258 EDWARD J. BRIDGE their language to respect the “face” of those they communicate with ; that is, they use polite language of some description 10. When speakers in the Bible use self-abasement to express thanks, they in effect reduce their face before the hearer. This works on a principle similar to deference: the use of self-depre- ciative language places the hearer in the role of higher status to the speaker 11. In effect, self-abasement is an extreme form of defer- ence. Prominent in the biblical texts is that indebtedness or ob- ligation to the hearer is not expressed. This, with the contrast of direct thanks coupled with expressions of obligation, matches with cultural-anthropological study on gift giving; namely, in many cul- tures, the receiver of a gift is obligated to the gift giver 12. This study argues that people in the Hebrew Bible use self-abasement to other people to both highlight the hearer’s magnanimity for a favourable response to a request or having received a favour and avoid expressing obligation to the hearer. When the same language is used in thanks to God, however, context indicates obligation to God occurs or has occurred and therefore the language highlights God’s magnanimity alone. Such language can also form part of a strategy to motivate God to answer a request. My discussion first focuses on the use of self-abasement to express thanks to people, then the use of self-abasement to express For a description of the theory, critique, and its applicability to the Bible, 10 see E.J. BRIDGE, “Polite Israel and Impolite Edom”, JSOT 35 (2010) 77-88; and BRIDGE, “Polite Language”, 522-524. For a good overview of the theory, also with critique, see D.J. GOLDSMITH, “Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory ”, Explaining Communication. Contemporary Theories and Exemplars (eds. B.B. WHALEY – W. SAMTER) (LEA’s Communication Series; Mahwah, NJ 2007) 219-236. Others who have used the theory for analysing biblical texts are E.J. REVELL, The Designation of the Individual. Expressive Usage in Bib- lical Narrative (CBET 14; Kampen 1996) 267-274; J.H. COETZEE, “Politeness Strategies in the So-called ‘Enemy Psalms’: An Inquiry into Israelite Prayer R h e t o r i c ” , Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible ( e d s . S.E. P O R T E R – D.L. STAMPS) (JSOTSS 195; Sheffield 2002) 209-236; and B. ESTELLE, “The Use of Deferential Language in the Arsames Correspondence and Biblical Aramaic Compared”, Maarav 13 (2006) 43-74. BROWN – LEVINSON, Politeness, 178. 11 See M. MAUSS, The Gift (trans. W.D. HALLS) (New York, NY 1990). See 12 M.W. HAMILTON, “At Whose Table? Stories of Elites and Social Climbers in 1-2 Samuel”, VT 59 (2009) 513-532, here 519, for an application of Marcell’s theory to biblical texts.