Edward J. Bridge, «Self-Abasement as an Expression of Thanks in the Hebrew Bible», Vol. 92 (2011) 255-273
Self-abasement is commonly used in the Hebrew Bible to express thanks, especially in narrative texts. Using aspects of politeness theory, it is found that, by using self-abasement, a speaker accepts a loss of face and so avoids indebtedness to the hearer, but at the same time increases the hearer’s face by showing how gracious he was to favourably treat the speaker. It is a form of deference, a use of language that increases social distance between hearer and speaker. However, when self-abasement is also used to express thanks to God, avoidance of indebtedness is not in focus, rather God’s magnanimity. In prayer, self-abasement is also used to motivate God to grant the request.
256 EDWARD J. BRIDGE
hjpç (“ female slaveâ€) metaphorically in addition to Ètma, as do
Pss 86,16 and 116,16, in which ÈtmaA–b (“ son of your slave
woman â€) parallels Èdb[. The use of blk (“ dog â€) for self-abasement
(1 Sam 24,15[14] 4 ; 2 Sam 3,8; 9,8; 2 Kgs 8,13), though infrequent,
is also noteworthy since it is also used as invective against others
(Deut 23,18; 1 Sam 17,43; 2 Sam 16,9; Pss 22,17[16].21[20]: Isa
56,10-11). Both uses of blk have a long pedigree, being found in
Mari texts and the Amarna letters 5. The use of blk for self-
abasement is also found in the Lachish letters (2,3-4; 5,3-4;
6,2-3) 6, thus blk in this context should be considered to be stock
language. Likewise, the use of master-slave deference dates back
to at least the Sargonic period, was widely used in the Ancient
Near East through to the Persian period 7, and is found frequently
in the Hebrew Bible, so should be considered to be customary
language. Other forms of abasing or belittling of oneself also occur
(e.g. Ex 3,11; Ruth 2,13; 1 Sam 9,21; 17,43; 18,18.23; 2 Sam 3,8;
7,18 ; Isa 6,5; Jer 1,6).
Self-abasement is used for a variety of reasons. It can be used
to reject significance (Ex 3,11; Ruth 2,13; 1 Sam 18,18.23;
24,15[14] ; 2 Sam 7,18; Isa 6,5; Jer 1,6), to claim significance (Gen
H. SIMIAN-YOFRE – U. RÃœTERWÖRDEN, “db[ ‘abad ; db[ ‘ebed ; hdb"ˆ ‘abodâ â€,
"; ¯ ¯
,, : o[
TDOT X, 392-393; HALOT II, 775. This is acknowledged by most scholarship.
References are from the MT with English Bible references given in
4
square brackets.
For invective, see, e.g. EA 71, 75, 85, 130, 137 (Amarna letters); ARM I
5
27.28 (Mari). For self-abasement, see e.g. EA 60, 61, 314-325 (very common in
the Amarna letters). For discussion, see D.W. THOMAS, “Kelebh ‘Dog’: Its
Origin and Some Usages of it in the Old Testamentâ€, VT 10 (1960) 410-427,
here 415.
For discussion, see THOMAS, “Kelebh ‘Dog’â€, 410-427; J.M. GALÃN,
6
“ What is He, the Dogâ€, UF 25 (1993) 173-180; G.W. COATS, “Self-Abasement
and Insult Formulasâ€, JBL 89 (1972) 14-26; J.M. HUTTON, “‘Abdi-Asirta, the
ˇ
Slave, the Dog’: Self-Abasement and Invective in the Amarna letters, the
Lachish Letters, and 2 Sam 3:8â€, Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 15/16 (2002/
2003) 2-18; cf. E.J. BRIDGE, “Polite Language in the Lachish Lettersâ€, VT 60
(2010) 518-534, here 525-527.
See P. MICHALOWSKI, Letters from Early Mesopotamia (SBL Writings
7
from the Ancient World 3; Atlanta, GA 1993) §§ 6, 24-25, 30, 75-79, 97
(Sargonic and Ur III letters; pre 2000 BCE); A.E. COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri of
the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford 1923) 30, 37, 38 (Elephantine letters; 420-410
BCE).
FOLLOW US