Are there examples in Tanach of 3 or more parties having an ongoing conversation?Why are many conversations...

Why does Japan use the same type of AC power outlet as the US?

Why do so many people play out of turn on the last lead?

Has the speed of light ever been measured in vacuum?

What should I do if actually I found a serious flaw in someone's PhD thesis and an article derived from that PhD thesis?

Why do my bicycle brakes get worse and feel more 'squishy" over time?

How would armour (and combat) change if the fighter didn't need to actually wear it?

Sum Square Difference, which way is more Pythonic?

Attacking the Hydra

What is the hottest thing in the universe?

What should I do with the stock I own if I anticipate there will be a recession?

What is the "thing" which is trained in AI model training

Sums of binomial coefficients weighted by incomplete gamma

How to gracefully leave a company you helped start?

How do I ask for 2-3 days per week remote work in a job interview?

Did Pope Urban II issue the papal bull "terra nullius" in 1095?

Pronunciation of famoso and cosa

What's a good pattern to calculate a variable only when it is used the first time?

Partitioning and sorting even and odd numbers within an array

What are some tips and tricks for finding the cheapest flight when luggage and other fees are not revealed until far into the booking process?

How can I find an old paper when the usual methods fail?

How to prevent criminal gangs from making/buying guns?

Airline power sockets shut down when I plug my computer in. How can I avoid that?

When was "Fredo" an insult to Italian-Americans?

Does writing regular diary entries count as writing practice?



Are there examples in Tanach of 3 or more parties having an ongoing conversation?


Why are many conversations in Tanach between two parties exclusivelyAre there any jokes in Tanach?What puns are there in Tanach?What are signs of a prophet mentioned in TanachWhy Elohim is used far more in Tanach than El?How many words are there in Tanach?Where in tanach are the months namedAre there any examples in the Tanach where somebody is being cynical?How many Parshios are in each Sefer of Tanach?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







13















From what I have seen in reading Tanach every conversation is between two parties and two parties only. Sometimes those parties consist of 1 person and other times of several people for example "And his brothers said..." but in all of those latter instances the group of people are speaking as one unified voice.



Even when there are multiple people present the conversations seem to be recorded as a two party conversation. For example with Iyov there is never a time where all of his friends speak together in a single conversation taking turns - ie you don't have Iyov says X, Bildad responds with Y then Eliphaz interjects Z. Instead you have each person sequentially delivering a soliloquy.



I would like to know if there are any examples of dialogue in Tanach where all 3 or more parties are actively engaged in a conversation together at the same time.










share|improve this question






















  • 1





    I would imagine professors Cassuto or Alter have discussed this

    – rikitikitembo
    2 days ago






  • 2





    Esther 7 perhaps?

    – Double AA
    2 days ago











  • The naar, Yehoshua, and Moshe about Eldad and Meidad?

    – Heshy
    2 days ago








  • 1





    R Yoel Bin Nun thinks nearly all of Kohelet is a conversation of many speakers (hence the name קהלת like קהל)

    – Double AA
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @IsaacMoses done! judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/106600/…

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday


















13















From what I have seen in reading Tanach every conversation is between two parties and two parties only. Sometimes those parties consist of 1 person and other times of several people for example "And his brothers said..." but in all of those latter instances the group of people are speaking as one unified voice.



Even when there are multiple people present the conversations seem to be recorded as a two party conversation. For example with Iyov there is never a time where all of his friends speak together in a single conversation taking turns - ie you don't have Iyov says X, Bildad responds with Y then Eliphaz interjects Z. Instead you have each person sequentially delivering a soliloquy.



I would like to know if there are any examples of dialogue in Tanach where all 3 or more parties are actively engaged in a conversation together at the same time.










share|improve this question






















  • 1





    I would imagine professors Cassuto or Alter have discussed this

    – rikitikitembo
    2 days ago






  • 2





    Esther 7 perhaps?

    – Double AA
    2 days ago











  • The naar, Yehoshua, and Moshe about Eldad and Meidad?

    – Heshy
    2 days ago








  • 1





    R Yoel Bin Nun thinks nearly all of Kohelet is a conversation of many speakers (hence the name קהלת like קהל)

    – Double AA
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @IsaacMoses done! judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/106600/…

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday














13












13








13


1






From what I have seen in reading Tanach every conversation is between two parties and two parties only. Sometimes those parties consist of 1 person and other times of several people for example "And his brothers said..." but in all of those latter instances the group of people are speaking as one unified voice.



Even when there are multiple people present the conversations seem to be recorded as a two party conversation. For example with Iyov there is never a time where all of his friends speak together in a single conversation taking turns - ie you don't have Iyov says X, Bildad responds with Y then Eliphaz interjects Z. Instead you have each person sequentially delivering a soliloquy.



I would like to know if there are any examples of dialogue in Tanach where all 3 or more parties are actively engaged in a conversation together at the same time.










share|improve this question
















From what I have seen in reading Tanach every conversation is between two parties and two parties only. Sometimes those parties consist of 1 person and other times of several people for example "And his brothers said..." but in all of those latter instances the group of people are speaking as one unified voice.



