Inerrancy Or Discrepancy Between Parallel Accounts In Judges 4:17-22 And 5:24-27?

By René A. López

[Ph.D. Cand., Dallas Theological Seminary, Pastor, Iglesia Bíblica Nuestra Fe (Dallas, TX)]

A careful study of the prose account of Judges 4:17–22 compared to the poetic account of 5:24–27 reveals apparent discrepancies. At a glimpse, one can see that the poetic description of Sisera’s death by Jael lacks some elements mentioned in the prose. On the other hand, the poetic account in 5:24–27 adds various things not found in the prose account of 4:17–22. Some have suggested discrepancies exist between these accounts.[1] Is that correct, or is it a matter of understanding how prose and poetic accounts function? Discrepancies in the passages, of course, undermine the inerrancy of Scripture, besides causing believers to question the accuracy of other areas of the Bible.

The objective of this article is to answer the question: “Why are there distinctions between the accounts of Judges 4:17–22 and 5:24–27?” Hence one may ask, “Are there discrepancies in the text or can distinctions in both parallel accounts be justified while maintaining the inerrancy of the Scriptures?”

First, it will be best to contrast both accounts in order to show omissions, additions and differences in style. Then a comparison of the contents and defining features between prose and poetry will be considered. Finally a proposal will be suggested in keeping with the rules of poetry while honoring the integrity of Scripture.

Contrasts Between Judges 4:17-22 And 5:24-27

v 17 However, Sisera had fled away on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite; for there was peace between Jabin king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite.	v 24 “Most blessed among woman is The wife of Heber the Kenite; Blessed is she among women in tents.
v 18 And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me; do not fear.” And when he had turned aside with her into the tent, she covered him with a blanket.	v 25 He asked for water, she gave milk; She brought out cream in a lordly bowl.
v 19 Then he said to her, “Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty.” So she opened a jug of milk, gave him a drink, and covered him.	v 26 She stretched her hand to the tent peg, Her right hand to the workmen’s hammer; She pounded she pierced his head, She split and struck through his temple.
v 20 And he said to her, “Stand at the door of the tent, and if any man comes and inquires of you, and says, ‘Is there any man here?’ you shall say, ‘No.’”
v 21 Then Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went down into the ground; for he was fast asleep and weary. So he died.	v 27 At her feet he sank, he fell, he lay still; At her feet he sank, he lay still; At her feet he sank, he fell; Where he sank, there he fell dead.
v 22 And then, as Barak pursued Sisera, Jael came out to meet him, and said to him, “Come, I will show you the man whom you seek.” And when he went into her tent, there lay Sisera, dead with the peg in his temple.

The following summarization identifies what is included and excluded in both accounts.

4:17–22 Prose Account	5:24–27 Poetic Account
v 17 (1) How Sisera fled (on foot)	v 24 Excluded
(2) From where does Jael come (the wife of Heber the Kenite)	Included
(3) The political relationship of peace between Jael and the king of Canaan	Excluded
(4) Excluded	Jael called most blessed among women
v 18	v 25
(5) Jael went out to meet Sisera	Excluded
(6) Jael convinced Sisera to stay	Excluded
(7) Jael comforted Sisera by covering him with a blanke	Excluded
(8) Ask for water	Included
v 19
(9) Sisera gives reason for asking (thirst)	Excluded
(10) Jael provided milk	Included
(11) Excluded	Emphasis on the kind of milk (cream) and bowl (lordly)
(12) Refers to opening the jug of milk	Excluded
v 20	v 26
(13) Sisera asked Jael to guard the tent	Excluded
(14) Instructions in case someone comes	Excluded
v 21
(15) The tools Jael used to kill Sisera	Included
(16) The way Jael killed Sisera	Included—with the term “head” being added
(17) Excluded	Emphasizes the progressive repeated action how Jael killed Sisera
(18) What and where the weapon (tent peg) ended as a result of Jael’s action	Included-but excludes where the weapon ended (the ground)
(19) Where Sisera was (sound asleep) when Jael killed him	Excluded—but says Sisera fell
	v 27
(20) The result of Jael’s blow killed Sisera	Included—with repeated emphasis
v 22
(21) Jael shows Barak Sisera’s death	Excluded

A mere glimpse at both accounts demonstrates how the prose contains much more content than the poetic account. Indeed, there are twenty-one elements within the prose, which are compared to the poetic, for noting the additions and omissions of both accounts.

