Poetry in the Hebrew Bible: Selected Studies from Vetus Testamentum (Brill's Readers in Biblical Studies)

P O E T R Y

IN T H E

H E B R E W

BIBLE

BRILL'S READERS IN BIBLICAL STUDIES

V O L U M E

'68‫׳‬V

6

POETRY IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Selected. Studies from Vetus Testamentum

COMPILED

D A V I D

E.

BY

O R T O N

' '6 8‫' ל‬

B R I L L

LEIDEN · BOSTON · KÖLN 2000

Cover design:

BEELDVORM,

Leidschendam

D i e D e u t s c h e Bibliothek - CIP-Einheit s a u f n ä h m e Poetry in the Hebrew Bible: selected studies from Vetus Testamentum / comp, by David E. Orton. - Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill, 2000 (Brill s readers in biblical studies ; Vol. 6) ISBN 90-04-11161-1

Library o f C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g - i n - P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is also available

ISSN ISBN

1389-1170 90 04 111611

© Copyright 2000 by Koninklijke Brill .w, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permissionfromthe publisher. Authorization to photocopy itemsfor internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriatefees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 DanversMA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN T H E NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS Preface Places of Original Publications Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry H. Kosmala

vii ix

1

Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry (continued) H. Kosmala

24

Form and Word-play in David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan W.L. Holladay

53

Α-B Pairs and Oral Composition in Hebrew Poetry P.B. Yoder

90

Psalm X X I X in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition P.C. Craigie

110

Jeremiah's Poem in III 1-IV 2 D. Jobling

119

The Literary Structure of the First Two Poems of Balaam (Num. xxiii 7-10, 18-24) A. Tosato

130

Prose Ambiguity and Balance in Psalm xv P.D. Miller

139

The Unity of the Song of Songs R.E. Murphy

148

The Juxtaposition of Synonymous and Chiastic Parallelism in Tricola in Old Testament Hebrew Psalm Poetry J.T. Willis

156

Pausal Forms and the Structure of Biblical Poetry Ε J . Revell

172

Proverbs xxxi 10-31 as Heroic Hymn: a Form-critical Analysis A. Wolters

186

Internal or Half-line Parallelism in Classical Hebrew Poetry W.G.E. Watson

198

Problems and Solutions in Hebrew Verse: a Survey of Recent Work W.G.E. Watson

221

Index of Modern Authors

235

Index of Biblical References

239

PREFACE Poetry in the Hebrew Bible is the second collection of articles from the pages of Vettis Testamentum to appear in the new series of Brill's Readers in Biblical Studies, the first of which was Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. The general series, which began successfully with a number of selections from Novum Testamentum, is designed to provide convenient and useful selections in a handy format, affordable for classroom use and by individual students of the Bible. The present volume presents a broad range of scholarly insights into biblical poetry published in the last third of the twentieth century. In this period Vetus Testamentum has published scores of articles and short notes on the poetic texts of the Bible. The majority of these have been exegetical readings of individual texts. The present collection contains some of these (e.g. the studies of individual psalms, and of the poetic sections of other books), where they demonstrate approaches to poetic biblical texts that have more general implications for the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. The primary focus of the selection, however, is on the features of the Bible as poetic literature—on the study of the form and structure of biblical poetry in its own right and in its literary context. The essays collected here represent the insights of some of the world's leading Hebrew scholars of the past three decades, and are presented, appropriately enough, in a sort of inclusio formed by the dual essays of Kosmala and Watson. The hope is that this collection will prove genuinely useful to all students of biblical poetry. In accordance with the ethos of Vetus Testamentum, no editorial comment is made on the articles published here, except, by implication, with regard to their suitability for republication in this form. The article by J. Lundbom, "Poetic Structure and Prophetic Rhetoric in Hosea" (VT 29 [1979] 300ff.) is not included here because of its reprinting in the volume on Hebrew Prophecy in this series. The articles are arranged in chronological order of appearance in the journal. Thanks are due to Arie van der Kooij, current editor of Vetus Testamentum, for his friendly advice in connection with the selection.

Students and scholars interested in other studies of biblical poetry, and in articles in German and French, which could not be included here, are referred to Vetus Testamentum itself. The Index to Volumes I-XLV published in 1996 is useful for this purpose. DEO

Leiden, October 1999

PLACES O F O R I G I N A L P U B L I C A T I O N S The articles of this collection first appeared in Vetus Testamentum H. Kosmala, 'Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry' F T XIV (1964), pp. 423-445 H. Kosmala, 'Form and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry' (continued) F T XVI (1966), pp. 152-180 W.L. Holladay, 'Form and Word-play in David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan' VT XX (1970), pp. 153-189 P.B. Yoder, Α-B Pairs and Oral Composition in Hebrew Poetry' VT XXI (1971), pp. 470-489 P.C. Craigie, 'Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition' F T XXII (1972), pp. 143-151 D. Jobling, 'Jeremiah's Poem in III 1‫־‬IV 2' F T XXVIII (1978), pp. 45-55 " A. Tosato, 'The Literary Structure of the First Two Poems of Balaam (Num. xxiii 7-10, 18-24)' I T XXIX (1979), pp. 98-106 P.D. Miller, 'Prose Ambiguity and Balance in Psalm xv' VT XXIX (1979), pp. 416-424 R.E. Murphy, 'The Unity of the Song of Songs' I T XXIX (1979), pp. 436-443 J.T. Willis, 'The Juxtaposition of Synonymous and Chiastic Parallelism in Tricola in Old Testament Hebrew Psalm Poetry' I T X X I X (1979), pp. 465-480 E.J. Revell, 'Pausal Forms and the Structure of Biblical Poetry' X X X I (1981), pp. 186-199

IT

A. Wolters, 'Proverbs xxxi 10-31 as Heroic Hymn: a Form-critical Analysis' F T XXXVIII (1988), pp. 446-457 W.G.E. Watson, 'Internal or Half-line Parallelism in Classical Hebrew Poetry' F T X X X I X (1989), pp. 44-66 W.G.E. Watson, 'Problems and Solutions in Hebrew Verse: a Survey of Recent Work' VT XLIII (1993), pp. 372-384

F O R M

A N D

S T R U C T U R E

H E B R E W

I N

P O E T R Y

A N C I E N T 1

)

(A N E W APPROACH) BY

HANS KOSMALA Jerusalem, Isr.

When I began to study theology and to read the Hebrew Bible forty years ago, it was a great shock to me when I discovered that the prophets communicated God's word in poetical form instead of using plain language, and that even God himself occasionally expressed his will in poems. Earlier I had gained the impression that writing poetry was not a serious occupation, that poets were dreamers and spent their time on versifying their thoughts that might have been expressed more clearly in ordinary speech, provided they had to say something really worth while. I fully agreed with Plato who was not much in favour of poetry. With these ideas at the back of my mind, it took me some time to recover from the shock and to become familiar with the fact that the word of God was imparted to us very often, though not always, in poetic form. In my student years metrical studies in the Hebrew Bible were much en vogue in Germany, and there were few lectures on the books of the prophets in which texts were not examined metrically. Sometimes it was like this: one line was considered to be too short, so a word or two had to be added, whilst another line seemed to be too long, so a word or two had to be removed. The actual text as handed down seemed to be a minor concern. D U H M ' S commentary on Isaiah which appeared in its third and last edition in 1914 can serve as an illustration of that method of scanning Hebrew poetry. This method could not possibly lead to any sound results. Not what the prophet meant to express and indeed had expressed in the text preserved to us, but rather what he ought to have said and how the text, therefore, ought to be emended, seemed to have become the all-important object of critical scholarship. 1

) The following is a paper read at the meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study at Bangor (Wales) on July 23, 1964.

In another respect also the m o d e m efforts in finding out the principles of Hebrew "metre" were doomed to failure. We looked upon Hebrew poetry in the same way as we approached Greek and Latin poetry: we scanned the verses, we counted the syllables judging them by the length of their vowels or their stresses on the assumption that ancient Hebrew poetry was following the same rules as Greek or Latin poetry or any modern poetic art. Well—it does not! In addition to this misconception of Hebrew poetic measure we made another mistake : we based our scanning entirely on the Masoretic vocalisation and accentuation of the texts. The Masoretes had worked out their own system, but whether that system truly represented the original pronunciation or rhythm of the language of Moses and Samuel, of Amos and Isaiah, we never questioned. The Bible with all its comments on, and explanations of, the text which had accumulated in the course of time and had been added to the original wording, had become Holy Scripture for the instruction and edification of man, and important parts of it were recited in the prayer services of the Synagogue. The Masoretes established the final shape of the text of the Bible, they fixed the pronunciation, vowels and accents, once and for all, in order to regulate the recitation of the Holy Writ. The Masoretes had their own ideas about the Hebrew language. They preferred the stress on the ultima, with some obvious exceptions such as the segolata and the pausal forms. But we have good reasons to doubt that the Masoretic tradition represents the original pronunciation and intonation. For there are other and older traditions which do not agree with the Masoretic fixation. However, it was from the Masoretic system of vocalisation and accentuation that students of Hebrew prosody drew their conclusions. The pointed Masoretic text on which we have made ourselves entirely dependent cannot provide us with a clue to the laws underlying ancient Hebrew poetic art; in fact, it has distracted us from the only possible access. In the early forties I studied certain poetic pieces from the Book of Isaiah and I was struck by two things: 1) the regularity of the number of words or rather word-units of a sentence forming a complete and self-contained line, whether the words were short with one stress only, or long with two and even three stresses, and 2) that a line within a composition corresponded to another line of equal length also with regard to its content, that is, a sentence of a certain length was paralleled by another sentence of the same length,

so that the whole composition turned out to be one of perfect beauty and strict correspondence between outward form and inner structure. I was amazed at this complete agreement between form and contents on the basis of such a simple device as this, and I could not imagine that nobody had ever seen this before. In the course of time I learned that the first principle, at least in its rudiments, had been discovered before in the 16th century by Rabbi A Z A R Y A H D E Rossi of Ferrara who had published his own ideas on the laws of Hebrew poetry in a book called M^or 1Enayim, " T h e Light of the Eyes" (Mantua 1574). The principle he had found was that it was the important words and notions which formed the basic elements of Hebrew poetry, not the syllables and stresses. His discovery was favourably mentioned by the younger B U X T O R F in the 17th century and by Bishop Robert L O W T H in the 18th century. B U X T O R F translated substantial passages from A Z A R Y A H ' S book into Latin 1) and Bishop L O W T H gave an English version in the Preliminary Dissertation of his book on Isaiah 2 ). But neither of the two, in fact nobody down to our time made any serious use of this principle. It may be that neither B U X T O R F nor Bishop L O W T H were really impressed by the examples which Rabbi A Z A R Y A H gave. He applied his method only briefly to a few of the less suitable poems such as the song of Miriam and Moses (Ex. xv), the last song of Moses (Deut. xxxii), the song of the well (Num. xxi) and the Psalm in the Book of Habakuk. It may also be that Rabbi A Z A R Y A H was hampered by the dominating presence of the pointed Masoretic Text to go any further. So the matter was left at that until to-day. At the beginning of the 20th century Eduard S I E V E R S 3) made a final approach to Hebrew poetry on the basis of the regular change of heavy and light syllables; this method is still predominant in all modern research of Hebrew poetic art 4 ). Once we have fully grasped the principle that the basic element of ancient Hebrew poetry is the word- or thought-unit irrespective 1

) Liber Cosri, Basel 1660: Mantissa Dissertationum pp. 415ff. ) De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum, Oxford 1753, p. 195; 2nd edition 1763, pp. 258 f.—Isaiah. A New Translation, with a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes, 2nd cd. London 1779, pp. xli—xlvii. 3 ) Metrische Studien. I. Studien x}tr hebräischen Metrik. Leipzig 1901. 4 ) Theodore ROBINSON is perhaps an exception in so far as he emphasized the importance of the word-unit in Hebrew poetry ("Some Principles of Hebrew Metrics", Ζ AW 54, 1936, pp. 28-43; "Basic Principles of Hebrew Poetic Form", Festschrift Bertholet, Tübingen 1950, pp. 438 — 450). Nevertheless even he remained loyal to the school of SIEVERS. Unfortunately it is impossible here to go any further into the history of the study of Hebrew poetic form. 2

of beats and stresses, the study of form and structure, of the relationship between form and contents, becomes really very simple and produces surprising results. The question arises: what do we count as a unit? The answer is: everything that can be expressed by one essential word, any notion or noun, subject or object, whether it is ben with one or beiasserotekem with three stresses, counts as one unit; any action, general or specific, that is, without or with a suffix, a pronoun, an adjective or adverb, a numeral, any essential word in the sentence represents one unit. We do not count 'et-, the mark of the definite object, any of the particles or prepositions unless they have a suffix designating a person or an object, except the usually heavy preposition 'et which indicates the intimate communion or togetherness 1), the full negation /0' (though not W-), and the conjunction ki, but only when it introduces the proof or logical reason, not when it opens a mere explanation 2). O n the whole one learns fairly quickly what to count as a unit and what not, but one has always to keep the function of the words in a sentence in mind. Difficulties, of course, remain, as for instance with ko/- which is frequently found in the M T before a noun with no particular additional meaning 3 ), or with the relative particle >ašer which is rare in good poetry and rather belongs to prose language, but occasionally fills an important place as a substitute for a noun especially in less poetical sentences 4 ). Finally there are the expressions which belong so closely together that even the Masoretes sometimes felt obliged to connect the two words by a Maqqef 5 ). But one cannot rely on the Masoretes in that respect ; one has to observe the logic of the sentence rather than the masoretic prescriptions which, it should be remembered, are directions for the practical recitation and do not necessarily take into account the original linguistic and logic requirements. 1

) For instance in Is. xl 14 and twice in xlix 4. ) In that case it can be conveniently translated by "namely" or sometimes even left out. 3 ) Cp. Micah iv If. with Is. ii 2f. where it may have been added subsequently already in ancient times as the L X X shows, possibly in order to stress the importance of the event: "all nations will come". But then the second and parallel half of the line would rather reduce the effect of this statement: "many peoples", and this is hardly likely as one would rather expect an intensification in the second clause of a parallelism of this sort. —On the other hand, kol has sometimes an important function to fulfil and must then be counted as a unit by itself; cf. Is. xliv 23: "the forest and every (single) tree in it". 4 ) See, for example, Is. vii 15, p. 434 f. s ) E.g. "li-lak which is one action and counted as one unit; see p. 439. 2

After having briefly stated the principles of our approach to ancient Hebrew poetry I propose to examine a small selection of poetical pieces. All I can offer in the short time allotted to the subject are merely excerpts from a much larger work which was finished about ten years ago but has never been published ; this is the first occasion that the subject is discussed in public. I should like to add that Ugaritic poetry follows much the same rules as ancient Hebrew poetry. It is based on the same principle of the word- or thought-unit, just as it widely obeys the same laws of parallelism within the line as Hebrew poetry. There is no need here to discuss these laws of parallelism, because they have been well stated by Bishop L O W T H 1 ) and are well known. As for Ugaritic poetic literature the question has been dealt with by A L B R I G H T , Y O U N G , and especially by G O R D O N in his various books on the Ugaritic language. The use of two parallel clauses in a sentence or line and the principle of the word-unit together with the close correspondence between form and structure, or rather, form and the arrangement of ideas in the composition as a whole, which again, as we shall see, creates a new parallelism apart from the one within the line, namely that of corresponding lines within the composition—these are the distinctive features in Ugaritic poetry (2nd millenium B.C.) as well as in ancient Hebrew poetry down to exilic times. With the Exile or soon after it, this ancient poetic art declined in Israel and other forms and standards of poetic structure developed, probably during or already before the Exile. These will not be the subject of the present paper. We shall also leave out the ancient popular songs, songs which were sung by the people usually with the accompaniment of musical instruments such as the timbrel and the flute. The few songs that have come down to us in the biblical literature, for instance the Song of Miriam (Ex. xv 21), the Song of the Well (Nu. xxi 17f.), or the Song of the Defeat of Assyria (Is. xxx 31) are all very short. They form, as a rule, just one line which consists of six or at the most of 12 units. Parallelism within that line is not necessarily observed, though the lines can be subdivided in one way or another. Such lines, when sung, can be repeated again and again, and sometimes they are incorporated in longer poems such as Miriam's Sir of God's deed among the Egyptians or the Sir of God's victory over Assyria, just 1

) De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum, 1753, pp. 180ff. (ch. XIX); Ed. 1763, pp. 237fF.

as composers of m o d e m times have incorporated folk-songs in their own Kunstmusik. We omit these folksongs here as we cannot learn much from them about form and structure. They are too short. T w o lines would be the minimum requirement for something that could be called a poem. The simplest form of poetry appears in oracles. Oracles in the wider sense of the word may contain a piece of advice, a blessing or a curse, a judgement, a prophecy, or a statement about G o d and his will. Oracles are uttered by wise men or prophets as vehicles of divine inspiration or revelation. They can be announced as God's direct command, preceded by the words: "thus says the Lord", "the Lord has spoken," "decree of the L o r d " (n^um YHWH), and so on. Similar formulas are often found at the end of the oracle, occasionally also somewhere within the poem, even in the middle of a line, interrupting the sentence and transforming it into prose. In the latter case we may safely assume that the formula is not part of the original poem, because it spoils the structure of the line and of the poem as a whole. It was quite a normal thing for the editor to make such insertions when he felt it necessary to stress now and then that the oracle is the decree of God. Most of the older oracles are in a simple form and when we translate them into any modern language, the sentences look very much like prose sentences. The early and simplest Hebrew oracles have much in common with the oracles of the Sa'ir or the Kahin, the pre-Islamic Arab poet or priest, only that there the lines usually end in a rhyme, whilst in the Hebrew oracles the important rule is that the lines are of a certain length, that is, they consist of a certain number of thoughtunits. The question is: how many lines make an oracle and how many units are required for the line? An oracle can consist of two, three, four, or five lines, rarely more. It depends on what the prophet wants, or is instructed, to say and how much he wants to say. In composing or pronouncing his oracles the prophet is comparatively free and he uses his freedom. A good example of primitive oracles are the oracles of Amos on Judah and her neighbours in chapters i and ii. The first eight oracles are fairly uniform and consist of three to five lines after an introductory line which is the same in all of them: " F o r three transgressions of—then follows the name: Damascus, Gaza, Tyrus, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Judah, Israel—and for four, I will not turn away the punishment".

H o w many units has the line of an oracle? Six units are very common, but also five, seven, and eight are quite frequent. There seems to be only one oracle—also in the Book of Amos (v 25—27)—which has nine units to each of its three lines (see p. 436). Oracles do not, as a rule, belong to the most artistic poetry. However, we must accept them as poetry of a more primitive type, simply because they do observe the fundamental rule of some kind of regularity in the number of lines and in the number of units to the line. A brief survey of the eight oracles in Amos i and ii will easily demonstrate this. Omitting the above mentioned introductory line to each oracle, we have first a line mentioning the transgression of which each nation is accused. The length of this line varies. After that the prophet describes the punishment which will be meted out to them; this is the actual oracle, and it is always an oracle of doom. In the following survey, the figures give the numbers of units in each line: I.

i3—5

_4_

V.

i 13—15

Τ

Τ

7 7 II.

i 6—8

_5_

6 6 VI.

ii 1—3

Τ

i 9—10

_5_ Τ

6 6 III.

_6_

_8_

6 6 VII.

Τ

ii 4—5

_6_ Τ

6 IV.

ill—12

_5_ Τ 6

VIII.

ii 6—8 (ff) _6_ 8 8 5 5

This brief survey of a group of oracles 1 ) shows us that the actual 1 ) Israel being the main target, the last oracle has many additions : first a long discourse on Israel's manifold sins of another seventeen lines which is resumed and continued in the following chapters together with a list of past punishments and the announcement of the last punishment which is to come: captivity (last verses of chapters v, vi, and vii). The additions are mostly irregular and inartistic

oracle containing the judgement, that is, what follows after the line of indictment, consists in four out of eight cases of three lines of equal length. As we shall further see, three is indeed a favourite number of lines for short poetic pieces, especially in oracles. Let us turn now to the first two of Balaam's oracles. The lines are here not of equal length, but are, nevertheless, systematically arranged. Both oracles, as will be seen at once, are composite oracles, that is, they represent a sequence of thoughts which belong together, thus forming the complete oracle 1 ). The first, Nu. xxiii 7—10, has eight lines and is built up in the following way (the figures give again the number of units in each line) : verse

7:

7 7

8:

5 5

9:

_5_ 7

10:

_7_ 7

We have two lines of seven units, three of five and again two of seven with another line of seven units added to the oracle containing a reflection of Balaam on himself resulting from the oracle. Examining the oracle more closely with regard to its contents we find that the t w o first lines belong together, the next three, and the last two, as indicated by the division strokes; they are followed by the extra line which stands by itself. The second oracle, Nu. xxiii 18—24, is somewhat longer; it has eleven lines. It expresses similar thoughts, and groups them according to the same structural principle, though not in the same way. We get the following picture: verse 18: 19:

7 6 7

in point of form and structure, with the exception of a few shorter oracles which are of considerable beauty. 1 ) The oracles of Amos against Israel (see page 429, n. 1) are largely individual oracles pronounced at different times and collected afterwards.

20: 21:

6 8

22: 23:

6 _6_

24:

7 6 7

It is important to take the text of each oracle, in fact of any poetic piece, sentence by sentence. The graphic survey clearly demonstrates that the Masoretic verse division has very little to do with the division into sentences and logical sense-components of the text. We should discuss here briefly also the most famous of Balaam's oracles which was later accepted as one of the standard Messianic prophecies in the Damascus document as well as in Early Christianity (Nu. xxiv 16f.). As it is an important prophecy also in its original setting, for it deals with the final discomfiture of Moab through Israel, we need not be surprised that Balaam says in that oracle again a few words about himself, his visionary gift and his integrity. He has to justify himself as his prophecy is not, as expected, directed against Israel; on the contrary, it is the proclamation of Israel's final victory and greatness. A literal translation may help us to recognize the true logical division of its lines: a) b) c) d) e)

The prophecy (ne'um) of Him who hears the decisions of God, who knows the knowledge of the most High, Who sees the visions of the Almighty, who falls in trance, yet has open eyes. I see it, but it will not be now, I behold it, but it is not yet near: A star will come up from Jacob, a sceptre will rise from Israel; He will smite the flanks of Moab and destroy all children of Sheth.

The oracle consists of five lines; all are of the same length of six units. The first two belong together; so do the last two lines; the middle line stands by itself and establishes the connexion between the two pairs. The word n^um (the "inspired" or "visionary utteran-

ce") at the beginning of the oracle serves as a kind of headline. Indicating each unit by one dash, we obtain the following graphic picture : a b

Ï

Ì

There are quite a number of poetic pieces of this type of five lines with six units each. We note here only three: 1) Num. xxi 27—29, the song of victory over the Amorites (and Moab). This is not a folksong like that of Miriam, but a Kunstlied sung by the "Moshelim". The first two lines and the last two form a pair each, and the middle line again stands by itself linking the two pairs together: a b

I

d e

(

‫ן‬

) j

‫ן‬ ‫ן‬

) j

)

The last two words (bracketed) are a comment added by a later hand and stress once more the fact that the king in question is the Amorite Sihon; but this is known already f r o m the story itself (see verse 26), and not even a modern reader would have any doubt about the identity of the king. 2) Is. xlix 14—17, Zion's complaint and God's answer. In this poem lines two and three and lines four and five form pairs, whilst line one containing the complaint remains single: a b c d

—

— :—

— I— ‫ן‬ ‫ן‬

—: ) j

I

)

3) Is. xlvii 1 and 5, the ditty on Babylon's downfall. The two verses are, unfortunately, separated from each other in the transmitted text, but they clearly belong together and form one poem of the usual

five lines with six units each, as can be seen from the tenor of each sentence and the address repeated in each line (indicated in the diagram below by thick dashes). Vers 2, three lines of four units, and verse 3, two lines of five units, introduce further details of Babylon's humiliation in a different language, whilst verse 4, one line of six units, is an interjectional praise of the God of Israel. The graphic picture of the poem in its original form is again the same:

Of the last three poems 1) and 3) are songs of victory and joy, whilst 2) is a reflection on God's faithfulness which follows a song of joy over the return or imminent return of Israel from captivity. Let us go back once more to the oracles of Balaam which bring up a question relevant to our subject: is the prophet also a poet? It is evident that we have prophecy which is clearly poetry, or to put it the other way round, we have poetry which is clearly prophecy. The story of Balaam offers interesting information on the relationship between prophecy and poetry. Balaam was hired to utter a curse against Israel that would stick to that people until it finally came to grief. But he said things he was not expected to say: he prophesied against Moab. He obeyed the powerful God of Israel who was not his god. He was so completely under his spell that he even dropped all magic performances he used to employ in such cases (Num. xxiii 23; xxiv 1). God reveals his will to him. The text says that he will speak to him and tell him what he is to say (xxii 20) ; he will put the word into his mouth (xxii 39; xxiii 5.16). Wealso hear that the spirit of God came over him (xxiv 2). However we do not hear the exact words which God spoke to Balaam; dabar can after all mean generally the kind of thing he is to say, not necessarily the exact words. Following the text closely we realize that it is Balaam who formulates and pronounces the will of God. The dictum is not described as n^um YHWH, but as n^um Bil'am. It is the neium of a visionary, as he describes himself, of a man who falls in trance but has open eyes (xxiv 3f. and 15f.). Balaam is both a seer and a poet. He is a seer who pronounces what he has received, that is, as Balaam says himself (xxiii 20), he does not say

anything of his own mind (xxiv 13). H e is decidedly a visionary, but at the same time he is able to express his vision in clear and intelligible speech, in well-ordered sentences which even he w h o has not seen his vision can understand. H e is not a mumbler or a glossolalist of w h o m — t o use the words of the Apostle Paul—an outsider would say, he is mad. T h e ancient prophet is a poet because he does not express his inspired prophecy or wisdom in ordinary prose, but in a poetic form, a f o r m which is impressive, which will last and will be easily remembered and literally remembered. It is a f o r m which obeys certain rules. Every sentence is well measured and confined to a line of a certain length. T h e length of the line depends on the thought which it is to express. Another important rule is that the lines are related to each other not only formally as regards their length and their position in the poem as a whole, but also as regards the ideas which they carry. We can imagine that there is an almost endless variety of distinct forms which a poem can have. A poem can be arranged in stanzas each consisting of t w o to four lines of the same or of varying lengths, but the variations must be of such a kind that the form of each stanza remains the same throughout the poem. O r the lines are not arranged in stanzas, but f o r m one single group of lines (and thoughts) closely knit together on the basis of a symmetrical system. Or, finally, the t w o systems, the stanza f o r m and the symmetrical form, can be combined in longer poetic compositions. We will n o w examine a few specimens of Hebrew poetry more closely and pay special attention to the relationship between f o r m and contents, for it is just this intimate relationship which produces the peculiar charm and outstanding beauty of ancient Hebrew poetic art. We have a considerable number of groups of 2 , 3 , and 4 lines which are selfcontained and complete in themselves. We have mentioned groups of five lines which already suggested the existence of certain laws of correspondence between the sentences of a poem, but it is actually in the shorter poems that these laws become more obvious. We shall, therefore, begin with the simpler examples and then proceed to the more complicated poems. A n oracle of a very simple f o r m is Is. vii 14—15. It purports to be a prophecy with a sign as announced in the headline (which remains outside the actual oracle). It consists of four lines which sound almost like prose, yet all are of the same length of eight units, and they are clearly interrelated. Its f o r m is :

( a b c

:)

_ —

_ —

‫ן‬ ‫ ן‬- _ ‫_ן‬ _ _ — — I— — -

The dashes represent again the Hebrew units. The following translation may help us to see the arrangement of the contents. a) Behold, the young woman is pregnant and will bear a son and she will call his name Immanuel. b) He will eat butter and honey, that he may soon know to refuse the evil and choose the good. c) For before the boy will know to refuse the evil and choose the good, d) The land, namely that which you abhor, will be deprived of her two kings. Lines one and two describe the sign; lines three and four interpret the meaning of the sign in its significance for the political future. "Immanuel" in line one, being a personal name, is one unit 1 ). The relative >aser forms an important part of the sentence; we have, therefore, translated it here by "namely that which," and it must be counted as a separate unit. The relative also reveals the near prose character of the language. This primitive form of Hebrew sententious speech may be compared to the sagc in which the Arab Kahin expressed his opinions and judgements, but we do not find very many examples of such simplicity in the Hebrew Bible. Another example of a similar type but somewhat more poetic is the oracle Is. vii 21—22: ( a b c

— — —

0 — — —

— — —

— I— — ‫—ן‬ — —

— — —

It consists of three lines with six units each and describes three stages : a) A man shall feed a young cow and two sheep (not really much of a farm!); b) And yet, from the abundance of milk he will live on butter, c) And so will everyone who is left in the country eat butter and honey. 1

) Some MSS have quite correctly only one word for it.

Butter and honey which also occur in the Immanuel-prophecy, or milk and honey 1 ), are a reference to the ancient description of the Promised Land. This, then, is a consolation for those who will be left in the country after the disaster. There is no formal parallelism within the lines each of which is again almost prosaic, but the three lines express three thoughts in progressive order. This is a very common device in the large family of triplets. In Is. xlvii 11 we have another oracle, this time against Babylon, with three closely interrelated lines of six units each: a

—

—

— I—

—

—

a) Evil will come upon you and you will not know from where it will come; b) Mischief will fall upon you and you will not find a remedy; c) Desolation will come upon you suddenly and take you unwares. We also note that every line consists of two clauses. Here are two more triplets characteristic of this group. The first is the famous passage in Amos ν 25—27 which has been used with new interpretations in the Damascus document (p. VII) and in Acts ch. vii. There are three lines of nine units each, an unusual number:

The first line is a question: a) Have you offered me sacrifices and offerings in the desert forty years, House of Israel? The answer to this question is not given by the House of Israel—it is obviously N O . The second line contains a statement on their defection in the land which Y H W H gave them: b) But you have borne (in procession) Sakkuth, your king, and Kaiwan, your emblems, the star of your god which you made to yourselves. The third line declares the consequences of this act of apostasy : c) Therefore will I send you into captivity beyond Damascus (namely to the place from which you got your alien gods, that is, Assyria), said Y H W H whose name is the God of Hosts. 1

) Milk and Butter are often used synonymously in Hebrew as well as in Ugaritic.