Even when there are multiple people present the conversations seem to be recorded as a two party conversation. For example with Iyov there is never a time where all of his friends speak together in a single conversation taking turns - ie you don't have Iyov says X, Bildad responds with Y then Eliphaz interjects Z. Instead you have each person sequentially delivering a soliloquy.



I would like to know if there are any examples of dialogue in Tanach where all 3 or more parties are actively engaged in a conversation together at the same time.







tanach speech-talking job-iyov-book-of literature






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday







rikitikitembo

















asked 2 days ago









rikitikitemborikitikitembo

5,7801 gold badge10 silver badges61 bronze badges




5,7801 gold badge10 silver badges61 bronze badges











  • 1





    I would imagine professors Cassuto or Alter have discussed this

    – rikitikitembo
    2 days ago






  • 2





    Esther 7 perhaps?

    – Double AA
    2 days ago











  • The naar, Yehoshua, and Moshe about Eldad and Meidad?

    – Heshy
    2 days ago








  • 1





    R Yoel Bin Nun thinks nearly all of Kohelet is a conversation of many speakers (hence the name קהלת like קהל)

    – Double AA
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @IsaacMoses done! judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/106600/…

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday














  • 1





    I would imagine professors Cassuto or Alter have discussed this

    – rikitikitembo
    2 days ago






  • 2





    Esther 7 perhaps?

    – Double AA
    2 days ago











  • The naar, Yehoshua, and Moshe about Eldad and Meidad?

    – Heshy
    2 days ago








  • 1





    R Yoel Bin Nun thinks nearly all of Kohelet is a conversation of many speakers (hence the name קהלת like קהל)

    – Double AA
    2 days ago








  • 1





    @IsaacMoses done! judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/106600/…

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday








1




1





I would imagine professors Cassuto or Alter have discussed this

– rikitikitembo
2 days ago





I would imagine professors Cassuto or Alter have discussed this

– rikitikitembo
2 days ago




2




2





Esther 7 perhaps?

– Double AA
2 days ago





Esther 7 perhaps?

– Double AA
2 days ago













The naar, Yehoshua, and Moshe about Eldad and Meidad?

– Heshy
2 days ago







The naar, Yehoshua, and Moshe about Eldad and Meidad?

– Heshy
2 days ago






1




1





R Yoel Bin Nun thinks nearly all of Kohelet is a conversation of many speakers (hence the name קהלת like קהל)

– Double AA
2 days ago







R Yoel Bin Nun thinks nearly all of Kohelet is a conversation of many speakers (hence the name קהלת like קהל)

– Double AA
2 days ago






1




1





@IsaacMoses done! judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/106600/…

– rikitikitembo
yesterday





@IsaacMoses done! judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/106600/…

– rikitikitembo
yesterday










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















7














In Jeremiah 26 there is a conversation involving six different named parties:




  • Jeremiah speaks to the nation, the priests and the prophets

  • The nation, the priests, and the prophets respond

  • The princes of Judah hear and come

  • The priests and the prophets speak to the princes and the nation

  • Jeremiah speaks to the princes and the nation

  • The princes and the nation speak to the priests and prophets

  • The elders speak to the nation


Song of Songs 8:8-10 is another possible case. Since this is poetry and doesn't identify the speakers, there are multiple possible ways to read these lines, but it's reasonable to read each verse as said by one party (brother #1, brother #2, sister).






share|improve this answer


























  • I don't agree with the Shir HaShirim reference but I think there Jeremiah reference is very strong

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • "Jeremiah speaking these words in the House of the LORD." I can get there...

    – Jay
    yesterday











  • prophet response I cannot (maybe will not)

    – Jay
    yesterday













  • @Jay I don't understand what you meant by that

    – b a
    yesterday











  • By what though... exactly. prophets respond And what I meant was too much to explain and too little prolly of no consiquence

    – Jay
    yesterday





















4














I believe the conversation in Gen. 34:6-18 between Shechem, Chamor and the Benai Yaakov fits the criteria. I have included the text along with notes in brackets indicating each party.




Then Shechem’s father Hamor came out to Jacob to speak to him.
Meanwhile Jacob’s sons, having heard the news, came in from the field. The men were distressed and very angry, because he had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter—a thing not to be done.
And Hamor spoke with them, saying, [1st party] “My son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him in marriage.
Intermarry with us: give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves:
You will dwell among us, and the land will be open before you; settle, move about, and acquire holdings in it.”
Then Shechem said to her father and brothers, [2nd party] “Do me this favor, and I will pay whatever you tell me.
Ask of me a bride-price ever so high, as well as gifts, and I will pay what you tell me; only give me the maiden for a wife.”
Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor—speaking with guile because he had defiled their sister Dinah—
and said to them, [3rd party] “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us.
Only on this condition will we agree with you; that you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised.
Then we will give our daughters to you and take your daughters to ourselves; and we will dwell among you and become as one kindred.
But if you will not listen to us and become circumcised, we will take our daughter and go.”
Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem.







share|improve this answer


























  • +1 The only thing lacking in this case is that each party only says one statement. Of course, most conversations in Tanach are short (or summarized), so this doesn't say much.

    – Mordechai
    yesterday





















2














This is very interesting! I can think of many examples in the Torah where you might expect a multilateral conversation, but instead, the narrative fits your pattern.