Comparing And Considering The Contents

Obviously, prose narrative is much more detailed than the poetic account that abridges and simplifies the narrative account. However, the poetic account does well in highlighting Jael’s craftiness by adding more information through the common poetic device of repetition.[2]

Usually when a writer describes a historical event it will be much more thorough than a poetic account in a song describing the event. For example, Exodus 14:1–31 describes in prose narrative Yahweh’s victory over Pharaoh’s army when crossing the Rea Sea. Compared to Moses and Israel’s poetic song of the event in the following sequel of 15:1–18, much more details appear in the prose. Therefore, no discrepancies exist that later editors corrected as some might suggest.[3]

Perhaps similar to many Psalms, the “Song of Deborah” (SDeb) is a poem that first “consisted of a description of the battle in secular ballad or epic style, to which were later added the parts in psalm style so that the poem could be used in a cultic setting.”[4] However, as Globe concluded, this may not be valid: “This explanation of the genesis of the poem rests on the assumption that a mixture of ‘secular’ and ‘sacred’ styles is a valid criterion for detecting the work of different authors writing at different times. . . . [T]his assumption is not valid for several of the Near Eastern peoples that lived before and during the period of the Judges. Israel itself had undeniably absorbed the ‘mixed’ style at least as early as the reign of David, to judge by the historiographical methods of 1 and 2 Samuel.”[5] Immediately after Israel’s triumphant battle over the Canaanites, this “thanksgiving hymn of military victory” was sung as would be expected in a “society where poetry was oral rather than a written art.”[6] Therefore, since poetry was meant to be heard rather than read or written, various elements peculiar to poetry must of necessity be distinct from prose. Though prose was also typically heard, not just read unlike poetry, prose was not sung. Therein lies the difference that answers the distinctions of both accounts.

Most poems were usually short and simple for dramatic effect.[7] For example, 1 Samuel 18:7 is composed of two cola. Moses and Israel’s triumphant song in Exodus 15:1–18 is half the size of Deborah’s song, and David’s lament over both Jonathan and Saul in 2 Samuel 1:17–27 follows the same brief pattern. However, even if the SDeb is by contrast longer and more complex, its structure may be divided into three parts:

1. a thanksgiving introductory hymn (vv 2–11a),
2. the gathering of the Israelite tribes (vv 11b–18)
3. and the battle and aftereffects (vv 19–31).[8]

If such divisions are maintained, the brevity and simplicity[9] of each part common to this type of genre[10] (that was heard not read) must stand. Hence upon comparing the prose of Judges 4:17–22 to the poetic account of 5:24–27, one will normally expect to find a more simplistic form in structure and content. In other words, there will be in poetic genre less content than normally found in prose narratives that by nature are meant to describe historical accounts in succession. Not surprisingly the contrast reveals this very structure.

Common Features In Poetry Compared To Prose

A common feature in poetic language is parallelism and/or overlaid repetition.[11] Hence 5:25–27 adds phrases to further describe the previous one or repeats them, but changing a word or two in the process. For example, in verse 25 Jael gave Sisera milk, then immediately the kind of milk (a description missing in the prose) was defined to be “cream.” However, no discrepancy exists here since, “The skins of animals were frequently used to store liquids, particularly milk, which could then be easily churned to produce curds. That this was the drink offered to Sisera is shown in the second half of 5:25 where ‘butter’ (AV, RV) is best rendered as ‘curds’ (RSV).”[12] Therefore, using the word “milk” in the prose refers to the same product further described in the poetic account more specifically as “cream;” the reason for this is that the very nature of poetry is to elaborate more, which is why it employs numerous verbs (more than nouns) to provide a vivid portrayal.[13]

Furthermore in the poem there is nothing of Sisera’s coming and Jael’s gesture of apparent concern. Chisholm, in describing the poem’s device (including repetitions of synonyms, verbs, and the poem’s unique focus of Sisera’s death), concluded:

The poem mentions nothing of Jael’s tucking Sisera into bed; instead it focuses on the deadly deed. The narrative account uses only one verb to describe the murder stroke (see 4:21); the poem employs four synonyms, emphasizing the deadly force of the blow and forcing us to replay it in our minds. The narrative, while describing how the peg went through his skull into the ground, notes simply that he died (4:21–22); the poem uses seven infinite verbal forms (כָּרַע and נָפַל appear three times each, and שָׁכָב once) to emphasize the efficiency and finality of the deed. It also repeats the location of his death (‘at her feet,’ lit. ‘between her legs’) to set up ironic connection with verses 28–30 . . . and concludes with a resounding passive form, ‘dead’ (שָּׁדוּד ‘violently destroyed, devastated’).[14]

Clearly, the author used a figure of speech called “Epibole” (i.e. overlaid repetition).[15] This means, “The figure is so named, because the same sentence or phrase is cast upon or laid upon (like layers or courses of bricks) several successive paragraphs.”[16] Such an example occurs in 5:26–27.

She stretched her hand to the tent peg [yāḏâh layyāṯēḏ tišlaḥnâ]

Her right hand to the workmen’s hammer [wîmînâh lᵉhalmûṯ camēlîm]

 She pounded Sisera, [wehālemâ sîsrāʾ]

she pierced his head, [māḥagâ rōʾšô]

She split and struck through his temple. [ûmāḥaṣâ weḥālep̱â raqqāṯô]

 At her feet he sank, he fell, he lay still; [bên raglêhā kāraʿ nāp̱āl]

At her feet he sank, he fell; [bên raglêhā kāraʿ nāp̱āl]

Where he sank, there he fell dead. [baʾašer kāraʿ šām nāp̱al šāḏûḏ][17]

It is because poetic language uses figures of speech, the account in 5:24–27 should not be read literally. This is precisely Craigie’s point: “The supposed discrepancies mentioned in many commentaries [here] are based on an overliteral interpretation of poetic passage.”[18] Some have even suggested “we have no right to approach heroic poetry as if it were a record of fact. Its materials are largely historical, but its arrangement and adaptation of them are not.”[19]

Nevertheless, there are no apparent reasons to disregard the SDeb as a factual event, unless one finds a “discrepancy in the mechanics of the murder” in 4:21 compared to 5:27.[20] The prose uses the verb nirdām, “fast asleep.” In other words, he was sleeping before Jael killed him. However, the poetic account uses the nāp̱al, “fell,” which may imply “a collapse”[21] as a result of Jael’s fatal blow. All the other elements missing in the poetic account mentioned in the prose really pose no problem due to the fact that one is looking at a different type of genre (as explained previously). Hence, Arthur E. Cundall correctly analyzed the differences in the prose and poetic account regarding the repetition of verbs and concluded: “The repetition in the poetical account, together with the uncertainty in translating several of the verbs in this description, account for most of the differences between this and the prose account.”[22] Therefore, the problem between the prose and poetry is really more apparent than real when one deciphers the issues involved.

Both terms nāp̱al (“to fall”) and kāraʿ (to bow down”) appear together in Psalm 20:8, kārᵉʿû wᵉnāp̱ālû (“bowed down and fallen”) where God gives the victory to the king.[23] Psalm 20:8 helps disclose both terms because they are synonymously parallel to each other (in verse 8a nāp̱al, and kāraʿ). Furthermore, such a parallel—in addition to the following contrasting parallel phrase—also helps illuminate both terms even more since it employs the opposite meaning: qamnû wanniṯʿôḏāḏ (“But we have risen and stand upright”). Therefore, as the king’s enemies “have bowed down and fallen” Israel will “rise and stand upright.” The enemies die as the Israelites live. These are two concluding results of the battle. The term nāp̱al in Judges 5:27 as in Psalm 20:8 should really be understood as “dead” instead of “fallen.” Therefore, nāp̱al “does not mean he fell as a result of Jael’s blow. This ‘is poetic license for ‘fallen’” that should be understood as “lying dead on the floor.”[24] Hence Lindsey concluded, “The vivid picture of Sisera’s death (5:26–27) was not intended to narrate the steps of the physical action, but to describe metaphorically and in slow motion, so to speak, the fall of a leader.”[25] It has also been recognized that the root word for nāp̱al was commonly used to describe what occurred to defeated warriors (cf. Lev 26:8; 1 Sam 18:25).[26] Consequently, the poet’s main intent was to communicate the warrior’s literal defeat by using the term nāp̱al, in a figurative manner[27] conveying death.

