The Syntax of Confrontation and Rhetorical Questioning in Judges 8:1

Introduction to Judges 8:1

Judges 8:1 presents a confrontation between Gideon and the men of Ephraim following his victory over Midian. The Ephraimites express anger that they were not called to battle earlier, employing a rhetorical question to challenge Gideon’s actions.

This passage contains three distinct syntactic elements:

1. A direct confrontation introduced by speech (וַיֹּאמְר֨וּ אֵלָ֜יו, “And they said to him”).
2. A rhetorical question implying grievance (מָֽה־הַדָּבָ֤ר הַזֶּה֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לָּ֔נוּ, “What is this thing you have done to us?”).
3. An expression of hostility (וַיְרִיב֥וּן אִתֹּ֖ו בְּחָזְקָֽה, “And they contended with him strongly”).

This study will analyze the function of rhetorical questions, the grammar of confrontation, and the broader implications of tribal conflicts in the book of Judges.

וַיֹּאמְר֨וּ אֵלָ֜יו אִ֣ישׁ אֶפְרַ֗יִם מָֽה־הַדָּבָ֤ר הַזֶּה֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לָּ֔נוּ לְבִלְתִּי֙ קְרֹ֣אות לָ֔נוּ כִּ֥י הָלַ֖כְתָּ לְהִלָּחֵ֣ם בְּמִדְיָ֑ן וַיְרִיב֥וּן אִתֹּ֖ו בְּחָזְקָֽה׃

Analysis of Key Words/Phrases

1. וַיֹּאמְר֨וּ אֵלָ֜יו אִ֣ישׁ אֶפְרַ֗יִם (vayomru elav ish Efrayim)
   • Root: אָמַר (“to say, speak”)
   • Form: Qal imperfect 3rd masculine plural with vav-consecutive
   • Translation: “And the men of Ephraim said to him”
   • Function: Introduces direct speech, marking the beginning of a confrontation.
2. מָֽה־הַדָּבָ֤ר הַזֶּה֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לָּ֔נוּ (mah-haddavar hazzeh asita lanu)
   • Root: עָשָׂה (“to do, act”)
   • Form: Qal perfect 2nd masculine singular
   • Translation: “What is this thing you have done to us?”
   • Function: Rhetorical question expressing indignation and accusation.
3. לְבִלְתִּי֙ קְרֹ֣אות לָ֔נוּ (levilti qerot lanu)
   • Root: קָרָא (“to call”)
   • Form: Qal infinitive construct with לְבִלְתִּי (negative purpose clause)
   • Translation: “For not calling us”
   • Function: Expresses grievance over being excluded from the battle.
4. כִּ֥י הָלַ֖כְתָּ לְהִלָּחֵ֣ם בְּמִדְיָ֑ן (ki halakhta lehillaḥem beMidyan)
   • Root: הָלַךְ (“to go”), לָחַם (“to fight”)
   • Form: Qal perfect 2nd masculine singular + Niphal infinitive construct
   • Translation: “That you went to fight against Midian”
   • Function: Provides the cause for their anger—Gideon’s unilateral action.
5. וַיְרִיב֥וּן אִתֹּ֖ו בְּחָזְקָֽה (vayerivun ito beḥazqah)
   • Root: רִיב (“to contend, argue”)
   • Form: Qal imperfect 3rd masculine plural with vav-consecutive
   • Translation: “And they contended with him strongly”
   • Function: Describes an intense conflict, emphasizing their hostility.

Explanation of Grammatical Function

The Use of מָֽה (“What?”) as a Rhetorical Accusation

Interrogative מָֽה (“What?”) → Functions as a challenge, not an actual question.

Similar usage in Genesis 4:10 (“What have you done?”), showing moral confrontation.

The Infinitive Construct לְבִלְתִּי (“For Not”) in Expressing Grievance

Infinitive construct קְרֹ֣אות (“Calling”) expresses a perceived offense.

Negative לְבִלְתִּי (“For not”) shows resentment toward exclusion.

The Imperfect Verb וַיְרִיב֥וּן (“They Contended”) Expressing Intensified Conflict

Imperfect aspect → Indicates an ongoing, escalating argument.

Intensified by בְּחָזְקָֽה (“with strength”), emphasizing forcefulness of the dispute.

Theological Implications of Tribal Disputes

1. Internal Struggles Within IsraelThe conflict between Ephraim and Gideon highlights tensions between Israelite tribes.
2. The Question of Leadership and RecognitionEphraim resents not being given an honorable role in the battle, showing human ambition at play.
3. Divine Victory vs. Human EgoThe dispute contrasts YHWH’s deliverance with human pride, showing how even victory can lead to division.

The Role of Rhetorical Questions in Expressing Conflict

Judges 8:1 demonstrates a structured verbal confrontation, where a rhetorical question introduces grievance, an infinitive construct expresses exclusion, and an imperfect verb describes escalating contention. The Ephraimites’ challenge reflects broader tribal tensions in Israel, reinforcing the complex nature of leadership in the biblical narrative.

Thus, this verse serves as both a historical account of tribal rivalry and a lesson in how pride and recognition can disrupt unity, even after divine victories.