Gen. 3:9-19 might be taken as one conversation in which God, Adam, and Chava each speak, though you could also say that the verse in which Chava speaks (v. 13) is a sidebar bilateral conversation between God and her.



In Gen. 18:12-15, there appears to be a conversation including Sarah, God, and Avraham, except that Avraham is included as a direct object of God's speech, but not as a speaker himself.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    the way I read it both examples are not 3 way conversations. in Gen. 3 God first speaks with Man. That conversation ends and He speaks with Woman, then He has a monologue. in Gen. 18 its not clear to me who the vayomer in v.15 is referring but in any case there are only 2 parties actively speaking, God and Sarah.

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • I don't see how this answers the question.

    – msh210
    yesterday



















2














Here are a few examples that I think at least somewhat fulfill your criteria:





  • Genesis 24:55-58



    Rebecca's mother and brother tell Abraham's servant that Rebecca should remain with them for a while. The servant responds that he wants to leave. They call Rebecca and she says that she is willing to go with the servant.




  • Genesis 40:7-19



    In the beginning the Chief Butler and the Chief Baker talk as one, but eventually each one tells over his dream separately and Joseph interprets them.




  • Numbers 13:27 - 14:9



    Here the scouts speak to everyone, then Caleb issues a rejoinder, then the people speak, and then Caleb and Joshua speak.








share|improve this answer


























  • example 1 I wouldn't Rebecca as an active participant in the conversation, she just interjects when spoken to. Example 2 Joseph is having two different and separate conversations with each steward (as indicated by verse 16). Example 3 also doesn't read like a conversation to me, it reads as disparate statements (with part of the back and forth closed by verse 14:2)

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • @rikitikitembo I don't think rebecca is merely interjecting. Two parties were having a conversation and then they brought her in to get her opinion on the very matter they had been discussing, at which point she gives her opinion to both parties. The Joseph example can go either way, but it sounds like all three were talking together but each person directed their words at the specific person they were relevant to. The last example is kind of a conversation between three different groups of people. The scouts state their opinion, Joshua and Caleb state their disagreement, and the people react.

    – Alex
    yesterday



















1














Most of the book of Job / Iyov in the Ketuvim is a lengthy discussion and debate between Job and his three trusted friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar on the nature of human suffering and the common question of 'why bad things happen to good people'. Even though each person takes his turn, 2:11 makes it clear that all four of them are together:




... they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him.




The three of them observe while Iyov scratches his skin outbreaks with pottery shards.




So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great. (2:13)




So this is much more than a conversation. They remain by his side debating with him for a long period of time.






share|improve this answer




























  • Please see my comment on the question above. This is not a conversation, this is individual statements. None of the friends speak to one another or respond to the statements of the other.

    – rikitikitembo
    20 hours ago











  • I guess my feeling is that the sequential nature of the text represents an editing stage in which their points are summarized, and that condensed form becomes the written record of their discussions. The debates in the Greek academy that are passed down are rather like this too, I think. It doesn't mean the philosophers necessarily uttered those exact words.

    – wberry
    20 hours ago





















5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes








5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7














In Jeremiah 26 there is a conversation involving six different named parties:




  • Jeremiah speaks to the nation, the priests and the prophets

  • The nation, the priests, and the prophets respond

  • The princes of Judah hear and come

  • The priests and the prophets speak to the princes and the nation

  • Jeremiah speaks to the princes and the nation

  • The princes and the nation speak to the priests and prophets

  • The elders speak to the nation


Song of Songs 8:8-10 is another possible case. Since this is poetry and doesn't identify the speakers, there are multiple possible ways to read these lines, but it's reasonable to read each verse as said by one party (brother #1, brother #2, sister).






share|improve this answer


























  • I don't agree with the Shir HaShirim reference but I think there Jeremiah reference is very strong

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • "Jeremiah speaking these words in the House of the LORD." I can get there...

    – Jay
    yesterday











  • prophet response I cannot (maybe will not)

    – Jay
    yesterday













  • @Jay I don't understand what you meant by that

    – b a
    yesterday











  • By what though... exactly. prophets respond And what I meant was too much to explain and too little prolly of no consiquence

    – Jay
    yesterday


















7














In Jeremiah 26 there is a conversation involving six different named parties:




  • Jeremiah speaks to the nation, the priests and the prophets

  • The nation, the priests, and the prophets respond

  • The princes of Judah hear and come

  • The priests and the prophets speak to the princes and the nation

  • Jeremiah speaks to the princes and the nation

  • The princes and the nation speak to the priests and prophets

  • The elders speak to the nation


Song of Songs 8:8-10 is another possible case. Since this is poetry and doesn't identify the speakers, there are multiple possible ways to read these lines, but it's reasonable to read each verse as said by one party (brother #1, brother #2, sister).






share|improve this answer


























  • I don't agree with the Shir HaShirim reference but I think there Jeremiah reference is very strong

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • "Jeremiah speaking these words in the House of the LORD." I can get there...