The language is again rather prosaic and slow-moving and there are no parallel clauses to alleviate the heaviness of the three sentences, but they describe neatly the three main stages of Israel's history. The last example of this type we will consider is another famous saying: 1 Sam. xv 22—23a. We find it in the middle of a prose text from the Saul and Samuel cycle ; it forms an essential part of the story itself. It is not an oracle in the stricter sense of the word ; it is rather a precept or maxim on what God expects of man, in the present case, of Saul. Each of the three lines has seven units. The sentences are again closely inter-related and each one is beautifully constructed (note the parallel clauses!):

The first line puts a question: a) Has Y H W H as great a delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of Y H W H ? The second line gives the answer: b) Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams! The third line produces the reason for this answer: c) For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry. Summarizing our observations on this, perhaps the simplest, type of ancient Hebrew poetry, we would say that such a poem consists normally of three lines (rarely two or four or more) each of the same length. The language may still be prosaic or only slightly poetic, the sentences may be simple and may not be composed of parallel clauses, though there are some beautiful exceptions, but the lines are always intimately linked up with each other, so that it would be quite an achievement to lose a line in transmission. The next group we will discuss are the poems which are divided into stanzas. It is a very large group. The stanza is usually short and consists of two or three, rarely of four, lines. A simple, but very good example of this kind is Is. iii 12—15. The poem is in perfect condition. It has three stanzas of two lines each and each line has six units:

3a b

—

—

—‫— ן‬ ‫ן‬

—

—

The following translation will help us to see how the prophet has arranged his thoughts: 1 a) My people: they are oppressed by irresponsible men, they are ruled by women; b) My people: your leaders are misleading (you), and they confuse the way of your paths. 2 a) Y H W H is ready to plead, he stands to judge people; b) Y H W H enters into judgement with the elders and the princes of his people. 3 a) And you? You have destroyed the vineyard, the spoil of the poor is in your houses, b) What do you mean? beating my people to pieces and grinding the faces of the poor? The speaker is God, or the prophet as God's mouthpiece. The two lines of the first stanza are a lamentation over the people; they are parallel. The subject is God's people. In the first line, God speaks of them in the third person; in the second line he addresses them. The two lines of the second stanza are likewise parallel in form, language, and content. The subject is Y H W H . The parallelism in the last stanza is also quite obvious. The subject are the leaders. They are addressed and questioned, they are accused and will be judged. We must admit that the poem follows strict rules as regards form and the distribution of its contents; it is of perfect structure and beauty. N o t all ancient poems are quite as well preserved as this one, but that is not very astounding. The Masoretes and their predecessors who handed down the text of the Bible were no fans of poetry. They had a prosaic mind and their main interest lay in the teaching of the Torah and the other Holy Scriptures. When they divided the text into verses for convenience's sake or for a better understanding of its teaching (or rather what they thought was the better understanding), they did not hesitate to cut a sentence, that is, a poetic line, right in the middle irrespective of its structure (parallelisms, etc.). In the following example, Is. xl 9—11, we can easily detect the mistakes that had been made and can correct them. It is an exceedingly beautiful poem describing God as the Good Shepherd. Its text is well preserved, at least nothing got lost during its transmission, but

it has two blemishes : a wrong division in one sentence (second line of second stanza) and a disruption in the last stanza. The poem has four stanzas of two lines each, and there are five units to the line. Each line consists of two perfect parallel clauses, and every stanza brings a new thought in progressive order. The general form of the stanza is:

The Hebrew text of the first three stanzas runs as follows: ‫עלי ל ך מבשרת ציון‬ ‫ע ל הר גבה‬ ‫מבשרת ירושלים‬ ‫הרימי בכח‬ ‫קולך‬ ‫יהודה‬ ‫יהוה‬

‫לערי‬ ‫אדני‬

‫משלה לו‬ ‫ופעלתו לפניו‬

‫הרימי ע ל תיראי אמרי‬ ‫אלהיכם הני‬ ‫הני‬ ‫וזרעו‬ ‫אתו‬

‫יבוא‬ ‫שכרו‬

‫בחזק‬ ‫הני‬

As regards the fourth stanza, we find that the first clause of the first line is in its right place, whilst the second clause is missing. The first clause is followed immediately by the full second line which again is followed by two more words. In its present state the Hebrew text of Is. xl 11 containing the fourth stanza reads as follows: ‫כרעה עדרו ירעה‬ ‫בזרעו יקבץ טלאים ובחיקו ישא‬ ‫ינהל‬ ‫עלות‬ It is evident that the last two words are the missing second clause of the first line, and the stanza should read: ‫ינהל‬ ‫עלות‬ ‫כ ר ע ה עדרו ירעה‬ ‫בזרעו יקבץ טלאים ובחיקו ישא‬ The displacement must have happened very early during the transmission of the text, for the L X X has roughly the same text and has perpetuated the mistake of the transmitter or scribe. The re-arrangement is not only required by the law of poetic form and structure, but it also displays the perfect order of the prophet's thoughts which reach their climax in the last line. God is the good shepherd who grazes his flock looking especially after the ewes that they may not come to any harm, but the newly-born lambs he takes up and carries in his arms. He who has ever watched a shepherd with his flock and seen him as he carries a lamb in his arms will

realize that the prophet could not possibly describe the tender care of G o d for his people better than by this moving picture. In this as in any other case where the text is disturbed, our foremost task in finding out the form of a poem, or a stanza, or line, is to take note of their structure. It is important to bear in mind that a sentence forms a line, and if it does not form a line with the required number of units, required, that is, by its place within the stanza or the whole composition, there is very likely something wrong with the transmitted text. However, such textual problems have to be handled with caution; sometimes it is better to leave the text as it is and resign. N o general rules can be set up and every case must be dealt with on its own merits. As has already been pointed out, the lines need not be all of the same length, but then we have to take the structure of the stanza or of the whole composition into account. Is. ii 2—3 is an example of a poem with two stanzas in which the lines are not of the same length: l a b c d

— — — —

— — — —

— — — —

2 a b

— — _ _ —

— — _ _ —

— — _ —

c

d

— — —

— _ —

—

3 units 5 " 4 " 6 "

—

3 units 5 " 4 " 6 "

— —

— —

The poem is well preserved except for a slight flaw. Again we notice that the Masoretes had not much sense for the integrity of a sentence : they cut the sentence of line Id in two and attached its first half to verse 2 and connected the second with verse 3. The poem describes a vision of the future mountain of God and its significance for the nations. The two stanzas have, as they should, absolutely the same form in number and length of lines, and the lines of the first stanza run parallel to those of the second also in regard to their content. The first stanza contains the visible event : the house of Y H W H is erected on the highest mountain and the nations congregate there from all parts of the earth. The second stanza explains the meaning of the event. What do the nations come for? They come to be taught of the ways of God, for it is from Zion that the teaching will go out. It is even possible to draw a picture of what

happens : in the first stanza the nations move to the mountain of God and in the second God's word goes out to them. Compare the last line of the first with that of the second stanza! There is perfect correspondence, perfect balance and harmony between the two parts of the poem both in form and structure. We happen to have another copy of this poem in Micah iv 1—2. If only this copy had survived and not the one in Isaiah ii we should never have discovered the immaculate beauty of this poetic piece. The second stanza is the same in both copies, but the first, apart from a few minor differences which do not affect the form, has one additional word in line l c in the text of Micah which alters the length of the line (it has here five units instead of the required four) and spoils the form of the stanza. Micah's version which for a number of reasons must be dated later than that of Isaiah, shows clearly the tendency to dissolve poetry into prose. There are many other examples which tell the same story. Why such a development should have taken place, we cannot discuss here, but there are various explanations and reasons for that. May it suffice here to state that such a development has taken place and that it certainly has affected much of Hebrew poetry in the course of its transmission. However, it is sometimes possible to establish the original form of a poem. An interesting example in this respect is Is. xl 3—5, and the result of our investigation is not quite without theological consequences. The M T gives the following version: ‫קורא‬ ‫לאלהינו‬

‫מסלה‬

‫בערבה‬

‫ישרו‬ ‫ישפלו‬

‫יחדו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫דרך‬

‫ ב מ ד ב ר פנו‬8 ‫ינשא‬

‫ כ ל גיא‬5

‫ה ע ק ב למישור והרכסים ל ב ק ע ה‬

‫ והיה‬5

‫כ ל בשר‬

‫ו כ ל ה ר וגבעה‬

‫ קול‬2

‫וראו‬

‫יהוה‬

‫כבוד‬

‫ ונגלה‬6

‫דבר‬

‫יהוה‬

‫ כיפי‬3

The figures indicate the units of each line, and we must admit that the picture of the poem is not very impressive as far as form is concerned. We cannot, at first sight, really say what happened to it. It is true the second line looks a bit suspect. If we compare it with the others it is unusually long: but there is such a perfect parallelism between its two parts that it is hard to surmise that there can be anything wrong with that line. However, the L X X , or rather its Hebrew Vorlage, gives us a different picture. That text does not say that the way of the Lord should be prepared in the desert, and there

is no equivalent for the word baiarabah in the Greek translation— but, having the word bammidbar in the first line, it says that the voice is heard in the wilderness. The first two lines would, then, read in Hebrew: ‫ קול קורא ב מ ד ב ר‬3 ‫ישרו מסלה לאלהינו‬ ‫ פנו ד ר ך יהוה‬6 This text stresses the fact that the ancient God Y H W H is a god who calls his people from the wilderness. As he once, speaking in and from the desert, delivered them from the bondage of Egypt, so again he would now bring them out of the captivity of Babylon. The idea that God calls upon Israel from the desert is very old and it was never forgotten by its prophets (Hos. ii 16f.). The Hebrew text underlying the L X X cannot, therefore, be discarded simply on the ground that it is not the traditional Masoretic text. Besides it presents a poem of a faultless regular form and a perfect disposition of its thoughts : a b c c b a

— — — — — —

— — — — — I— — — — — —I — — —

3 6 — —

—

—

— 5 5 6 3

—

— —

The sentences correspond to each other according to the length of their lines. The first and the last line, of three units each, point out that the voice crying in the wilderness comes from the mouth of Y H W H . The second and last but one, with six units, contain the proclamation that the way must now be prepared for God to reveal his glory. The two middle lines of five units describe in figurative speech the change which will take place. It is by no means the people themselves who undertake the return from Babylon through the Syrian and Arabian deserts, it is G o d who leads them and provides for them on their way (Is. xlix 9ff.). The old question arises once more: which of the two versions is the original and correct one, that of the M T or that of the L X X followed by the N T ? This question has always been answered in favour of the M T against the " G r e e k " tradition. It seemed pretty clear that the early Christians had altered the text not only in the quotation in their Gospels, but also, to cover up their fraud, in the L X X , in order to adapt the Bible passage to their purpose. John the Baptist

‫ן‬ ‫ן‬

preached in the wilderness, and the people came out to hear him there. With other words: the voice of John the Baptist was the voice of G o d of which Isaiah spoke. The discovery of the manuscript of the Book of Isaiah in Qumran which is a thousand years older than the oldest manuscript of the Hebrew Bible and was written at least a hundred years before the compilation of the Gospels evidently settled the matter beyond any doubt. It confirmed the Masoretic text and all were agreed that the M T is correct and the L X X together with the N T have a falsified text. We know that the early Christians did occasionally alter Scriptural passages or twisted their meaning. But we also know that the Sect of Qumran did the same. In the present case we cannot prove that it was the Early Church which altered the text, but we may, of course, suspect them to have done this in order to adapt it to the needs of its theology. We cannot prove either that the people of Qumran altered the text, though it is quite possible that they did, for they acted literally according to the text in their hand : they prepared God's way in the desert 1 ). The traditional text of the Synagogue is identical with that of Qumran, but the study of form and structure decides the question in favour of the Hebrew version underlying the L X X , accepted by the New Testament. That version may be older than that cherished in Qumran. The piece of poetry we have just discussed is one of a fairly large group of symmetrically constructed poems. Naturally, there are no stanzas ; the poem is of one piece. The symmetrical system is very simpie. The first line corresponds to the last, both in length and in content, the second line to the last but one, and so forth, till we approach the middle of the poem, the axis. The axis may be formed by an individual line which stands by itself and is usually of special importance for the whole poem; or the axis is formed by an imaginary dividing line which must then be drawn between the two middle lines (as in the example we have just examined). In the first case the poem consists of an odd number of lines, three, five, seven, and so on, in the second of an even number, four, six, eight, and so forth. A fairly simple form of this type is Is. vii 7—9, the prophecy on Damascus and Samaria. It has an introductory line of four and a concluding line also of four units; they correspond to each other. 1

) 1QS VIII; the Sect understood Is. xl 4 also

figuratively.

Between these are three lines of seven units each; the middle line forms the axis and contains the important prophecy: a

4

‫תקום‬

‫לא‬

b

7

‫ראש‬

‫כי‬

c

7

‫ששים‬

‫וחמש ובעוד‬

b

7

‫אפרים‬

a

4

‫אם ל א תאמינו‬

‫שמרץ וראש‬

One of the most elegant pieces is Is. xxx 29—31. It is perfectly preserved and we have no trouble in ascertaining its form. It has seven lines, that means, it has again a middle line. It has the following form: a b c d c b a

— — —

— — —

— — —

— — —

— — I

—

— I—

—

6 4 5 7 5 4 6

—

— —

— — — ‫ן‬

—

— —

We need not write out the Hebrew text here, as it is quite easy to "scan" it according to this diagram, but we will give a translation of the poem which will more readily show the symmetry of its parallelisms than the Hebrew text. a) This song you shall have as in the night when you sanctify yourselves for the feast, b) And gladness of heart, as when one goes with a pipe c) T o come into the mountain of God, to the rock of Israel. d) Y H W H shall cause his glorious voice to be heard, and the lighting down of his arm to be seen, c) With the indignation of his anger and the flame of a devouring fire, b) Devestation and tempest and stones of hail: a) " T h r o u g h the voice of Y H W H Assyria is shattered, beaten down with the rod." It is round the middle line (d) that everything revolves: G o d is in his house on the mountain. From here his voice is heard, from here he acts, receiving Israel and punishing its enemy. In the first part of the poem we see Israel walking in festive procession to the mountain and rejoicing. The second part (in symmetry) shows the opposite picture: there is utter devastation, the complete overthrow of the enemy.

‫ן‬

— —

The last line is Israel's victory song hinted at in the first line 1 ) 2). In this paper only the main principles could be discussed and illustrated by a few selected examples and I should like to conclude it with a remark of general historical interest. It is not very long ago that Sir John M Y R E S showed us 3 ) that the composition of the Homeric poems consists of a series of subjects grouped symmetrically round a centrepiece. The same applies largely to Greek tragedy. A little later he discovered that Herodotus presented his material in much the same way and he gave us detailed tabular analyses of the histories of Herodotus 4 ). M Y R E S maintains that this balanced arrangement of subjects which can also be found in Greek sculpture is typical for the Greeks and the Indo-Europeans. This is not the case. The symmetrical composition is also Semitic. It is quite common in ancient Hebrew poetry, and there are very many examples in Ugaritic poetry. Naturally, we have here also, as we have seen, what M Y R E S calls the "progressive" or "frieze" order in which one subject follows the other progressively like the groups and episodes in a frieze (composition in stanzas). Both arrangements, the progressive and the symmetrical order, can be combined, and we have an appreciable number of such composite poems in Ugaritic as well as in Hebrew. The most beautiful poem of this kind in Hebrew is Is. xiv 3—21, a very lively and most dramatic song over the downfall of Babylon. It is interesting to note that this poem contains quite a few reminiscences of Ugaritic mythology, just as we find in the mythological poetry of Ugarit the same combination of the two main types of poetic form. M Y R E S finds both forms, the "pedimental" and the "frieze" grouping, in combination also in Greek monumental sculpture 5). But here again we must point out that this combination of pedimental and frieze grouping in larger compositions is not an invention of the Greeks. Very probably it is a Semitic inheritance, like the alphabeth. 1

) The introductive ki (in Is. xxx 31) is not to be counted as a separate unit. It could be best translated by "namely", for it shows the result of G o d ' s anger and at the same time it answers the hint to a song in the first line. 2 ) What the prosodists of the early 20th century have done to this beautiful poem can be seen in D U H M ' S commentary on Das Buch Jesaia, 1 9 1 4 , pp. 201f. 3 ) "Homeric A r t " in Annual of the British School of Athens, vol. 45, 1950, especially from p. 252 onward. 4 ) Herodotus, Father of History, Oxford, 1953, especially pp. 62 — 134. 5 ) " I n the sixth and fifth centuries pedimental compositions were combined in the same larger design with friezes as on the Parthenon ; and in the Parthenon frieze itself the long processions converge on the pedimentally grouped deities on the east front, with the most important in the midst" (Herodotus, p. 63).

F O R M

A N D

S T R U C T U R E P O E T R Y

I N

A N C I E N T

H E B R E W

( C O N T I N U E D ) BY

HANS KOSMALA Jerusalem, Isr.

The following article is a continuation of the study on form and structure in Biblical Hebrew poetry published in this journal XIV, 4, 1964, pp. 423-445. It is not exactly its "second" part, much less its conclusion, as we can again deal only with further selections from the vast material. The majority is taken from Isaiah. The examples are of special interest as they show that there is some hope in the new approach not only to come nearer to or even to establish the original text of a poetic piece but also to gain an insight into the ways in which additions have been made and of what type they are. O n the whole the poems are well preserved within the MT, far better than the text critics of our time have surmised. Omissions are rare, but accretions of various kinds abound. The custom that words or even whole phrases have been "added to the word or taken from it" in the course of transmission, oral or literary, was well known in the Orient already in ancient times. Deut. iv 2 is a comparatively late example of a warning against such a procedure. We learn from it that making additions or omissions was an offence especially in codes of laws. But even in codes further laws were sometimes incorporated and "bylaws", explanations, comments, Ausfiihrimgsbestimmungen, etc. were added. In fact this was the common fate of all law codes, including the Law of Moses (in spite of the warning in Deut. iv 2). There was, of course, greater freedom in the other branches of oral and literary tradition. As soon as collections of histories and prophetic oracles began to play their part in the instruction of the people explanations and illuminations were often felt necessary and they were inserted into the text or added to it (see p. 159, note 3). x A L B R I G H T has once casually, but pertinently, remarked ) that the 1

) From the Stone Age to Christianity. The English edition not being available, we quote from the German edition Von der Steinzeit Zum Christentum, Sammlung Dalp, 1949, p. 69.

' 1 oriental scribes and redactors" were more inclined to add to the text than to omit something of it. Additions in poetical texts can often be easily recognized as such. They are usually in prose, t h o u g h not always, they separate words or clauses which obviously belong together, and thus disturb the poetic form and the logical structure of the poem. The main concern of the commentator is instruction, not poetic beauty 1). Sometimes our findings are supported by the reading of the LXX or rather of its Hebrew Vorlage 2 ), or, in the case of the Book Isaiah, by the Isaiah manuscript A found in Qumran, both of which are considerably older than the M T . Sometimes, however, comments have been added at such an early time that they appear already in the L X X and the Isaiah manuscript; then we have to fall back on the internal evidence as our only guide. For the new method applied here to the study of Hebrew poetry we must refer the reader to the introductory notes in the first artide 3). The question whether certain particles are to be counted as units or not, is sometimes still difficult to decide 4), but the reader will find further help in the notes on the pieces examined in the present article. We must consider each case on its own merit, as there are no hard and fast rules. T h e inquiry into what the author wants to express and to stress is always important and decides the issue. To the selections f r o m Isaiah we add a few specimens from the Ugaritic poetry 5) which is roughly 750 years older than the poetry of the Second Isaiah and it has come down to us on the "original" clay-tablets. Ugaritic poetry does not by a long way reach the highlv developed artistic f o r m which the Second Isaiah employs. Still, we notice that already Ugaritic poetry observes definite laws in the structure of its lines. It may be surprising, however, that many of the Hebrew Psalms follow similar rules. We append a few examples in order to show the direction in which further study of the formal structure of our Psalms could be undertaken.

1

) A L B R I G H T , I.e.,

s

) VT,

‫ג‬

) 4

XIV,

p.

1964, P.

V T , I.e., p p .

56. 441.

423-426.

) VT, I.e., p. 426. ) VT, I.e., pp. 427 and 445

5

Isaiah hi 10-12 The ditty on the lazy, greedy and drunk leaders of the nation is of a simple type. In verse 10b of the M T (line 3 of the poem) the subject of the sentence is missing; it should be either kullam or hemmah. The Isaiah text of Qumran (Is a ) comes to our help : the missing word is hemmah. The MS has in the same verse ho%im, a lectio jacilior for masoretic ho^im which is a hapax legomenon. The last line (8), verse 12b, is overladen in the M T ; gadol is pleonastic and must be dropped. Indeed, the Is MS did not have it originally, but it was added by a later hand above the wordyeter, probably when the text was compared by a scribe with another MS, evidently one of the ancestors of the MT. There has always been a tendency to "complete" biblical texts (see next note and the following example Is xl 12ff.). It is very likely that verse 12 (lines 7 and 8) did not form part of the original poem but was added later (see the Greek versions) 1 ). It takes up a new theme: one of the leaders invites the others to a drinking-bout. The ditty, originally only verses 10 and 11, is divided into three (or if we include verse 12, into four) stanzas with two lines each, the first line (a) with five units, the second (b) with six. Lines 1, 3, 5 (five units each) deal with the leaders (sopim, ho^im, ro'im) who are compared in lines 2, 4, 6 (six units each) to dogs, the last line (6) drawing the conclusion from the comparison. Taking these emendations into consideration we obtain this text of the song: line

verse

(10)

‫צופיו‬ ‫כלם‬

1 2

la b

‫חזים‬ ‫המה‬ ‫והכלבים עזי‬

3 4

2a b

‫והמה‬ ‫כלם‬

5 6

3a b

‫אתיו‬ ‫והיה‬

7 8

4a b

‫לנבח‬

‫ידעו‬ ‫יוכלו‬

‫לא‬ ‫לא‬

‫כלם‬ ‫אלמים‬

‫שבעה‬

‫לנום‬ ‫ידעו‬

‫אהבי‬ ‫לא‬

‫שכבים‬ ‫נפש‬

‫מקצהו‬

‫הבין‬ ‫לבצעו‬

‫ידעו‬ ‫איש‬

‫לא‬ ‫פנו‬

‫רעים‬ ‫לדרכם‬

‫מאד‬

‫שכר‬ ‫יתר‬

‫ונסבאה‬ ‫מחר‬

‫יין‬ ‫יום‬

‫אקחה‬ ‫כזה‬

1

stanza

‫עורים‬ ‫כלבים‬

(11)

(12)

) Another example is Is. xl 7 which is missing in the L X X as well as in the Is Ms. The N T quotation 1 Peter i 24. 25a which does not contain Is. xl 7 either is identical with the text of the MS which has afterwards been "completed" by the addition of the omitted verse between the lines and on the margin by another hand.

The graphic picture of each stanza is : a b

— — — — — — _ — — _ _

5 units 6 units

Isaiah χ 112-18 This poetic piece has been well preserved except that the M T has assimilated some substantial additions during the time of its transmission. They are easily recognizable as such. We present here the text broken up in its natural lines showing at the same time the accretions : Stanza

‫תכן‬ ‫הרים‬ ‫יודיענו‬ ‫משפט‬

‫לו‬ ‫לו‬

‫מי‬ ‫בשעלו‬ ‫מדד‬ ‫וכל‬ ‫עפר‬ ‫בשלש‬ ‫וגבעות במאזנים‬ ‫עצתו‬ ‫ואיש‬ ‫את רוח יהוה‬ ‫תכן‬ ‫מי‬ ‫את‬ ‫ויבינהו וילמדהו בארח‬ ‫נועץ‬ ‫מי‬ ‫וילמדהו ד ע ת ודרך תבונות יודיענו‬ ‫הן גוים כמר מ ד ל י וכשחק מאזנים נחשבו‬ ‫הן איים כ ד ק יטול‬ ‫ולבנון אין די בער וחיתו אין די עולה‬ ‫נחשבו‬ ‫ותהו‬ ‫מאפס‬ ‫נגדו‬ ‫כ ל הגרם כאין‬ ‫תערכו‬ ‫דמות‬ ‫ומה‬ ‫ואל מי תדמיון אל‬ ‫בזרת‬ ‫בפלס‬

‫ושמים‬ ‫ושקל‬

‫מים‬ ‫הארץ‬

Verse

1

(12)

2

(13) (14a) (14b) (15)

3

(16) (17) (18)

A few notes on the text may be helpful. Instead of mayim (verse 12a), one word to be counted as one unit, Is a has meyyam, two words which would make two units. Some scholars are impressed by the reading of the Isaiah MS and think that it has the better reading because the " s k y " and the "waters of the sea" afford a more concrete parallelism. However, the parallelism of the MT, " s k y " and the "water(s)" is doubtless the correct one. What the poet is thinking of is quite obviously the work of creation which is "the work of His hands" (here: fo'a/ and %eret), especially the separation of "the heavens" and "the waters" (Gen. i 6-8; cf. also Ps. xix 2). We must discard the reading of the Isaiah MS. Cf. additional note on p. 180. The earth is mentioned in the second line (verse 12b), or rather "the dust of the earth", which is a perfect parallel to "the (rock of) the mountains". Some hand has added herzg e ba l ot as a further parallel, not to the dust of the earth but to harim including the synonym for peles. It is true, mountains and hills are a pair of words which is often used (Is ii 2; xl 4; etc.), both in prose and in poetry, but here in verse

12b the mountains have already their appropriate parallel in the dust of the earth. The last two words of verse 12 were hardly part of the original, well-designed line and we have to leave them out. Verse 14b (five units) is a further spinning-out of the preceding clear-cut thought in 14aß. Verse 15a is in itself quite an interesting line and has the correct number of units required in this poem (seven), but it has no parallel line, unless we see in 15b the beginning of it with another three units missing. Besides, it should be noted that the gist of verse 15 is very tersely expressed in verse 17. Verse 16 (a line of eight units) consists of two parts which correspond to each other, but the thought it conveys—it brings in the sacrificial cult—is not really in conformity with the character of the poem as a whole. Verses 17 and 18 which conclude the poem are in perfect order. I confess, I was not very happy when I noticed that the poem was interrupted by several lines of varying length, which I could not consider to be original, as they did not fit in with the rest of the poem, neither in content nor in form—until I discovered that exactly this whole piece, verses 14b-16, was not contained in the virgin MS of Is a . The scribe had copied the text from his Vorlage in which the 2\ verses evidently did not appear. But he left here a gap, and the space was later filled by a different hand with the missing words now to be found in our MT! The only explanation we can offer of this curious fact is that the first scribe had before him two different texts, one, probably the older, which he followed in the main and which did not contain the lines in question, and another which did. He hesitated to copy the second text, but left sufficient, or even more than sufficient, space for a possible later insertion for the addendum which in fact was, then, incorporated in his MS though not by himself 1 ). The Isaiah MS thus confirms our own findings that judging from their contents and their form these sentences could not possibly have belonged to the original poem. Unfortunately we have no such first-hand MS evidence for the redundancy of the last two words of verse 12b. The addition seems to have been made at a very early date; both the Qumran Isaiah and the L X X contain them. We can now ascertain the form of the poem. It consists of three stanzas of two lines with seven units each. 1

) It should be noted that the traditional M T also has a small open space after verse 16, although verses 17 and 18 belong quite obviously to the same paragraph.

The first two stanzas put more or less rhetorical questions to which the answer is obvious: G o d is the only great and powerful being. The first line of the third stanza makes a definite statement which is the basis of the last and decisive question in the last line. God is incomparable! The following verses 19-26 serve as a comment and an answer to that question which is repeated towards the end (verse 25). The Servant Songs Among the cycle of the so-called Servant songs there are some which have survived in excellent condition except that they, too, were supplied with various comments which were integrated in the transmitted text. In this cycle we should include not only the " f o u r " pieces generally known as Servant songs 1 ) but also some which, though not expressly mentioning or describing the person of the Servant and his difficulties, give us a picture of his mission, his task regarding the people of Israel and his proclamation of the new mispat. We would suggest the following minimum list of six poems : 1) Is. xiii 1-4; 2) xlix 1-2; 3) xlix 3-6; 4) 1 4-9; 5) li 4-8 consisting of three parts: 4-5, 6, 7-8; 6) Iii 13 - liii. There may be a few more passages dealing with the mission of the Servant, but they have come down to us only in fragments (e.g. li 12ff.) so that we have to disregard them here. Even the passages 4) and 6) are not in a good state of preservation and it would be a very doubtful undertaking to try and reconstruct the original words as they came out of the prophet's mouth. All the other have only minor blemishes. 1) xiii 1-4 We take the first song first. Verse laba, consisting of three short sentences, is the headline apparently not only of the first song but also of the whole cycle. It contains the presentation of God's chosen Servant, the bearer of His spirit. Verse l b ß immediately points out his important universal mission mentioned also in subsequent songs. We shall see, however, that these three words which are without a parallel line, belong somewhere else where such a short line is required. For the time being we will, therefore, separate this clause from the headline and take it over to the next group of lines and see what happens. The passage, then, runs as follows: 1

) See S.

MOWINCKEL,

He That Cometh, 1956, pp. 187ff.

Stanza

‫נתתי רוחי‬ 3 4 4

/

‫בחירי רצתה נפשי‬ ‫ישא‬ ‫קולו‬

/

‫הן‬ ‫ע ב ד י אתמך בו‬

Verse

(I)

‫יוציא‬ ‫ולא‬ ‫בחוץ‬

‫לגוים‬ ‫יצעק‬ ‫ישמע‬

‫משפט‬ ‫לא‬ ‫ולא‬

1 (2)

4 4 3

‫ישבור‬ ‫יכבנה‬

‫לא‬ ‫לא‬ ‫משפט‬

‫רצוץ‬ ‫כהה‬ ‫יוציא‬

‫קנה‬ ‫ופשתה‬ ‫לאמת‬

2

(3)

4 4 3

‫ירוץ‬ ‫משפט‬

‫ולא‬ ‫בארץ‬ ‫ייחלו‬

‫יכהה‬ ‫לא‬ ‫ישים‬ ‫עד‬ ‫ולתורתו איים‬

3

(4)

The poem consists of three stanzes each of three lines. The second and the third stanza clearly show its f o r m : the first two lines of the stanza have four units each, the third line has only three and stands by itself. The graphic picture of the stanza is :

All lines with four units describe the servant and the way in which he will carry out his mission. All lines with three units (except, of course, the clauses of the headline) give an account of his mission and its impact. From the second and the third stanza it becomes clear that the three words or units of verse l b ß should follow verse 2 and form the end-line of the first stanza where it is in its proper place. We have, thus, a well-constructed poem of exceptional beauty, if we accept the displacement of verse lbß. Displacements of lines in ancient Hebrew poetry are not very common. They are far less frequent than, for instance, in pre-Islamic Arabian poetry. The reason for this is that (especially prophetic) Hebrew poetry is logically, and one might almost say rigidly, constructed. The individual lines are formally and structurally interrelated, that is, they form integral parts of a sequence of logical thoughts. Such a logical system cannot be easily brought into disorder. It is different in ancient Arabian poetry. When an Arabian poet wants to praise his horse or the maiden he loves he can begin with the eyes or the feet, with the horse's mouth or mane or the girl's lips or hair, whatever comes first to his mind. He need not observe any logical sequence simply because there is no logic in any such descrip-

tion. The main law he was bound to observe was that every thought should be expressed in one line and everything depended on the choice of his words and the beauty of the line. Since not even the poet himself was not obliged to maintain a prescribed order of his thoughts, we can imagine that subsequent editors of those poems may have made their own contributions to the "disarrangement" of the lines. It has been pointed out that "hardly any old-Arabian poem preserved in two different text traditions has the same order of verses" 1 ). The phenomenon is rare in Hebrew prophetic poetry, but it does occur. But whilst displacements of lines in the transmission of Arabian poems are always easily possible but not always accountable, it is comparatively easy to detect such displacements in Hebrew poetry and usually, though not always, we can even find out why a line has been displaced. This is, for instance, the case with Is. xiii If. By transposing the three words which originally formed the last line of the first stanza to its beginning so that it could be easily absorbed by verse 1 when the Masoretes divided the text into verses, the "editor" achieved one thing which seemed to have been important to him, namely, to make clear to the hearer or reader right from the start what the chosen Servant was there for, what he was to do. However, he honoured the integrity of the words and left them intact 2). By the transposition the editor spoiled the form of the stanza, but this was to him a minor concern. His main aim was instruction 3 ). 1

) See Carl B R O C K E L M A N N , Geschichte der arabischen Lìtteratur, 1898, I, ρ. 15f. Cf. also Geo W I D E N G R E N , Literary and Psychological Aspects of the Hebrew Prophets, 1948, pp. 31f., who quotes Th. N Ö L D E K E , Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Poesie der alten Araber, 1864, pp. Vlff. 2 ) Of special interest is the reading of Is a umišpat0 laggo^imyosP which makes the text situation even more obvious. The reading is clearly mišpat0, not mišpati, as Millar B U R R O W S transliterates the script in his first edition of the text. That means, the scribe fell back from the first to the third person giving verse l b ß the appearance of an additional statement to the preceding three clauses; he was evidently conscious of the supplementary character of the fourth clause. M. Burrows, consciously or unconsciously, adapted the suffix of the fourth clause to the suffixes of the first three clauses : "my S e r v a n t . . . . he will bring my mišpat". He corrected his mistake in the second edition. 3 ) Occasionally we meet with a complete unconcern vis-à-vis the poetic form. Displacements of lines (see note 1) are, as we said, not very frequent. More common are insertions of explanatory words or even sentences when the editor felt obliged to make further comments or other additions for the benefit of the people. The books of the prophets were used in the service of the Synagogue long before the beginning of the Christian era.

One more remark on the preposition W in verse 4. The reader will notice that it is here not just a preposition which w o u l d not need to be counted as a unit but that it bears full emphasis (unlike the W in 'ad-matay) and stands for the fulfilment of time. It must therefore be counted. The first song, then, characterizes the Servant and his task in a threefold manner: 1) The Servant will not be a boisterous propagandist: yet he will bring forth universal mišpat. 2) He will not discourage the weak and the lowly: he will bring it forth leimet. 3) He will not weaken until he has established it: the world is waiting for his Torah 1 ). Isaiah x/ix 1-2 The so-called "second" Servant song, xlix 1-6, has always been taken for one piece, but a more careful analysis of its contents shows that the passage consists of two poems which deal with different themes. They are also different in form. What keeps them together is the fact that both concern the same Servant. The first of the two poems has four lines and each line has a beautiful parallelism. The text is well preserved except for the addition of one word which is out of harmony in this reflection on the Servant, namely, the third word in verse 1 : ‫ג‬elay. We have to eliminate it for two reasons. 1) 'elay appears only in the first half of the fine, not in the parallel clause. Compare, for instance, Is. Ii 4! 2) The speaker in xlix 1 is the Servant, not God. a) Only God can use the momentous i a ni, the great Ego, in His pronunciamentos (cf. again Is. Ii 4 where the speaker is God! "my people", "my nation", "my Torah", "my mispat", "my righteousness", "my salvation" in verses 4-8), not man, not even the Servant on whom the spirit of G o d rests, for even he does not speak out of 1

) The L X X and the N T quotations of this line have "his name" instead of "his Torah". The Hebrew text would, then, be: 2veliimo *iyyim yeyahelu, "and for his name ( = the revelation of his person) the nations are waiting". There is much to be said in favour of the Hebrew text underlying the L X X and the N T . The reader will find a detailed discussion of this variant reading in the article " T h e Conclusion of Matthew" in ASTI IV.

hiw own mind and for himself; he is only the executor of God's commission. The Servant could not use this " E g o " . b) H o w could this particular Servant say " I " and thus reveal his personal presence when he has still to remain unknown and hidden away, preserved for his future task—just this is the theme of the short poem!—and when he is described in Is xiii 2 as a person who does not shout and make a noise? The announcement could, therefore, only be made as an anyonymous announcement without the " I " . Can we seriously presume that the poet himself would spoil the logic and the effect of what he wanted to express? We can only assume that the ‫ג‬elay was added by an "editor"; he was probably the same who introduced verse 5, where the speaker is the Servant, wrongly with the words: "and now speaks Y H W H " (see further below). If, as a result of these considerations, we leave out the word 'elay (which we would otherwise have to count as a unit), we obtain a beautiful poem of immaculate form : units:

Verse (1)

5 7 7 5

(2)

We can even take one step further and note the subdivisions of the lines according to their parallelisms: 2 : 3 ; 3 : 4 ; 4 : 3 ; 3 : 2 . The number of units in the half-lines is regularly increasing to the middle and then regularly decreasing to the end in perfect symmetry. Isaiah xlix 3-6 This piece presents a number of textual problems. We can solve some of them. A few difficulties, however, remain, but we can at least make certain suggestions towards their solution from the point of view of logic and style, leaving it to the present reader to make his choice or to find his own solution. The main thing is to recognize the textual problems. Like all the Servant songs this is an important piece of prophetic thought which has aroused the interest and the ingenuity of many a reader and "scholar" already before the time Isaiah was translated into Greek. Let us begin with a general reflection. The Torah was written in clear prose and when it was read "clearly and with sense", it was "understood" (Neh. viii 8). What the prophets said who wrote

poetry, was not as easily understood, or perhaps not in the sense the people were supposed to understand it. Comments were needed— at least as early as prophetic books became canonical literature or when portions from them were read in the Synagogue 1 ). The most conspicuous comments in the passage before us are made at the beginning of each of the four verses; they consist of 1, 2, or 3 words introducing, each time, the speaker. He who added these introductory formulas realized that verses 3-6 contained a dialogue. There are four such introductions: wayyomer li (verse 3); wà'ani 'amarti (v. 4); welattah ‫י‬amar YHWH (v. 5); wayyomer (v. 6). The first, second, and fourth formula introduce the speaker correctly, the third is definitely w r o n g : it introduces Y H W H as speaker, but the speaker is the Servant who is engaged in a soliloquy. One might ask, how could the commentator make such an obvious mistake? Evidently he understood the whole verse 5 as an apposition to Y H W H : "And now spoke Y H W H who formed me from the w o m b to his servant to bring etc.", quoting in verse 6 the actual words of G o d which contain the new commission, but not without introducing them afresh after the long "apposition" with the formula wayyomer. Later the Masoretes put a rebiaC, a disjunctive accent, at the word Y H W H and connected yosri with the following word by a conjunctive accent. Evidently they sensed that the first three words of verse 5 belong together, and so do the next four. This is a very helpful hint, and we can take it a little more seriously. We should leave the introductory formula, like the others, outside the actual speech which begins, in verse 5, with yosri. The clause would then begin with a participle 2) which must be translated: " H e has made me from the womb a servant to himself ( = to his purpose)"—in f^ct this process of preparation is still going on and must be continued un.il the Servant 1

