267 SELF-ABASEMENT EXPRESSION THANKS AS AN OF expressing obligation to the hearer, which normally happens when gifts or favours are accepted. Occasionally, self-abasement is counterfactual to the speaker’s situation. This occurs when the speaker is an equal or social superior to the hearer. Such language adds to the increase in “face” of the hearer, by portraying the speaker as unworthy to have received what the hearer has given to him/her. The use of self-abasement to express thanks in biblical narra- tive suggests this was an aspect of ancient Israelite culture. This can be confirmed with an analysis of the use of the formula, yk blk Èdb[ ym (“ What is your servant, [but] a dog, that ...?”) in the Lachish letters (2,3-4; 5,3-4; 6,2-3). The formula is often under- stood to express criticism of the addressee, who is also the send- ers’ immediate superior 34. However, it is better to understand the expression as expressing thanks since many of the Lachish letters mention the prior forwarding of letters by the addressee to the senders. Lachish 6 goes further: the sender shows he has been asked to read such letters 35. The senders’ intent is to imply that the addressee is magnanimous, while avoiding direct expressions of obligation to him. As it is, the senders are formal subordinates of the addressee and therefore already “obligated” to him by virtue of their positions; thus expressions of obligation are not needed in their missives. Still, the use of yk blk Èdb[ ym in these letters shows that even in a formal work relationship — here, a military context — there was a culture of the avoidance of expressing obligation when giving thanks. If military posts in ancient Israel were a result of royal patronage (cf. 1 Sam 8,12; 22,8; 2 Chr 11,23) 36, then the lack of expressions of obligation to superiors for favour becomes all the more noteworthy. Under a patronage system, it would be E . g . COATS, “Self-Abasement”, 18; J.M. LINDENBERGER , A n c i e n t 34 Hebrew and Aramaic Letters (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 14; Atlanta, GA 2003) 117. BRIDGE, “Polite language”, 526; B. THOMAS, “The Language of Polite- 35 ness in Ancient Hebrew Letters”, Hebrew Studies 50 (2009) 17-39, here 30-31; D. PARDEE, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters (SBLSBS 15; Chico, CA 1982) 80. Cf. Lemche’s understanding of ancient Near Eastern societies, including 36 ancient Israel, based on the studies of M. Liverani. See N.P. LEMCHE, “From Patronage Society to Patronage Society”, The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (eds. V. FRITZ – P.R. DAVIES) (Sheffield 1996) 106-120.