    – Jay
    yesterday











  • prophet response I cannot (maybe will not)

    – Jay
    yesterday













  • @Jay I don't understand what you meant by that

    – b a
    yesterday











  • By what though... exactly. prophets respond And what I meant was too much to explain and too little prolly of no consiquence

    – Jay
    yesterday
















7












7








7







In Jeremiah 26 there is a conversation involving six different named parties:




  • Jeremiah speaks to the nation, the priests and the prophets

  • The nation, the priests, and the prophets respond

  • The princes of Judah hear and come

  • The priests and the prophets speak to the princes and the nation

  • Jeremiah speaks to the princes and the nation

  • The princes and the nation speak to the priests and prophets

  • The elders speak to the nation


Song of Songs 8:8-10 is another possible case. Since this is poetry and doesn't identify the speakers, there are multiple possible ways to read these lines, but it's reasonable to read each verse as said by one party (brother #1, brother #2, sister).






share|improve this answer













In Jeremiah 26 there is a conversation involving six different named parties:




  • Jeremiah speaks to the nation, the priests and the prophets

  • The nation, the priests, and the prophets respond

  • The princes of Judah hear and come

  • The priests and the prophets speak to the princes and the nation

  • Jeremiah speaks to the princes and the nation

  • The princes and the nation speak to the priests and prophets

  • The elders speak to the nation


Song of Songs 8:8-10 is another possible case. Since this is poetry and doesn't identify the speakers, there are multiple possible ways to read these lines, but it's reasonable to read each verse as said by one party (brother #1, brother #2, sister).







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









b ab a

19.4k2 gold badges43 silver badges87 bronze badges




19.4k2 gold badges43 silver badges87 bronze badges
















  • I don't agree with the Shir HaShirim reference but I think there Jeremiah reference is very strong

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • "Jeremiah speaking these words in the House of the LORD." I can get there...

    – Jay
    yesterday











  • prophet response I cannot (maybe will not)

    – Jay
    yesterday













  • @Jay I don't understand what you meant by that

    – b a
    yesterday











  • By what though... exactly. prophets respond And what I meant was too much to explain and too little prolly of no consiquence

    – Jay
    yesterday





















  • I don't agree with the Shir HaShirim reference but I think there Jeremiah reference is very strong

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • "Jeremiah speaking these words in the House of the LORD." I can get there...

    – Jay
    yesterday











  • prophet response I cannot (maybe will not)

    – Jay
    yesterday













  • @Jay I don't understand what you meant by that

    – b a
    yesterday











  • By what though... exactly. prophets respond And what I meant was too much to explain and too little prolly of no consiquence

    – Jay
    yesterday



















I don't agree with the Shir HaShirim reference but I think there Jeremiah reference is very strong

– rikitikitembo
yesterday





I don't agree with the Shir HaShirim reference but I think there Jeremiah reference is very strong

– rikitikitembo
yesterday













"Jeremiah speaking these words in the House of the LORD." I can get there...

– Jay
yesterday





"Jeremiah speaking these words in the House of the LORD." I can get there...

– Jay
yesterday













prophet response I cannot (maybe will not)

– Jay
yesterday







prophet response I cannot (maybe will not)

– Jay
yesterday















@Jay I don't understand what you meant by that

– b a
yesterday





@Jay I don't understand what you meant by that

– b a
yesterday













By what though... exactly. prophets respond And what I meant was too much to explain and too little prolly of no consiquence

– Jay
yesterday







By what though... exactly. prophets respond And what I meant was too much to explain and too little prolly of no consiquence

– Jay
yesterday















4














I believe the conversation in Gen. 34:6-18 between Shechem, Chamor and the Benai Yaakov fits the criteria. I have included the text along with notes in brackets indicating each party.




Then Shechem’s father Hamor came out to Jacob to speak to him.
Meanwhile Jacob’s sons, having heard the news, came in from the field. The men were distressed and very angry, because he had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter—a thing not to be done.
And Hamor spoke with them, saying, [1st party] “My son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him in marriage.
Intermarry with us: give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves:
You will dwell among us, and the land will be open before you; settle, move about, and acquire holdings in it.”
Then Shechem said to her father and brothers, [2nd party] “Do me this favor, and I will pay whatever you tell me.
Ask of me a bride-price ever so high, as well as gifts, and I will pay what you tell me; only give me the maiden for a wife.”
Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor—speaking with guile because he had defiled their sister Dinah—
and said to them, [3rd party] “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us.
Only on this condition will we agree with you; that you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised.
Then we will give our daughters to you and take your daughters to ourselves; and we will dwell among you and become as one kindred.
But if you will not listen to us and become circumcised, we will take our daughter and go.”
Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem.







share|improve this answer


























  • +1 The only thing lacking in this case is that each party only says one statement. Of course, most conversations in Tanach are short (or summarized), so this doesn't say much.

    – Mordechai
    yesterday


















4














I believe the conversation in Gen. 34:6-18 between Shechem, Chamor and the Benai Yaakov fits the criteria. I have included the text along with notes in brackets indicating each party.