) According to Jewish tradition just before the middle of the second century B.C. This whole question cannot be discussed here. 2 ) On the use of participial sentences in Second Isaiah see Robert H. P F E I F F E R , Introduction, p. 468, where he quotes a number of such cases. He says that the translation of Is. xl 22, "he is the one that sits", is unwarranted, but this applies also to P F E I F F E R ' S own translation, "the one sitting", since the sentence must be conceived as a whole. The participle stands for the finite verb, "he sits" or "he is sitting"; the clause must be taken together with the following: " H e sits upon the circle of the earth and (whilst) its inhabitants are (appear) like grasshoppers". The participle can refer to the past, the present, or (and) the future, as for instance in Is. xiv 7,yoser ‫ נ‬or. . .etc.: he created, he still creates, and he will be creating in future. . . etc.

is revealed—"in order to bring Jacob back to h i m . . . . e t c . " The editor has thus transformed an original, purely poetical stanza into one long prose sentence; but we are fortunate: he left the poetical parts intact. The next difficulty is the old crux in verse 3: Yisra'el ( > a «r). I think only those who still swear by the absolute correctness and validity of the M T in a kind of fundamentalist way would retain the word as "original". It was probably taken over from Is. xliv 21 and 23 which deal with different ideas but use very similar expressions; it is very likely that the composer of these verses used the vocabulary of xlix 3 and 5f. for his own purposes, which was a common procedure. But in the Servant song the Servant is doubtless an individual person (because of verse 6a). Later the word "Israel" must have been inserted in verse 3, perhaps not thoughtlessly, but intentionally, in order to harmonize it with passages like xlix 21-23. Then there is the word ‫נ‬aken in verse 4b. It is not a noun, nor a verb, nor is it a vital word element within the text, as it could be easily and effectively replaced by an adversative waw, "and yet", " b u t " . It need not, therefore, be counted as a unit. However we will retain it in the text given below, as it is quite possible that it served as an emphatic interjection in the recitation of the passage. The last stumbling-block is liheyot in verse 6b, which makes simple prose of the poetic clause. In fact, it would, then, be the only prose sentence in the whole poem: " . . . and I will give you for a light to the gentiles that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth". A prose line in an otherwise well-constructed poem is hardly to be expected from a great poet. In addition, the prose line, although grammatically correct, is somewhat clumsy. Even so, a prose line makes sometimes easier reading, and to make everything as simple and as intelligible as possible is always the business of commentators. If, to achieve that end, a commentator has to insert a word or a number of words, he would do so, even at the risk of spoiling the poetic beauty. The ancient Hebrew commentator's first interest is always right teaching. Coming back to Is. xlix 6b we note that in the two parts of the line which are separated by the masoretic disjunctive we have two pairs of distinctly parallel notions, 'or and yesulah, goyim and W qeseh ha'ares. The finite verb netattika is, as so often in poetic lines, shared by both parts. The infinitive in 6bß is a disturbing element as it disrupts the smooth structure of the line, although we must admit,

it is very cleverly inserted 1 ). Suppose, the infinitive heyot were not there where it is now, we would not miss anything; on the contrary, we would be highly pleased by the clarity and the flowing rhythm of a line which is in perfect keeping with the high standard of the poetic form of this piece. We suggest, therefore, to omit heyot leaving only the particle I e . This brings the prose line back to its poetic form which is, as we shall see, the form required by the structure of the poem as a whole. The text of the poem is, then, as follows. We add to it a list of those words of the traditional text which we are obliged to omit. units

‫כליתי‬

‫כחי‬

‫אלהי‬

‫את‬

‫יאסף‬ ‫עזי‬

‫לו‬ ‫היה‬

‫להשיב‬ ‫הארץ‬

‫ישראל‬ ‫ע ד קצה‬

‫אתפאר‬ ‫והבל‬ ‫ופעלתי‬ ‫לו‬ ‫וישראל‬ ‫ואלהי‬ ‫עבד‬ ‫ונצורי‬ ‫ ישועתי‬6 ‫ל‬

‫בי‬ ‫לתהו‬

2

‫אתה‬ ‫יגעתי‬

‫יהוה‬ ‫את‬ ‫לעבד‬ ‫מבטן‬ ‫אליו‬ ‫יעקב‬ ‫בעיני‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫מהיותך לי‬ ‫את שבטי יעקב‬ ‫גוים‬ ‫לאור‬

1

‫עבדי‬ ‫ לריק‬3 ‫אכן‬ ‫משפתי‬ ‫ יצרי‬4 ‫לשובב‬ ‫ואכבד‬ ‫ נקל‬5 ‫להקים‬ ‫ונתתיך‬

‫ויאמר לי‬ ‫ישראל אשר‬ ‫ואני אמרתי‬ ‫ועתה אמר יהוה‬ ‫ויאמר‬ ‫היות‬

4

stanza

1

6

verse (3) (4)

6

4

2

(5)

3

(6)

6 6

4 6 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

The poem has three stanzes; their form is similar to that of the first Servant song: b 1 b 2 The first and short line of each stanza has four units and deals exclusively with the unique relationship between G o d and His Servant. The other two and longer lines with six units each tell us about the 1

) N o study of insertions (words or groups of words) and of the way in which they have been effected has ever been made. One of the cleverest manipulations is that of the Targumist on Is. liii 5.

life of the Servant in connexion with his task. This is very artistically done. The second line of each stanza describes his past and unsuccessful labour (1 b 1), his immediate task (2 b 1) and his future and greater task (3 b 1). The last line points out that his task and success lies entirely in the hands of G o d (1 b 2), that he will be glorified in the eyes of Him who is his strength (2 b 2), for he is now appointed to be the light and the salvation of the world (3 b 2). We see that all the three stanzas, line by line, are perfectly parallel to each other not only in form but also with regard to their subject matter (again very much like the first Servant song). All that now remains to be said is a qualification of the statement we made above, namely, that the poem represents a dialogue between the Servant and his Lord. Looking at the poem once more, it is rather more likely that not only verses 4 and 5 are a soliloquy, but that the whole poem represents a reflection of the Servant on his destiny which begins (verse 3) and ends (verse 6) with a direct word of G o d to him and which he now repeats to himself, whereas he deals with God's earlier commission (verse 5) more indirectly. The poem is complete and perfect, and the author had no need to furnish his thoughts with inserted comments. Isaiah 14-9 and Iii 13 - liii.. The text of Is. 1 4-9 is very much disturbed. It contains repetitions or resumptions of a line, and there are insertions, but there seem to be also omissions. I would not dare to analyse the structure of the poem much less to reconstruct its form. All we can say is that this poem was also composed in strophic form with lines of five and possibly also of six units, but how many lines there were to the stanza we cannot say. Well preserved lines with five units are in verse 6 (two lines), verse 7 (after ‫י‬al-ken, one line), and verse 8 (two lines beginning with mi). The last Servant song, Iii 13 - liii, is in an even worse condition, and all that we have said about Is. 1 4-9 applies also to this song. It seems, however, that the length of the lines at the beginning of this poem was seven units (Iii 13 - liii 1), then lines with six units predominate but they are mixed with lines of five (verses 4-6) and seven units (verses 7-9)—if we accept the present state of the text! Some lines are prose, though perhaps poetic prose. The original poem may have been considerably amplified at an early time, espeespecially in its middle part and at the end.

Isaiah li 4-8 The song Is. li 4-8, on the other hand, presents hardly any difficulties at all. It is the glorification of God's Torah which is parallelled to mišpat, sedeq (fdaqah) and ye/ac (yesu(ah) ; with other words, this passage mentions all the aspects of God's salvation. It consists of two main parts of four lines each, verses 4-5 and 7-8, separated by a centre-section, verse 6. Let us deal with verse 6 first. Its three lines have each six units. They declare the transitoriness of heaven and earth in contra-distinction to God's yehteyosebeha kemo-ken yemutun, meaning: the earth will pass away and so will also its inhabitants. That sounds quite natural, but this parallel is nevertheless definitely out of place here. The commentator overstepped the logic of the original idea. The poet's object was to announce the actualisation of God's mispat among the nations (verse 5) which will last for ever (all generations, verse 8). The poet would hardly have reduced his message of hope to nothing by the pitiful thought that "the inhabitants of the earth will likewise die out". But maybe we can excuse the commentator for his zeal ; perhaps he was thinking of the goyim if we generalize the thought in verse 8a, whilst Israel as the 1 am ‫י‬olam will live for ever. There is a strong possibility that the two sentences of verse 5 have changed places, namely, that 5b should come before 5a. We would suggest two reasons for such a change: 1) 5a is the object and final realisation of the hope expressed in 5b, and 2) verse 5 would then run parallel to verse 4. But although such an exchange of lines is not common in Hebrew poetry, it may have occurred in the course of transmission, for this is a case where it could happen, because the two lines (statements) are so close to each other. The word ki occurs three times : in verses 4 and 6, where it should not be counted, as it has no significance of its own, and in verse 8, where it must be counted as a unit, for it introduces the reasons for the preceding argument.

1

) Is. li 6 (understood in its context) is a favourite passage of Jesus : Mat. ν 18 ; Luke xvi 1 7 ; xxi 3 3 ( 1 ) . Unfortunately it is not referred to by N E S T L E , neither on the margin nor in the index locorum V.T.

The form of the whole piece can be established as follows: verse

stanza

(4) (5b) (5a) (6)

units

1

intermediate

(7)

2

(8)

6 7 5 7 6 6 6 7 5 7 6

If we accept the change of places in verse 5, the two main parts of the poem (stanzes 1 and 2) are in symmetry with each other, with the three intermediate lines as middle piece; if not, we must accept what appears to be a blemish. Isaiah

1-5

‫ע‬

The text of the song of the vineyard is in good condition so that it is not necessary to reproduce it here, but a few remarks on certain words will be helpful. The particle -na‫ י‬in verse 1 (not in Is a ), verse 3 (in Is a nah forming part of the verb),and verse 5 is no unit in itself, as it does not add anything to the cohortative and the imp. emph. The 'et ‫ ג‬ašer in verse 5 represents the object and must be counted. The word ‫י‬attah at the beginning of verse 3 is a purely rhetorical addition for the listener or reader so as to draw his attention to a new point, but nothing is lost if we drop it. We found a similar example of a redundant ,·attah in Is. xlix 5 (see above). The second cattah in verse 5 is of an entirely different nature; it is original and forms an important part of the line. Keeping these observations in mind and dividing the poem into its natural lines, we can easily establish the form of the song: verse

line

stanza

units

(1)

1

1

5

2

6

(2)

3 4 5

4 6 5

(3)

(4) (5)

6

7 8 9 10

2

8

-

7 6 7 8

The poem has two stanzas each dealing with its own theme. Each has five lines of unequal lengths, but they are arranged in perfect symmetry. The first and last lines of both stanzas (that is, lines 1 and 5; 6 and 10) are the decisive ones in the whole poem. The three middle lines in the first stanza (lines 2-4) describe the labour in the vineyard, those in the second stanza (7-9) contain the counsel that is taken over the lost labour; the middle parts are parallel to each other. The last line of the poem brings the verdict. It announces the destruction of the vineyard, its return to uncultivated or desert land. This is the end of the vineyard. Verses 6 and 7 are not part of the original poem. Verse 6 is merely a further illumination of the poem's last line (verse 5b), but we cannot say that this amplification is very logical; for after the vineyard has already become a mirmas it does not matter really whether G o d lets the clouds rain upon it or not, as, being a mirmas, it will produce only weeds anyway. Verse 7 is the explanation of the parable of the vineyard to make sure that everyone understands its moral. These additional lines are poetical prose (they contain parallelisms within the sentence, but they are of irregular lengths and cannot be adjusted to any system). Isaiah xiv 3-23 The last poetic piece from Isaiah we propose to examine is the triumphal song on the fall of Babylon. It is one of the longest poems that have come down to us f r o m the post-exilic period. It is of a peculiarly composite nature and consists of no less than eight parts, each presenting a dramatic scene. In that respect it is quite unique. Moreover it is one of the best preserved poems of the whole biblical literature ; not a line, not even a word is missing. It is one of the most instructive examples of ancient Hebrew poetry. However, two things have happened to it during its transmission. Four lines, namely verses 16 and 17 have been displaced. Their obvious and natural place is after verse 9 (see further below). Disarrangements are rare in this type of poetry which requires a logical

sequence of thoughts and scenes, but they do happen now and then. Then, there is a clause of eight words in verse 19, lebus harugim meto 1aney hereb, yoredey 'el-abney-bor ; this separates the two simple parallelisms keneser nit1 ab and kepeger mubas which clearly belong together. The inserted sentence is evidently meant as an "embellishm e n t " (eine weitere Ausmalung) with a reference to the word bor in verse 15, but it breaks up the smooth flow of the poetic line. The picture it contains is not a very happy one; it does not fit in with either of the two parallel expressions, "like a rejected shoot thrown away, like some carcass which is trodden down". Besides nobody would walk over stones, if he can help it. A pit covered with stones is almost a proper grave. The original text (without the inserted clause) points out that the corpse of the King of Babylon is simply thrown away to be trampled under foot, that is, that he is not going to have any grave at all. The last two verses, 22 and 23, are a divine oracle. That this is the case has been specially stressed by some ancient commentator who inserted no less than three times the words n&um YHWH (fba'ot), so as to make quite sure that Babylon is wiped out for ever and will never rise again, for this is God's decision. These insertions are quite superfluous, as the poet left no doubt that God Himself is speaking here; His promise is given in two well-measured parallel lines of perfect rhythm. A few further notes on the particles may follow here: 1) kol in verse 7 is a unit by itself. The poet means to say : the "whole" earth without exception is quiet. 2) There is no particular stress on the first kol in verse 18 and it is not counted as a unit, but the second in kullatn is. 3) gam in verse 8 must be counted, as it does not just stand for "and", "also", "in addition"; it has a special emphasis: "even" the cypresses and the cedars suffer no longer. The same applies to gam in verse 10: "even you", King of Babylon, have been made equal to ourselves. 4) ki in verse 20 is evidently not particularly stressed and not to be counted as a unit (see further below). The text, divided into its natural parts and logical lines, runs as follows : units

parts

verse

5 6

‫‪6‬‬

‫)‪(4‬‬

‫המשל‬

‫הזה‬

‫על‬

‫שבת‬

‫נגש‬

‫שבתה‬

‫מדהבה‬

‫ונשאת‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫שבר‬

‫יהוה‬

‫מטה‬

‫רשעים‬

‫שבט‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫מכה‬

‫‪ 5‬איר‬ ‫)‪(5‬‬

‫‪IIa‬‬

‫)‪(6‬‬

‫)‪(7‬‬

‫‪IIb‬‬

‫)‪(8‬‬

‫מלך‬

‫בבל‬

‫ואמרת‬

‫משלים‬

‫עמים‬

‫בעברה‬

‫מכת‬

‫בלתי‬

‫סרה‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫רדה‬

‫באף‬

‫גוים‬

‫מרדף‬

‫בלי‬

‫חשך‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫נחה‬

‫שקטה‬

‫כל‬

‫הארץ‬

‫פצחו‬

‫רנה‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫גם‬

‫ברושים‬

‫שמחו‬

‫לד‬

‫ארזי‬

‫לבנון‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫מאז‬

‫שכבת‬

‫לא‬

‫יעלה‬

‫הכרת‬

‫עלינו‬

‫‪6‬‬ ‫‪Ilia‬‬ ‫)‪(9‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫כ ל עתודי ארץ‬ ‫רפאים‬ ‫לד‬ ‫מכסאותם כל מלכי‬ ‫‪ 4‬הקים‬ ‫גוים‬ ‫ישגיחו‬ ‫יתבוננו‬ ‫אליך‬ ‫אליך‬ ‫)‪ 5 intermediate (16‬ר א י ך‬ ‫מרגיז‬ ‫‪I1Ib‬‬ ‫‪ 6‬הזה‬ ‫מרעיש‬ ‫הארץ‬ ‫האיש‬ ‫ממלכות‬ ‫)‪(17‬‬ ‫ם‬ ‫ש‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫ר‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ד‬ ‫מ‬ ‫כ‬ ‫ל‬ ‫ב‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ועריו‬ ‫הרם‬ ‫‪ 4‬אסיריו‬ ‫ביתה‬ ‫פתח‬ ‫לא‬ ‫)‪(10‬‬ ‫‪IV‬‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ר‬ ‫מ‬ ‫א‬ ‫י‬ ‫ו‬ ‫ו‬ ‫נ‬ ‫ע‬ ‫י‬ ‫כלם‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫אליך‬ ‫‪ 6‬גם‬ ‫כמונו‬ ‫אתה‬ ‫נמשלת‬ ‫אלינו‬ ‫חלית‬ ‫)‪(11‬‬ ‫נבליך‬ ‫גאונך‬ ‫שאול‬ ‫‪ 5‬הורד‬ ‫המית‬ ‫‪ 5‬תחתיך‬ ‫תולעה‬ ‫ומכסיך‬ ‫רמה‬ ‫יצע‬ ‫)‪(12‬‬ ‫משמים‬ ‫נפלת‬ ‫שחר‬ ‫הילל‬ ‫בן‬ ‫‪ 6‬איך‬ ‫לארץ‬ ‫‪ 4‬נגדעת‬ ‫ע ל גוים‬ ‫חולש‬ ‫‪V‬‬ ‫)‪(13‬‬ ‫אמרת‬ ‫‪ 5‬ואתה‬ ‫השמים‬ ‫בלבבך‬ ‫אעלה‬ ‫לכוכבי‬ ‫ממעל‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫כסאי‬ ‫ארים‬ ‫אל‬ ‫בירכתי‬ ‫מועד‬ ‫‪ 5‬ואשב‬ ‫צפץ‬ ‫בהר‬ ‫)‪(14‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫לעליון‬ ‫אעלה‬ ‫עב‬ ‫ע ל במתי‬ ‫אדמה‬ ‫)‪(15‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫תורד‬ ‫א ל שאול‬ ‫א ל ירכתי בור‬ ‫אך‬ ‫)‪(18‬‬ ‫‪VI‬‬ ‫ב כ ב ו ד איש‬ ‫שכבו‬ ‫כלם‬ ‫‪ 7‬כ ל מ ל כ י גוים‬ ‫בביתו‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫)‪(19‬‬ ‫כפגר מובס‬ ‫נתעב‬ ‫מקברך כנצר‬ ‫השלכת‬ ‫‪ 7‬ואתה‬ ‫‪VII‬‬ ‫)‪(20‬‬ ‫‪ 4‬לא‬ ‫אתם‬ ‫תחד‬ ‫בקבורה‬ ‫שחת‬ ‫‪ 4‬כי א ר צ ך‬ ‫עמך‬ ‫הרגת‬ ‫לעולם‬ ‫לא‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫מרעים‬ ‫זרע‬ ‫יקרא‬ ‫)‪(21‬‬ ‫מטבח‬ ‫לבניו‬ ‫‪ 5‬הכינו‬ ‫אבתם‬ ‫בעץ‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫יקמו‬ ‫ארץ‬ ‫וירשו‬ ‫בל‬ ‫פני‬ ‫ערים‬ ‫‪ 4‬ומלאו‬ ‫תבל‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫)‪(22‬‬ ‫‪VIII‬‬ ‫ונכד‬ ‫ונץ‬ ‫‪ 8‬וקמתי עליהם‪ 2‬והכרתי ל ב ב ל שם ושאר‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫)‪(23‬‬ ‫ואגמי מים ו ט א ט א ת י ה ב מ ט א ט א ה ש מ ד‬ ‫‪ 8‬ושמתיה למורש ק פ ד‬ ‫שאול‬

‫מתחת‬

‫רגזה‬

‫לר‬

‫לקראת‬

‫בואך‬

‫עורר‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫נאם‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫יהוה צבאות‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫נ א ם יהוה‬ ‫‪ 4‬נ א ם יהוה צבאות‬

‫‪Omitted :‬‬

Part I (verses 3 and 4) consists of four lines : 5 - 6 - 6 - 5 (symmetrical structure). Note the close correspondence between the first and the last line; the day of rest has come, the oppressor has ceased. Part II (verses 5 to 8) has six lines with six units each. It can be subdivided into two stanzas; a) G o d has broken the evil sceptre which governed the nations and b) the whole earth is quiet now, even the trees which the King of Babylon felled for his palaces and cities are at rest. Part III (verses 9,16, and 17) describes the scene in the underworld. All the dead rulers rise f r o m their seats to receive the mighty King (verse 9), he arrives, they look at him in amazement asking (verse 16a): Is this the man who made the earth t r e m b l e . . . . (verses 16b and 17)? There are seven lines in this part. The middle line (5 units) stands by itself and divides the scene into two equal parts : a) the excitement in the underworld at the appearance of the King of Babylon andb) the questions they put to each other. Each of these two pictures has three lines of differing length in this order : 6 - 5 - 4 . The unrest and the amazement in the underworld could hardly be better expressed than by such unequal lines, yet the form of the two stanzas is the same and shows that they belong together. Compare this with the preceding part which describes the rest and quiet in six well-proportioned lines! Part IV (verses 10-12), six lines with the units 4 - 6 - 5 - 5 - 6 - 4 (symmetrical) begins with the words : " A n d they all will answer and say to y o u . . . . " . This is the answer to the questions raised in verses 16 and 17 which have, logically, to come before verse 10. We have rearranged the text accordingly. Part V, (verses 13-15), five lines of equal length (five units each), continues the satire showing the irony of the fate of the Babylonian king, his immense boast ending in his utter humiliation. Part VI (verses 18 and 19) is short and has only two lines of seven units each: the kings of the nations all have their houses (graves), but the King of Babylon has none. Part VII (verses 20 and 21) has six lines with the following order of units : 4 - 4 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 (symmetrical). The first two lines (4 - 4) declare that he will not be buried with them that have their buryingplace and nobody will know where his remains lie; after all, he has destroyed his land and killed his people. The next two lines (5 - 5) express the wish that no descendents shall be named for ever and

any that are left shall be slaughtered because of the guilt of their fathers so that (the last two lines, 4 - 4 ) they may never inherit the earth and fill it with their cities. Part VIII (verses 22 and 23) with two lines, eight units to each, contains the final oracle of G o d which confirms the utter destruction of Babylon, its inhabitants and its land. The sentences are long and heavy, as it befits a weighty oracle of God. There is much that can be said about this unique poem, unique in its contents and its form, but we must leave any further discussion to the expositors. The knowledge of its form and structure, the logical sequence of its scenes and thoughts can here be of some help. In more recent years it has been repeatedly pointed out that certain ideas and terms in this passage are taken over from Ugaritic mythology. T o this we must add that the form of this poem comes likewise close to the form in which Ugaritic legends and ritual texts were composed. As at least some myths were undoubtedly recited or performed in Ugarit, it is quite possible that the Hebrew poem on the fall of Babylon served a similar purpose. Verse 4a says: "you will take up this masal about the King of Babylon" 1 ). Each scene or speech is composed in a different but fixed form and it must be admitted that this is the most appropriate form for any lively recitation. Some Ugaritic Examples We will now proceed to examine a few specimens from the Ugaritic mythological literature which is hundreds of years older than its Hebrew counterpart. The myths have come down to us on original clay tablets. That means that the texts have not suffered by their transmission from generation to generation, unlike Hebrew poetry which has later been used in the religious instruction of the people. This, certainly, is a considerable advantage. The Ugaritic texts do not abound in additions like Hebrew texts which have been edited and re-edited in the course of time, but scribal errors and omissions occur now and then which is evidenced by parallel texts. We shall see that Ugaritic poetry already observed the same general principles in its composition as Hebrew poetry, but its artistic beauty is definitely on a lower level than, for instance, the poem in Is. xiv. 1

) The masal here is not just a "proverb" or a popular ditty, but quite a lengthy dramatic poem. It is more like the Ιερός λόγος of the Greeks who imitated τά μυθολογούμενα by speech and gestures.

We choose first a short poem of four lines which was recited seven times at the beginning of the fertility rite in Ugarit. The reader will find a full discussion in AST I III, 1964, pp. 147ff. Here we are concerned only with its form and structure. The text is (Gordon, UM, 1955, p. 144, no. 52, lines 8-11): rnt wsry tb bdh ht tkl bdh ht ulmn y^brnn %brm gpn ysmdnn smdm gpn yšql sdmth km gpn

units : 3 6 6 3

km (like Hebrew ke or kemo) is not counted as a unit. Translation : Mot — and — Šar sits, In his hand the staff of bereavement — in his hand the staff of widowhood. They pruned him as one prunes the vine — they bound him as one binds the vine, He is felled in his field like a vine. The poem is symmetrically built both in form and contents. Lines 1 and 4 (with three units each) and lines 2 and 3 (six units each) are parallel to each other. The next passage is taken from the Krt text. It occurs twice 1 ) : lines (137)-(153) ( G O R D O N , UM, p. 185b) and lines (281)-(300) ( G O R D O N , UM, p. 187a). The second passage is in a better state of preservation. units (281) wy'n Krt Γ A : (282) Im ank ksp (283) wyrq hrs (284) y mqmh iv (bd (285) Hm tit sswm (286) mrkbt btrbs 2) (287) bn amt pd in (288) bbty ttn tn (289) ly mtt Hry (290) ncmt s'bh 3) bkrk B: (291) dkn'm 4) lnt (292) ncmh km tsm (293) \ttrt tsmh (294) d'qhibiqni (295) (p(phsptrml5)

3 7 4 4 4 7 6 6

1 ) We disregard the very fragmentary lines 44-56 (ten lines missing) which contain part of the vision. 2 ) btrbst in line 141. ‫ ף‬iph in line 144. 4 ) dk n'm in line 145. B ) After this line the first version (lines 148f.) has a further line (one word missing) of the same length (six units) : thgrn... (b-d)m ašlw bsp cnb.

(296) dbhlmy ilytn (297) bsrty ab adm (298) wld šph Ikrt (299) A>glm llbd (300) il ttb'• mlakm lytb

6 6 3

T h e nine lines of A and B are only a small section of a long poem, a kind of Odyssee, consisting of several hundred Unes, b u t they show clearly h o w the author arranged his material systematically in wellordered lines of varying b u t fixed lengths. T h e portion selected f r o m the legend is complete in itself. It contains the message of King K r t to K i n g Pbl. K r t has been bereaved of his relatives and his progeny and he asks Pbl for his daughter as wife. And K r t of T ' answered : A : What use have I for silver (money) and minted gold in her stead, A life-long slave, three horses, A chariot f r o m the stable of the son of a maid? But that which is not in my house, give! Give me the lady Hry, the well-bred, your first-born, Β : Whose goodness is like the goodness of Anat, whose beauty is like the beauty of Astarte, Whose eyebrows are (as beautiful as) inlaid lapis-lazuli, whose eyes (as) a bowl of alabaster (?), A b o u t w h o m in my dream II gave ( = announced), in my vision, the Father of Man : A n offspring shall be born to Krt, a scion to the Servant of II. T h e piece can be easily divided into t w o parts, A and B. The first and the last line of A have each seven units, and they correspond to each other also in their contents. K r t does n o t want her value in money, he wants the beautiful girl herself. T h e three middle lines of A, four units each, tell us that he is not interested in any barter value either, a slave, horses, a chariot, he has got all that. H e needs what he as not got in his house. This leads up to the last line of A : he wants Hry. The next group of four lines with six units each give a description of her charms 1 ) ; it is of such a woman as she appeared to him in a vision that II promised him a male descendant. The tale of the poem, of which we have reproduced here only a small section, progresses slowly and with repetitions stage by stage, picture by picture, or speech by speech, whilst each theme is dealt 1

) See G . G E R L E M A N ' S article "Die Bildsprache des Hohenliedes" in ASTI 1962, pp. 24ff., for this type of description of female beauty.

I,

with in a definite set of well-balanced lines of appropriate lengths. The law of parallelism is as well observed as in Hebrew poetry not only between the half-clauses of a line, but also among the lines themselves, or, if they do not run parallel one after the other, they correspond to each other symmetrically. As this system of laws is fairly strictly observed in Ugaritic poetry, it can help us sometimes over textual difficulties. The present text is an example. T h e first line of A has at the end the expression yd mqmh which occurs in the story several times 1 ). At least five—if n o t more—different meanings of the expression have been suggested. H. L. G I N S B E R G (ANET, 1950, p. 144a) translates it: "friendship by covenant", but he does not say, w h y ; C . H. G O R D O N ( U L , 1949, p. 73): "a share of her estate"; G . R . D R I V E R (Canaanite Myths and Legends, 1955, p. 33a): "a share of his estate"; J o h n G R A Y (Krt Text, 1955, p. 13): "in token of her value"; J. A I S T L E I T N E R (WUS, 1963, p. 278) : " G o l d , soviel als vorrätig". W h o m shalt we trust? G I N S B E R G ' S translation is sheer fancy. D R I V E R thinks the h in mqmh is the suffix 3rd pers. masc. and connects it with King Pbl; A I S T L E I T N E R thinks the same, but connects this suffix with gold. Should it not, then, also refer to silver? G O R D O N and G R A Y hold that the suffix refers to the beautiful young lady, and this is certainly correct considering the correspondence between the first and the last line of part A. e G O R D O N takes mqm in the sense of late Aramaic m qama', "estate", "acquired g o o d s " (he is probably followed by D R I V E R ) . However, t w o things are quite clear: 1) that King Pbl does not want to give his daughter away, at least not to King Krt, and 2) that King K r t would not be satisfied with anything in exchange of this priceless woman. This the message of K r t must express, and there should be n o difficulty in translating the expression yd mqmh. Yd, " h a n d " , has in most (not only Semitic) languages a wide prepositional use 2 ). Mqm is originally "place", "stead". The whole expression can only mean "instead of her", "in her stead" (Hebr. : bimqomah). G R A Y ' S translation comes nearest to it. T h e t w o examples f r o m Ugaritic texts we have just discussed are most instructive. We could n o w examine further specimens, b u t we would n o t gain a deeper general insight into the composition of Ugaritic poetry: an extended discussion would probably interest only 1

) Lines 5 4 , 1 2 7 , 1 3 9 , ( 2 5 1 ) , ») Cf. also G O R D O N , UM, P .

(270), 83

284.

under

10.17.

the Ugaritic expert. We are still in the beginning of the study of Ugaritic poetry, and we would be well advised if we chose only those passages for investigation which are well preserved. The writer himself is still not absolutely certain about the counting of a number of particles as independent units. The Ugaritic scribes used word-dividers, short, little wedges between the words, but as they were applied rather arbitrarily, the word-divider is no help to us. We are also still uncertain about the negation I — la1 (Hebrew /0' which is always counted as a unit, whilst W- is not). The Ugaritic la' is usually written together with its verb, sometimes it is attached to the preceding relative d and separated from the verb. The preposition { m is another problem. Ugaritic has not the "heavy" Hebrew preposition ‫ג‬et (which always represents a unit even when it is not connected with a suffix), but takes its place (as well that of Hebrew lim which is not counted). We can draw our conclusions only from texts which are complete, and we still have not got a sufficient number for the study of these particular problems. An excellent text for the study of form and structure in Ugaritic poetry is a passage from the Ba'al and 'Anat cycle III ( G O R D O N , UM, p. 188a). We can group the first lines (from line 2 onward) in the following way: 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 ; 3 - 4 - 3 ; 6 - 6 ; 6 - 4 - 3 - 4 - 6 ; 4 (single); etc. But there are also quite a few other suitable texts. Three Psalms We will now append a few notes on the Psalms. Many of them have what seems to us an "irregular" form. They often have beautiful lines, but we find that they are not always so well coordinated, at least not in the way in which the prophetic poet handled his material. We have the impression that "lines" were the most important thing for the psalmist, a beautiful thought which could be expressed in one or a few lines; but that thought was not always strictly related to the preceding or following thought, though a certain sequence of thoughts was observed. Sometimes, lines and the thoughts which they expressed could be repeated in the same psalm as a kind of refrain, or they could be reused in other psalms in the same or in a slightly different form. Psalms are a class of poetry of their own. They cannot be compared to the prophetic oracles which excel in conciseness and pithiness, much less to the type of poems in the Second Isaiah which, no doubt, represent the climax of poetic art in Israel. Already at a very early time the Psalms, or many of them, had their place in worship. They

were made for recitation. Oracles, on the other hand, were not composed for liturgical use, although they later found a place in the service of the Synagogue. Originally they conveyed a direct message to the people, their leaders, or their king. The Psalmist had considerably more freedom in composing his song than any other poet. There was no need for him to be as terse as the composer of direct divine messages. He could amplify his thoughts, he could repeat them and extend them to lengthy litanies of praise, thanksgiving, or supplication. But in spite of this greater freedom there are quite a number of Psalms in which we can detect certain rules, though not those strict rules of well-measured stanzas or symmetrical poems. The rules which the psalmists observed in their compositions are practically the same as those employed by the Ugaritic poets for their myths and rituals which, as we have already pointed out, are much less refined in the disposition of their material than the poetic pieces of the Hebrew prophets. It should not be forgotten that the Psalms, like the Ugaritic myths and rituals, were designed to be recited in divine service. If we knew a little more about ancient "psalmody", we would most likely also have a better insight into the composition of psalms. Unfortunately we know next to nothing about it. It seems, however, that the psalmists made an extensive use of introductions. They are different in nature from the "introductory" or explanatory formulas inserted in a number of prophetic pieces by "commentators" (cf., e.g., the poems from Is. xiv or xlix). They are not inserted subsequently, after the composition of the psalm, but they are original and begin the sentence. In no case can they be omitted, for they form an integral part of the sentence. It makes the sentence often look like a prose sentence, and this has confused some scholars who have suggested that many of the Hebrew psalms are prose psalms. This is not the case. We must recognize these initial words as original and acknowledge their purpose in psalmody as a genuine introduction to the line that follows immediately afterwards. They are absolutely necessary and we must, therefore, allow them a "line" to themselves, however short that line may be. The result is surprising: the Psalm reveals its poetic charactei. Psalm i is an excellent example which can demonstrate this, verse

(1)

units

(2)

4

(3)

:

5

3

3

(4)

(5)

!

-

3

:

1

We have marked the natural sections of this psalm by short strokes in the column indicating the number of units so that the structure of the psalm can be more easily discerned and appreciated. We regret that we cannot agree with Father Sebastian B U L L O U G H who recently 1 ) advocated the prose character of Psalm i. We admit, however, and the reader will share this opinion, that the psalm does not exhibit the same artistic refinement as the poetry of Isaiah, neither in form nor in structure. Psalms represent a different type of poetry. Psalm xxiv has a similar arrangement of lines. (1)

— —

headline

6 6

(2) (3)

l

?

4

?

4

) In a paper read at a meeting of the S.O.T.S. in London, January 1965.

(4)

!

4

(6)

( - ) 6

(7)

: 6 !

(8)

3

?

4

! 6 (9)

: 6 !

