal resonances in the Hebrew Bible is
suf ciently pervasive to provide a prima facie plausibility to the method-
ology which searches for their presence, although the scholar must surely
be as wary as Christopher Robin of the danger of hunting what A.A. Milne
called woozles.61
Clayton and Rothstein62 have distinguished between two approaches to
intertextual relationships. The rst is based on connections that re ect lin-
guistic, esthetic, cultural or ideological contexts of the linked texts, giving
rise to what they call intertextuality, which does not depend on authors
of the texts knowing one another.63 The intertextual approach focuses on
the text as part of a larger system and on the readers matrix of associa-
tions. It uses the methodology of thick description developed by the
anthropologist Clifford Geertz, treating an entire culture as a coherent
network of signs, interpreting Balinese cock- ghting, for example, not as
an isolated phenomenon but as a manifestation of a collective conscious-
ness informing the institutions of society at large.64 Adapting this method,
Greenblatt has been able to show how unfamiliar cultural textsoften
marginal, fragmentary, unexpected, and crudeinteract with intimately
familiar works of the literary canon.65 This approach is reader-oriented

59. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture, pp. 34-35.

60. See Zvi Malachi, Creative Philology as a System of Biblical and Talmudic
Exegesis, in Noegel (ed.), Puns and Pundits, pp. 269-87.
61. A.A. Milne, Winnie the Pooh (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1926), pp. 34-43.
62. Jay Clayton and Eric Rothstein, Figures in the Corpus: Theories of In uence
and Intertextuality, in idem (eds.), In uence and Intertextuality in Literary History
(Madison: University of Madison Press, 1991), esp. Chapters 3, 4 and 21.
63. See Ziva Ben-Porat, The Poetics of Literary Allusion, Poetics and Theory of
Literature: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and the Theory of Literature 1 (1976),
pp. 109, 127, 170-171 (170).
64. See Frank Kermode, Art among the Ruins, New York Review of Books 48
(2001), pp. 59-63.
65. See, e.g., Catherine Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt, Practicing New Histori-
cism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

26 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 96 (2001)

and synchronic and contrasts with the approach which focuses attention
on the author and diachronic allusions to a primary text, the traditum, to
which a second text, the traditio, alludes.66 Verbal resonances facilitate the
recognition of both synchronic and diachronic allusions.
The way the biblical authors linked texts using verbal resonances indi-
cates that they used the midrashic process centuries before the Rabbis to
whom this methodology has been mistakenly attributed. Avigdor Shinan
has suggested that the presence of aggadic traditions in apocryphal litera-
ture requires us to consider the midrashic process as used by the Rabbis
not as a creative process which produced new ideas but as a process whose
entire strength consisted of linking existing traditions to the biblical text.67
However, the intertextual links discovered by the Rabbis at the beginning
of the common era using verbal resonances echo those which the biblical
authors themselves created by means of verbal resonances. Biblical schol-
ars continue to use the word midrashic pejorativelythe word resonates
with Rashi whose midrashic analysis was already rejected by his grand-
son, Rashbam, on Gen. 37.2!using the term to denote exegesis con-
sidered to be based on creative philology and therefore uncovering meta-
meanings than are tangential to biblical texts and therefore ostensibly not
inherently associated with them. However, this negative assessment of the
midrashic process ignores the fact that the biblical authors themselves
used similar midrashic techniques long before they were applied not only
by the Rabbis but even by the authors of the Apocrypha discussed by
Shina. Since they are endogenous and not exogenous they cry out: ynw#rd
(interpret me)!
Stephen Jay Gould wrote about Karl Ernst von Baer, the man who
discovered the mammalian egg in 1827 and described it in 1828 in the
founding treatise of modern animal stratigraphy:
As an old man, from his Russian periphery, von Baer made the famous and
rueful remark that all new and truly important ideas must pass through three
stages: rst dismissed as nonsense, then rejected as against religion, and
nally acknowledged as true, with the proviso from the initial opponents
that they knew it all along.68

66. See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 415-17.

67. Avigdor Shinan, The World of the Aggadah (Tel Aviv: MOD Books, 1990), pp.
33-34.
68. Stephen Jay Gould, What Only the Embryo Knows, The New York Times, 27
August, 2001.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.

 HEPNER Verbal Resonance 27

It is as illogical to ignore verbal resonances as it was for the opponents

of Charles Darwin to ignore the existence of fossils. Biblical scholarship
will be greatly enhanced once all biblical scholars acknowledge the im-
portance of the linkages established by verbal resonances in the elucida-
tion of the stratigraphy of biblical texts.

ABSTRACT
Verbal resonances between words are well recognized in rabbinical literature. Contem-
porary scholars frequently use them to help identify intertextual links between biblical
narratives. This paper analyzes them and shows how they facilitate the discovery of
meanings in texts that they link, highlighting their importance as a primary mechanism
for understanding biblical texts.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2001.