It might be further observed that
when the terminology used to describe what happened to each city is read
carefully, a further chiasmus emerges:
A (28) (took [lkd]) לכד
B (29) (fought [wylḥm]) וילחם
C (30) (smote [wykh]) נכה (ויכה)
D (31) (siege and assault [yḥn, wylḥm]) ויחן וילחם
E (33) (smote him [wykhw])
ויכהו
[The king of Gezer, not Gezer]
D’ (34) (siege and assault [wyḥn, wylḥm]) ויחן וילחם
B’ (36) (fought [ylḥm]) וילחם
B’ (38) (fought [wylḥm]) וילחם
C’ (40) (smote [wykh]) נכה (ויכה)
C’ (41) (smote ‘wykh]) נכה (ויכה)
A’ (42) (took [lkd]) לכד (James
K. Hoffmeier, Israel In and Out of Egypt: The Archaeological and Historical
Background to the Exodus [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2026], 57)
Commenting on B’ and C’ in the proposed chiasmus:
I have no explanation for why B’
and C’ have been reversed from the sequence in the first half of the chiasmus. (Ibid.,
57 n. 139)