(10)

3

?

5

! (-)

5

Verse 7 is repeated in verse 9. Verse 10 is an intensification of verse 8. Psalm xcviii is slightly more difficult, and we have to take the different stresses on certain words into account. The ki in verse 1 introduces the reason why a new song must be sung. We would, therefore, give it a full unit. The preposition lipney in verse 6 stands for / e ; compare the construction in verses 4 and 5! The two first words of verse 9 belong to verse 8. The preposition must be counted here as it has a different value. The jubilation in verses 4-7 refers to all living beings on earth and in the sea : they sing to the Lord ; in verse 8 the rivers and mountains sing before the lord!

(1)

7 5

(2)

7

(3)

5 5

(4)

6

(5)

6

(6)

6

(7)

6

)

8

(9)

8

(8

We are still in the early stages of our investigation, but it is hoped that the new approach to the study of ancient Hebrew "prosody" which has been outlined in these two articles may help towards a deeper understanding of the poetry of ancient Israel.

Additional Note (Is. xl 12a): The L X X replaced the Hebrew creation motif by the three Greek "elements": water, heaven, and earth, taking "the (dust of the) earth" over f r o m verse 12b. As the Hebrew text underlying the L X X contained already the t w o words ugebaiot bemo*%enayim (see the discussion on this amplification) the L X X translatou, having disposed of "the dust of the earth", found in the two words a convenient parallelism for the "mountains". They translated geba
F O R M

A N D

W O R D - P L A Y

I N D A V I D ' S

S A U L A N D

L A M E N T

O V E R

J O N A T H A N BY

WILLIAM L. H O L L A D A Y Beirut

It is not the fashion in our day to pay heed to an individual, identifiable voice speaking through a given passage of Old Testament material. The historical and literary criticism of the past century has (rightly) nourished our skepticism regarding most of the traditional, conventional attributions of authorship. Form criticism (again rightly) has recalled us to the function which literary units play in the life of the community, and hence the way in which the community has adopted (and adapted) the creations of an individual. And recent studies have demonstrated the extent to which poetry, at least, was the construction of combinations and recombinations of traditional "building-blocks" of material: this is true for the Homeric epics, and, in the case of Old Testament poetry, we find traditional parallelisms which come down at least from the Middle Bronze Age 1 ). So we scarcely know how to deal with the individual voice which does from time to time speak forth to us. James M U I L E N B U R G , in a recent address entitled " F o r m Criticism and Beyond" 2 ), both explores this imbalance in our studies and suggests a way by which we may be delivered from it. After noting that form criticism "does not focus sufficient attention upon what is unique and unrepeatable, upon the particularity of the formulation" 3 ), he voices the plea that we pay more attention to the way Hebrew literary units are constructed. "What I am interested in, above all, is in understanding the nature of Hebrew literary composition, in exhibiting the structural patterns that are employed for the fashioning of a literary unit, whether in poetry or in prose, and in discerning the many and various devices by which the predications are formulated 1

) For literature on this matter, see below, p. 56, note 1. ) The Presidential Address for 1968 before the Society of Biblical Literature (in North America), published in JBL 88 (1969), pp. 1 ff. 3 ) Op. cit., p. 5. 2

and ordered into a unified whole. Such an enterprise I should describe as rhetoric and the methodology as rhetorical criticism" 1 ). One of the earliest (and at the same time finest) poems in the Old Testament is one of the most distinctively individual: David's lament over Saul and Jonathan, 2 Sam. i 18-27 2 ). This poem presents an ideal opportunity, therefore, to exercise such "rhetorical criticism," and the present study is an effort in this direction. Critics have affirmed with one voice the literary quality of this poem. It is purely secular (there is no mention of G o d in its lines), and its emotion is direct and seemingly spontaneous. And by the same token critics have never doubted its authenticity to David. But when one embarks upon a rhetorical and structural analysis of the poem, one meets two problems of methodology immediately. The first is a familiar one, that of textual difficulties. The text is at some points poorly preserved, notably at what turns out to be the beginning of the poem, where the structural motifs are first set forth. The second problem of methodology is a more novel one: in this poem the "devices by which the predications a r e . . . ordered into a unified whole" are (as we shall see) to a great degree a matter of assonance and other word-play, and not only has there been a minimum of systematic work on the symmetries of assonance in the Old Testament (to the extent to which we understand the metrical forms of Greek poetry, for example), but, more basically, we are thereby confronted with the necessity of making a systematic inquiry into the pronunciation of Hebrew at the end of the eleventh century B.C. So our inquiry must revolve around three foci : the development of a satisfactory model for the pronunciation of Hebrew in David's day, the pursuit of a satisfactory text, and attention to the various devices of poetic balance. But since each of these foci depends to some degree upon the others, it is clear that our inquiry must proceed with some caution and even agnosticism, and that we must often be content with something less than total certainty; indeed we will be lucky to avoid too much circular reasoning! We may hope, however, that the basic outline of our analysis will stand, however some matters of detail may need to be revised. It was in the time of romanticism, with its new interest in the 1

) Op. cit., p. 8. ) In the present study I assume, with most recent critics, that v. 18, though textually corrupt, begins the poem; the matter is dealt with fully in the discussion, below, of vv. 18-19. 2

purely literary values of Old Testament poetry, that critics first offered observations on the structure of our poem, but these observations, though often acute enough, were inevitably based upon subjective impressions. Thus L O W T H , with remarkable insight, took note of the "artful and happy mixture of long and short verses" [i.e. lines]; remarked that the "intercalary period" [i.e. refrain], repeated three times, is "beautifully diversified in the order and diction"; and judged that "certainly there is a great appearance of art and design in this nice and poetic conformation of the periods" 1 ). H E R D E R 2 ) responded to the poem with real esthetic appreciation but dealt with structural matters only to the extent of assigning the refrain to a "chorus". E W A L D 3 ) pointed to the "diminishing strophic structure" [sinkende Strophenbau] (i.e. of the lines associated with the refrain) as effecting an alleviation of the grief expressed in the poem. But because of its textual difficulties (for which the ancient Versions are of little help), critical studies of the poem which appeared in the period 1 8 7 0 - 1 9 3 0 tended to concentrate upon the attempt to restore a satisfactory text; some of the emendations suggested during this period of critical study are of permanent value, but it is unnecessary to review all of them here 4). New resources for the understanding of early Hebrew poetry became available with the discovery of Ugaritic literature, and the first suggestion for David's lament to be stimulated by the Ugaritic material came from H. L . G I N S B E R G in 1 9 3 8 : that the inexplicable "fields of offerings" in v. 21 is a corruption for "upsurging of the deep," a phrase found in the Aqhat text 5) ; and this emendation 1

) Robert L O W T H , Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews (in Latin), 1753; the Eng. transi, available to me is by C . E . S T O W E , Andover [Mass.], 1 8 2 9 . The citations are from Lecture XXIII. 2 ) J. G. H E R D E R , The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry (in German), 1783; the Eng. transi, available to me is by James M A R S H , Burlington [Vt.], 1833; see Vol. II, pp. 219-21. 3 ) Heinrich E W A L D , Die Poetische Bücher des Alten Bundes, Göttingen, 1 8 3 9 , Vol. I, pp. 108-10. 4 ) The most important of these studies are: August K L O S T E R M A N N , Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige ausgelegt (Kurzgefasster Komm, zu den heil. Sehr. A. & N . T.), 1887; H. P . S M I T H ( I C C ) , 2nd ed. 1912; S . R. D R I V E R , Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed., 1913; H u g o G R E S S M A N N (Die Schriften des A.T.), 2nd ed. 1921. See also Hedwig J A H N O W , ‫״‬Das Hebräische Leichenlied im Rahmen der Völkerdichtung," BZAW 36 (1923), pp. 133-34. 6 ) He first published his suggestion in ]BL 57 (1938), pp. 209-13. For further literature on this emendation, see below, p. 70, note 4.

has been widely adopted, for example by the Revised Standard Version in English. During the past decade several studies have appeared of fixed parallels of words, standard pairings that appear in parallelism in both Ugaritic and Hebrew poetry. Using the resources of these fixed parallels, Stanley G E V I R T Z has recently made a fresh study of several early Hebrew poems, David's lament among them, and has thereby given what he feels t o be a more satisfactorily emended text of the poem 1 ). My own judgment is that G E V I R T Z has at most points succeeded brilliantly in his reconstruction of the poem, but I am convinced that the exploitation of other poetic resources of the poem (beyond that of fixed parallels) will both clarify its structure and bring more reassurance to the task of reconstructing the text. These resources are of word-play, which our poem offers in rich supply; indeed I submit that word-play is the key to the structure of the poem. We shall find, I think that such analysis both confirms at most points G E V I R T Z ' reconstruction, and also in a few points enables us perhaps to improve upon it. It has become more and more apparent that early laments exhibit word-play. G I N S B E R G has noted the double meaning of '« ("eye," "fountain") in II Keret 25-28 2 ), a context offering the vocabulary of lament 3 ), and Mitchell D A H O O D has spotted a host of word-plays in laments in the Psalms 4). The other recorded lament of David, on the death of Abner, 2 Sam. iii 33-34, plays on ‫ג‬abnēr and nābāl. The poem before us likewise exploits word-play extensively, but to my knowledge this matter has not heretofore been explored in detail 5 ). 1 ) Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 32), Univ. of Chicago Press, 1963. For a bibliography of fixed parallels, see his page 8, note 4; for his treatment of David's lament, see his pp. 72-96. 2 ) The numeration in C . H . G O R D O N , Ugaritic Textbook, Rome, 1965, is text No. 125, lines 25-28. 3 ) G I N S B E R G , The Legend of King Keret (BASOR Supplementary Studies Nos. 2 - 3 ) , 1946, p. 45. 4 ) See his Psalms II, 51-100 (The Anchor Bible), p. 78, for a list, and, further, p. 258. 5 ) W . F . A L B R I G H T notes the existence of word-play in our poem but without giving details; see "Some Remarks on the Song of Moses," VT 9 (1959), pp. 344-45: "In t h e s e . . . poems [2 Sam. i 18-27 and 2 Sam. xxii = Ps. xviii] repetition of words seems to have disappeared, except in refrains; its place is taken by paronomasia." One specific word-play has been noted by earlier critics, that of v. 20, Ί-tgydw bgt; see S M I T H (ICC), ad loc.

I

I have had occasion elsewhere to analyse some of the poetry of Jeremiah with assonantal and structural devices in mind 1 ), and Luis A L O N S O S C H Ö K E L has offered similar studies in the poetry of Isaiah 2 ). In discussing such ideas with others, I encounter the recurring fear that any analysis of assonance runs the risk of subjectivity; there are, after all, it is said, only 22 consonants in Hebrew, so that a repetition of consonants and consonant combinations is almost inevitable. Therefore, particularly in discussing a poem from a time as early as 1000 B.C., a discussion which involves not only analysis but suggestions for emendation, one must offer at the outset some methodological guidelines for the analysis of wordplay. (1) By "word-play" I mean any likeness of sound between two words or phrases, whether it is a deliberate punning on names, or assonance of any sort. In Hebrew poetry such word-play is, so far as we can tell, primarily a matter of similarity in combinations of consonants between the words or phrases in question, whether the same consonants or like consonants (sibilants, for example, or voiced-unvoiced correlatives) appear in the same order or in a different order. And if (in comparison to consonant counts of an adequate random sampling) a rare consonant (‫ג‬, ‫ט‬, ‫ )פ‬appears even alone with unwonted frequency, then this occurrence itself may attract our attention. Less often, word-play seems to be a matter of similarity of vowel patterns (at least so far as we can tell from our tentative knowledge of vocalization for the period of our poem) or of consonantvowel patterning (e.g. consonant + short vowel 4‫ ־‬doubled second consonant). (2) It must be emphasized that any modern conventional Hebrew pronunciation, or the Masoretic vocalization, may mislead us as to the pronunciation of Hebrew in a time as remote as that of David. Here, even at the cost of some anticipation of the evidence we will uncover in the poem, let us set down both what we know and what we may suspect of David's pronunciation. (a) The Hebrew consonantal writing system was phonemic, and for the pronunciation of such consonants as ‫ע‬, or p, or the "emphatic" consonants ‫ ט‬and ‫ צ‬the current pronunciation of classical Arabic is a better guide than any current pronunciation of Hebrew. 1 2

) " T h e Recovery of Poetic Passages of Jeremiah," JBL 85 (1966), pp. 401-35. ) Estudios de Poética Hebrea, Barcelona, 1963.

(b) The spirantization of post-vocalic stops did not take place until much later 1 ), so that the ‫ פ‬of ‫ נפלו‬is p, not / . (c) Segholate nouns were monosyllabic {gast rather than qešet, v. 22) until a much later period, as both the transcriptions in the L X X and in Origen's second column make plain 2 ). (d) Doubling of gutturals and ‫ ר‬seems to have been retained until after this period, and likewise double consonants at the end of a word; at least the patterning of our poem strongly suggests such retention 3 ). Thus mihhëlb (v. 22), mP''0•rayât (v. 23), harrê (v. 21), *marr (v. 18), sarr-lî (v. 26), tall (v. 21a), samm (v. 21b), -gatt (v. 20). (e) Though ‫ ש‬and ‫ ש‬had fallen together in Ugaritic, the persistence of the distinction in Masoretic pointing suggests strongly that at least in the Jerusalem dialect they were kept separate 4 ); and there is evidence in v. 20 of our poem for the symmetrical patterning of ‫ ש‬and ‫ש‬. (f) The phonemes g and h, still separate in Ugaritic, had fallen together with ' and h respectively by the first millennium B.C., when the standard Phoenician alphabet was adopted for Hebrew. The date of the loss of these distinctive phonemes is uncertain 5 ), but one may speculate whether they were still kept distinct at the time of our poem. If one separates the occurrences of *h from h in our poem, symmetrical patterns emerge which render plausible the separate existence of *h: the word-play on hālāl and forms of hayil in vv. 19 and 22, the association of both Ìāhâr and yāhî with " J o n a t h a n " in vv. 22 and 26 respectively, and, most suggestively, the completely symmetrical sequence hi, hlb, hr, hrb in v. 22. And since, 1 ) Estimates for the date of this process vary; Zellig H A R R I S , Development of the Canaanite Dialects, American Oriental Society, 1939, pp. 66 (cf. pp. 62-63): after the 11th or 10th century; G . B E E R and R . M E Y E R , Hebräische Grammatik, Vol. I, p. 61: under Aramaic influence beginning in the 6th century B.C., completed by the 3rd century A.D. 2 ) For the transcriptions in the L X X , see, e.g. L X X Ps. 118 ( = M.T. 119) αλφ, δελθ, etc. (γιμαλ no doubt because of the liquid λ); for Origen's second column (αρς = ‫ א ל ץ‬etc.) see B E E R and M E Y E R , op. cit., p. 75. 3 ) Again dates are difficult; H A R R I S dates the reduction of double gutturals and r after 600 B.C. (so his "Linguistic Structure of Hebrew," J AOS 61 (1941), p. 145, no. 17), and the reduction of final double consonants between 700 and 500 B.C. (Devel. of Can. Dial., p. 76 and chart). *) For Ugaritic, see G O R D O N , Ugaritic Textbook, 5 . 1 2 ; for the two phonemes in the Jerusalem dialect, see H A R R I S , Devel. of Can. Dial., pp. 3 3 - 3 5 . 6 ) H A R R I S says it may have taken place in the 11th or 10th century, Devel. of Can. Dial., p. 63; Frank C R O S S , Jr., has recently states that the merger of £ and c took place no later than the 11th century, BASOR, No. 190 (April 1968), p. 42, note 8.

in the phonemic structure of West Semitic, g is the voiced counterpart of h, one may assume that whatever is true for the one is true for the other—though there is less evidence for g and ( in our poem. The one occurrence of a presumed in the poem is haggarēlîm (v. 20); but still, even with this single example, the symmetrical association of the phoneme here (presumably a voiced velar fricative or uvular trill) with g in line 1 of v. 20, with { in line 4, and with r in the first line of v. 21 (thus harre) makes the assumption of the continued existence at this epoch of g, too, an attractive one 1 ). Of course the symmatries here alluded to still hold even if g and h were no longer distinct phonemes, so that such evidence can never be conclusive, but the hypothesis is attractive nevertheless. Question: could formal declamation be morr conservative than normal speech in preserving such phonemes? (g) In regard to stress-accent and vocalization we are on much less secure ground. Semiticists dispute whether the accent had moved forward by David's day to the position marked by the Masoretes and whether various vowels in open syllables had consequently been reduced 2 ). In this study I shall not attempt to reconstruct a phonetically valid pattern of vowel pronunciation in David's day; since accent and vowel-patterns tend to shift en bloc, the general patterning of assonance which depends upon stress or vowels in David's poem is likely to be evident to us even if the precise phonetic quality or quantity of the vowels is somewhat uncertain. We may suspect that the vowels marked shewa in the M.T. were fuller vowels in David's day, but it would take us too far into uncertain territory to try to restore them. The transcriptions used in this study will then offer the Masoretic vocalization out of convenience, except that furtive patah will be ignored, pausal forms will not be employed, and the segholates will be written as monosyllables. (3) In isolating and analysing word-play, we must recognize two points. (a) Word-plays and other poetic devices which are for us not particularly noticeable at first glance may well have been the concom1 ) These matters will be discussed more fully below, in the verse-by-verse commentary. 2 ) H A R R I S assumes that the accent shift had taken place just after the Ugaritic period, 1350 B.C., and that the reduction of vowels was complete by 1000 B.C. (Devel. of Can. Dial., pp. 5 0 , 6 4 - 6 6 , and chart); Albrecht G O E T Z E , "Accent and Vocalism in Hebrew," J AOS 5 9 ( 1 9 3 9 ) , pp. 4 3 1 - 5 9 , assumes the change took place much later.

itants in a "rendition" of the poem of the repetition or parallelism of melodic line or of rhythmic pattern or of other factors n o w utterly unrecoverable, and therefore more "noticeable" to the original hearers. (b) There is no doubt a continuous spectrum of categories of word-play from the most to the least noticeable, as follows. (i) Some word-plays will have been the deliberate, conscious intention of the poet. We have already mentioned the play on 'abnēr and nābāl in 2 Sam. iii 33; similarly, in the present poem, there is evidently a play between $
) The Rape of the Lock, iii 21-22.

was simply that P O P E had penned a neat epigram of biting irony; it was only later, thinking about patterns of assonance, that I noticed the assonance of "hxingry" and "hing". But it took a surprising amount of time (at least for me) to work out the following analysis. (1) "hungry judges" is a startling collocation; one wonders, hungry for what?—for food? for victims? (2) " J u d g e s " and "jurymen" are not only alliterative, but an English equivalent of a Ugaritic and early Hebrew "fixed parallel" such as abound in the Germanic languages also ("hale and hearty"; "Nacht und Nebel"). (3) There is a semantic chiasmus between "hungry judges" and "jurymen may dine" which neatly frames the couplet, the rhetorical device of "inclusion" 1 ). (4) There is assonantal chiasmus at the beginning of each of the two lines: "hungry judges," "wretches h2.ng". (5) The end of the first line piles up assonances of s + » : " s o o n / ' "sen-," "sign", and there is an inner rime in "sen-ten-ces", and a reversal of s -f- η in "sentewij‫;"־‬ while there is similar alliteration at the end of the second line: " m e n , " " d i n e " and a small subsidiary alliteration in "-men may". N o w even if the reader does not notice all this on first reading (and it would be hard to believe he could), even if P O P E himself may not consciously have been aware of all this when he wrote the couplet, still, these patterns are there, and help to give the couplet the effectiveness it has. But a reader with a craving for analysis may go too far, and think he sees more than is there. It occurred to me in the course of my analysis that there may be an echo here of the English phrase "hanging judge" (one who prefers to condemn criminals to hang) or even " h u n g jury" (a jury unable to agree on a verdict). But I found that the Oxford English Dictionary cites the former only from 1848 and the latter as an Americanism from 1850, so one cannot conclude that these phrases were part of P O P E ' S mentality. There is always a danger, then, that the pattern-seeker may seem to find patterns in many combinations of sounds and words when such pseudo-patterns may be trivial or insignificantly above the level of randomness. It is even more dangerous to depend upon such analysis to help in reconstructing a poem whose text is in doubt, though we must incur the danger from time to time in analysing David's lament. T o refer to P O P E ' S couplet once more, it would be possible to find patterns in the following hypothetical variations of the beginning of P O P E ' S lines: 1

) For this device in Hebrew, see below, p.

66, note 2.

(1) The And (2) The And (3) The And

hanging judges... wretches swing... hurrying judges... wretches h a n g . . . hastening judges... wretches h a n g . . .

The first variation offers chiasmus in its initial words; the second offers the rime of "hurry-" and "jury-"; the third offers "hastening" as another contribution to the s -\-n pattern; and so on. None of these variations, of course, improves on P O P E , but might well seem satisfactory to a critic bent on reconstructing a defective text; in any event, the lectio difficillima et vera " h u n g r y " might not occur to him. II

With these guidelines and cautions in mind, let us see what we can make of David's lament. What follows is a verse-by-verse commentary 1 ). The division into lines which is offered here, by which groups of words are set off from each other, is in some cases arbitrary. What is offered here is simply a format in which obviously parallel or balancing lines are identical in their marginal indentation. It is unfortunate that the least secure portion of the text is the first portion, vv. 18-19. It is tempting to discuss this portion last, after a consideration of the rest of the poem. But since an understanding of the structure of the rest of the poem depends to such a great degree on vv. 18-19, we shall begin at the beginning after all. vv. 18-19 The M.T., organized in the format in which the text will be reconstructed, reads as follows:

‫ש ר‬Τ‫ה י‬Τ ‫ס פ ~ר‬V‫ת ו ב־־ה ע ל~ ־‬τ‫ה כ‬:‫ק ש ·ת ״ ה נ‬VIT

I shall not review the many attempts to make sense of v. 18 as it stands 2 ), since I am convinced it needs massive emendation : a key 1

) See appendix for the whole text as reconstructed, in transliteration. ) So, recently, O . E I S S F E L D T , " Z w e i Verkannte Militär-Technische Termini in A T , " VT 5 (1955), pp. 232-35, and H . W. H E R T Z B E R G , Die Samuelbücher (ATD), 2nd ed. 1960, E n g . transi. 1964, ad loc. ‫־‬

t o our understanding of the verse was supplied by K L O S T E R M A N N (1887) 1 ), who recognized that everything that follows ‫ ויאמר‬must be a part of the lament (cf. 2 Sam. iii 33). N o r shall I review in detail the many attempts at such reconstruction. I submit that G E V I R T Z has brought us far along the way to a solution; therefore let me simply offer his reconstruction, outline his argumentation, and then offer my own critique of it and amendments to it. G E V I R T Z reconstructs 2) : τ : ‫א ל‬- ‫ר‬Τ‫ ש‬:‫ ס פ ד ״* י‬:· ‫*ה י‬2 ‫ק־ש ת · נ‬I :

1‫״‬

3): ( ‫א י ך נ פ ל ו נ ב ו ל י ם‬

The main points of

GEVIRTZ'

argumentation are as follows.

(a) The first clue is the realization of H . P . S M I T H ( 1 8 9 9 ) 4) that bny-yhwdh should be read as *bky yhwdh, "weep, Ο Judah." (b) Since a fixed parallel for bkh is spd, "lament," one may justifiably reconstruct *spd from spr. (c) The word hysr should be emended to j / r V , the fixed parallel to yhwdh. (d) K L O S T E R M A N N ( 1 8 8 7 ) and B U D D E ( 1 9 0 2 ) 5 ) suggested reading qst as qesôt "harsh things"; G E V I R T Z accepts a feminine singular abstract qešat. (The rest of the reconstruction of these earlier critics is not relevant.) (e) Given the clue of qešat, one may reconstruct *yll *mr for the first two words of fine 1, and *nhy for the second word of line 2. (f) The words ktwbh 7 are to be omitted as a secondary addition after the text had become corrupt. (g) For the first two words of v. 1 9 G E V I R T Z suggests a form of the hiphil imperative of nsb plus some noun for "dirge" : thus "raise a dirge." His suggestions for the noun are ‫י‬lyh (known in post-biblical Hebrew) or 'bI. (h) G E V I R T Z accepts bmwtyk hll as a construct chain whose construct noun bears a personal suffix 6 ). He explains bmwt not as "high places" 1

) See above, p. 55, note 4. ) Op. cit., pp. 73-82. I have supplied vowels for his reconstruction. 3 ) An asterisk is consistently placed before each word whose consonantal text is emended. 4 ) See above, p. 55, note 4. ‫ ף‬In KHC, ad loc. ·) So elsewhere in early Hebrew poetry; see D A H O O D , Psalms II, p. 398. 2

but as "dead bodies" (as is Deut. xxxiii 29), a derivative meaning f r o m the meaning "backs" (as in Isa. xiv 14, and in Ugaritic) 1 ); thus here, "over thy bodies of slain." (i) The last line stands. I accept his points (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), and (i) in toto, (g) in part. I reject (c). Here is my reconstruction: ‫ד ה‬τ‫י ה ו‬: ‫ב ·־כ י‬: · ‫ י··ל ל · ־מ ר‬:· (18 ‫ש ר‬TT‫) ? ( ־ י‬s‫ס פ ד · ל‬: * ‫נ ·ה י‬: · ‫ש ת‬ - I‫ק‬: TT Iv

τ

‫ ·· ־־‬τ : · ‫נקלו גבורים‬

·

‫ד״‬ ‫איך‬:

A howling bitter weep, Ο Judah, Harshness of wailing lament for the upright; Stand by, Ο Israel, over thy bodies of slain: How are fallen heroes! (a) The main difference between my reconstruction and that of is that I leave J / r and ysr'l in the positions in which they are found in the M.T. I cannot conceive of a situation in which, in adjoining words, a text becomes corrupt by the writing of yšr wrongly for j‫׳‬/rV, and then two or three words later ysr'l is written wrongly for something else. In the light of the wordplay of the poem in general, and of the form of these first lines in particular 2 ), I am persuaded that both yšr and ysr'l belong in the position in which they are found in the M.T. The word yāšār is a good, strong word here; it is found in a very similar context in Balaam's first oracle, Num. xxiii 10: "Let me die the death of the upright" (where, one might note, the w o r d j / ' / r i ' f / is also to be found in an adjoining line). The preposition before j / r cannot be regained with certainty; spd may take either W or I e , and either is possible here, but I prefer I e for reasons of assonance, as will shortly be clear. (b) I read the first word of v. 1 9 differently. G E V I R T Z assumes that the hiphil of nsb can be used for "raising" a dirge or the like, but this is semantically doubtful. The parallel he cites, Ps. cxix 89, offers a niphal: " F o r ever, Ο Lord, thy word is firmly fixed (nissāb) in the heavens": but this is not the same as "raising" a dirge. The hiphil is used of erecting monuments, pillars, doors, once of piling up water, but never of metaphorically raising a dirge, unless one is to imagine GEVIRTZ

1 2

) For Ugaritic, see G O R D O N , Ugaritic Textbook 19.480. ) See below for a full discussion of the form of these four lines.

David's commanding the hearer to post some kind of inscription! But I believe we are on the right track with the verb nsb·, the L X X translates stëlôson, "set up a monument," assuming nsb hiphil plus an object. But the Targum Jonathan is even more suggestive; G E V I R T Z mentions the Targum but does not pursue the clue it offers. The Targum has *tHdtwn, "you have been ready." This ithpael of ltd serves as a passive (or intransitive) of the pael; the pael of this verb regularly translates nsb hiphil. That is, the Targum strongly suggests our reading a Hebrew niphal in the present instance. The verb nsb niphal fits nicely into our context: it is twice used of guards, servants, or retainers standing over ( W ) someone lying on the ground: once it is David lying in deep grief, 2 Sam. xiii 31, at the time of Absalom's death: " T h e n the king arose, and rent his garments, and lay on the earth; and all his servants who were standing by (nissābîm) [LXX and Vulg. add, "over him"] rent their garments"; once it is Phinehas' wife at the point of death, 1 Sam. iv 20: " A n d about the time of her death the women attending her (hannissàbôt ‫ז‬ ālêha) said to her, 'Fear not, for you have borne a s o n . ' " I would suggest, then, hinnāsēb, "stand by." (An alternative might be the hithpael of jsb with a similar meaning: hitjāssēb.) The verb might well have been a military command. (c) One more detail: in the first line I specifically point *bky as e b kê= bekēh (masculine imperative); G E V I R T Z does not deal with the vocalization or gender of this word; H. P. S M I T H assumed a feminine (and reconstructed the other second-person references in vv. 18-19 as feminine likewise). This imperative then will agree with the gender of *spd. The reconstruction offered here gives good sense and is, as already mentioned, appreciably closer to the M . T . than is that of G E V I R T Z . But since the analysis of the structure of these four lines will help to justify the reconstruction here offered, let us now plunge into such analysis. The four lines as reconstructed are bound together in an intricate variety of ways: there are primary ties between the first two lines, and among the first three lines, and, less tightly, between the last two lines and between the first and last lines. Furthermore, this portion of the poem serves as the " g e r m " for the total poem, offering structures and sound patterns which will be exploited in the remainder of the poem. (a) There is tight semantic balance, of course, between the first

three words in each of the first two lines, and semantic and syntactic chiasmus among the first two words of each line: "a howling bitter w e e p . . . . harshness of wailing l a m e n t . . . " ) . But the assonance is just as noteworthy. In *yelēl*marr1) the second consonant is a repeated liquid, and the first line is framed by the initial ye- of *yelēl and yehûdâ, a modest example of "inclusio" or "inclusion" which Dahood has found so often in the Psalms 2 ). And if our suggestion of Ie in *l e yāšār is correct, one has the further inclusion o f y e l - + leyin the first two lines, and the remarkable pattern of rhythm and vowel harmony evidenced in the recurrent initial consonant -f- shewa (whatever the phonetic value of the vowel or vowels may have been) : *yelēl *marr *bekê yehûdâ qesat *nehî *sepād *le-yāšār. (b) But the patterning of semantic balance in the first two lines is broken by *l e yāšār: in strict parallelism one would expect another vocative parallel to yehûdâ (as G E V I R T Z has suggested); instead, what one gets is word-play on a plausible parallel, and the expected parallel vocative (yisrā^ēl) is deferred until the third line, a device which heightens the tension of the poem, and locks the third line into the structure of the first two. As as we had inclusion in the first line, and probably in the first two lines, we also have it in the first three lines, for *yelēl is balanced by hālāl at the end of the third line. Semantically and syntactically, we have a very tight, interlocking construction of compound accusative (A), imperative verb (B), vocative (C), preposition and object (D), as follows: A! A 2 A2‫ ׳‬A / B‫ ״‬C‫׳‬

Β B‫׳‬ D‫ ׳‬x

C D D 2 ‫׳‬.

(c) The tight construction of the first three lines sets them apart from line 4, which is the refrain line, repeated in vv. 25 and 27. (d) Yet line 4, the refrain-line, is linked to line 3, for in the mockparallelism (or "synthetic parallelism") between hālāl and gibbôrim we have ironic word-play on an expected, normal parallelism. The expected parallelism here is that between gibbôrim and hayil, a parallel1

) See notes on pronunciation above, item (d). ) For examples in the Psalms, see D A H O O D , Psalms I and Psalms II, in the indices under "inclusio". 2

ism found several times in the Old Testament 1 ), representing a feature of both Ugaritic and early Hebrew poetry which has been called (by Ε. Z. M E L A M E D , who first isolated it) "the break-up of stereotyped phrases", and again, Dahood has found many examples in the Psalms 2) : in this device, a compound phrase (in this case, gibbôrê hayil) is split up, one part appearing in each of two parallel lines. The irony in our poem is to have hālāl "slain" for hajil " p o w e r " (and we take note, both words offer h, not true b) 3) ; such irony based on a substitute for an expected parallel is not unknown elsewhere in the Old Testament 4 ). There is no question about the text of these two words, and the word-play between what we have and what we expect is a sure indication that word-play is a part of David's technique in the poem. And as we shall see in our discussion of v. 22, it looks as if a form of the word hayil was a part of the text there. The identification of the irony of the assonantal near-parallel here has two consequences. First, we are somewhat reassured about the positioning of -jāšār and jišrāyēl. Second, the irony points up the total irony of the verse with its strong contrasts between what is upright and active and what has fallen dead: "upright," "slain," "have fallen," "heroes." (e) There is a remarkable reversal of the consonant series m-r-b-k in *mr *bkj in the first line and g-b-r-m in gbrym of the fourth line. Again, we remind ourselves that such a feature does not of itself prove the Tightness of the reconstruction of line 1, but should at least modestly reassure us, and if there was inclusion in the first line alone, and perhaps in the first two lines, and then in the first three lines, then this is the inclusion for all four lines. (f) There are several other possibilities of assonance within these four lines, which seem less significant or secure.

1 ) Gevirtz cites as examples 2 Sam. xvii 10b, Isa. ν 22, Jer. xlviii 14, Nah. ii 4a; op. cit., P . 8 9 . 2 ) M E L A M E D ' S work appears in Studies in the Bible, ed. Chaim R A B I N (Scripta Hierosolymitana, V I I I ; Jerusalem, 1 9 6 1 ) , pp. 1 1 5 - 5 3 , cited in D A H O O D , Psalms I, p. X X X I V , where several examples are given from the Psalms. There are many additional examples in his volumes; see the indices to Psalms I and Psalms II under "Break-up of stereotyped phrases." 3 ) See notes on pronunciation above, item (f). 4 ) Isa. xxviii 14-15 offers an example, where we have "men of scoffing" (,anšé lāsârì) instead of the expected "men of Z i o n " Qanšê siyyôri) as the parallel for " w h o are in Jerusalem"; further, "men of scoffing" may remind the hearer of Prov. xxix 8, "men of scoffing put the city in an uproar."