Then Shechem’s father Hamor came out to Jacob to speak to him.
Meanwhile Jacob’s sons, having heard the news, came in from the field. The men were distressed and very angry, because he had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter—a thing not to be done.
And Hamor spoke with them, saying, [1st party] “My son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him in marriage.
Intermarry with us: give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves:
You will dwell among us, and the land will be open before you; settle, move about, and acquire holdings in it.”
Then Shechem said to her father and brothers, [2nd party] “Do me this favor, and I will pay whatever you tell me.
Ask of me a bride-price ever so high, as well as gifts, and I will pay what you tell me; only give me the maiden for a wife.”
Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor—speaking with guile because he had defiled their sister Dinah—
and said to them, [3rd party] “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us.
Only on this condition will we agree with you; that you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised.
Then we will give our daughters to you and take your daughters to ourselves; and we will dwell among you and become as one kindred.
But if you will not listen to us and become circumcised, we will take our daughter and go.”
Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem.







share|improve this answer


























  • +1 The only thing lacking in this case is that each party only says one statement. Of course, most conversations in Tanach are short (or summarized), so this doesn't say much.

    – Mordechai
    yesterday
















4












4








4







I believe the conversation in Gen. 34:6-18 between Shechem, Chamor and the Benai Yaakov fits the criteria. I have included the text along with notes in brackets indicating each party.




Then Shechem’s father Hamor came out to Jacob to speak to him.
Meanwhile Jacob’s sons, having heard the news, came in from the field. The men were distressed and very angry, because he had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter—a thing not to be done.
And Hamor spoke with them, saying, [1st party] “My son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him in marriage.
Intermarry with us: give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves:
You will dwell among us, and the land will be open before you; settle, move about, and acquire holdings in it.”
Then Shechem said to her father and brothers, [2nd party] “Do me this favor, and I will pay whatever you tell me.
Ask of me a bride-price ever so high, as well as gifts, and I will pay what you tell me; only give me the maiden for a wife.”
Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor—speaking with guile because he had defiled their sister Dinah—
and said to them, [3rd party] “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us.
Only on this condition will we agree with you; that you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised.
Then we will give our daughters to you and take your daughters to ourselves; and we will dwell among you and become as one kindred.
But if you will not listen to us and become circumcised, we will take our daughter and go.”
Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem.







share|improve this answer













I believe the conversation in Gen. 34:6-18 between Shechem, Chamor and the Benai Yaakov fits the criteria. I have included the text along with notes in brackets indicating each party.




Then Shechem’s father Hamor came out to Jacob to speak to him.
Meanwhile Jacob’s sons, having heard the news, came in from the field. The men were distressed and very angry, because he had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter—a thing not to be done.
And Hamor spoke with them, saying, [1st party] “My son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him in marriage.
Intermarry with us: give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves:
You will dwell among us, and the land will be open before you; settle, move about, and acquire holdings in it.”
Then Shechem said to her father and brothers, [2nd party] “Do me this favor, and I will pay whatever you tell me.
Ask of me a bride-price ever so high, as well as gifts, and I will pay what you tell me; only give me the maiden for a wife.”
Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor—speaking with guile because he had defiled their sister Dinah—
and said to them, [3rd party] “We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us.
Only on this condition will we agree with you; that you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised.
Then we will give our daughters to you and take your daughters to ourselves; and we will dwell among you and become as one kindred.
But if you will not listen to us and become circumcised, we will take our daughter and go.”
Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor’s son Shechem.








share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









rikitikitemborikitikitembo

5,7801 gold badge10 silver badges61 bronze badges




5,7801 gold badge10 silver badges61 bronze badges
















  • +1 The only thing lacking in this case is that each party only says one statement. Of course, most conversations in Tanach are short (or summarized), so this doesn't say much.

    – Mordechai
    yesterday





















  • +1 The only thing lacking in this case is that each party only says one statement. Of course, most conversations in Tanach are short (or summarized), so this doesn't say much.

    – Mordechai
    yesterday



















+1 The only thing lacking in this case is that each party only says one statement. Of course, most conversations in Tanach are short (or summarized), so this doesn't say much.

– Mordechai
yesterday







+1 The only thing lacking in this case is that each party only says one statement. Of course, most conversations in Tanach are short (or summarized), so this doesn't say much.

– Mordechai
yesterday













2














This is very interesting! I can think of many examples in the Torah where you might expect a multilateral conversation, but instead, the narrative fits your pattern.



Gen. 3:9-19 might be taken as one conversation in which God, Adam, and Chava each speak, though you could also say that the verse in which Chava speaks (v. 13) is a sidebar bilateral conversation between God and her.



In Gen. 18:12-15, there appears to be a conversation including Sarah, God, and Avraham, except that Avraham is included as a direct object of God's speech, but not as a speaker himself.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    the way I read it both examples are not 3 way conversations. in Gen. 3 God first speaks with Man. That conversation ends and He speaks with Woman, then He has a monologue. in Gen. 18 its not clear to me who the vayomer in v.15 is referring but in any case there are only 2 parties actively speaking, God and Sarah.

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • I don't see how this answers the question.

    – msh210
    yesterday
















2














This is very interesting! I can think of many examples in the Torah where you might expect a multilateral conversation, but instead, the narrative fits your pattern.



Gen. 3:9-19 might be taken as one conversation in which God, Adam, and Chava each speak, though you could also say that the verse in which Chava speaks (v. 13) is a sidebar bilateral conversation between God and her.