Conclusion

Careful study of the prose account of Judges 4:17–22 compared to the poetic account of 5:24–27 reveals no discrepancies since the texts are dealing with different genres that serve their unique purposes. Furthermore, the poetic description of Sisera’s death by Jael lacks some elements mentioned in the prose because it is meant to be short in order to create a more forceful imagery. Consequently, the visual effect caused by repeating nāp̱al (“to fall”) and kāraʿ (to bow down”) three times forms a staircase effect of “gradual motion of collapsing; but again, the poem communicates at more than a pictorial level.”[28] Since he desires to create a vivid portrayal, it is no wonder a poet loves to employ verbs instead of nouns in a poetic account. Consequently, James Barr explained, “So language, that abounds in verbs, which present a vivid expression and picture of their objects, is a poetical language. The more too it has power of forming its nouns into verbs, the more poetical it is. The noun always exhibits objects only as lifeless things, the verb gives the action, and awakens feelings, for it is itself as it were animated with a living spirit.”[29]

A matter of understanding the way prose and poetic accounts work will indeed help one interpret the distinctions found between Judges 4:17–22 and 5:24–27. Therefore, believers can fully trust Scripture and approach it with confidence knowing that nothing will prevent God from communicating His will to man.

Notes

1. Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History, ed. John J. Collins (New York: Harper & Row, 1988; reprint, University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996), 81, wrote, “The hypothesis that the prose relies on SDeb also accounts for the discrepancies arising over Sisera’s assassination.”
2. Repetition in poetic narratival accounts is typical in Ancient Near Eastern texts, see John Soden, “Prose and Poetry Compared: Judges 4 and 5 in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989), 25–74.
3. Peter C. Craigie, “The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (September 1969): 254, fn. 7; Halpern, First Historians, 78, 81.
4. Alexander Globe, “The Literary Structure and Unity of the Song of Deborah,” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (December 1974): 493.
5. Ibid., 493-94.
6. Ibid., 495.
7. Craigie, “Song of Deborah and Tukulti-Ninurta,” 263–64. Craigie demonstrated how this also worked in Ancient Near Eastern Ugaritic poetic battle accounts. He wrote, “The short line—or thought unit—creates drama and tension in a way that would be impossible with longer or more complex lines.” See also, Peter C. Craigie, “Deborah and Anat: A Study of Poetic Imagery (Judges 5),” Zeitschrift für die Altestamentliche Wissenschaft 1978 (1978): 374-75.
8. Globe, “Literary Structure,” 495.
9. Craigie, “Song of Deborah and Tukulti-Ninurta,” 263, also noted this simplicity: “In the Song of Deborah, one of the most striking stylistic features is the use of very short staccatotype lines in the description of dramatic events. . . . Since the division of lines in the poem is a somewhat arbitrary procedure, we may put it another way by saying that the units of thought and description become very short and simple. . . .
10. Ibid., 254. Craigie wrote, “The unity of the song, in spite of its structure from small sketches, is largely one of the atmosphere created by the individual sketches.”
11. Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991), 138.
12. Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges & Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman, 24 vols. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1968), 7:89.
13. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 85.
14. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Judges Commentary,” unpublished class notes for OT1005 Exegesis in the Prophets (Dallas Theological Seminary, Fall 2003), 129.
15. Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 6:241, wrote, “Verse 27 offers one of the most impressive examples of staircase parallelism in the Old Testament.”
16. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech used in the Bible (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 346. Italics are in the original.
17. Ibid. Although Bullinger only referred to verse 27 as describing Epibole figure of speech, the latter part of verse 26 follows the same pattern. Therefore, it should be qualified as thus.
18. Craigie, “Song of Deborah and Tukulti-Ninurta,” 254, fn. 7.
19. Michael David Coogan, “A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 143.
20. Halpern, First Historians, 81–83.
21. Ibid., 83.
22. Cundall and Morris, Judges & Ruth, 100.
23. Psalm 20:8 appear as verse 9 in the Hebrew Masoretic Text.
24. Block, Judges, 241, fn. 444.
25. Duane F. Lindsey, “Judges,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 390.
26. J. Clinton McCann, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays (Louisville: John Knox Press, 2002), 57.
27. George Bush, Notes on Judges (New York: Newman & Ivison, 1852; reprint, Minneapolis, MN: James & Klock Publishing, 1976), 75, acknowledged, “The several kindred words appear to be merely a poetic amplification of the circumstances of his death.”
28. McCann, Interpretation, 57.
29. Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 85.