(1) The verb *hinnāsēb (if correct) would seem to be a middle term between sp(d) and np(iw). (2) There is a parallel of vowel pattern in the last words of lines 2 and 3: -yāšār and hālāl. (3) As there was inner assonance within each of the first two lines (see [a] above), so there would seem to be inner assonance in the consonant-vowel pattern in line 3 : *hinnāsēb (if correct) and jisrâ'èl. (4) There is a hint of inner assonance in line 4 : nāpelû and gibbôrîm share a labial as second consonant and a liquid as third consonant; thought slight, this assonance will become significant in vv. 21a and 23. (5) There may be a hint of assonance between *m{r) *bk(j) (line 1) and bm{wtj)k (line 3), and between (bmìvt)yk (line 3) and (,]yk (line 4). The general correctness of the reconstruction of these verses which is offered here is not only reinforced to some degree by the assonantal patterns within the four lines, but also by similar patterns emerging later in the poem. (See the assonances beyond the verse which are detailed in v. 20, and the hint of a deferred proper name in vv. 25-26.) The parallel between " J u d a h " and "Israel" here is really quite surprising; I believe G E V I R T Z is wrong to have expected it 1 ). Such a parallelism was of course natural after the division of the kingdom at the death of Solomon; but the usual parallel with "Israel" in the early material is either " J a c o b " 2) or " J e s h u r u n " 3 ). The explanation for this particular parallelism (yehûdâ, yisrâ'êl) which will become apparent in the course of our analysis is that these two names were chosen for their usefulness in word-play on the names " J o n a t h a n " (yeh0nātān) and "Saul" (sâ'ûl) respectively. v. 20 The M.T. here gives quite acceptable sense, but the parallelism is so perfect in all but one respect that G E V I R T Z suggests adding the word rehôbôt "squares" to the first line: "tell it not in the squares oj G a t h " as a balance for "proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon" in line 2. Ordinarily one would hesitate long before tampering with a perfectly good text, but in this instance I accept the addition (though in the singular, rehôb) for reasons that will be clear in a moment. Therefore: 1

) Op. cit., p. 74. ) Gen. xlix 2, Deut. xxiv 5, 17, 18-19, xxxiii 28. 8 ) Deut. xxxiii 5. 2

‫אל־תגידו · ב ך ח ו ב גת‬ ‫אל־תבשרו ?חוצות אשקלון‬ ‫?ן־ תשמחנה ?נות פלשתים‬ :‫נות הערלים‬3 ‫פן־תעלזנה‬ It is his concern for fixed parallels that leads G E V I R T Z to insert a form of rehôb in the first line, but remarkably enough considerations of consonant balance may lead us to this word as well. One may argue as follows. The word taggîdû and gatt 1 ) balance assonantically. Because iasqelôn is a semantic counterpart to gatt, its consonants may not figure in the pattern of consonantal balance which we are in the process of discerning. In line 2 this leaves the operative consonants (i.e. those not serving as grammatic tags) bsr + hs. If we look within line 2 for the same kind of consonantal balance which we found within line 1 (i.e. taggîdû + gatt), we see that the two sibilants / and s may balance each other. This leaves the consonants b, r, and h in line 2 without counterparts, a situation which strongly suggests the original presence of rehôb in line 1. (Note that both bus and rehôb have true b, not h.) In the light of the careful structure of sound-patterns in the rest of the poem, I find the "evidence" for this ghost-word here quite convincing 2 ). I assume a singular rehôb rather than G E V I R T Z ' plural because the mistake of the omission of the word is more readily explicable as haplography with the twicerepeated wb 3). If the assonances within the first two lines (as reconstructed!) are noteworthy, those within the last two lines are equally so (and the fact that they exist should perhaps help to reassure us of the existence of such assonances within the first two lines). We have, of course, the double occurrence of pen parallel with the double occurrence of benôt (banôt or the like?); and, within line 3, p(n)tšm[hntí) parallel w i t h p ( l ) š t ( j ) m , balancing the possible inner assonance in line 4, (t)cI(%nb) and ( h ) \ r ) l ( j m ) — b u t the last word may actually be haggarëlîm 4 ), as we shall see. 1

) See above, p. 56 note 5 ; and for gatt see notes on pronunciation above, item (d). ) The similar wording (without rebob) in Mic. i 10 can scarcely figure in our argumentation ; some critics see the verse in Mic. as the attempt of a later copyist, on the basis of 2 Sam. i 20, to make sense out of an illegible text there; see S. J. S C H W A N T E S , "Critical Notes on Micah i 10-16," VT 14 (1964), p. 455, and his reference there to B U D D E in ZAW 37, p. 95. s ) It may be noted that the singular occurs in a context very much like this one in 2 Sam. xxi 12, " f r o m the square of Beth-Shan"; and the parallelism with reversal of numbers ("street," sing., with "squares," plural) occurs in Jer. ix 20. 4 ) See above, notes on pronunciation, item (f). 2

On the other hand, it is also possible to see lines 2 and 3 bound together assonantally: the patterning of / + M i n line 2, and s + Η in line 3, a symmetry which reinforces our assumption that s and / were separate phonemes for this dialect 1 ). Assonantal patterns between lines 2 and 3 lead us to inquire whether there is any corresponding balance between lines 1 and 4. It is noteworthy that there is no article with pelistîm in line 3, so that the article in h^rlym in line 4 may serve to double the N o w if the word is to be read as haggarēlîm, it might serve as a balance to the doubled £ in taggîdû in line 1—there was undoubtedly a close phonetic resemblance between West Semitic g and g. And, if we may look ahead, it is also possible that haggarēlîm, if correct, is in strong assonantal balance with the following word, harre, at the beginning of v. 21, f o r ^ would have been a voiced velar fricative or uvular trill, and r a tongue-tip trill. There are some certain assonances that tie v. 20 to vv. 18-19: (a) The twice-repeated g in line 1 echoes gibbôrîm\ the consonant g is rare 2 ). (b) The double benôt (again, banôti) echoes bāmàt[éka). (c) The word (')%(/»‫ «)׳‬echoes qš(t) *n(hy) in v. 18. There are also some less obtrusive possibilities for assonance. (d) (tb)sr(w) may echo (J)JT(7), in which case there may be an echo between its parallel {tg)ydw and the parallel t o j / r V , namely y(h)wd(tí). (e) The word 'š(q)/(wn) may echo (j)s(r) Ί. (f) The word pl(štym) may echo («)/>/(u>); again, p is a relatively rare consonant 3 ). v. 21a The text of this portion needs emendation. The more spectacular change has already been mentioned: G I N S B E R G ' S emendation in the last line, on the basis of a Ugaritic passage, to read ‫ושרע תהומת‬, "and (— nor) upsurgings of the deep," for the M.T. ‫ושד־ תרומת‬ "and ( = nor) fields of offerings" 4 ). G I N S B E R G seems not to have ') See above, notes on pronunciation, item (e). 2 ) A consonant count I have made in Deut. xxxii shows g there to have a frequency of only 0.84%, making it the third rarest consonant (only s and t are less frequent). 3 ) My count in Deut. xxxii yields a frequency of 1.4%. 4 ) As stated in p. 5 5 , note 5 , G I N S B E R G first made his suggestion in JBL 5 7 ( 1 9 3 8 ) , pp. 2 0 9 - 1 3 ; he repeated it in JBL 6 2 ( 1 9 4 3 ) , pp. 1 1 1 - 1 2 , note 5 . The Ugaritic passage is I Aqhat 4 4 - 4 5 ; see also J . P R I T C H A R D , AN ET, p. 1 5 3 , note 3 4 .

noticed what is undoubtedly another instance of the word ‫ שרע‬in the Old Testament, Deut. xxxii 2, where the M.T. ‫שעירם‬, as in our verse, is in parallel with ‫טל‬, ‫( מטר‬and ‫ רביבים‬as well) 1). Since the plural of this word evidently stood originally in Deut. xxxii 2, I should like to propose a construct plural here in our passage: ‫שרעי‬, for reasons of assonance that I shall discuss below. I should also like to propose a verb in the second line: ‫·אל־טל יפל‬ Many critics have suggested that a verb be supplied here, since the ancient Versions give some evidence of the presence of a verb 2). Against supplying a verb are two arguments: (1) the M.T. can be made to yield sense without it, and (2) the Ugaritic passage parallel to this one does not have a verb. But there are convincing reasons 3 to supply a verb. One reason is that W does not make a stress in poetry ), so that, lacking a verb, line 2 would seem to carry only one stress. It might be argued, of course, that this portion of the verse consists of three lines only ('/-//.. . lykm then making up one line); but against this argument is the chiastic form of v. 21b, which not only has four lines but which offers also, as we shall see, a close formal reflection of v. 21a. Those critics who insert a verb choose a variety of positions for it; I suggest insertingyippöl after 'al-tall 4) for the following reasons. (1) The words hry and tl were pronounced barré and tall·, these two words with double liquids then balance assonantically, leaving the possibility of a strong assonantal balance of *yippöl with baggilbö (And: a derivation of *gibbö ‫ ז‬has been suggested for gilbö<5)·, if a pronunciation *baggibbö' was current in David's day, the assonance would be even stronger.) (2) The words *yippöl and lalêkem, in the same position in adjoining lines, would offer an example of the break-up of stereotyped phrases 1

) So G. E . W R I G H T , citing a suggestion of Frank CROSS, Jr., in "The Lawsuit of God," in Israel's Prophetic Heritage, Essays in Honor of fames Muilenburg, ed. by B. W . A N D E R S O N and W . H A R R E L S O N , p. 2 7 , note 5 . 2 ) E.g. S M I T H ( I C C ) , citing the L X X , suggestsyērēd\ K I T T E L (in Bibl. Hebr.a) suggests yērēd or yippöl. The L X X and the Targum suggest a reading of yērēd, the Lucianic recension of the LXX suggests yippöl·, the Vulg. veniant would seem to be a secondary periphrasis, and the Pesh. omits any verb. But it is possible that all the Versions which offer a verb are simply paraphrasing. 3 ) On this matter see recently Hans K O S M A L A , in VT 14 (1964), p. 426. 4 ) Against K I T T E L (in Bibl. Hebr.3) who suggests a verb just before lykm, and against H E R T Z B E R G , who suggestsyipp e lû after 1lykm. 5 ) See the K O E H L E R - B A U M G A R T N E R Lexicon ad loc., and the bibliography there.

found in early Hebrew poetry, where two portions of a standard phrase appear in parallel lines 1 ). (3) Most convincingly of all, the five units (a) harrê baggilbö‫י‬ (*baggibböc ?), (b) *jippôl, (c) C «lêkem, (d) *//JT>, and (e) * c h ô m â t form striking assonance with material in vv. 18-19, in reverse order oj units·. (e) jehûdâ, (d) yišrā^ēl [or, with (d) and (e) taken together, *f/s'r'j *tehômôt balancing yisra'el bâmôtekâ, since *t e hômôt would seem to be a nice middle term betweeny e hûdâ and bâmôtékâ], (c) V/è, (b) nāpelû, a n d (a)

gibbôrîm.

Omission of *yippā/ in the M.T. would then have arisen by haplography of the /. And though it is not an item that weighs strongly in the balance of evidence, it is nevertheless true that supplying *yippo/ overcomes a possible assymetry in the poem. We have already noted, at the end of the discussion of vv. 18-19, the hint of inner assonance between nāpelû and gibbôrîm. Now at the end of v. 23 there is the word gāberû, which has the root letters of gibbôrîm and the vowels of nāpelû\ this raises the question as to whether there is a word anywhere in the poem offering the reverse. The word *jippöl, from the root npl with the consonant-vowel pattern of gibbôr, fits admirably, and is the only candidate. We have, then, the following text : ‫הרי בגלבע‬ ‫אל־טל ·יפל‬ ‫ל י כ ם‬- ‫ ר ע‬TT ‫־א ל ־ מ ט‬ ‫יזהומת‬

‫ושרעי‬:·

The two syntactical divergences from standard Hebrew here are easily dealt with. The particle ‫י‬aI is separated from its verb, but Ps. vi 2 offers a good parallel 2). Then there is a preposition in the midst of a construct chain ; but G E V I R T Z 3) and D A H O O D 4) offer many instances of this usage in early Hebrew poetry. As reconstructed, then, these four lines offer a tension between two forms. Syntactically it is of the form A B B ‫ ׳‬B", while semantically and assonantally it is of the form A B B ' A‫ ;׳‬and, as we shall see, 1 ) See the bibliography on this device in p. 67, note 2, and see the discussion in the accompanying text. 2 ) See also the discussion in G E S E N I U S - K A U T Z S C H Gramm., 152 h. 3 ) Op. cit., p. 85, note 40, with references. 4 ) See his Psalms I, p. 52, for examples; and his Psalms II, p. 338, on Ps. xcii 13, "cedar in Lebanon," and further p. 281 in that volume.

this tension is precisely mirrored in the second half of the verse, v. 21b. (1) Syntactically we have a vocative in the opening line, followed by three lines naming three sources of fertility. (2) Semantically and assonantally we have tall and matar, a fixed parallel, in lines 2 and 3, both referring to sources of fertility from above, and both words with t; these balances lines 1 and 4, with "mountains" and "deeps," referring to what lies below. And therefore we may raise the question as to whether there is not assonantal balance between lines one and four; we may have here a clue or two about the vocalization of the word šjšr^y. My suggestion of the form šarlê or s'ar'ê (there is no evidence by which to choose between the sibilants) is based upon the following considerations : (1) Deut. xxxii 2 seems to have the word in the plural, so a plural construct here is possible. (2) The word harre (in line 1) has r as the second consonant, and is in the plural construct. A form like šarlê or sar'ê would fit the assonantal pattern nicely. (3) The assonance of lines 1 and 4 is further reinforced by the patterns of baggilbö‫ י‬and tehômôt\ repeated stops (b-b, t-t) and 0 plus final consonant in each case. (4) And if one may look ahead, the first line of v. 21b, containing samm nigral, would seem also to suggest that our word has the form ία- or sa- and the form consonant + short vowel -+‫ ־‬consonant -f‫־‬c—. There are two possible patterns of assonance between this half-verse and v. 20: (1) bagg- in the first line here balances -tagg- in the first line of v. 20; and perhaps (2) * ( j ) p l plus lly{k)m in lines 2 and 3 here balance pl(ìtym) plus (h) '(ry)lym in the last two lines of v. 20. The chiastic echo of this half-verse with vv. 18-19 has already been discussed ; but it should be emphasized that the growing pattern of inner balance within a line, even though the lines are now much shorter, will lead us steadily toward the heart of the poem in v. 23. I refer to the inner assonances in vv. 18-19 (words with shewa, etc.) and in v. 20 (-taggîdû. . . gatt, etc.), and, in this half-verse: double liquid + double stop, and b + b in line 1 ; double liquid -f double stop, and yal-tall (plus *-01) in line 2; W and two syllables + (aland two syllables in line 3; / -j- /, and an echo of the key words yis'râ'êl and yehûdá side by side in line 4.

v.

21b

The text needs only one slight emendation, and then gives perfect sense, so that it is surprising that G E V I R T Z does not attempt to deal with this portion, convinced (as he says) of the "apparently rambling and quite uncertain structure of the parallelism" 1). My judgment is quite the contrary; one sees here a very careful structure which will turn out to mirror that of v. 21a. There are only two problems. First, the emendation: the third word from the end, belt, is surely *kelî, as was suggested long ago by G R A E T Z 2) ; we may note in passing that kelê occurs in v. 2 7 in a context which will reinforce our conviction of its existence in the present verse. Second, there is uncertainty whether one should read the next-to-last word as māšîah (with most mss. and printed editions) or māšûah (with about 2 0 mss.). Much depends upon the syntax of the last three words; critics are divided as to whether the word refers to Saul or to his shield. I would suggest that there is a double meaning here, even the hint of a triple meaning. (1) The word *ke/1 may be taken as an appositive with māgēn, and "anointed" as a modifier of *kelt: "the shield of Saul, (which is) an instrument smeared/anointed with oil." A shield is oiled before battle (Isa. xxi 5). (2) Again *kelî may be taken as an appositive with māgēn, but in status constructus with "anointed": "the shield of Saul, the instrument of one anointed with oil," i.e. of the king; note, for example, 1 Sam. xxiv 6, when David said to his men, "The Lord forbid that I should. . . put forth my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord's anointed." If there is a double meaning here, then the reading must be māšûah, which would satisfy alternative (1). But there is also (3) a third possibility, that *kelî is in apposition with "Saul": "the shield of Saul, (who is) an instrument (for war) anointed with oil"—a possibility made plain in the final line of the poem in v. 27. Therefore we have: ‫כ י שם נ ג ע ל‬ ‫מגן גבוו־ים‬ ‫מגן ש א ו ל‬ :‫ ו ח בעמן‬0 ‫· כ ל י ) * ( מ‬ 1

) Op. cit., p. 87, note 47. ) Geschichte der Juden, I ( 1 8 7 2 ) , pp. 2 2 4 ff, cited in S M I T H ( I C C ) . This reading is mentioned by K I T T E L (in Bibl. Hebr.3) and as a possibility by H E R T Z B E R G . 2

There was some uncertainty in the minds of earlier critics about the meaning of nigral in line 1 1 ), but the meaning "was defiled" is accepted in the K O E H L E R - B A U M G A R T N E R Lexicon. This half-verse offers a dazzling display of assonance, but formally we again have a tension between the syntactic form (Α Β Β' Β") and the semantic and assonantal form (Α Β Β' A.(‫׳‬ 1)) in the following three lines. (2) On the other hand, the two lines with māgēn form a strong inner pair, and though there is assonantal balance between (š)m ng(Ί) in line 1 and mgn in lines 2 and 3 and between lines 3 and 4 (the vowel pattern of sa'ûland māšûh, consonants of m(g)n /(V/) -j- mš(wh) (b)šmn), the strongest assonantal balance is that between lines 1 and 4: samm (line 1) and samn (line 4) 2), and ki + (nigfa)l (line 1) and *keli (line 4). We note also the number of stresses in each line is of the pattern 3 + 2 -f- 2 + 3 (ki carries a stress of it own) 3). There is also a delicate semantic contrast between line 1 ("was defiled") and line 4 ("anointed with oil"). Verse 21b is therefore an exact formal echo of v. 21a. The form (tension between A B B ' B" and A B B ' A‫ )׳‬is reinforced by other types of balance between the two half-verses. (1) Syntactically there is chiasmus: v. 21a offered a noun (the vocative) in line 1 followed by three lines that are quasi-verbal (the one [restored] verb), the twice-repeated ,a/, the parallelisms); v. 21b offers a verb in line 1 followed by three lines that are nounphrases. (2) The last word of the first line of v. 21a (baggilbö') is in assonance with the last word of the first line of v. 21b (nigral); and perhaps, as we have seen, (?) sar'e/s'ar'e in line 4 of v. 21a balances samm niglal in line 1 of v. 21b. (3) The last word of the first line of v. 21a {baggilbö1) is morphologically in balance with the last word of the last line of v. 21b (bassamn) — be + article + noun ; again we have the device of inclusion, framing all eight lines. If we look now at the structure of vv. 18-21 en bloc, we see: (1) V. 21 continues the high frequency of the consonant ,g; and there

1

)

2

S e e D R I V E R , op. cit.,

ad

loc.

) See above, notes on pronunciation, items (c) and (d). 3 ) See K O S M A L A in VT 14 (1964), p. 426.

also seems to be assonance between mí(w)h (b)šmn in v. 21b and (t)šmhn(h) in v. 20, though this is not structurally significant. (2) The general length of the lines in vv. 18-20 and in v. 20 is four units; the general length of the lines of v. 21 is two units. (3) The parallelism of v. 20 is completely normal, line 1 balancing line 2, and line 3 balancing line 4; rhythmically and formally, around this center, w . 18-19 balance v. 21: vv. 18-19 give the strong impression of three lines of four stresses plus one line of refrain, while v. 21 offers the double form of one line plus three, one line plus three, each line usually with two stresses. (4) V. 21 echoes vv. 18-19 in another way, by the reappearance of the word gibbôrîm. Here it is in parallel with sa'ûl; earlier it was found in the vicinity of yiira'êl—a circumstance which suggests that David plans to offer wordplay on jisrāyē/ and sà'ûl. And one more point: if the occurrence of gibbôrîm in this verse ties the verse to vv. 18-19, its parallel sà'ûl (the first appearance of the name of one of the two heroes) ties this verse to those that follow. v.

22

The text of this verse gives tolerably good sense, but two matters need to be dealt with. The less crucial one is that since ‫ קשת‬is feminine, 1 one should no doubt read ‫ תשרג‬instead of ‫)נשוג‬. But the more important matter is discussed by G E V I R T Z 2), rightly, I believe: the parallelism between halālîm and gibbôrîm at the beginning of the verse is not right, though it does reflect the (synthetic or antithetic) parallelism of v. 19. But in those verses we had a strong contrast between the fighting warriors and the dead; here, by contrast, "blood" and "fat," fixed parallels, imply a close synonymous parallelism between both lines. The following factors are pertinent to our analysis. (1) The phrase dam hālāl\halālîm appears twice in the early material of the O.T. : in the second oracle of Balaam, Num. xxiii 24 (plural), and in the Song of Moses, Deut. xxxii 42 (singular) 3). (2) As we have just said, the contrastive pairing hālāl and gibbôrîm occurs in v. 19, and in our discussion on this portion we noted that this pair represents an ironic word-play on the standard phrase gibbôrê hayil (and we remind 1

)

So BUDDE ( K H C ) a n d

GRESSMANN.

2

) Op. cit., pp. 88-89. 3 ) G E V I R T Z notices this, op. cit., p. 8 8 , note a clue to the patterning of the poem here.

48,

but sees it as a difficulty, not as

ourselves, both words offer *h, not h). (3) The word gibbôrîm occurs in the second line of the present verse. For these reasons, as well as by the argumentation from fixed parallels which G E V I R T Z uses, I am convinced that he is right in positing some form of the root of hajil in the first line; he suggests an otherwise unattested agent noun *hayjālîm, which is quite plausible 1). It should be noted in passing that word-plays are peculiarly succeptible to lapsus calami·, we shall see another suspected example in v. 25. We have then: ‫מדם ·חילים‬ ‫מ ח ל ב גבוו־ים‬ ‫ק ש ת י ה ו נ ת ן ל א *תשוג א ח ו ר‬ : ‫ ם‬I‫ ק‬Τ ‫ת ש ו ב~ ר י‬Τ ‫ש א ו ל ל א‬Τ ‫ר ב‬V ‫ו ח‬V s

If this reconstruction is correct, then the first two lines offer us not only the complicated set of word-plays just analysed, but a drum-beat of consonant, vowel and syllable patterning, notably the pattern of consonant, short vowel, and double consonant at the beginning of each word: midd&m

*hajj2\im

mihhe\h

gibbôrîm,

a patterning which should somewhat reassure us about the reconstruction of *hayyālim. In these two lines we meet two new thought-patterns as well: the word gibbôrîm refers now not to Israel's own soldiers but to the enemy, and the words "blood" and "fat" suggest the metaphor of enemy soldiers as a sacrifice 2). The last two lines likewise exhibit close synonymous parallelism; most of the material consists of fixed parallels. The thought continues that of v. 21b; there the defensive weapon, Saul's shield, was named; here, by contrast, the poet mentions two offensive weapons. One notes the two segholate nouns qa'st and harb in lines 3 and 4 (echoing hēlb in line 2 as well), and the vowel-consonant balance of the two verbs *tissôg and tāšûb. But what may not be so obvious is the inner assonance of consonants (in reverse order) within both line 3 and line 4 : qst balances *tsg, and (in a real tour de force of five 1

) The form of this hypothetical noun may be somewhat reinforced by hayyêbem, v. 23. In transcriptions I shall hereafter use h: *hqyyālim. 2 ) On this see G E V I R T Z , op. cit., p. 88.

consonants) (h)rb P(w)l balances Γ {f)s[w)b r(jqm). Such consonant reversals are the kind of thing we found in vv. 18-19 (mr bk[y]balancing gbrm). They also should serve as a gentle argument in favor of the emended verb *tiss6g here. And one more point on the assonance of lines 3 and 4: they contain "seeds" of v. 26 (the verse about Jonathan) and v. 24 (the verse about Saul) respectively : v. 26 contains the words ‫י‬āhîyeh0nātān Qāhî is Ìāhî), while here we ha\e.y e hônatan... *âhôr\ while a key word of v. 24, lbs "clothe," is suggested by /(' t)šb here. The most remarkable assonantal symmetry of the whole verse, however, has already been noted 1 ): hi in the last word of line 1, hlb in the first word of line 2, hr in the last word of line 3, and hrb in the first word of fine 4. (Note that this symmetry is valid whether or not we accept the emendation of hliym). And each of these two inner pairs is lightly balanced chiastically by the corresponding outer pairs: double voiced stop in the second consonant position (mi^am, gibbôûm) and by the two occurrences of q (qaši, rêqām). As for word-plays and assonances beyond the verse, there are several to be noted. (1) with vv. 18-19: (a) (nÌ)dm H(y) l(jm) here balances [b)mt(yk) hll there, and (mh)lb gbrym here balances (n)pl(w) gbrym there: that is, in both cases we have reversal of consonants—mt/dm, pl/lb, and in both cases a voiceless-voiced alternation ; (b) qašt yehânātān here echoes qešat *nehî there, helping us slightly to have confidence in our reconstruction of those words in v. 18. (2) with v. 20: qast in line 3 here, and harb in line 4 here, balance ‫י‬asqelôn in line 2 there, and *rehôb in line 1 there; and not only are the units reversed in order of appearance, but there is a reversal of the first two consonants in each combination (qf/sq; hrjrh: both these are true h, not h). This kind of symmetry with respect to the balances with both vv. 18-19 and v. 20 can scarcely be coincidental. v. 23 The text offers no problems: ‫ש א ו ל ויהונתן‬ ‫הנאהבים והגעימם‬ ‫בחייהם ובמותם‬ ‫דו‬A ‫ר‬T‫ פ‬:‫ל א · נ‬ 1

) See above, notes on pronounciation, item (f).

‫מגשרים ק ל ו‬ ‫ ״ו‬Τ

Τ ‫־‬: -

ever concerned for fixed parallels, suggests adding dbqw or htlkdiv after bhyjhm ("in their life they stuck together, in their death they were not parted"), but the text makes sense as it stands, and general metrical considerations, as we shall see, favor leaving it unchanged 1). Each of the first three lines contains two words in parallelism with each other; such compact parallelism is highly unusual. The grouping of these words has always been open to uncertainty (an uncertainty already reflected in the Versions): (1) "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely in their life; and in their death they were not divided", and (2) "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely, in their life and in their death they were not divided" 2). Both groupings are possible, and no doubt both are intended. The grouping given above seems truest to the structure of the poem, but the possibility of alternative (1) would offer an example of enjambment 3). It now emerges that vv. 22-23 form a tight, balanced unit, the central portion of the poem. The unit is strongly framed (inclusion) in two ways: (1) by the two nouns with min which begin v. 22 and the two which end v. 23; and (2) by the assonantal balance between *hayyālîm (or halālîm) + gibbôrîm at the beginning of v. 22 and qallû and gāberû 4) at the end of v. 23. We have "Jonathan" and "Saul" in v. 22 balancing "Saul" and "Jonathan" in v. 23; and the connectives /0', 1ve + /0', we, we, /0' 5 ). There is a general metrical balance: two short "«?/«"-lines, two long lines, four short lines, and then two "min"-lines once more; and of course the format offered here, of four short lines, is somewhat arbitrary, and could plausibly be two long lines. The parallelisms within the present verse are obvious and are GEVIRTZ,

1

) Thus I reject the tentative suggestion of H E R T Z B E R G that the longer L X X text reflects the original wording and that the M T was reduced by haplography. 2 ) For alternative (1): the M T accents; the Vulgate. For (2): the Peshitta. The Targum could represent either. The longer L X X text seems to be a kind of conflation of the two alternatives. Modern critics likewise divide on the grouping of these words. 3 ) D A H O O D has found many examples of enjambment in the Psalms; see the indices to his volumes under "enjambment." 4 ) If the h is really b, then the assonance with q would be more pronounced. Compare also the assonance discussed in (f) below. 5 ) These are the only occurrences of /0' in the poem.

mostly fixed parallels. As for assonance, we note that the attributes of Saul and Jonathan are of the form harm- plus guttural. The most striking balance between material here and material outside the verse is: (a) between behayyêhem ûbemôtâm here and middam *hayyālîm in v. 22 (thus to some degree reinforcing our reconstruction of *hayyālîm there). Beyond this balance, the basic balances are with material in vv. 18-19. Thus: (b) "Saul" and "Jonathan" here are parallel to "Judah" and "Israel" there; (c) the two words with hann- here balance *hinnāsēb (if correct) there; (d) (b)hyy(hm) (w)bmwt(m) here balances bmwty(k) hll there; (e) nipr^dû here balances nāpelû there (we recall that pê is a quite infrequent consonant); (f) gāberû is a middle term between nāpelû and gibbôrîm, and its partner qallû balances hālāl; and (g) nsrym reinforces the sibilant-plus-r combination begun by yāšār and y isrâ'êl in v. 19 (and continued by tebaššerû in v. 20). v. 24 There are two textual questions in this verse. (1) There has been some uneasiness on the part of scholars regarding 1dnym; thus H E R T Z B E R G and G E V I R T Z , on the basis of the L X X , wish to emend it to ‫י‬dyym. But this is unnecessary for two reasons: (a) the root lbs occurs twice in the verse, but this does not imply that the root l dy must occur twice ; and (b) more persuasively, 'dnym is in assonantal parallelism with nlmt in v. 2 6 , as we shall see. The Lexicon of K O E H L E R and B A U M G A R T N E R offers the translation of "finery" for cdnym here, which makes perfectly good sense. (2) The suffix -kem in hammalbiškem must be emended to *-ken, not simply for the sake of consistency, but more particularly because the assonance with P(w)l bk(j)n(tì) would seem to demand *(hm)lbškn. Therefore : ‫ה‬τ ‫כ י נ‬ν ‫ ב‬:‫־ ש א ו ל‬τ‫ א ל‬ν ‫ש*·ר א ל‬τ ‫ת י‬: ‫ב נ· ו‬

:

‫* ה מ ל ב ^ כ ן עני ע ם ?גמים‬ : ‫ה מ ע ל ה ?גדי ז ה ב ע ל ־ ל ב ו ק י כ ן‬

One wonders whether to set up this verse as four lines (dividing line 1 above) or as three. In favor of four lines in the hint of chiasmus

within line 1 (bn[wt y]š[r‫־‬Y I parallel with 7-/'[»>]/ b[ky]t1[H]), which would parallel the strong chiasmus of lbs + 'd + ld -f- 1bš in lines 2 and 3; but the resemblance between lines 1 and lines in vv. 18 and 20 ("daughters," "Israel," "weep") lead us to the format here given. The structure and the parallelism of the verse are clear without further comment; but one might notice the following assonances: (a) three assonances within lines: (lb)š(k)n šrt(y), lm-\dny)m, and (hm)11(h)... 7; (b) two hiphil participles which offer hamm-l-\ (c) as noted above in the textual notes, /( V)/ bk(j)n(h) balances *1bškn. As we have already seen, the references here to "daughters," "Israel," and "weep" send us back to the beginning of the poem and reinforce the impression that vv. 22-23 were the central portion of the poem. Beyond the parallels already noted between words here and words earlier in the poem, we may note the following assonances : (a) benôt not only echoes v. 20, but bemôt- in v. 24 as well; (b) the two hiphil participles with hamm- echo the two parallel words with hann- in v. 23 ; (c) the words
) He reads yehânātān cal-bamôt betôk halālim.

however, made a brilliant suggestion which, though I think not quite correct as it stands, may be supported and sharpened. If we were correct in positing a verb before ‫ז‬l-bmwtyk hll in v. 19, then it is likely, says G E V I R T Z , that we have a verb or verb-phrase here; and I should like to suggest, since "Israel" preceded "Saul" in v. 24, that what we have here is word-play on "Jonathan," the name which follows in the first line of v. 2 6 . Though G E V I R T Z ' suggestion, *jhj *ntn, "let there be a mourning cry," would meet the needs of word-play, I believe it to be linguistically unacceptable 1 ). But he mentions another possibility in a footnote query which to me is more promising 2). In Judg. xi 40 letannôt, evidently the piel infinitive of a verb tnh, is unanimously translated in the Versions as "to lament" 3). I would make a great leap into the dark and suggest a derived noun from the piel stem, *tinnâyôn (like killayôn from killa). Such a word would fit the requirements of word-play on yehônâtân and would make good assonantal balance with *hinnaseb, the key word which we have posited at the other occurrence of 1l-bmwtyk hll in v. 1 9 4). And one might suggest, rather than G E V I R T Z ' *YHY, the possibility of *yhw, the expected jussive of the related verb hivh "be," as being closer to yehônâtân. At any rate, we may at lease surmise some such word-play here, which caused copyists to stumble5). Therefore : ‫איך נ פ ל ו גבורים‬ ‫?תוך המלחמה‬ : ‫*יהו ·תניון)?( ע ל ־ ב מ ו ת י ף ח ל ל‬ ‫ )י‬H e posits (op. cit., p. 82) the word ntn on the basis of Keret C i 4 , 1 8 ( G O R D O N ' S text 125), where G I N S B E R G (The Legend of King Keret, p. 44) reads Intn as "for mourning". Unfortunately more recent scholars have not accepted G I N S B E R G ' S suggested reading of the repeated Ugaritic line, which remains obscure; G. R. D R I V E R (Canaanite Myths and Legends) translates ntn as "stinking decay," citing a meaning of the Arabic natana\ G . D . Y O U N G (Concordance of Ugaritic) refers it simply to the verb ytn "give" without explication; D A H O O D (Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology, p. 66) says ntn is apparently a variant o f y t n "give". The Keret line, then, is certainly too slender a reed on which to base a reconstructed text in our passage. 2 ) Op. cit., p. 82, note 36. 3 ) The lexica also refer to another occurrence of this verb, in Judg. ν 11, but the text in the latter verse in dubious. 4 ) There are other possibilities, of course: *tannût (like gālût from gala), or the noun *nod "lament" which D A H O O D believes he has located in Ps. lvi 9 (see his Psalms II ad loc.), related to the root nwd which is parallel with bkh in Jer. xxii 10 and with spd in Jer. xvi 5. 5 ) Cf. the discussion on this matter above, under v. 22, at the end of the first paragraph.