In Gen. 18:12-15, there appears to be a conversation including Sarah, God, and Avraham, except that Avraham is included as a direct object of God's speech, but not as a speaker himself.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    the way I read it both examples are not 3 way conversations. in Gen. 3 God first speaks with Man. That conversation ends and He speaks with Woman, then He has a monologue. in Gen. 18 its not clear to me who the vayomer in v.15 is referring but in any case there are only 2 parties actively speaking, God and Sarah.

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • I don't see how this answers the question.

    – msh210
    yesterday














2












2








2







This is very interesting! I can think of many examples in the Torah where you might expect a multilateral conversation, but instead, the narrative fits your pattern.



Gen. 3:9-19 might be taken as one conversation in which God, Adam, and Chava each speak, though you could also say that the verse in which Chava speaks (v. 13) is a sidebar bilateral conversation between God and her.



In Gen. 18:12-15, there appears to be a conversation including Sarah, God, and Avraham, except that Avraham is included as a direct object of God's speech, but not as a speaker himself.






share|improve this answer













This is very interesting! I can think of many examples in the Torah where you might expect a multilateral conversation, but instead, the narrative fits your pattern.



Gen. 3:9-19 might be taken as one conversation in which God, Adam, and Chava each speak, though you could also say that the verse in which Chava speaks (v. 13) is a sidebar bilateral conversation between God and her.



In Gen. 18:12-15, there appears to be a conversation including Sarah, God, and Avraham, except that Avraham is included as a direct object of God's speech, but not as a speaker himself.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 2 days ago









Isaac MosesIsaac Moses

32.1k12 gold badges90 silver badges280 bronze badges




32.1k12 gold badges90 silver badges280 bronze badges











  • 1





    the way I read it both examples are not 3 way conversations. in Gen. 3 God first speaks with Man. That conversation ends and He speaks with Woman, then He has a monologue. in Gen. 18 its not clear to me who the vayomer in v.15 is referring but in any case there are only 2 parties actively speaking, God and Sarah.

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • I don't see how this answers the question.

    – msh210
    yesterday














  • 1





    the way I read it both examples are not 3 way conversations. in Gen. 3 God first speaks with Man. That conversation ends and He speaks with Woman, then He has a monologue. in Gen. 18 its not clear to me who the vayomer in v.15 is referring but in any case there are only 2 parties actively speaking, God and Sarah.

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • I don't see how this answers the question.

    – msh210
    yesterday








1




1





the way I read it both examples are not 3 way conversations. in Gen. 3 God first speaks with Man. That conversation ends and He speaks with Woman, then He has a monologue. in Gen. 18 its not clear to me who the vayomer in v.15 is referring but in any case there are only 2 parties actively speaking, God and Sarah.

– rikitikitembo
yesterday





the way I read it both examples are not 3 way conversations. in Gen. 3 God first speaks with Man. That conversation ends and He speaks with Woman, then He has a monologue. in Gen. 18 its not clear to me who the vayomer in v.15 is referring but in any case there are only 2 parties actively speaking, God and Sarah.

– rikitikitembo
yesterday













I don't see how this answers the question.

– msh210
yesterday





I don't see how this answers the question.

– msh210
yesterday











2














Here are a few examples that I think at least somewhat fulfill your criteria:





  • Genesis 24:55-58



    Rebecca's mother and brother tell Abraham's servant that Rebecca should remain with them for a while. The servant responds that he wants to leave. They call Rebecca and she says that she is willing to go with the servant.




  • Genesis 40:7-19



    In the beginning the Chief Butler and the Chief Baker talk as one, but eventually each one tells over his dream separately and Joseph interprets them.




  • Numbers 13:27 - 14:9



    Here the scouts speak to everyone, then Caleb issues a rejoinder, then the people speak, and then Caleb and Joshua speak.








share|improve this answer


























  • example 1 I wouldn't Rebecca as an active participant in the conversation, she just interjects when spoken to. Example 2 Joseph is having two different and separate conversations with each steward (as indicated by verse 16). Example 3 also doesn't read like a conversation to me, it reads as disparate statements (with part of the back and forth closed by verse 14:2)

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • @rikitikitembo I don't think rebecca is merely interjecting. Two parties were having a conversation and then they brought her in to get her opinion on the very matter they had been discussing, at which point she gives her opinion to both parties. The Joseph example can go either way, but it sounds like all three were talking together but each person directed their words at the specific person they were relevant to. The last example is kind of a conversation between three different groups of people. The scouts state their opinion, Joshua and Caleb state their disagreement, and the people react.

    – Alex
    yesterday
















2














Here are a few examples that I think at least somewhat fulfill your criteria:





  • Genesis 24:55-58



    Rebecca's mother and brother tell Abraham's servant that Rebecca should remain with them for a while. The servant responds that he wants to leave. They call Rebecca and she says that she is willing to go with the servant.




  • Genesis 40:7-19



    In the beginning the Chief Butler and the Chief Baker talk as one, but eventually each one tells over his dream separately and Joseph interprets them.




