The Design of the ‘Dual Causality’ Principle 559 shall find favor in the eyes of the LORD, he will bring me back and show me both it and his habitation: but if he thus says, I have no delight in thee; behold here I am, let him do to me as seems good in his eyes.” (15,25-26). Fokkelman has noted nicely that these words of David are set in an ironic parallelism to the words of Absalom beforehand: “For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Aram, saying, if the LORD shall bring me back indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the LORD.” (15,8) (5). Yet, it is possible that this parallelism is not designed only for the irony of it. The reader is required to project what is implied by David’s words onto Absalom’s words; that is, just as David interprets the events as God’s will so is Absalom’s going to Hebron for starting the rebellion the Will of God. I want to trace one literary means that has been used by the narrator in order to develop the above-mentioned principle: the integration of ambiguous expressions into the story. The utilization of ambiguous expressions within the biblical story, for the purpose of shaping it and emphasizing its intentions, has long been recognized (6). There are various advantages to the utilization of an ambiguous expression within the text, among them the emphasis of dual causality. I refer to mainly syntactic obtuseness, where the reader finds it difficult to decide who the subject of the sentence is: the human character in the story, or God. The difficulty in itself creates the possibility that the reader is to see both as the syntactic ‘subject’; that is, the one who sets the plot in motion. For example, when Naomi declares: “Blessed is he who has not abandoned his steadfast love to the living and to the dead” (Ru 2,20), it is not clear to whom Naomi is referring. Glueck, and others, claims that Boaz is the subject of the sentence (7). Most scholars, however, see God as the subject of the sentence (8), and there are some who suggest that this sentence holds a —————— 70, n. 1. Regarding this issue see also E. WORTHWEIN, Die Erzählung von der Thronfolge Davids — theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? (Theologische Studien 115; Zürich 1974). (5)J.P. FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Book of Samuel (Assen 1981) I, 171. (6) See for example: E. KÖNIG, Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik, in Bezug auf die Biblische Littertur Komparativisch (Leipzig 1900) 10-12; A. FRISCH, “Three Syntactical Dis- continuities in I Regum 9-11”, ZAW 115 (2003) 88-93; J. GROSSMAN, “The Use of Ambiguity in Biblical Narratives of Misleading and Deceit”, Tarbiz 63 (2004) 483-515; Y. ZAKOVITCH, ‘I Will Utter Riddles from Ancient Times’. Riddles and Dream-riddles in Biblical Narrative (Tel-Aviv 2005) 88-172; J. GROSSMAN, Ambiguity in the Biblical Narrative and its Contribution to the Literary Formation (Ph.D. Thesis; Bar-Ilan University 2006) — and there a wide research survey: 6-21. And in a wider manner that relies on the process of reading: M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington 1985). (7) N. GLUECK, Hesed in the Bible (Cincinnati 1967) 40-42; B. REBERA, “Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2:20 Reconsidered”, BT 36 (1985) 317-327; F. BUSH, Ruth/Esther (WBC; Dallas, TX 1996) 135. (8) H.W. HERTZBERG, Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth (ATD 9; Göttingen 1959) 270; W. RUDOLPH, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder (KAT 17; Leipzig 1962) 50; J. GRAY, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth (NCBC; Grand Rapids, MI 1967) 393; E.F. CAMPBELL, Jr., Ruth, (AB 7; Garden City, NY 1975) 106; K. SAKENFELD, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Missoula, MT 1978) 104-107.