As we have already seen, this verse offers a variation on the last two lines of vv. 18-19, here in reverse order. The word gibbôrîm comes first, emphasizing its collocation to sa'ûl in v. 24, as the two words were in parallelism (in reverse order!) in v. 21b. The second line here offers new material, but we notice that btwk (h)mlhm(h) offers a fine assonantal balance to bmwt(j)k hll (but there is contrast here between h and h); and it may also be permissible to speculate that benôt in v. 24 is the middle term between betôk and *tinnayôn or whatever other t-n or n-d word originally stood here. Question: why does the article occur here with milhāmâ, since it is absent in v. 27? Is it some matter of syllable-count which we do not understand? Or is it simply that since the double hann- in v. 23 was an echo of *hinn(āsēb) in v. 19, so the double hamm- in v. 24 is echoes by the single hamm- here? v. 26

The text of the verse stands. ‫אחי‬ • τ ‫עליף‬ I ν τ‫צר־לי‬ ‫מאד‬: ‫נעמת לי‬ τ : -‫יהונתן‬ τ Iττ :‫נפלאתה אהבונף לי מאןזבת בשים‬ The vocalization of npPth has occasioned some discussion 1). It seems clear that the 'aleph is necessary because of assonance with material in v. 27. as we shall see. While it is true that the expected form here would be ‫נפלאת‬, like the form in Deut. xxx 11, we may have here an archaic form because of the assonance with Ìahabātekā which follows, and with the repeated nāpelû\ so it is best to leave the vocalization as the MT gives it. But if the text is dependable, the division into lines here would seem most uncertain. What shall we do? One's initial impulse is to put the two verbs with «—tā in the first position in adjoining lines; this leaves jehânātān at the end of line 1. Such a division would follow the Masoretic scheme of accentuation (jehônâtân carries ^āqeph and mei5d carries atnāh). But I think it is not so; when the lines are divided as I have done, the number of units in each line evens out (// is no doubt enclitic in each line, and therefore we have 3 + 3 + 4),2), and assonances emerge which are essentially chiastic within each line: 1 2

) See, recently, the K O E H L E R - B A U M G A R T N E R Lexiconpp. ) This is also J A H N O W ' S division.

759-60 and 761.

-a-lî 'ā-lé-kā ‫י‬a-hî1) -e-ô- nā-tā- nā-tā -e-ôn- yahabāt- yahabat η-. There also is a possible assonance between lines 2 and 3, where m'd in line 2 (and the two syllables before it) balances m^(hb)t in line 3 (and the two syllables before it). Nevertheless, the alternative ways of dividing the verse suggest a "freedom" of structure here which is quite fitting as a vehicle for the most direct emotion of the whole poem. But if the structure of this "Jonathan" verse seems somewhat free in itself, its structure is clarified in relation to v. 24, the "Saul" verse, which it closely matches. There is "inclusion": v. 24 begins with "daughters," v. 26 ends with "women". But there is a vast difference between the two verses : in v. 24 the daughters of Israel are addressed and told to weep over Saul, while here Jonathan himself is addressed and it is the poet who weeps over Jonathan. The two verses match assonantically : v. 24 line 1 : lines 2 and 3:

yisra'el {1ālékā yāhî 1 dn(y)m ^āhāb šānî cim

v. 26 sarr-lî bekénâ) n^mt ^ah0-bat nāšîm.

Structurally one is drawn to the conviction that v. 24 offers an independent line plus two matching lines, and that this is balanced by v. 26, which offers two matching lines plus an independent line. The placement of the MT 5atnāh in each case (under bekénâ and under meÌād) suggests this; so does the syntax—in v. 24 the two hiphil participles in the matching lines, in v. 26 the two vocatives. We may therefore conclude that structurally the two verses are mirror-images of each other (hence the format of indentation in the text as given). The verse offers assonances with many other verses besides v. 24, however. We have: (a) npPth balances the repeated occurrences of the verb npl in the poem; and beyond this, (b) there is a strong tie between line 1 here and the last line of v. 25—not only the presumed word-play on the name "Jonathan," 1

) Note that in the middle unit of line 1 ( 1 ālékā) the -li- points back to li, and the -kā points forward to

but also the fact that -êkā 'āb- here echoes -êkā hā- there (and in v. 19) ; (c) there are ties to v. 23, the second "Saul and Jonathan" verse— the pairing of the roots nlm and ‫ג‬hb (in reverse order!), and the miscellaneous assonances niple'átâ here and nipredû there, mP'ababat here and mi"arâyôt there, and nāSîm here and nešārim there; (d) there is a strong tie to v. 22, mentioned before: ' ābî yebânātān here andyebônâtân. .. ‫י‬âhôr there; (e) there is a quite notable assonance with v. 21b: ('ababāte)kā It m(iÌÌa)baba(t) nāšîm here parallel with kelî m(āšû)b bassamn there; (f) in v. 21a, barré and mātār Íalêkem are echoed by sarr-lî *ālékā here (emphatic consonants t and s) ; (g) finally, line 1 of the present verse balances several features of vv. 18-19: sarr-lt 'ālékā echoes *ye/ē/ *marr *bekê, *leyāšār, and yisrâ'ël bāmâtékā. v. 27 The text needs no emendation. ‫איך נפלו גבורים‬ :‫ויא?דו ?לי מלחמה‬

Here is the refrain once more, this time in the first fine as in v. 25. The word nāpelû then follows soon after nipl^átâ in v. 26. The last line of the poem contains the common phrase kelê mìlhāmâ 1), with a verb which is new to the poem, 'bd. Yet this last line is able in an extraordinary way to pick up earlier themes. (a) The word kelê of course echoes *k e lt in v. 21, and the third possibility among the references of *kelt there (i.e. that the word could refer to Saul) is here substantiated by the the verb 'bd. (b) Not only does milbāmâ repeat bammilbāmâ in v. 25, but the preceding words in each line echo as well : (wayya')bedû ke(Jê) milbāmâ here, betôk (bam)milhāmâ there. (c) Finally, this last line of the poem marvelously echoes the last line of v. 26 : (n>ayy)a'bedti kelê mi[lhāmâ) here, 'a(h a )bāt e kā lí mi("ahabat) there 2). We began our verse-by-verse commentary by regretting the massive emendation necessary to restore the lines of v. 18. It is unnecessary to review the assonances of the rest of the poem which 1

) See, e.g. Judg. xviii 11, 16, 17; 1 Sam. viii 12. ) One cannot be sure of the transcription of the form of ‫נ‬bd, but it is at least certain that the 'aleph was phonemic and had not quiesced. 2

render the reconstruction given here a likely one; but we may perhaps affirm that the first word, *ye/ē/, contains the germ of the whole poem, a "howling" ofj e hûdâ and of yišrāV/ overj e hônâtân and over šā'û/. Nothing we have seen in the rest of the poem points away from the reconstruction given. Robert L O W T H long ago regretted our inability to learn anything of the pronunciation of Hebrew in ancient times. If we were to follow the rules for pronunciation "devised by the modern Jews/' he wrote, "we must be under the necessity of confession, not only, what we at present experience, that the Hebrew poetry possesses no remains of sweetness or harmony, but that it never was possessed of any" 1). It is to be hoped that our attention to the "harmony" of David's lament has mitigated a bit L O W T H ' S confession of regret over what has been lost. We began this study by noting the purely secular quality of the poem. Now, in the light of the word-plays of the lament, it becomes astonishing that David made no use of the derivation of Jonathan's name in the course of the poem: there is no mention here of Yahweh or what he has given. Evidently the Gattung excluded such a possibility 2). There is no way, of course, to analyze completely the creative process by which a poem comes to be. Yet it would seem, if the foregoing analysis is correct, that we have come closer, for one poem at least, to understanding the way it takes shape, the means by which the poetic resources are laid hold of, than we have before. We have observed five interlocking resources at work: (1) the names of the lamented, and the primary word-plays on their names: "Saul," "Jonathan," suggesting "Israel," "Judah"; (2) the traditional vocabulary of laments: "weep," "wail," "my brother," and the expected eulogy for heroes: bravery in war, generosity, fidelity; (3) fixed parallels, and, in general, the whole patterning of semantic parallelism; (4) assonance, by which consonant clusters and vowel patterns are exploited for new resources; (5) forms of structure within the line, between lines, between groups of lines, and among the larger blocks of material in the poem. Resources (1) and (2) are characteristic, it would seem, of the specific lament-Gattung. The matter of parallelism, resource (3), has of course been explored by a host of scholars, and the convention of fixed parallels by G E V I R T Z and others. Resource (4) has been somewhat neglected, so that 1

) Op. cit., Lecture III. ) So E. JACOB, "Mourning," in Interpr. Diet, of the Bible, III, 454a.

2

any analysis of resource (5) has tended to be somewhat impressionistic. But all of them are at work in our poem, and it is in their interaction that the poem takes shape. Thus one gains the impression that the production of successive lines in our poem often occurs by an oscillation between the expectations of fixed parallels and the resources of assonance. For example, in v. 21a, the wordpairs harre baggilhö' and *šarCé/sar'ê *tehômôt share assonantal features with each other, and the second pair shares some assonance with the basic pair "Israel," "Judah." This second pair further evokes the traditional fixed parallels tall and mātār. Now if one "cancels out" the consonants of the two word-pairs, we find b balancing b in baggilböc, and t balancing t in *tehômôt; the r in harrê balances the r in *sar'ê/sar'ê, the h in harrê balances the h in *tehômôt, and the ' in baggilbö‫ י‬balances the c in *lar'e/sar' ê. This leaves the "orphans" £ and / in baggilböc (if the I is original here) and / and m in *sar'ê/sar'ê *tehômôt. These consonants are the "seeds" for the first line of v. 21b, kî šamm nigral, and the cluster m-n-g in this line produces māgēn in the second line. Thereupon we meet semantic parallelism again, with māgēn gibbôrîm and māgēn sa'ûl. It would be interesting to investigate elsewhere in O.T. poetry the possibility of similar oscillation between the resources of semantic parallelism and of assonance 1). As we survey the total structure of the poem, we are struck by the impression of an "hour-glass" which we gain. We begin with lines of four stresses in vv. 18-20, but these four-stress lines break up in v. 21 into two-stress lines with chiastic form. In the meantime there emerges the device of inner assonance (within a given line), which begin a four-stress line in v. 20 Qal-taggîdû. . . gatt) and continues in the two-stress lines of v. 21 (baggilböc, *tehömöt). The sense of steady tightening continues in v. 22 with the variety of word-associations, and the drum-beat of doubled consonants, of middam *hayyālîm mihhēlb gibbôrîm-, the tightening relaxes slightly in the last two lines of v. 22, which are long again, but is continued in another way with the continued assonantal patterns of q and hjh and the very precise parallelism both of meaning and sound, and above all, by names of the two dead heroes side by side, names which anticipate l ) I have observed a similar feature in Jer. xxiii 1-4: " T h e whole oracle emerges . . . as an echo chamber of sound and meaning, a given colon [line] offering balance of one sort with a preceding colon and balance of another sort with a following one." JBL 85 (1966), p. 423.

the explosion of ν. 23. V. 23, as we have said before, is the pivot of the poem, offering the extraordinary inner parallelisms within two-stress lines. "Saul" and "Jonathan" point both forward and backward; the two adjectives in hann- are new words, nuclei of new assonances in vv. 24 and 26; behayyéhem points back to *hayyālîm and its word-play partners, as does bemôtâm to bâmôt- and its partners, but both point forward to v. 25 as well. The two short closing lines of v. 23 balance the two at the beginning of v. 22, rounding off the middle of the "hour-glass". Then we have a new beginning which is at the same time foreshadowed by the beginning and the middle of the poem : a verse about Saul, with a variation of the refrain, and then a verse about Jonathan, closing with another variation of the refrain. In the "hour-glass" sense, then, there is the symmetry of a grand plan of A Β A' to the total poem. But David shapes a sense of direction and progress in the poem as well as the A B A ' structure. This sense of progress he accomplishes by a skewing of the symmetry in the direction of the end of the poem, by shortening given units of the poem as the poem progresses: the last section, vv. 24-27, is shorter in number of words and lines than vv. 18-21 were, and the refrain-verses shorten: vv. 18-19 offer four lines, v. 25 three lines, and v. 27 two lines. At the same time the poem offers by its personal references a steadily increasing emotional intimacy in the language 1 ). We may conclude by observing that David faced a unique problem here: his lament is for two fallen heroes, with each of whom he had a very different relationship. Now it is never easy to compose a eulogy for two at the same time, and it is still harder to compose a eulogy for two when the relationships are so very different as David's with Saul and with Jonathan 2). He chose to eulogize the two men side by side by word-play with "Israel" and "Judah" (the non-parallel here is already indicative of the superior rank of Saul), to honor the king by naming him one more time than he named Jonathan, and to express his personal affection for Jonathan by direct address; and he unified the total poem by the remarkable series of interlocking word-plays, linking each verse to the next, and the whole with its parts. That he succeeded in a way which gives complete esthetic 1

) Jeremiah handled the problem of climax within an A Β A ' form by similar skewing; see JBL 85 (1966), pp. 431-433. 2 ) But A. B E N T Z E N goes too far when he speaks of David's insincerity over Saul's death (Intro, to the O. T., I, 136).

satisfaction is the measure of his skill. The judgment of T. H. R O B I N S O N is certainly justified: "We know nothing of David which presents him in a better light5' 1). APPENDIX: e

REFERENCE e

TEXT

IN

TRANSLITERATION

e

18)

*y lël *marr b k ê y h û d â q e š a t *n e hî * s e p ö d *1 e -yāšār

19)

*hinnāsēb yisrâ'ël C a1-bāmâtékā hā1ā1 >êk nāp e 1û g i b b ô r î m

20)

'al-taggîdû * b i r h ô b gatt >a1-t e bašš e rû b e h û s ô t >ašqe10n pen-tišmahnâ b e n ô t p e 1ištîm p e n - t a t a l ô z n â b e n ô t hagg a rē1îm

21 a)

harre baggilbö 1 ‫־‬ al-tall *yippöl w e 3 a1-mātār £a 1êkem w e -*šar C ê/šar C ê * t e h ô m ô t

21 b)

kî š a m m nig'al māgēn gibbôrîm m ā g ē n šā5û1 e *k 1î m ā š û h baššamn

22)

m i d d a m *hayyā1îm mihhëlb gibbôrîm qašt y e h ô n â t â n l ô ' *tissôg 'âhôr w e h a r b šā3û1 10‫ ג‬tāšûb rêqām

23)

šā'û1 w î h ô n â t â n hanne‫־‬ehābÎm wehanne<îmim behayyêhem ûbemâtām 10‫ נ‬n i p r e d û e m i n n š ā r î m qallû mi"arāyât gāberû

24)

b e n ô t yisrâ'ël 'e1-šā ‫ ־‬û1 b e k é n â *hamma1bišken šānî Cim C a dānîm hamma C a 1eh CadÎ zāhāb C a1-1 e bûšken

25)

>êk nāp e 1û g i b b ô r î m b tôk hammilhamâ * y e h û *tinnâyôn ' a l - b â m ô t é k â hā1ā1 e

sarr-1î Cā1ékā J āhî y e h 0 n ā t ā n nāCamtā-11î m e > ā d nip1 e , átâ ' a h a b ā t e k ā 1Î m i " a h a b a t nāšÎm

26)

27) 1

‫־‬

êk nāp e 1û g i b b ô r î m w a y y a ‫ ־‬b e d û k e 1ê mi1hāmâ

) The Poetry of the O. T., London, 1947, p. 64.

Α-B PAIRS AND ORAL COMPOSITION IN HEBREW POETRY BY

PERRY B. YODER Bluffton, Ohio

The recovery of the Ugaritic literature has been a great boon to Bible scholars, not only helping to solve textual problems, but providing a cultural backdrop for much of the Biblical material as well 1). The study of Ugaritic poetry has also advanced the understanding of Hebrew poetry, beginning in 1 9 3 4 when G I N S B E R G noted that Ugaritic poetry shared with Hebrew poetry not only the feature of parallelism, but also certain fixed expressions. In these fixed expressions the same terms were juxtaposed parallelistically in both Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry. For example, a Ugaritic fine: qb ksp I wyrq hrs

which G I N S B E R G translated, "take silver/and yellow glittering gold" 2) is similar to a sequence which occurs in Psalm Ixviii 14: " T h e w i n g s of a d o v e c o v e r e d w i t h silver (ksp) its pinions w i t h yellow g o l d (hrs)."

By the next year, G I N S B E R G was referring to these sequences as "standing pairs," 3) and in 1936, discussing Ugaritic prosody, he commented that "certain fixed pairs of synonyms that recur repeatedly, as a rule in the same order . . . belonged to the regular stock-in-trade of the Canaanite poets." 4 ) G I N S B E R G noted further that often "B" terms (the second terms of the pairs) occurred only rarely in prose. Since, as a rule, they were confined to poetry, appearing as parallels to their mates, the "A" terms, it seems likely that these terms existed to help the poet form parallelistic lines. 1

) For the use which Bible scholars have made of the Ugaritic texts see D A H O O D , "Ugaritic Studies and the Bible", Gregorianum 4 3 , 1 9 6 2 , pp. 5 5 - 7 0 . A . K A P E L R U D , The Ras Sbamra Discoveries and the Old Testament, trans. G. W. A N D E R S O N , Norman, Oklahoma 1963. 2 ) H. L. G I N S B E R G and B. M A I S L E R , "Semitized Hurrians in Syria and Palestine", JPOS 14, 1934, p. 248, fn. 15. 3 ) H. L. G I N S B E R G , " T h e Victory of the Land-God over the Sea God ",JPOS 15, 1935, p. 327. 4 ) H. L. G I N S B E R G , " T h e Rebellion and Death of Ba'lu", Orientalia ns. 5, 1936, p. 172.

Sometimes the parallel mate is not another word, but the same word or root repeated. Two different types of verbal sequences have been identified. One is the sequence perfect/imperfect of the same verbal root 1) as in Isaiah xiv 25 : " A n d departed (perfect) f r o m u p o n h i m his y o k e a n d his b u r d e n f r o m his s h o u l d e r will depart (imperfect)".

The second sequence type is active/passive of the verbal root 2) as in Hosea ν 5 : " A n d Israel a n d E p h r a i m will stumble (passive) also stumbles (active) J u d a h w i t h t h e m " .

However, this type of parallelistic sequence, repetition, is not restricted to verbal forms, for cases of nominal repetition are not uncommon 3). Explanations for this pervasive feature of Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry were suggested by the early researchers. CASSUTO, in conjunction with his presentation of a list of fixed pairs, offered the following explanation : A n a l m o s t fixed b o n d is g r a d u a l l y f o r m e d b e t w e e n particular syn o n y m s , virtually a fixed c o n v e n t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h if o n e o c c u r s in t h e first c o l o n of t h e line, it entails t h e presence in t h e second c o l o n of its m a t e 4 ).

By the use of these fixed pairs the poet was aided in the composition of parallel cola, for the words in the second colon are called forth by the words in the first. H E L D , in fact, writes of "a dictionary of parallel words" into which the poet could dip in composing his lines" 5). In sum, then, the comparative studies of Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry 1

) This feature was noted by M. D. CASSUTO, Tarbitζ 14, 1943, pp. 9-10. M . discusses this feature in Studies in Ugaritic Lexicography and Poetic Style, unpublished dissertation, J o h n Hopkins 1957, and more recently in " T h e Y Q T L Q T L ( Q T L - Y Q T L ) Sequences of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic", Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A.Neuman, Leiden 1962, pp. 281-290. 2 ) M . H E L D , following CASSUTO, in Ugaritic Lexicography and Poetic Style, and " T h e Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic", JBL 84, 1965, pp. 272-282. 3 ) Cf. Ps. xxiv 8, xxix 1, 2, 4, 5, etc. 4 ) M . D. CASSUTO, "Biblical Literature and Ugaritic Literature," Tarbitz 1 4 , 1 9 4 3 , p. 1 . CASSUTO returned to the matter of fixed pairs several times with additional examples, cf. "Parallel Words in Hebrew and Ugaritic", Leshonenu 15, 1947, pp. 9 7 - 1 0 2 , and The Goddess Anath, Jerusalem 1 9 5 1 . 6 ) M. H E L D , " M o r e Parallel Word Pairs in the Bible and in the Ugaritic Documents", Leshonenu 18/19, 1952/54, pp. 144-160. HELD

which have been done since G I N S B E R G began them in 1 9 3 4 would seem to indicate that to some extent Ugaritic and Hebrew poets relied on a stock of fixed word pairs in composing parallelistic lines. This stock of word pairs was not the work of any individual poet, since many poets over a long period of time used many of the same pairs, but it was the poetic inheritance of each generation of poets 1). Furthermore, these word pairs were not only a traditional "stylistic" feature of the poetry, but since the poets utilized them to make parallelism, they were also a "compositional" feature of the poetry 2). The first concern of the present article is the extent to which the parallelism of specific passages is a result of the use of traditional fixed word pairs. To pose the problem in H E L D ' S terms (cf. above), how heavily might a Hebrew poet have depended on a "dictionary of parallel words" in composing a poem? To see, then, to what extent a Hebrew poet might rely on a "dietionary of parallel words," several poetic texts which have been analyzed for fixed word pairs will be presented below. First, however, we must define the term "traditional fixed word pair." Any two terms 3) having the same grammatical class which occur more than once in parallelism will be considered a fixed pair. It may be argued that some recurrences may be due simply to chance. This, of course, is true; but it is equally true that if we had a larger corpus of Hebrew poetry we might be able to identify many more fixed pairs than we are now able to identify. Along with these repeated paired terms, any term in the A colon which is repeated as its own 1 ) C A S S U T O saw this very clearly, at least for the Hebrew poets, for he writes, "When the Israelites came to express their ideas for the first time in literary form, they did not have to create for themselves the means of expression. These means were already available." The Goddess Anatb, p. 20. Cf. also his remarks in "Biblical Literature and Ugaritic Literature", Tarbitζ 14, 1943, p. 10. 2 ) This was stated explicitly by G I N S B E R G as early as 1945: "In order to meet the exigencies of such a prosody [parallelism], the Canaanite and Hebrew poets have some fixed pairs of synonymous words or phrases for certain concepts which poets have frequent occasion to express (e.g., head, eternity, to fear, to rejoice)." Originally published in Biblical Archaeologist 8, 1945, now printed in The Biblical Archeologist Reader II, Garden City 1964, p. 48. 3 ) The word " t e r m " should not be strictly limited to a single lexical item, since there are cases where one term contains two words. For example, šaCâg/ natàn qôl or hissit ‫נ‬ešpaklah. Note, however, that one word in each term belongs to the same grammatical category as the word in the other. In some cases when one term of the pair consists of two or more lexical items, one of these terms may be variable. For example, in Ps. liv 7 we find heSib raiahjhismlt, but in Ps. xciv 23 we find bešib 5dn/hismit. The two verbs remain the same in both verses, but the object varies.

parallel in the Β colon will also be considered a type of fixed pair 1). It should be noted that whereas previously those terms which others have called Α-B terms or fixed pairs were thought to be synonyms or antonyms, by our definition all terms which reoccur as pairs in parallelism are considered fixed pairs. Rather than looking for semantic relationships between parallel terms, we look for their occurrence as a pair elsewhere, for it is recurrence, not semantic relationship which is decisive in defining a fixed pair. In the following analysis the fixed pairs are underlined. The supporting evidence for this underlining is listed after the poem. In terms having more than one lexical item and one item varies, the variable item has a dotted underlining 2). Psalm liv ‫ ו ב ג ב ו ר ת ן · תדינני‬/ ‫א ל ה י ם ב ש מ ך הושיעני‬

•3

‫ ה א ז י נ ה ל א מ ר י ־ פ י‬/ ‫• ט א ל ה י ם ש מ ע ת פ ל ת י‬4 ‫ ו ע ר י צ י ם ב ק ש ו נפשי‬/ ‫ב י ז ר י ם ק מ ו ע ל י‬

•5

‫ל א שמו א ל ה י ם ל נ ג ד ם ס ל ה‬ ‫ א ד נ י ב ס מ כ י נפשי‬/ ‫ה נ ה א ל ה י ם ע ז ר ל י‬

•6

‫ ב א מ ת ך ה צ מ י ת ם‬/ ‫לשוב ה ר ע ל ש ר ר י‬

•7

‫ אודה שמך יה׳ כ י ־ ט ו ב‬/ ‫ב נ ד ב ה א ז ב ה ה ״ ל ך‬

•8

‫ ו ב א י ב י ר א ת ה עיני‬/ ‫כ י מ כ ל ־ צ ר ה ה צ י ל נ י‬

•9

Supporting evidence for Psalm liv: 1. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

‫גבורה‬/‫שם‬ ‫האזין‬/‫שמע‬ ‫עריץ‬/‫זר‬ ‫ ב ק ש נפש‬/ ‫קום ע ל‬ ‫אדון‬/‫אלהים‬ ‫סמך‬/‫עזר‬ ‫ הצמית‬j

j ‫שוב‬

ί

(

‫ישם‬

‫׳‬/

‫ק ף א‬

Jer. xvi, 21, Ps. liv 3, cvi 8 Ps. xxxix 13, xlix 2, liv 4, lxxx 9 Is. xxv 5, xxix 5, Ps. liv 5 Ps. liv 5, lxxxvi 14 Ps. liv 6, lxviii 18, cxiv 7 Is. lxiii 5, Ps. liv 6 p s . liv 7, xciv 23 ‫הודיע‬

‫זבח‬

‫אויב‬/‫צרה‬

p s . liv 8, cxvi 17 Ps. liv 9, cxxxviii 7

Traditional pairs account for 75 percent of the parallelism in this psalm, since we have found occurrences elsewhere for 9 of the 12 1

) See examples above, page 91. ) The corpus searched for the reoccurrences of pairs was the poetic books of the Hebrew Bible. In most cases only internal parallelism was counted. 2

parallel members 1). Further, in each of the seven lines with caesura, there is at least one traditional pair. In sum, the composer of this poem depended heavily on traditional fixed pairs to compose paralparallelistic lines. Psalm cxiv ‫ בית י ע ק ב מ ע ם לעז‬/ ‫ב צ א ת ישראל ממצרים‬

•1

‫ י ש ר א ל ממשלותיו‬/ ‫היתה יהודה לקדשו‬

•2

‫ ה י ר ד ן י ס ב ל א ח ו ר‬/ ‫ה י ם ר א ה ויגס‬

•3

‫ גבעות כבני־צאן‬/ ‫ההרים רקדו כאילים‬

•4

Verses 5 and 6 are the repeat of 3 and 4.

1. 2. 4. 7.

‫מלפני אדון חולי א ר ץ ו מלפני אלוה י ע ק ב‬

•7

‫ חלמיש חמעינו־מים‬/ ‫ה ה פ כ י הצור אגם־כדם‬

•8

Supporting evidence for Psalm cxiv: ‫יעקב‬/‫ ישראל‬Is. xli 8, Ps. lxxxi 5, etc. 2) ‫ישראל‬/‫ יהודה‬Jer. xxiii 6, Ps. lxxvi 2, etc. ‫גבעות‬/‫ הרים‬Is. ii 2, ii 14, etc. ‫ איל;צאן‬Is. Ix 7, Ps. cxiv 4 ‫אלוה‬/‫ אדון‬cf. Ps. liv 6 above ι

8.

(‫אגם‬

‫מעין‬/‫חים‬

‫ פלג‬Ps. cxiv 8, Prov. ν 16, S. of S. iv 15 /‫)באר‬ We have found 6 traditional pairs in this psalm. This represents just over half of the total parallel members.3) All lines contain at least one fixed pair except verse 3. Nahum i ‫ ו ב ע ל ח מ ה‬, ‫ נ ק ם י ה‬/ ‫א ל קנוא ו נ ק ם י ה י‬

•2

‫ ונוטר הוא לאיביו‬/ ‫נקם יה׳ ל צ ר י ו‬ ‫ ו נ ק ה ל א י נ ק ה‬/ ‫_׳ א ר ך א פ י ם ו ג ד ו ל ־ כ ח‬n_ •3 ‫ וענן א ב ק ר ג ל י ו‬/ ‫ב ס ו פ ה ו ב ש ע ר ה ד ר כ ו‬ ‫ ה נ ה ר ו ת ה ח ר י ב‬- ‫ ו כ ל‬/ ‫ג ו ע ר בלם ו י ב ש ה ו‬

•4

‫ ו פ ר ח ל ב נ ו ן א מ ל ל‬/ ‫א מ ל ל בשן ו כ ר מ ל‬ 1

) The three possible parallel members not underlined are: ‫דץ‬/‫הושיע‬,‫פי‬-‫אמרי‬/‫תפלה‬, ‫ראתה עץ‬/‫הציל‬ 2 ) We have made no distinction between Jacob and house of Jacob in our supporting evidence because we believe that the tradition did not. For example, the same line occurs in Micah iii 1 and iii 9, except that in the first case the term used is Jacob while in the second house of Jacob. We consider this free variation and thus not significant in the juxtapositioning of traditional units. s ) There are five parallel members not repeated elsewhere: ‫עם לעז‬/‫מצרים‬, ‫ מ מ ש ל ה‬/ ‫ ק ד ש‬, ‫ י ר ד ן‬/ ‫סבב ל א ח ו ר \ ם‬/‫נוס‬, ‫חלמיש‬/‫צור‬

‫ותשא ה א ר ץ מפניו ‪ /‬ו ת ב ל ו ב ל ‪ -‬י ש ב י ב ה‬ ‫‪•6‬‬

‫לפניו זעמו מי ע מ ו ד ‪ /‬ומי מןום ב ח ר ץ א פ ו‬ ‫חמתו נ ת כ ה כ א ש ‪ /‬ו ה צ ר י ם נתצו ממנו‬

‫‪•7‬‬

‫ט ו ב י ה ׳ ל מ צ ו ז ביום צ ר ה ‪ /‬ו י ד ע ח ס בו‬ ‫ב ש ט ף ע ב ר כ ל ה י ע ש ה מ ק ו מ ה ‪ /‬ו א י ב י ו•‪ _ η τ τ8‬ח ש ך‬ ‫מ ה תחשבון א ל ־ י ה ׳‬ ‫כ ל ה הוא עשה ‪ /‬ל א תקום פעמים צוה‬

‫‪ •10‬כ י ע ד ־ ס י ר י ם ס ב כ י ם ו כ ס ב א ם ס ב ו א י ם א כ ל ו כ ק ש ו י ב ש מ ל א‬ ‫‪•11‬‬

‫מ מ ך יצא חשב ע ל ־ י ה ׳ ר ע ה ‪ /‬מנץ ב ל י ע ל‬ ‫א ם ש ל מ י ם ו כ ו ר ב י ם ו כ ן נגזו ו ע ב ר ן ו [ ‪ /‬ו ע נ ת ך ל א א ע נ ך ע ו ד‬ ‫ועתה אשבר מטהו מ ע ל י ך ‪ /‬ומוסרתיך אנתק‬

‫•‪13‬‬

‫וצוה ע ל י ך יה׳‬ ‫לא־יזרע משמך עוד‬ ‫מבית אלהיך אכרית פ ס ל ומסכה‬ ‫אשים ק ב ר ך כי ק ל ו ת‬

‫‪Supporting evidence for Nahum i :‬‬ ‫‪Is. i 24, Mich, ν 8, etc.‬‬ ‫‪P r o v . iii 23, iv 26, etc.‬‬ ‫‪Jer. iv 13, N a h . i 3‬‬ ‫‪Is. xlviii 18, Mich, vii 12, etc.‬‬ ‫‪Jer. li 36, H o s . xiii 15, N a h . i 4‬‬ ‫‪Is. ii 13, Jer. xxii 20, N a h . i 4‬‬ ‫‪cf. Psalm cxiv 4‬‬ ‫‪Is. xiv 21, xxiv 4, etc.‬‬ ‫‪N a h . i 6, Z e p h . iii 8, Ps. lxix 25‬‬ ‫‪N a h . i 6, J o b viii 15‬‬ ‫‪N a h . i 8, Ps. xxxiv 15, cix 16‬‬ ‫‪Joel i 20, N a h . i 10‬‬ ‫‪Jer. xlix 20, 30, E z e k . xi 2, etc.‬‬ ‫‪Jer. ii 20, xxx 8, etc.‬‬

‫צר‪/‬אויב‬ ‫דרן‪/‬רגל‬ ‫סופה‪/‬ענן‬ ‫ים‪/‬נהר‬ ‫יבש‪/‬החריב‬ ‫בשן‪/‬לבנון‬ ‫הר‪/‬גבעה‬ ‫ארץ‪/‬תבל‬ ‫זעם‪/‬חרץ אף‬ ‫עמד‪/‬קום‬ ‫><כלה^‬ ‫עשה י ח ס ד י ‪ /‬ר ד ף‬ ‫)טוב (‬ ‫אכל‪/‬יבש‬ ‫חשב‪/‬יעץ‬ ‫שבר‪/‬נתק‬

‫·‪2‬‬

‫‪3.‬‬ ‫‪4.‬‬ ‫‪5.‬‬

‫‪6.‬‬

‫‪10.‬‬ ‫‪11.‬‬ ‫‪13.‬‬

‫‪In this chapter. 18 of the 25 pairs or 72 percent of the parallelism‬‬ ‫‪is due to the use of traditional compositional units. This compares‬‬ ‫‪closely with 75 percent density of Psalm liv.‬‬ ‫‪Not all Hebrew poems have such a high density of trad‬‬‫‪itional compositional units. Psalm civ, as can be seen from the‬‬

following analysis, has a significantly lower density of fixed pairs 1 ). Psalm civ ‫ הקשיבה אלי‬/ ‫יה׳ קראתי א ל י כ ה‬

•1

‫פרשתי כפי למעון קודשכה‬

•2

‫ ובקשתי א ל ת מ נ ע ממני‬/ ‫ה ט אוזנכה ותן ל י א ת ש א ל ת י‬

•3

‫ ו א ל תמגרה ו א ל ת פ ר ע לפני רשעים‬/ ‫בנה נפש‬

•5

‫גמולי ה ר ע ישיב ממגי דין ה א מ ת‬

•7

‫ כי לוא י צ ד ק ל פ נ י כ ה כ ו ל חי‬/ ‫יה׳ א ל תשפטני כ ח ט א ת י‬

•8

‫ ו א ת מ ש פ ט י כ ה ל מ ד נ י‬/ ‫הבינני י ה ׳ ב ת ו ר ת כ ה‬

•9

‫ ו ע מ י ם י ה ד ר ו א ת כ ב ו ד כ ה‬/ ‫• ו י ש מ ע ר ב י ם מ ע ש י כ ה‬10 ‫ ו א ל תביאני בקשות ממני‬/ ‫זכורני ו א ל תשכחני‬

11

‫ ופשעי א ל יזכרו ל י‬/ ‫ח ט א ת נעורי ה ר ח ק ממגי‬

12

‫ ו א ל י ו ס ף ל ש ו ב א ל י‬/ ‫• ט ה ר נ י י ה ׳ מנגע ר ע‬13 ‫ ו א ל ינצו ע ל ע ב י‬/ ‫• י ב ש שורשיו מ מ נ י‬14 ‫כ ב ו ד א ת ה יה׳ ע ל כן שאלתי מ ל פ נ י כ ה שלמה‬

•15

‫צם‬1‫ ובני א ד ם מ ה י ו ס י ף אומ‬/ ‫• ל מ י א ז ע ק ה ויתן ל י‬16

(Remainder fragmentary) Supporting evidence for Psalm civ : 3. 9. 10. 12. 14.