  • Numbers 13:27 - 14:9



    Here the scouts speak to everyone, then Caleb issues a rejoinder, then the people speak, and then Caleb and Joshua speak.








share|improve this answer


























  • example 1 I wouldn't Rebecca as an active participant in the conversation, she just interjects when spoken to. Example 2 Joseph is having two different and separate conversations with each steward (as indicated by verse 16). Example 3 also doesn't read like a conversation to me, it reads as disparate statements (with part of the back and forth closed by verse 14:2)

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • @rikitikitembo I don't think rebecca is merely interjecting. Two parties were having a conversation and then they brought her in to get her opinion on the very matter they had been discussing, at which point she gives her opinion to both parties. The Joseph example can go either way, but it sounds like all three were talking together but each person directed their words at the specific person they were relevant to. The last example is kind of a conversation between three different groups of people. The scouts state their opinion, Joshua and Caleb state their disagreement, and the people react.

    – Alex
    yesterday














2












2








2







Here are a few examples that I think at least somewhat fulfill your criteria:





  • Genesis 24:55-58



    Rebecca's mother and brother tell Abraham's servant that Rebecca should remain with them for a while. The servant responds that he wants to leave. They call Rebecca and she says that she is willing to go with the servant.




  • Genesis 40:7-19



    In the beginning the Chief Butler and the Chief Baker talk as one, but eventually each one tells over his dream separately and Joseph interprets them.




  • Numbers 13:27 - 14:9



    Here the scouts speak to everyone, then Caleb issues a rejoinder, then the people speak, and then Caleb and Joshua speak.








share|improve this answer













Here are a few examples that I think at least somewhat fulfill your criteria:





  • Genesis 24:55-58



    Rebecca's mother and brother tell Abraham's servant that Rebecca should remain with them for a while. The servant responds that he wants to leave. They call Rebecca and she says that she is willing to go with the servant.




  • Genesis 40:7-19



    In the beginning the Chief Butler and the Chief Baker talk as one, but eventually each one tells over his dream separately and Joseph interprets them.




  • Numbers 13:27 - 14:9



    Here the scouts speak to everyone, then Caleb issues a rejoinder, then the people speak, and then Caleb and Joshua speak.









share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









AlexAlex

29.2k2 gold badges72 silver badges156 bronze badges




29.2k2 gold badges72 silver badges156 bronze badges
















  • example 1 I wouldn't Rebecca as an active participant in the conversation, she just interjects when spoken to. Example 2 Joseph is having two different and separate conversations with each steward (as indicated by verse 16). Example 3 also doesn't read like a conversation to me, it reads as disparate statements (with part of the back and forth closed by verse 14:2)

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • @rikitikitembo I don't think rebecca is merely interjecting. Two parties were having a conversation and then they brought her in to get her opinion on the very matter they had been discussing, at which point she gives her opinion to both parties. The Joseph example can go either way, but it sounds like all three were talking together but each person directed their words at the specific person they were relevant to. The last example is kind of a conversation between three different groups of people. The scouts state their opinion, Joshua and Caleb state their disagreement, and the people react.

    – Alex
    yesterday



















  • example 1 I wouldn't Rebecca as an active participant in the conversation, she just interjects when spoken to. Example 2 Joseph is having two different and separate conversations with each steward (as indicated by verse 16). Example 3 also doesn't read like a conversation to me, it reads as disparate statements (with part of the back and forth closed by verse 14:2)

    – rikitikitembo
    yesterday











  • @rikitikitembo I don't think rebecca is merely interjecting. Two parties were having a conversation and then they brought her in to get her opinion on the very matter they had been discussing, at which point she gives her opinion to both parties. The Joseph example can go either way, but it sounds like all three were talking together but each person directed their words at the specific person they were relevant to. The last example is kind of a conversation between three different groups of people. The scouts state their opinion, Joshua and Caleb state their disagreement, and the people react.

    – Alex
    yesterday

















example 1 I wouldn't Rebecca as an active participant in the conversation, she just interjects when spoken to. Example 2 Joseph is having two different and separate conversations with each steward (as indicated by verse 16). Example 3 also doesn't read like a conversation to me, it reads as disparate statements (with part of the back and forth closed by verse 14:2)

– rikitikitembo
yesterday





example 1 I wouldn't Rebecca as an active participant in the conversation, she just interjects when spoken to. Example 2 Joseph is having two different and separate conversations with each steward (as indicated by verse 16). Example 3 also doesn't read like a conversation to me, it reads as disparate statements (with part of the back and forth closed by verse 14:2)

– rikitikitembo
yesterday













@rikitikitembo I don't think rebecca is merely interjecting. Two parties were having a conversation and then they brought her in to get her opinion on the very matter they had been discussing, at which point she gives her opinion to both parties. The Joseph example can go either way, but it sounds like all three were talking together but each person directed their words at the specific person they were relevant to. The last example is kind of a conversation between three different groups of people. The scouts state their opinion, Joshua and Caleb state their disagreement, and the people react.

– Alex
yesterday





@rikitikitembo I don't think rebecca is merely interjecting. Two parties were having a conversation and then they brought her in to get her opinion on the very matter they had been discussing, at which point she gives her opinion to both parties. The Joseph example can go either way, but it sounds like all three were talking together but each person directed their words at the specific person they were relevant to. The last example is kind of a conversation between three different groups of people. The scouts state their opinion, Joshua and Caleb state their disagreement, and the people react.