‫מנע‬/‫נתן‬ ‫משפט‬/‫תורה‬ ‫מעשה‬/‫כבוד‬ ‫פשע‬/‫חטאר‬ ‫עלה‬/‫שרש‬

Ps. xxi 3, civ 3 Is. xiii 4, Ps. lxxxix 31, Ps. xix 2, civ 3 Is. xliii 25, xliv 22, etc. Ps. civ 14, J o b xxx 4

In this psalm approximately 30 percent of the parallelism is due to the use of traditional fixed word pairs with slightly less than half of the lines with caesura containing a fixed pair. Although in vocabulary, tone and style this psalm resembles Biblical poetry, its compositional nature is different than the other poems analyzed above—its poet relied on fixed pairs less than a third of the time to make parallelism. It is important to note that the presence of parallelism does not mean the presence of fixed Α-B pairs. A poet composing parallelistic poetry may or may not rely on a body of fixed pairs to compose his lines. 1 ) Although this poem is not canonical, stylistically it would seem to be identical with canonical psalms. J . A. S A N D E R S , who edited it, has written that it is "about as biblical as a psalm can be : its poetry is like that of the biblical psalms, its vocabulary is biblical; and its content is like that of the biblical psalms of thanksgiving". The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, Ithaca 1967, p. 109. The text presented here is taken from this volume.

Why did some poets rely on traditional compositional units more than others did? The presence of traditional compositional units in the Homeric and in some Anglo-Saxon poetry has been taken as evidence that these poems were orally composed 1). The comparison of Hebrew Α-B pairs with the Homeric epithet and the Anglo-Saxon kenning has been suggested both by a scholar of these literatures, and by a Biblical scholar 2). This argument from the use of fixed units in the composition of a poem to the fact of its being an oral composition was first put forth by the classics scholar M I L M A N PARRY. In UEpithete Traditionelle ) P A R R Y studied repeated phrases consisting of a noun and one or more fixed epithets in the Homeric poems. Advancing beyond his predecessors, who had previously noted this as well as other types of repeated material, P A R R Y demonstrated that the repeated epithets exhibited thrift; that is, there was only one epithet for each metrical situation 4). These repeated phrases he described as "a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given idea" 5 ). P A R R Y called any group of words fitting this definition a "formula". There was thrift in the use of these phrases, P A R R Y argued, because they were useful to the poet in composing segments of the hexameter 6). The Homeric poet valued utility more than originality. 3

1

) For fixed units in Homer see below. For Anglo-Saxon poetry, cf. F. P. "Oral Formulaic Character of Anglo-Saxon Narrative Poetry", Speculum 28, 1953, pp. 446-467. 2 ) W. WHALLON, "Formulaic Poetry in the Old Testament", Comparative Literature 15, 1963, p. 2; cf. also " O l d Testament Poetry and the Homeric Epic", Comparative Literature 18, 1966, pp. 113-131, and Formula, Character and Context, Cambridge 1969, Ch. 5. S . G E V I R T Z in Patterns in the Barly Poetry of Israel, Chicago 1963, also made the connection between Α-B pairs and oral tradition. That Α-B pairs represent oral formulas had been denied by R. C . C U L L E Y in Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms, T o r o n t o 1967, pp. 116-119. 3 ) M. P A R R Y , L'Epithète Traditionelle dans Homère, Paris 1929. 4 ) M. P A R R Y , "Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-making: I . H o m e r and the Homeric Style", HSCP 41, 1930, p. 1. 5 ) M . P A R R Y , "Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-making: I . H o m e r and the Homeric Style", op. cit., p. 80. e ) Ibid., p. 32. P A R R Y writes, " W h e n the element of usefulness is lacking, one does not have a formula." It cannot, of course, be proven that a phrase repeated in the same metrical environment is repeated because it is useful. The idea of thrift supports this, but there are actually more than one solution to some problems and n o formulas to solve others. Cf. J . B . H A I N S W O R T H , "Structure and Content of Epic Formulae : The Question of the Unique Expression", Classical Quarterly 58, 1954, pp. 155-164, and A. H O E K S T R A , Homeric Modifications of Formulaic Prototypes·. Studies in the Developments of Greek Epic and Diction, Verhandelingen MAGOUN,

It is precisely this element of utility, according to PARRY, which distinguishes the repetitions in H O M E R from those in later poets. For example, of the 52 borrowings from H O M E R by P I N D A R , only 19 are used as found in H O M E R . The rest are changed in order to give them a new metrical shape, thus defeating the useful purpose of the formula—the provision of a ready-made unit to fill a particular metrical slot 1). Now we know that the post-Homeric compositions, like our own modern poetry, were composed with pen in hand and do not contain formulas. P A R R Y argued that the presence of formulas must then indicate a different way of composing poetry, namely oral composition. It can be seen that these formulas would serve a definite need for the oral poet which they would not serve for the writing poet. Since the oral poet must compose rapidly and can not search for words or read back over his work and edit it, "he must have for his use, word groups all made to fit his verse and tell what he has to tell" 2). In an oral tradition utility and ease of composition would be prime requisites. Thus the oral poet speaks a language of traditional phrases—formulas—by which he can express himself in prosodically correct fashion. Formulas or repeated material are not decorations or embellishments, but are a means of making verse. The stock of formulas which a poet has at his disposal is the result of a poetic tradition which hands these formulas on generation after generation because they are useful and pleasing. Individual poets may add to the inherited stock of formulas 3) but these additions will be few, since the tradition is the work of many hands. der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 71, no. 1, Amsterdam 1965. 1 ) Ibid., p. 93 f. 2 ) M . P A R R Y , "Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-making: 1. H o m e r and the Homeric Style", op. cit., p. 77. 3 ) That is, the poet, in the course of his "career" creates a few idiosyncratic formulas. In our analysis of A m o s we found formulas which were unique to that book. F o r example, the pair saddiq^cebyon (righteous/poor) occurs only in A m o s ii 6 and ν 12. A more "traditional" pair is dälpcebyön (weak/poor), cf. Is. xiv 30, XXV 4, Ps. cxiii 7 and Prov. xiv 31. This pair is also found in A m o s iv 1 and viii 6. It is important to note that because of the possibility of some idiosyncratic f o r m u las in any given poet's stock of formulas, any poet's actual stock of formulas cannot be predicted f r o m a knowledge of the formulas in the tradition as a whole. For example, if in A m o s ii 6 and ν 12 there were a lacunae in the text where the w o r d saddiq stands, by extrapolation f r o m the rest of the tradition we would restore dàl, but we would be wrong. This is an important caveat to keep in mind when using such works as G E V I R T Z ' S Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel.

Since a poet can create new formulas by analogy, there will not be absolute thrift (only one solution to each formal exigency) within the tradition as a whole, for different poets may develop different solutions for the same problem. Even within the work of a single poet there may be phrases which the poet created once by analogy but never repeated. These analogically related phrases make up what P A R R Y called "formulaic systems". Through the process of making formulaic expressions which when repeated gain the status of formulas, the stock of formulas changes, and though the tradition as a whole is very conservative, parts of it are slowly replaced. Thus the poet speaks a language of formulas and formulaic expressionsexpressions modeled on other formulas. P A R R Y based these ideas of the nature of oral tradition on sources collected by others from living oral literatures and on the characterizations of them by their collectors. It is uncanny how correct his own carefullv documented field work proved his characterizations of oral tradition to be 1). To illustrate how pervasive the traditional formula was in the Homeric poems, P A R R Y analyzed the first 2 5 lines of The Iliad and the first 25 lines of The Odyssey. His method, by now classic, he defined as follows: I h a v e p u t a solid line b e n e a t h those w o r d - g r o u p s w h i c h are f o u n d elsew h e r e in the p o e m u n c h a n g e d , [formulas] and a b r o k e n line u n d e r phrases w h i c h are of the same type as others [formulaic expressions]. I n this case I have limited the type to include only those in w h i c h n o t only the m e t r e a n d the parts of speech are the same, b u t in w h i c h also at least o n e i m p o r t a n t w o r d g r o u p or g r o u p s of w o r d s is i d e n t i c a l . . . 2 ). 1

) In 1932, P A R R Y , deciding that he needed first-hand experience of a living, thriving oral tradition to serve as a control to his Homeric studies and to provide more reliable information about the actual processes of oral composition, learned Serbo-Croatian and went to Yugoslavia. He returned in 1935 with "one of the most remarkable collections of oral poetry ever made," according to his student, A. B. L O R D . Cf. "Homer, Parry and H u s o " , A]A 52, 1948, p. 36. However, he did not live to make any real use of the Slavic material which he collected, This task was taken up by L O R D , who undertook additional field work in the early fifties and in 1960 published The Singer of Tales, the fullest account to date of the mechanics of an oral tradition and its utility for the analysis of the Homeric material. What should be emphasized is that after P A R R Y ' S work of the late twenties and early thirties, research into the Slavic oral epics demonstrated that features of H O M E R which P A R R Y hypothesized were due to oral composition were indeed found to be the hallmarks of an oral tradition. More than this, further Homeric research since then has been informed and controlled by actual field studies. 2 ) M . P A R R Y , "Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-making: I. Homer and the Homeric Style", op. cit., p. 117.

In the first 25 lines of The Iliad, P A R R Y found 29 formulas, while in the first 25 lines of The Odyssey he found 34. This formular density indicated to him that the Homeric poems were the work of an oral poet. What scholars have called Α-B terms or fixed word pairs in Hebrew poetry fit P A R R Y ' S definition of a formula above. In the Hebrew poetic tradition the formal requirement which had to be met by the poet was parallelism instead of meter 1). To create parallelistic poetry, the poet had first to link together at least two cola to form a line, since the words of a colon without a partner could not enter into parallelism. Secondly and concomitantly, he had to produce Β cola whose words formed parallels to the words used in the A cola. It was to meet these two exigencies that the traditional word pairs arose; for if two cola contained a traditional word pair, it would be clear that the poet intended these two cola to form a line. Likewise, if words have their traditional parallels, when a poet composed the A colon of a line, he could readily compose a parallel Β colon by filling it with the traditional, recognized Β counterparts of the words he used in the first colon. For example, when the poet used harm (mountains) in the first colon, he often used geha(ôt (hills) in the second in order to fulfill the prosodie exigencies demanded by parallelism. The following are a few examples of this pair: ‫אשר קטרו ע ל ־ ה ה ר י ם‬ ‫ו ע ל ־ הגבעות חרפוני‬

"Who burnt incense upon the mountains/ and upon the hills disgrace me". (Is. lxv 7) ‫קום ריב א ת ־ ה ה ר י ם‬ ‫ותשמענה הגבעות קולך‬

"Rise and adjucate with the mountains/ and let the hills hear your voice". (Mich, vi 1) ‫ה ר י ם רעשו ממנו‬ ‫ו ה ג ב ע ו ת התמגגו‬

‫״‬Mountains shook because of him/ and hills dissolved". (Nah. i 5) Since g^a'df occurs repeatedly in the same formal situation—as the parallel for harim—this pair may be considered a formula. 1 ) W. WHALLON, "Formulaic Poetry in the Old Testament", Comparative Literature 15, 1963, p. 2. "Hebraic parallelism may . . . be considered a prosodie requirement analogous to the Homeric hexameter and the Anglo-Saxon aliiteration."

It should be particularly noted that harîmjgebatôt (mountains/hills) are considered a formula because gebalôt recurs in the same formal situation—it supplies a parallel for harîm—not because of the semantic content, just as the Homeric epithets fill out the segments of the hexameter regardless of the noun used. In the first reference above, Isaiah lxv 7, the poet did not choose the word gebalôt in the Β colon because this is where they did disgraceful acts, while they burnt incense on the mountains; he used gebaiôt in the Β colon because this was a traditional parallel to harîm. Likewise in Nahum i 5 it should not be understood that the poet used g^a'-ôt in the second colon because being smaller than the harim they would dissolve while the latter would only shake. He chose gebaiôt not because it was a bon mot, but because it was ready to hand, the traditional solution to the problem of paralleling harîm. C A S S U T O described this in terms of a bond being formed between two words, in which case the usage of the first entailed the second (cf. above). We have equated fixed pairs in Hebrew with "formulas5'—that is, fixed units used in oral compositions—on the basis of P A R R Y ' S comparison of fixed units in H O M E R with formulas in oral Yugoslavian poetry. We would now like to establish that there are modern oral poetries which display parallelism and which have developed standing pairs to meet the exigencies of oral composition. This would provide an indubitably oral tradition to serve as a supporting analogue for Hebrew poetry as Yugoslav poetry did for the Homeric poems. One example of such a poetry is the Ob-Ugric poetry which has been described by A U S T E R L I T Z 1). Ob-Ugric is a name applied to the languages of the Osyaks and Voguls whose centre is south of the estuary of the Ob River east of the Ural Mountains. The two languages are closely related, but not mutually intelligible. (Perhaps a similar relationship existed between Hebrew and Ugaritic). They both belong to the Ugric branch of the Finno-Ugric language family. In Ob-Ugric poetry, the line usually consists of two cola, each containing five or six words. Three or four words are duplicated exactly, with "paired words" filling the other slots. Schematically, if capital letters represent duplicated words, while lower case letters represent paired words, a line could be represented thus: yABC/ xABC 2). l

) R. A U S T E R L I T Z , "Ob-Ugric Metrics", Folklore Fellows Communications 174, 2 Helsinki 1958. ) R. A U S T E R L I T Z , "Ob-Ugric Metrics", op. cit., p. 49.

A selection of standing pairs which can occupy the slots represented by the lower case letters are listed by A U S T E R L I T Z . Because the poet could not pause in composition to think of a suitable word, these standing pairs evolved to solve the problem. He could also duplicate the word in the second segment, an even easier task than using a standing pair. Below are several examples of Ob-Ugric poetry in translation: Wood for the kiddle wood for the weir (p. 52). They catch seven male animals tied to one rope they catch six male animals tied to one rope (p. 53). The jingle of small coins the clatter of large coins (p. 56). As A U S T E R L I T Z has correctly seen, the word pairs do more than help the poet fill out the second segment of the line; they bind the two segments together. In fact, A U S T E R L I T Z divides the cola or segments of Ob-Ugric poetry into two groups, cohesive cola and isolated cola, depending on whether they contain paired words. Besides the type of cohesive Unes illustrated above, there is a type which he calls "terraces," which is similar to Hebrew stairlike parallelism. Another oral parallelistic poetry is the poetry of the Todas in South India, which has been studied by M. B. E M E N E A U 1). In Toda poetry almost every colon occurs with a parallel colon. To make these parallel cola, there are word pairs which, according to E M E N E A U are "rigidly prescribed by convention." Often these words are synonymous or identical in meaning. In the example below, the Toda words for "mund" and "dawning" are different in the two cola, though translated the same. mund-to it-is-dawning mund-to it is dawning (p. 546). The word for "dawn" in the second colon only occurs with the word for "dawn" in the first colon. G I N S B E R G noted a similar phenomenon in Ugaritic poetry (cf. above). Frequently the words have slightly different meanings as in the example below: 1 ) M. Β. EMENEAU, " T h e Songs of the Todas", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 77, 1937, pp. 543-560, and "Oral Poets of South India—the Todas", American Journal of Folklore 71, 1958, pp. 312-324.

lap-in-children w e h a v e b e c o m e calf-pen-in-calves we have b e c o m e (p. 547).

There are many pairs in which the two words have different meanings, but have become a traditional word pair by conventional usage, for example : house-he has left they say pool-he has b r o k e n they say (p. 547).

also reports that sometimes one of the words of a pair is appropriate in context, but the other one is not; nevertheless, both will often occur. In oral poetry utility and tradition outweigh other considerations. From the above examples of parallelistic oral poetry, it is clear that a tradition of fixed pairs is associated with oral tradition and performance. We can thus regard the technique of parallelistic composition by the use of traditional word pairs as a technique developed by oral poetic traditions to meet the needs of oral poets. The needs which this technique solved for the poet were two: first, it bound cola together to form lines, since two cola sharing a traditional word pair would easily be recognized as a unit; and secondly, it aided the poet in providing a second colon, which would be easily recognizable as such when the second colon contained the second term of a word pair whose first term occurred in the first colon. It must be stressed that parallelism in this sense means the sharing of traditional pairs regardless of our semantic concepts of their relationships. As was seen in the examples of Toda poetry, only the first class of traditional word pairs would be considered synonymous in our sense of the term. We must observe from the literary tradition itself what the traditional pairs were. Since in oral parallelistic poetries the phenomenon of paired words is seen to be the result of oral poetic composition, we may conclude that an oral poetic tradition produced the paired words in the UgariticHebrew poetry. This also provides a logical explanation for the conservatism and homogeneity of the tradition shared by the two languages. We can see now why H E L D thought of a "dictionary of parallel words," only it was an oral dictionary, which the poet had in his head, not a written dictionary on his bookshelf. This is not to say, of course, that every poem containing word pairs represents an oral composition. At some time in the literary tradition there was oral composition, and it was during this time EMENEAU

that the fixed pairs were created and used by the oral poets. Whether we have any compositions from the poets of this time remains to be determined. All that seems clear is that fixed pairs give evidence of a period of oral composition at one time in the Hebrew poetic tradition. Thus far our discussion has centered on formulas-fixed pairs in Hebrew poetry. But formulas are not the only traditional compositional units, for P A R R Y also dealt with formulaic expressions. Formulaic expressions are units which have in common the same metrical shape, parts of speech and at least one important word; but as opposed to formulas, the various elements do not recur together elsewhere in the poetry. I believe that formulaic expressions (pairs which although they occur only once are related to other similar pairs which make up a formulaic system) also exist in Hebrew poetry. In a formulaic system in Hebrew one term remains constant, while the parallel position is occupied by various terms. These variable terms occur elsewhere as parallels and may thus be regarded as analogic substitutes for each other. For example, hôsîa‫( ז‬save) occurs once in parallelism to sapât (judge) and once parallel to dîn (judge): ‫א ל ה י ט ב ש מ ך הושיעני‬ ‫ו ב ג ב ו ר ת ך תדינני‬ " G o d by thy name save me/ a n d b y thy m i g h t judge m e " (din). (Ps. liv 3) ‫ישפט עניי־עם‬ ‫יושיע ל ב נ י א ב י ק‬ " L e t h i m judge the p o o r people (lapàt) save the needy a n d c r u s h the o p p r e s s o r " . (Ps. lxxii 4)

Neither of these sequences is a formula—since they are not repeated elsewhere—but they do form a formulaic system, because sapat\din are recognized parallels. (They occur in Ps. vii 9, ix 9, and Prov. xxxi 9). In this formulaic system the constant is hâšîa', the formal condition needing a solution, while the variables sapât j din—recognized as analogic variables by their parallel occurrences elsewhere— provide the solution. This formulaic system can be presented schematically as follows : hô Για + ! sapât /,dîn or as : hôsîalj (sapât!dîn).

This schema illustrates that a formulaic expression may be considered as a constant term plus a parallel word pair. One time the one term of the pair completes the parallelism, another time the other term of the pair provides the parallel. Not all formulaic systems are so simple, however. The following example illustrates a much more extended system. Hiccah (smite) occurs with the following parallels : yabeš (wither, dry up) in Zach. χ 11 : ‫ו ה כ ה בים גלים‬ ‫והכישו כ ל מצולות יאר‬

"I will smite the waves of the sea/ and the depths of the Nile will dry up". kalah (consume) in Jer. ν 3 : ‫הכיתה אתם ולא־ חלו‬ ‫כ ל י ת ם מאגו ק ח ת מ ו ס ר‬

"You smote them and they did not tremble/ you consumed them and they refused to take corrections". mût (die) in Is. xi 4: ‫ו ה כ ה ־ א ר ץ ב ש ב ט פיו‬ ‫וברוח שפתיו ימית רשע‬

"And he smote the earth with the rod of his mouth/ and by the breath of his lips he killed the wicked". These four terms are all shown to be analogically interchangeable in parallelism to hiccah by being mated in formulas with 'abäd. The formula 'abädjkalah occurs in Ps. xxxvii 20 and Job iv 9, the example quoted here : ‫מנשמת אלוה י א ב ד ו‬ ‫ומרוח אפו יכלו‬

"By the breath of God they are destroyed/ and by the wind of his anger they are consumed". ‫ג‬

abàdjmût occurs in Ps. xxxi 13 and Ps. xlix 11 as a formular pair. For example : ‫כ י י ר א ה ח כ מ י ם ימותו‬ ‫יחד כסיל ובער יאבדו‬

"For he sees that the wise die] Together with the simple and stupid they are destroyed". (Ps xlix 11) In this formulaic system there are four variables which may occur opposite the constant biccah (smite) to form a formulaic expression. We could diagram this system thus :

j'abäd

hiccah -f- /yabeš \kalan \mût h Ì or as: hicca j ( abâdjyabešjkalahImût). Another type of formulaic system occurs when a parallel word pair is formed by analogy with a formula. For example, the pair yamjyârden (sea/Jordan) occurs only in Psalm cxiv 3 : ‫ה י ם ר א ה וינס‬ ‫הירדן יסב לאחור‬

"The sea saw and fled/' the Jordan retreated". Now the usual pair is yamjnahar (sea/river) 1) which occurs, for example, in Ps. lxxx 12: ‫תשלח קצירה עד־ים‬ ‫ו א ל ־ נ ה ר יונקותיה‬

"It sent tendrils to the seaj and to the river its shoots". In Job xl 23, however, nahar (river) parallelsyärden: ‫הן יעשק נהר ל א יחפוז‬ ‫יבטח כי־יגיח ירדן א ל ־ פ ו ה ו‬

"Unperturbed though the river rage/ though the Jordan surge to his mouth" 2). The poet in Psalm cxiv, knowing the pair yam\nahar, simply substituted the name of a specific river for the Β term, thus making a different parallel pair from the usual formula. If he knew of the pair nahar]yârden, the process was even simpler, for he simply exchanged nahar for its partner yam. In any case, these two pairs, yam/nahar and yam\ydrden form a formulaic system. The parallelism of Psalm liv when reexamined for both formulas and formulaic systems is shown to be almost wholly the result of traditional collocations : Psalm liv ‫ ו ב ג ב ו ר ת ן ־ תדינני‬/ ‫א ל ה י ם ב ש מ ך הושיעני‬

•3

‫ האזינה ל א מ ר י ־ פ י‬/ ‫א ל ה י ם שמע ת פ ל ת י‬

•4

‫ ו ע ר י צ י ם ב ק ש ו נפשי‬/ ‫כ י ז ר י ם ק מ ו ע ל י‬

•5

‫ל א שמו א ל ה י ם ל ב ג ד ם‬ 1

) Elsewhere in Hebrew: Is. xi 15, xix 5, Zach. ix 10, Ps. lxvi 6, lxxii 8, Job xiv 11; reversed: Is. xlviii 18, Mich, vii 12. 2 ) Translation taken from M . P O P E , Job, and the Anchor Bible, Garden City 1965.

‫הנה א ל ה י ם ע ז ר לי ו אדני ב ס מ כ י בפשי‬

•6

‫ ב א מ ת ך ה צ מ י ת ם‬/ ‫ישוב ה ר ע ל ש ר ר י‬

•7

‫ י ה ׳ כ י ־ ט ו ב‬.‫ א ו ד ה שמך‬/ ‫ ל ך‬- ‫ב נ ד ב ה א ז ב ה ה‬

•8

‫כ י מ כ ל צ ר ה ה צ י ל נ י ! ו ב א י ב י ר א ת ה עיני‬

•9

Supporting evidence for Psalm liv : 3. ‫דין‬/‫ הושיע‬is part of the formulaic system: (‫דין‬/‫)שפט‬/‫הושיע‬ ‫שפט‬/‫ הושיע‬occur in Ps. lxx 4 in parallelism: ‫יושיע לבני אביון‬/‫ישפט עניי־עס‬ ‫דין‬/‫ שפט‬compose a formula: ‫ י ד י ן ל א מ י ם ב מ י ש ר י ם‬/ ‫ ( ו ה ו א י ש פ ט ת ב ל ב צ ד ק‬P s . i x 9)

also: Pro. xxxi 9; reversed: Ps. vii 9. 4. ‫אמרי פה‬/‫ תפלה‬is part of the formulaic system: (/‫אמרי פה‬/‫)תורה‬/‫תפלה‬ ‫תורה‬/‫ תפלה‬occur in parallelism in Prov. xxviii 9: ‫ ג ם ת פ ל ת ו ת ו ע ב ה‬/ ‫מ ס י ר אזני מ ש מ ע ת ו ר ה‬

‫הטו אזנכם לאמרי פי‬/‫( האזיני עמי תורתי‬Ps. lxxviii 1) also: Job xxii 22. From the above evidence it can be seen that every parallel collocation except the one in verse 9, hissîljlâjin ra>atah be represents a traditional collocation to some degree. In other words, 11 out of 12 collocations are traditional in this psalm. Analyzing a poem for both its formulas and formulaic expressions as we have done above is necessary in order to indicate the total quantity of traditional material used in composing a poem. But the value of the formulaic part of the analysis should be kept in perspective : while it helps to indicate the traditional nature of Hebrew poetic composition, it is the formulas which indicate an oral stage in the literary tradition, and it is the density of formulas in a given poem which is significant for its compositional nature 1). ) A . B . L O R D , " H o m e r as Oral Poet", HSCP 7 2 , 1 9 6 7 , p. 2 0 f. The argument f r o m formular to oral has been disputed. The counter argument runs, in brief, that all P A R R Y ' S and L O R D ' S evidence supports is that a writing poet like A P O L LONIUS or V I R G I L does not create a system of formulas, but that this creating is done by oral poets. They cannot show, however, that it is only the oral poets who will adopt a previously created formular diction. Perhaps a pen poet could or would. Thus, since this possibility remains open, formulaic analysis by itself is not sufficient to demonstrate oral composition. Cf. C. S C H A A R , " O n a New Theory of Old English Poetic Diction", Neopbilologus 4 0 , 1 9 5 6 , pp. 3 0 1 - 3 0 5 , and A . H O E K S T R A , Homeric Modifications of Formula Prototypes, Studies in the Develop1

While it is possible to determine by formular density the compositional nature of a piece, there is a crucial condition involved: "In order to use this analysis, one must have a fair amount of material for study, and it must be the right kind of material; that is, it must be at least presumably all from one person" 1). Elsewhere, L O R D has written, "We may very well find it difficult to determine whether a text is oral or not. We may not be able to tell, because of lack of materials" 2). Recognizing these limitations, if we would place the poems analyzed above on a continuum from high density to low density, Psalm liv and Nahum i would be at one end and Psalm cix at the other. In terms of compositional nature this would mean Psalm liv and Nahum i were orally composed while Psalm civ was a written composition. Psalm cxiv would fall between these two ends of the continuum and may or may not represent an oral composition 3). Finally, to briefly summarize our conclusions, we have found that : 1. The presence of Α-B pairs in Hebrew poetry indicates that at one period in the Israelite literary tradition there was oral composition of poems.

ment of Greek Epic Diction, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 71, no. 1, Amsterdam 1965. But this argument projects an entity which up to now has not been established, namely an oral poet who also writes poetry in the oral style or a written tradition which composed poems by the use of formulas (cf. L O R D , op. cit., p. 1 3 ) . Even if such evidence is finally produced, there is still the realization that the creation of formulas is due to oral tradition and that oral tradition is their proper home. Thus, it is reasonable to assume—unless there is non-stylistic evidence to the contrary—that poems with a high density of formulas were orally composed. 1 ) A. B . L O R D , op. cit., p. 25. The accent on formular analysis rather than the broader formulaic analysis and on the amount of material by a single author is a rebuttal of critics who have demonstrated the high formulaic character of pieces known to have been written (cf. G . S. K I R K , "Formular Language and Oral Quality", YCS 20, 1966, pp. 153-174) or in pieces which are short (cf. L. D. B E N S O N , " T h e Literary Character of Anglo-Saxon Formulaic Poetry", PMLA 81, 1961, pp. 334-341). 2 ) A . B . L O R D , " T h e Poetics of Oral Creation", Comparative Literature I , ed. N. P. F R I E D R I C H , Chapel Hill, 1959, p. 4. s ) Other poems which have been analyzed, but which are not presented above are: The Song of Deborah (Judges v) which has a density similar to Psalm liv and Nahum i; Habakkuk iii which has 60 percent of its parallelism formed by fixed pairs; and Amos i-iii with a density similar to Psalm cxiv. The Song of Deborah and Habakkuk iii both presumably are oral compositions, while Amos i-iii joins Psalm cxiv in the middle of the continuum, the undecided area.

2. There is a wide variation in the extent to which the poets of Biblical poems relied on traditional fixed pairs. 3. Those poems which indicate a high reliance by the poet on Α-B pairs were orally composed. Those poems which show little reliance on these oral compositional units were composed in writing.

PSALM XXIX IN THE HEBREW POETIC TRADITION BY

P. C. CRAIGIE Hamilton, Ontario I

In recent years, Psalm xxix has become the focus of considerable scholarly attention. Although several scholars have continued to press the post-exilic affinities of the language of the psalm, there has been a growing body of opinion that the psalm is old, in its original form at least 1). It is not simply the antiquity of the psalm, however, which has created such interest. Rather, the point of importance lies in the interpretation of the Canaanite elements in the psalm. Since H. L . G I N S B E R G first presented the hypothesis in 1 9 3 5 that the psalm may originally have been Phoenician 2), more and more evidence was gathered, so that F . M . C R O S S could say in 1 9 5 0 : "Psalm xxix fills a real gap in the extant Canaanite literature" 3). With the apparent confirmation of the earlier hypothesis, scholarly attention then began to turn more to the way in which the adaptation could be interpreted in terms of Israelite religion and theology. F E N S H A M , for example, suggested that the psalm may have been an attempt by zealous Israelites to reach the Canaanite population (and also apostate Israeli1

) For a summary statement of the two positions, see H. C A Z E L L E S , " U n e relecture du Psaume X X I X ? " , A la rencontre de Dieu: Mémorial Albert G E L I N , Le Puy 1961, pp. 119 f. C A Z E L L E S attempts to encompass both positions by a relecture of the psalm. 2 ) " A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter," XIX Congresso Internationale degli Orientalisti, Rome 1935, pp. 472-6; idem, " T h e Rebellion and Death of Ba'lu", Orientalia V (1936), pp. 108 f. 3 ) F. M. C R O S S , "Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament", BASOR CXVII ( 1 9 5 0 ) , pp. 1 9 - 2 1 . At an earlier date, T. H . G A S T E R had examined the psalm in its broader Near Eastern setting and concurred with G I N S B E R G : its adaptation for Israelite use was described as Yahwizption·, "Psalm X X I X " , JQR X X X V I I ( 1 9 4 6 - 4 7 ) , pp. 5 5 - 6 5 . See also M. D A H O O D , Psalms I, New York 1 9 6 6 , pp. 1 7 5 ff. ; J. P. B R O W N , The Lebanon and Phoenicia: Ancient Texts illustrating the Physical Geography of Native Industries, I, Beirut 1 9 6 9 , pp. 1 1 5 - 7 . Aubrey J O H N S O N has suggested that the psalm may have been initially a hymn of the Jebusite cultus in Jerusalem; Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel, Cardiff 1967 (second edition), pp. 62 f.

tes) by using Canaanite idiom 1). Thus for many scholars at least, the Canaanite/Phoenician origin of the psalm has become a fact and the problem is now thought to centre on the interpretation of that fact. This study has as its starting point a dissatisfaction with the view that the psalm as a whole was originally Canaanite. There can be no denial of the general affinities between the language of Psalm xxix and Canaanite (in effect, Ugaritic) literature. Rather the point of disagreement concerns whether those affinities require an original CanaanitePhoenician provenance for the psalm. I think they do not 2) and that the evidence requires an alternative solution. The method adopted will be to present first of all the hypothesis in brief form: then the evidence for the case will be presented in detail and finally the hypothesis will be restated in rather fuller form. The hypothesis, in brief, is as follows. Psalm xxix is a Hebrew victory hymn, which is probably to be dated in the early part of the United Monarchy. It stands approximately at the midway point in a particular tradition of Hebrew poetry. The beginning of that tradition is marked by the Song of the Sea (Ex. xv 1-18) which is among the most ancient of Hebrew victory songs 3). The later and classical expression of that tradition is to be found in the so-called "Enthronement Psalms" (the basic group, Psalms xlvii, xciii; xcvi-xcix). It is between these two poles that Psalm xxix must be placed and it is from within this tradition that the psalm can throw considerable light on a "Canaanite stream" in the Hebrew poetic tradition. In the Song of the Sea, it is argued, the initial adaptation of Canaanite language and mythological motifs took place 4), in the context of a song of victory. 1 ) F . C. F E N S H A M , "Psalm 29 and Ugarit", Studies in the Psalms, South Africa 1963, pp. 84-99. For a theological interpretation in the context of the Old Testament as a whole, see H. STRAUSS, " Z u r Auslegung von Ps. X X I X auf dem Hintergrund seiner kanaanäischen Bezüge", ZAW L X X X I I (1970), pp. 91-102. 2 ) The negative side of my case is argued in a forthcoming article, " T h e Poetry of Ugarit and Israel", Tyndale Bulletin X X I I (1971), and will not be pursued further at this point. After a second draft of the present article was completed, my attention was drawn to an article by B. M A R G U L I S , " T h e Canaanite Origin of Psalm X X I X reconsidered", Biblica LI (1970), pp. 332-348. M A R G U L I S , too, thinks that the evidence for the Canaanite origin of Psalm xxix is inconclusive. In general interpretation, however, this paper presents an approach quite different from that of M A R G U L I S . 3 ) For a brief bibliographical summary on the question of the date of the Song of the Sea, see P. C . C R A I G I E , " A n Egyptian Expression in the Song of the Sea (Ex. xv 4)", VT X X (1970), p. 83. *) Cf. F. M. C R O S S , " T h e Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth", fournal for Theology and the Church V (1968), pp. 1-25.