– Alex
yesterday











1














Most of the book of Job / Iyov in the Ketuvim is a lengthy discussion and debate between Job and his three trusted friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar on the nature of human suffering and the common question of 'why bad things happen to good people'. Even though each person takes his turn, 2:11 makes it clear that all four of them are together:




... they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him.




The three of them observe while Iyov scratches his skin outbreaks with pottery shards.




So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great. (2:13)




So this is much more than a conversation. They remain by his side debating with him for a long period of time.






share|improve this answer




























  • Please see my comment on the question above. This is not a conversation, this is individual statements. None of the friends speak to one another or respond to the statements of the other.

    – rikitikitembo
    20 hours ago











  • I guess my feeling is that the sequential nature of the text represents an editing stage in which their points are summarized, and that condensed form becomes the written record of their discussions. The debates in the Greek academy that are passed down are rather like this too, I think. It doesn't mean the philosophers necessarily uttered those exact words.

    – wberry
    20 hours ago
















1














Most of the book of Job / Iyov in the Ketuvim is a lengthy discussion and debate between Job and his three trusted friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar on the nature of human suffering and the common question of 'why bad things happen to good people'. Even though each person takes his turn, 2:11 makes it clear that all four of them are together:




... they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him.




The three of them observe while Iyov scratches his skin outbreaks with pottery shards.




So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great. (2:13)




So this is much more than a conversation. They remain by his side debating with him for a long period of time.






share|improve this answer




























  • Please see my comment on the question above. This is not a conversation, this is individual statements. None of the friends speak to one another or respond to the statements of the other.

    – rikitikitembo
    20 hours ago











  • I guess my feeling is that the sequential nature of the text represents an editing stage in which their points are summarized, and that condensed form becomes the written record of their discussions. The debates in the Greek academy that are passed down are rather like this too, I think. It doesn't mean the philosophers necessarily uttered those exact words.

    – wberry
    20 hours ago














1












1








1







Most of the book of Job / Iyov in the Ketuvim is a lengthy discussion and debate between Job and his three trusted friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar on the nature of human suffering and the common question of 'why bad things happen to good people'. Even though each person takes his turn, 2:11 makes it clear that all four of them are together:




... they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him.




The three of them observe while Iyov scratches his skin outbreaks with pottery shards.




So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great. (2:13)




So this is much more than a conversation. They remain by his side debating with him for a long period of time.






share|improve this answer















Most of the book of Job / Iyov in the Ketuvim is a lengthy discussion and debate between Job and his three trusted friends Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar on the nature of human suffering and the common question of 'why bad things happen to good people'. Even though each person takes his turn, 2:11 makes it clear that all four of them are together:




... they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him.




The three of them observe while Iyov scratches his skin outbreaks with pottery shards.




So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great. (2:13)




So this is much more than a conversation. They remain by his side debating with him for a long period of time.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 20 hours ago

























answered 20 hours ago









wberrywberry

1565 bronze badges




1565 bronze badges
















  • Please see my comment on the question above. This is not a conversation, this is individual statements. None of the friends speak to one another or respond to the statements of the other.

    – rikitikitembo
    20 hours ago











  • I guess my feeling is that the sequential nature of the text represents an editing stage in which their points are summarized, and that condensed form becomes the written record of their discussions. The debates in the Greek academy that are passed down are rather like this too, I think. It doesn't mean the philosophers necessarily uttered those exact words.

    – wberry
    20 hours ago



















  • Please see my comment on the question above. This is not a conversation, this is individual statements. None of the friends speak to one another or respond to the statements of the other.

    – rikitikitembo
    20 hours ago











  • I guess my feeling is that the sequential nature of the text represents an editing stage in which their points are summarized, and that condensed form becomes the written record of their discussions. The debates in the Greek academy that are passed down are rather like this too, I think. It doesn't mean the philosophers necessarily uttered those exact words.

    – wberry
    20 hours ago

















Please see my comment on the question above. This is not a conversation, this is individual statements. None of the friends speak to one another or respond to the statements of the other.

– rikitikitembo
20 hours ago





Please see my comment on the question above. This is not a conversation, this is individual statements. None of the friends speak to one another or respond to the statements of the other.

– rikitikitembo
20 hours ago













I guess my feeling is that the sequential nature of the text represents an editing stage in which their points are summarized, and that condensed form becomes the written record of their discussions. The debates in the Greek academy that are passed down are rather like this too, I think. It doesn't mean the philosophers necessarily uttered those exact words.

– wberry
20 hours ago





I guess my feeling is that the sequential nature of the text represents an editing stage in which their points are summarized, and that condensed form becomes the written record of their discussions. The debates in the Greek academy that are passed down are rather like this too, I think. It doesn't mean the philosophers necessarily uttered those exact words.

– wberry
20 hours ago



Popular posts from this blog

Hudson River Historic District Contents Geography History The district today Aesthetics Cultural...

The number designs the writing. Feandra Aversely Definition: The act of ingrafting a sprig or shoot of one...

Ayherre Geografie Demografie Externe links Navigatiemenu43° 23′ NB, 1° 15′ WL43° 23′ NB, 1°...