In the "Enthronement Psalms", the Canaanite motifs have undergone more radical transformation and convey a rich theological expression of Israelite religion 1) ; the military context is less evident, though to some extent it is implicit in the theme of kingship. Psalm xxix, between these two poles, shows the beginning of the transformation of motifs, but has still retained the character of a victory hymn : unlike the Song of the Sea, which celebrated originally a particular event, Psalm xxix functions as a general hymn of victory. It is intended to establish, then, that there is a continuity between Exodus XV 1-18 and Psalm xxix 2). It will also have to be demonstrated that Psalm xxix is a victory hymn. In anticipation it may be said that the Canaanite aspects of the psalm are partly to be understood as a continuation of the Canaanite motifs in the Song of the Sea, and partly to be understood as a deliberate use of Canaanite language in a sarcastic taunt against the defeated Canaanite foe. Having now prepared the stage, it is necessary to examine the evidence in rather more detail. II It may be noted first of all that the word is used twice in both the Song of the Sea and Psalm xxix 3). In both passages, the different contexts in which the word appears require that it be given a different sense in each case. The context of Ex. xv 2 requires to be taken as a complement of Yah 4), but the translation has caused considerable difficulty and debate 5). The best solution seems to be to translate 1 ) For a thorough study of the Canaanite and Mesopotamian motifs in the "Enthronement Psalms", see A. E. C O M B S , The Creation Motif in the "Enthronement Psalms", (doctoral dissertation, Columbia University 1963); available f r o m University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2 ) The continuity between Psalm xxix and the "Enthronement Psalms" is more generally accepted, Psalm xxix being included in the various wider groupings of the "Enthronement Psalms"; cf. J. D. W . W A T T S , "Yahweh Malak Psalms", ThZXXI (1965), pp. 341-348. 3 ) Ex. xv 2, 13: Ps. xxix 1, 11: see also in the "Enthronement Psalms", Pss. xciii 1; xcvi 6, 7; xcxix 4 (n>cz mlk\ the words should probably be taken as an epithet of Yahweh, "Strength of-the-King", after A . E. C O M B S , op. cit., pp. 161 ff.). The double nuance of the word in its occurrences in Exodus xv and Psalm xxix is no longer evident in the "Enthronement Psalms". 4 ) Or yhwh on the basis of orthographic change; F . M . CROSS and D. N . F R E E D MAN, " T h e Song of Miriam", JNES XIV (1955), p. 243. 6 ) See the following discussions: D . W . T H O M A S , " A note on Exodus xv 2 " , £ T X L V I I I ( 1 9 3 6 - 3 7 ) , p. 4 7 8 . T . H . G A S T E R , "Exodus xv 2 " , ET X L I X ( 1 9 3 7 - 3 8 ) , p. 1 8 9 ; J . B A R R , Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, London 1 9 6 8 , pp. 2 9 f.

"Yah is my refuge (czy) and (my) protection (%mrt)". The evidence for the translation comes from one of the newer Ugaritic texts where a similar coupling of synonyms occurs: \k.dmrk. Pak ("Send your protection, your guard...") 1). Yah as "refuge", in context, is based on his ability as a "man of war". But the word is either a homonym (in the strict sense), or else simply has a wide semantic range 2). When \ is used again in xv 13, it is best translated "by your strength" (bc%k). In summary, in the Song of the Sea is used with two senses, "refuge, protection" and "strength, might". A similar dual usage can be discerned in Psalm xxix. The context of xxix 1 indicates the sense "strength, might". In xxix 11, however, is something given by Yahweh to his people, namely "refuge, protection", the prerequisites of "peace" (v. lib). The significance of this parallel usage will be taken up below, but first some other points of contact between the Song of the Sea and Psalm xxix must be examined. The paean of praise in the Song of the Sea in which Yahweh is described as a "Man of War" (v. 3) continues with the words "Yahweh is his name (/«?)". It is likely that both expressions had something of the character of a war-cry 3) and that the name itself was used in an 1

) See Ugaritica V (1968), pp. 551 ff.; RS 24.252, obverse 9-10. The translation above is that of J. C. DE M O O R , "Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra, I", Ugarit Forschungen I (1969), pp. 176 ff. See also the translation of B. M A R G U L I S , " A Ugaritic Psalm (RS 2 4 . 2 5 2 ) " , J B L L X X X I X (1970), pp. 296 f. The new Ugaritic evidence has also been used in this context by S. E. L O E W E N STAMM, " T h e Lord is my Strength and Glory", VT X I X (1969), pp. 464-470 (see also E. M. G O O D , "Exodus XV 2", VT X X (1970), pp. 358 f.) In the present writer's view, DE M O O R has understood the syntax of the Ugaritic passage correctly and his translation is preferable to that of L O E W E N S T A M M . See also the discussion in R. B O R G E R , "Weitere Ugaritologische Kleinigkeiten, IV", Ugarit Forschungen I (1969), pp. 3 f. 2 ) Cf. W . A. W A R D , "Notes on some Egypto-Semitic Roots", Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde XCV ( 1 9 6 8 ) , pp. 6 5 - 7 2 . The EgyptoSemitic root ( c j = 'z(z)) has a meaning in Egyptian similar to that in Ugaritic and Hebrew, " t o be safe, vigorous, prosperous". The semantic range here would apparently include both nuances of the word in the texts under discussion. Alternatively 'z may be a homonym with meanings derived from the roots CZZ a n d c wz respectively. In Arabic cognates, there are examples of both roots used in contexts reminiscent of the Biblical passages under discussion. E.g., in an early Thamudic inscription, a short prayer is addressed to the deity Ruda asking for "protection", 'wd {*•wd = Heb. '»‫׳‬£): see F . V. W I N N E T T and W . L . R E E D , Ancient Records from North Arabia, Toronto 1970, p. 80, no. 22. In later Classical Arabic, l iZZa-> "strength", (Ar. CZZ = Heb. c zz) • s used in the battle-cry of the Meccan goddess al- c Uzza; see A. G U I L L A U M E , Islam, Harmondsworth 1 9 5 6 , p. 8 . 3 ) Cf. P. C . C R A I G I E , " T h e Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta", fBL L X X X V I I I (1969), pp. 257 f.

invocation against the enemy 1). That is to say, the use of Im in this context adds clearly to the military character of the Song of the Sea. Similarly, in Psalm xxix 1-2, the parallelism indicates a relationship in thought between and Im ; the glory was due to his name because of his might. In other words, the introductory verses of Psalm xxix already indicate the military and victorious character of the psalm; to this extent, it is similar to the Song of the Sea 2), although the fuller expression of the Psalm takes a form quite different from that of the Song. Before moving to an examination of the main substance of Psalm xxix, however, there is one further point of similarity between the introductory verses of Psalm xxix and the Song of the Sea. The context of the worship in xxix 1 is set by the phrase "sons of god" (bny ‫י‬lym) 3). That is to say, the context is that of the divine assembly; Yahweh is honoured in his divine court. Likewise, after the description of the triumph over the Egyptians in the Song of the Sea, Yahweh is extolled in the context of his divine assembly (xv 11) 4). The parallel indicates, in this writer's view, that Psalm xxix has the character of a victory hymn, but whereas the language of the "divine council" was introduced almost incidentally in the Song of the Sea, it has now come to dominate and form a framework for the worship of Yahweh as it is expressed in Psalm xxix. Ill

It is now necessary to examine on a broader basis the central content of Psalm xxix. It is generally accepted that the psalm is in essence a theophany, the theophany of Yahweh in nature (i.e. the 1

) Cf. M. B U B E R , Kingship of God, London 1967, p. 1 0 4 . ) In die "Enthronement Psalms", see the linking of kbivd, and "sm in xcvi 7-8 in a manner which is similar to xxix 1. The " n a m e " recurs in Ps. xcix 3. On im and kbivd in Psalm xxix, see further M A R G U L I S in Biblica LI (1970), pp. 3 3 6 - 7 . 3 ) Note, however, that several MSS render ''ylym (see the discussion in H. STRAUSS, loc. cit.); nevertheless, the context of the divine assembly seems fairly certain. 4 ) Cf. F. M. C R O S S , " T h e Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah", JNES XII (1953), p. 274 n. 1. It may be that the divine council in the Song of the Sea is a part of the adaptation of the Canaanite motifs. The extolling of Yahweh in the divine council is perhaps analogous to the praise of Baal among the gods after the conquest of Yam and the building of a palace for Baal; see CT A 4 VII 1-4 ( = UT 51 VII 1-4). The Ugaritic text is badly preserved, but seems to be a brief recounting of Baal's victory over Yam in the context of the celebration. For a discussion of this aspect of the "Enthronement Psalms", see A. E. C O M B S , op. cit., pp. 119 ff. 2

"storm"). However, in the hypothesis presented here, it is a distinct type of theophany. It must be recalled that in the tradition of Hebrew war poetry, Yahweh's presence and help in battle are experienced in the storm. Returning briefly to the Song of the Sea, it seems that Yahweh's victory over Egypt was achieved by a storm (Ex. xv 8, 10). In the Song of Deborah (Jud. v), which is also an ancient victory song, the theophany of Sinai is recalled at the beginning of the song (vv. 4-5) 1 ); in the battle description (vv. 19 ft'.), it was a storm and flood which achieved victory for the Israelite confederation. The use of the language of storm and theophany in battle descriptions and victory songs is not confined to the Hebrew sources. In the Assyrian Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta, for example, "storm language" is also used 2). By a curious twist, the description of a storm may employ the imagery of battle! 3) This general usage need not occasion surprise when it is recalled that the god of wind and storm was often also the god of war and battle (e.g. Baal/Hadad). Thus the language of storm and theophany in Psalm xxix is initially language used to describe Yahweh's prowess in battle. But the transformation in its use can already be seen in contrast to the Song of the Sea. In that song, Yahweh's use of sea (jm) calls to mind the conflict of Baal and Yam, but the description is strictly historical rather than mythological. In Psalm xxix, the historical element is reduced and the motifs of the mythological background are expanded. The impersonal use o f y m in Exodus xv has been transformed, so that in the acclamation of Psalm xxix 10, Yahweh is enthroned "above the flood" 4). The hypothesis which is presented here is thus the reverse of 1 ) Although some interpreters would take these verses to describe Yahweh's advent from the south to fight on behalf of his people; his advent is marked by the phenomenon of storm. 2 ) Cf. R. C. T H O M P S O N , " T h e Excavations on the Temple of Nabu at Nineveh", Archaeologia X X I X (1926), pp. 131 f. (lines 41-43). 3 ) See for example, the language used to describe the storm and flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh XI, particularly lines 110 ff. and 128 ff. 4 ) Imbwl. The translation "above the flood" is that of the New English Bible ( 1 9 7 0 ) . See also the discussion in E. V O G T , " D e r Aufbau von Ps. 2 9 " , Biblica X L I ( 1 9 6 0 ) , p. 2 2 n. 1 . There is an interesting parallel to Yahweh's enthronement "above the flood" in the new Ugaritic text RS. 2 5 . 2 4 5 (Ugaritica V , p. 5 5 7 ) . There, Baal is " e n t h r o n e d " (ytb ktbt, line 1); in the following line, kmdb occurs, referring to the " f l o o d " or "ocean". The implication may be that after Baal's victory over Yam, he is enthroned over the now defeated Yam or "ocean" (see L. R. F I S H E R and F . B. K N U T S O N , " A n Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit", JNES X X V I I ( 1 9 6 9 ) , pp. 1 5 7 - 6 7 , and compare J . C . DE M O O R , op. cit., pp. 1 8 0 f.) The syntax of the two lines makes a suitable translation difficult; the broken nature of the text at the

that of M . D A H O O D 1), who, in commenting on verse 11, says that because Yahweh triumphed over the forces of chaos, so he would give his people triumph over their enemies. It seems rather to be the case that the initial experience of Yahweh as victor in battle gave rise to the adaptation and transformation of the mythological imagery, so that Yahweh's power, expressed in this psalm in the nature theophany, came to have a cosmological expression. If it is correct that the language of storm and theophany in Psalm xxix has its roots in a tradition of victory poetry, then a further difficulty arises. Why, it might be asked, does the psalm lay such stress on the voice (qivl, mentioned 7 times) of Yahweh? The answer to this problem is to be found in the nature of Baal/Hadad as god of both storm and war. The sources dealing with the latter aspect of his character are scant, but two points of importance can be made from sources recovered in Egypt. It is known that from the fourteenth century B.C. onwards, Asiatic gods (and Baal in particular) were worshipped in Egypt. Just as the Egyptian war gods had their names used in battle, so also was that of Baal: in describing a pharaoh in battle, it is said that "his battlecry is like (that of) Baal in the heavens" 2). A similar piece of evidence comes from one of the Amarna letters (EA 147), where again it is said of a king that he "utters his battlecry in heaven like Baal, so that the whole land quakes at his cry" 3). The point to be stressed in both these examples is that the likeness is to the battle-cry, the voice of Baal, which is significant in battle. Although the Ugaritic texts do not provide much direct insight into the religious understanding of war among the Canaanites 4), it seems not unreasonable to suppose that the two examples cited would typify the Canaanite religious interpretation of battle. With this background, it is now possible to return to Psalm xxix. Just as the voice and battle-cry of Baal were part of the battle scene, so to the voice of Yahweh was significant for the Israelites. It may be that at this point the psalm right hand edge seems to indicate a word missing between lines 1 and 2 which might have provided a clue to the syntax. Nevertheless, the passage does seem to provide a background to the use of language in Psalm xxix 10. 1 ) Psalms I, New York 1966, p. 180. 2 ) Text cited from J . A . W I L S O N in J . B . P R I T C H A R D (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Princeton 1955, p. 249. 3 ) Translation from W . F . A L B R I G H T in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 484. *) See J. N O U G A Y R O L , "Guerre et paix à Ugarit", Iraq X X V (1963), pp. 110-23 for a description of the subject matter, but N O U G A Y R O L has little to say on the religious aspects of war in Ugarit.

deliberately parodies the Canaanites, describing the victorious Yahweh with the language and epithets normally used of Baal ; the technique thus consciously elevates YahwehJs power in direct contrast to that of the defeated Canaanites and their god. In summary, the stress on the voice in the theophany is both a continuation and elaboration of the Canaanite motifs already used at an earlier date in the Song of the Sea, and also a deliberate technique suited to a psalm celebrating a victory over Canaanite opposition. IV The hypothesis can now be restated in a rather more coherent form. There was a tradition in Hebrew poetry which had its starting point in Ex. xv 1-18, a transitional phase in Psa. xxix, and a classical expression in the "Enthronement Psalms". Running through this whole tradition, there is a strong Canaanite element. The Canaanite motifs are introduced in the Song of the Sea for the poetic expression of the religious interpretation of victory. They continue in a modified form in Psalm xxix, but at this point they have been supplemented with additional Canaanite language, deliberately employed in a victory hymn which both elevates the power of Yahweh and by implication mocks the power of Baal, the principal god of the defeated enemy. In the "Enthronement Psalms", the Canaanite motifs are modified to provide a richer theological conception of the nature of Yahweh. This understanding of the tradition provides a viable manner of dealing with the Canaanite aspects of Hebrew poetry in time when there was growing enmity between the Israelites and the Canaanites. In the early stages of the Hebrew tradition, certain stylistic similarities with Canaanite poetry remain. The most important of these is the use of the short staccato line, characterizing both the Song of the Sea and Psalm xxix. The significance of this stylistic similarity lies not so much in its implications for the dating of the passages as it does in its indication of their function. The staccato lines indicate clearly the function of both passages as dramatic pieces, namely victory songs. The "Enthronement Psalms" do not have this stylistic similarity in clear form, but its absence is to be expected on the basis of content. The "Enthronement Psalms" still contain references to victory over enemies 1), but the major emphasis has shifted to the more general praise of Yahweh. 1 ) See inter al. Pss. xlvii 2-3; xcvi 2; xcvii 3; xcviii 1-2; xcix 1 (with the latter, compare Ex. xv 14-15).

The hypothesis concerning this Hebrew poetic tradition has certain implications for the form-critical study of the tradition 1). Within the poetic tradition, there is a shift in Gattung (and a corresponding shift in S1t^ im Leben) at each stage, from what I would call Particular Victory Hymn (Ex. xv 1-18) to General Victory Hymn (Psa. xxix), and finally to Enthronement Psalm 2). In addition, there may also be a shift in Gattung within the history of a particular passage. The Song of the Sea, for example, has its primary Gattung as a particular victory song, a secondary Gattung at a later date as Enthronement Psalm, and finally a move to a more general hymn of worship 3). If indeed the culmination of this poetic tradition has its Sit% im Leben in a Covenant Renewal Festival, then the history of the tradition may give further indication of the close relationship between the Sinai and the Exodus traditions. 1

) The matters touched on at this point are so much debated that the comments presented in this final paragraph will be given in general form only. For example, the form-critical implications will differ in detail depending on whether or not a New Year Festival is accepted in Israelite religion. Those scholars who are sceptical about the existence of such a festival would naturally see the Sitζ im Leben of the culmination of the tradition in a different light. 2 ) I continue to use the expression "Enthronement Psalm" since the terminology is now so widely accepted, but I do not mean to imply the acceptance of a view such as that of M O W I N C K E L in his Psalmenstudien II (Kristiania, 1 9 2 2 ) . A Sitz ' M Leben in some kind of Covenant Renewal Festival seems to present a better solution: cf. Α. W E I S E R , The Psalms, London 1 9 6 2 ; A . E. C O M B S , op. cit., pp. 2 7 0 ff. 3 ) Cf. Ν. H. S N A I T H , "ym-su'p: the Sea of Reeds: the Red Sea", VT XV (1965), pp. 395-8; O. E I S S F E L D T , The Old Testament: an Introduction, New York 1965, p. 588.

JEREMIAH'S POEM IN III 1 -IV 2 by DAVID JOBLING N e w York In Memory ofJames Muilenburg

We suggest that, underlying the present form of Jer. iii 1 - iv 2, is a poem by Jeremiah consisting of iii 1-5, 19-20, 12b (beginning sivbh) - 13, 21 - iv 2; a poem showing remarkable structural symmetry —two clearly demarcated halves, each of four four-line strophes— and striking inner rhetorical patterns. In the first section, we shall submit this proposal to an external examination, in the light of existing criticism of this part of Jeremiah. In the second section, we shall submit it to internal examination, offering a rhetorical analysis of the proposed poem. In the third section, we shall seek further evidence from a consideration of the process of redaction, suggesting that there was a stage consisting of iii 1-5, 19-20, 6-13, 21 - iv 2, and that it was through the later addition of vss. 14-18 that vss. 19-20 were dislocated to their present place. I

W. Rudolph 1) analyses Jer. iii 1-5, 19 - iv 4 as a single poem of Jeremiah, in two parts, each with four four-line strophes, as follows : First half: iii 1, iii 2-3a, iii 3b-5, iii 19-20. Second half: iii 21-2, iii 23-5 (with removal of substantial glosses), iv 1-2, iv 3-4. Our proposal is similar, and in fact leaves the first half of Rudolph's poem unaltered. For future reference, we give sigla to the strophes: 1

) W. Rudolph, Jeremia (3rd edn., Tübingen, 1968), p. 30, and cf. his detailed analyses of the whole section.

Part I I I I I

A. B. C. D.

iii iii iii iii

1 2-3a 3b-5 19-20

Part II II II II II

A. B. C. D.

iii 12b-13 iii 21-2 iii 23-5 iv 1-2

(This scheme depends on the excision of glosses in iii 13, 24, 25, to be discussed below.) Rudolph's dividing point between the two halves is unexceptionable, being the point of transition from the ryb form in iii 1-5, 19-20 to what may be called a "liturgy of penitence" 2) in iii 21 - iv 2 (or 4), related to xiv 1 - xv 4, xxxi 18-20 (or 22), and the communal laments in the Psalms.3). There is, further, widespread agreement with his view that iii 1-5,19 - iv 4 is a consecutive piece of Jeremiah material 4). But some scholars diverge from this view, and we must consider the divergences which relate to our position. An original connection between iv 3-4 and what precedes is doubtful. These two verses lack the root swb which, in its various meanings, dominates iii 1 - iv 2; they introduce new imagery; they show evidence of deuteronomic redaction; and they seem to prepare the way for the following major section, iv 5 - vi 30. W. Thiel above all has argued cogently, and to us convincingly, that these two verses were composed separately from the preceding poetry 5). On the other hand, almost no one denies an original connection between iv 1-2 and at least iii 21-25 6 ); rightly so, since the people's confession requires a divine response 7). ‫ ף‬J. Bright, Jeremiah (Garden City, New York, 1965), p. 25. ) J. M. Berridge, Prophet, People, and the Word of Yahweh (Zürich, 1970), pp. 158,168-9. *) E.g. Bright, p. 25; Berridge, p. 77. 5 ) W. Thiel, Die deuteronomische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25 (Neukirchen, 1973), pp. 93-7. He sees a Deuteronomic composition around a Jeremiah saying. H e denies that the function is to introduce the next section; rather, it is to underscore the preceding one. But the sudden mention of Jerusalem, and the threat of Y H W H ' s wrath, surely provide the mood and the locale for what follows. E. W. Nicholson, Jeremiah 1-25 (Cambridge, 1973), p. 44, suggests such a connecting function, and A. Weiser, Das Buch Jeremia (6th edn., Göttingen, 1969) p. 37, hints at it. Both deny an original connection with what precedes. Rudolph himself (p. 32) sees iv 4b as providing a transition—it is surely hard to reconcile this with its being part of the preceding poem. ') J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion (Cambridge, 1922, repr. 1961), p. 86, denies the connection, and Nicholson, p. 49, expresses doubt. ') Berridge, pp. 158, 168-9. 3

Almost no one, again, denies that iii 1-5 and iii 19-20 form a single piece 8). But between this piece and iii 21 there is, as we have seen, a substantial break in form and thought, and some deny any original link 9). J. Skinner and, apparently, J. P. Hyatt see in vs. 21 the continuation not of vss. 1-5, 19-20, but of vss. 12b-13 (or 14a) 10). This brief poetic section is pivotal for our case. The great majority of commentators affirm that at least some form of it comes from Jeremiah. But only a few incorporate it into the rest of the poetry of iii 1 - iv 4, despite its similarity, and in particular its use of the root šu‫׳‬b. The view of B. Duhm, that vss. 12b-13 are a transition from vss. 1-5 to vss. 19-20, has not found acceptance 11). Rudolph (p. 29) for instance, convincingly rejects it because of the sharp reversion from gracious appeal (vss. 12b-13) to renewed indictment (vs. 20) Our proposal finds a place for vss. 12b-13 which takes account of the similarity to iii 21 - iv 2 and does not break up iii 1-5, 19-20. Further, by excising iv 3-4, we can maintain Rudolph's scheme of a single, continuous poem of Jeremiah, divided into two equal parts in the appropriate place, after iii 20. Rudolph's dividing of iii 1-5, 19 - iv 4 into four-line strophes is convincing. All the significant breaks correspond to the ends of his strophes; the change from indictment to penitence after iii 20, the insertion of the prose after iii 5, the oracle formulae which occur at the ends of lines (iii 1, 20—on iii 13 see below), the break in the speech of YHWH (after iii 20) and its resumption (at iv 1), not to mention the chapter division. And, although he does not include it in the major poem, he finds also in iii 12b-13 four lines of poetry (p. 25). In the light of his work, only two of the strophes we propose require any discussion. Firstly, in iii 12b-13 we posit, following Rudolph, the following strophe : Return, apostate Israel—oracle of YHWH— I shall not set my face against you, For I am merciful—oracle of YHWH— 8

) A notable exception is Weiser, p. 32. Cf. Skinner, p. 84. ) So, apparently, Nicholson, pp. 44, 49. 10 ) Skinner, pp. 84-5, without argumentation, simply prints vss. 12b-13.21-25 as one poem. J. P. Hyatt, " T h e Book of Jeremiah: Introduction and Exegesis," The Interpreter's Bible 5 (New York, 1956), speaks only of a connection in "subject matter" (p. 823), and of iii 21- iv 4 "continuing the thought" of iii 12-14a (p. 829). " ) B. Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia erklärt (Tübingen, 1901) pp. 15, 41-2. 8

I shall not be angry forever. Only acknowledge your guilt, that you have rebelled against YHWH your God, And scattered your favors 12) among strangers, and have not obeyed my voice— oracle of YHWH. Three issues are involved. (1) We agree with Rudolph and many others that "under every green tree" in vs. 13 is a gloss from ii 20 13). (2) We reject, however, Thiel's view that "and have not obeyed my voice" is also a gloss 14). He himself regards this as "less certain", and admits that this characteristic deuteronomic cliché occurs in authentic Jeremiah material. There is a further, rhetorical reason, we shall see, for retaining this half-line. (3) We reject vs. 14a from the poem, and doubt that it comes from Jeremiah. W. L. Holladay, it is true, finds here one of the best examples of Jeremiah's unique use of šwb, without preposition, and in a word-play 15). But since the usage is identical with that of the certainly Jeremianic vs. 22aa, we may well have here simply an imitation, especially since vs. 14b is admittedly non-Jeremianic, and aß is suspect (cf. xxxi 32). We may note that the Jerusalem Bible, which follows Rudolph's strophic scheme, renders vss. 12b-13 as a four-line strophe identical with ours. Secondly, for iii 23-5 we again adopt Rudolph's strophe, but with less certainty: "Surely the hills are a deception 16), and the clamor on the mountains; Surely in YHWH our God is the salvation of Israel. But Bosheth (Baal) has devoured our fathers' produce from our youth. Let us lie down in our shame, our disgrace cover us, for against YHWH our God we have sinned." 12

) Reading dwdyk, with BH 3 and many commentators. ) See especially W. L. Holladay, " O n Every High Hill and under Every Green Tree," VT 11 (1961), p. 174. 14 ) Pp. 86-7; cf. S. Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament (Stuttgart, 1965), p. 224. 15 ) The Root Šûbh in the Old Testament (Leiden, 1958), pp. 134, 152-3. Hyatt, pp. 823, 827, includes vs. 14a with vss. 12-13. J. Muilenburg does not include vs. 14a in his rhetorical analysis, " A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style," SVT 1 (1953), p. 105 (cf. below, note 18). 1e ) Following L X X , Syr., Vulg. 13

Rudolph rejects as glosses "their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters" (vs. 24), "we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day" (vs. 25), and "and we have not obeyed the voice of YHWH our God" (vs. 25). This is generally justifiable. The last part of vs. 24 prosaically specifies the preceding clause, and makes apparent reference to the cult of child-sacrifice, a theme of the Deuteronomic editors 17). The first gloss in vs. 25 is an awkward repetition of the first part of vs. 24, and the second is the Deuteronomic cliché already discussed in connection with vs. 13; if, as we argued, it is authentic there, its presence here could be in imitation of the earlier verse. The Jerusalem Bible, to preserve the poetry, follows Rudolph throughout. The Revised Standard Version, to keep the entire text, abandons the poetry. J. Bright, though he prints vs. 25 as poetry, admits, "The last line is not metrical. The verse may have been somewhat expanded with liturgical expressions" (p. 23). Rudolph's reconstruction may not be perfect, and certainty may be unattainable. Even after the removal of the glosses, he must accept a very heavy half-line, "Let us lie down in our shame, our disgrace cover us." But his scheme of four-line strophes is so impressÌve in the context that it is justified to assume that such a strophe underlies the present form of iii 23-5 18). II In tins section we shall suggest certain rhetorical patterns in our proposed poem. The danger that some of these may be overdrawn is obvious, but, taken together, we believe that they show the inner coherence of the poem, and therefore provide corroboration for our reconstruction of it. 17

) See vii 31 and xix 5, on which Nicholson, pp. 83, 162-4, Thiel, pp. 128-34. ) The original impulse for the present paper came from a seminar on Jeremiah under James Muilenburg. Muilenburg himself published a sketch of a rhetorical analysis of our poem. " A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric," pp. 104-5, in which he posited a ten-strophe poem, iii 1-5, 12b-13, 19 - iv 4. The extra strophe is obtained by making two strophes out of vss. 23-5 (without adding a vs. 26—see the amusing error, p. 105). He further suggested that the structure is three sections of three strophes each, with the tenth strophe, iv 3-4, as a climax. In the seminar he expressed unhappiness with this analysis, and in fact, even without excisions, there is insufficient material in vss. 23-5 for two strophes. And his division into sections awkwardly breaks up Israel's speech of penitence. But Muilenburg was working well in advance of his time, and our criticism here is intended also as homage. 18

Beginning and end patterns (I A and II D) IVswb Hy (iii lb) is picked up by Hy tswb (iv la), and the "abominations" of iv 1 answer well to the pollution in iii 1. But there is more to be said about the beginning and end of the poem. Rudolph suggests that iv lbß alludes to Gen. iv 14 (Cain; note there wmpnyk and wnd) and should be translated "you will not need to flee (be a wanderer) from my presence" 19). The thought would be that, as Cain was an exile from YHWH's presence, so the divorced and remarried wife of iii 1 is, by law, an exile from the presence of her first husband—but YHWH will not exact the law! If this is correct, then II D makes two allusions to Genesis, for iv 2 uses the famous series Gen. xii 3, xviii 18, xxii 18, xxvi 4. (I A and I D) Beginning and end of the first part of the poem are related by the "faithless woman" (though there is an odd jump from whoring with lovers (r'ym, iii 1) to being unfaithful to a lover (r'b, iii 20)). There is also a contrast between the original V/ hmdh (iii 19) and the polluted ';‫־‬/ (iii 1). (II A and II D) The second part shows a clear chiastic pattern, in which YHWH's invitation (with its attendant demand) in II A.D. surrounds Israel's penitence in II B.C. We note also the divine face or presence (pnym), which in II A (iii 12) will not be made to "fall against" Israel, and from which in II D (iv 1) she will not be excluded (cf. above). (I D and II A) Between the end of the first part and the beginning of the second there are important links. Only at the very end of the long indictment (iii 20) is the culprit, "Israel", named; and the very next line (iii 12b) holds out an invitation to Israel (it is curious that in the second part "Israel" occurs exactly once in each strophe.) Further, the ironic title given to Israel, msbh "apostate" (iii 12), occurs directly after the first use of Iwb in its negative sense, "to apostatize" (iii 19) 20). Two further points may be noted about the beginning and end patterns. With the exception of a single line in II Β (iii 22a), all the occurrences of Iwb are in I A.D. and II A.D. And, without exception, all the "oracle of YHWH" formulae occur in these same strophes; at the end of I A, I D, and II A (so that one wonders if a similar le

) have stray 20 )

P. 28. We may compare the translation in the Jerusalem Bible, " y o u will no need to avoid me," and, more distantly, that of Bright, p. 21, " N o r from my presence." See Holladay, The Root Sûbh, pp. 80, 108, 129.

formula at the end of II D has not been suppressed by the formula at the beginning of iv 3), and within lines in II A (each of the first two lines, iii 12bc) and II D (the first line, iv la). Cross-correspondences between the two parts (I A and II A) Here we can only add the general similarity between the seventh half-lines in each strophe: "And you, who have whored with many lovers" (iii 1), "And you have scattered your favors among strangers" (iii 13). (I Β and II B) Much more impressive is the turning of attention, in each first half-line, to the "bare heights"—"Lift up your eyes Ί-špjm and see" (iii 2), "A voice Ί-špyjm is heard" (iii 21)—with the beautiful counterpoint between eye and ear 21). (I C and II C) Llere the correspondence is profound. With the exception of one line at the end of II Β (iii 22b) all the words spoken by Israel are in these two strophes; the insincere, flippant words quoted by YHWH in iii 4b-5a contrast with the sincere words of penitence in iii 23-5. Where Israel "refused to be ashamed" (hklm, iii 3), she now accepts her shame and her disgrace (klmtnw, iii 25). Where she glibly claimed that YHWH had always been her god (n(ry, iii 4), she confesses that Baal has always been her god (mn'wrjnw, iii 24)! (I D and II D) These strophes both introduce the "nations", raising Israel over them both in YHWH's original intent (iii 19) and in the future promise (iv 2). As a final rhetorical point, we notice that in our reconstruction a catchword link between two strophes, II A and II B, is restored; qwl and šml occur in the last half-line of II A (iii 13) and in the first half-line of II Β (iii 21). This is a further argument for retaining the last half-line of vs. 13 (cf. above). Ill

Further evidence for our reconstruction is gained by a consideration of iii 6-18, and the redactional process through which iii 1 - iv 2 reached its present form. For iii 6-18 we find Thiel's account convincing 'i2). According to him, a saying of Jeremiah (iii 12b-13ba, but we prefer to include also the last half-line of vs. 13) was used by a 21

) It is also striking that in each third half-line drk occurs, especially since the next occurrence of špyym, in iv 11, is also in association with drk. 22 ) Pp. 83-93, with a useful summary on p. 93.

Deuteronomic editor in a sermon, iii 6-13. To this were added, consecutively and considerably later, vss. 14-17 and vs. 18, the work of editors holding varying views of the relation between northern Israel and Judah. Details are not important for our purposes, and Thiel's view that the prose of iii 6-18 falls into two parts of different origin is almost universally shared 23). Some scholars have held that the first prose section, vss. 6-11, existed separately from the Jeremiah saying 24). But Thiel's close analysis of vss. 6-12a 25) has proved to our satisfaction that these verses are ‫״‬sehr pointierte Interpretation" of the Jeremiah saying, composed only in connection with it 2 6 ); and further that the numerous links between vss. 6-12a and the larger context (iii 1-5, 19 - iv 2, and even ch. ii) show that they were composed with this whole context in mind. However, the present placing of iii 6-13 within the poetry is awkward, as Thiel admits : Durch . . . den fehlenden Anschluss nach vorn und hinten . . . wird das Stück 27) deutlich als selbständige Einheit von den poetischen Sprüchen der Umgebung abgehoben. Es scheint einen ursprüngliehen Zusammenhang zwischen v. 5 und v. 19 zu zerreissen (p. 84). In particular, the renewed indictment in vss. 19-20 reads poorly after vss. 12-13. The problems disappear, however, if we assume the sermon to have been introduced originally between vs. 20 and vs. 21, that is, in terms of our proposal, to have made use of strophe II A of Jeremiah's poem while leaving it in its original place in the poem. The proposal has a further great advantage. The protagonists in the sermon are msbhysr^l (vss. 6, 8, 11) and bgwdh (or bgdh) yhwdh (vss. 7, 8, 10, 11). Nowhere could these epithets better fit than immediately after vss. 19-20, the end of the great indictment, in which appear the verbs swb (vs. 19c), here for the first time in its negative sense "to apostatize" 28, and bgd (vs. 20) 29. 23

) Where the break comes is disputed. Hyatt, p. 827, puts it after vs. 14a; Bright, p. 27, inclines to put it after vs. 15. Bright considers the first part Jeremianic, and Rudolph, pp. 25-9, and Weiser, pp. 26-31, take this view of all (or almost all) the prose, but still regard it as falling into two parts, at least. 24 ) E.g. Nicholson, pp. 27, 44. 25 ) Pp. 87-91. 26 ) Cf. above all Herrmann, pp. 223-31. 27 ) Thiel is actually referring to the larger section iii 6-18, but this does not change the point. 28 ) See above, note 20. 29 ) Thiel, p. 88, notes, in fact, that the epithet for Judah depends on bgd in vs. 20.

We conclude that, at one stage of the development of this part of Jeremiah (the unit was perhaps chs. ii-vi) there was a sequence iii 1-5, 19-20, 6-13 (possibly 14a), 21- iv 2. The only plausible reason we can discern for the later dislocation of vss. 19-20 is the similarity of vs. 19 to the second prose section, vss. 14-18; "land" (vss. 16, 18), "nations" (vs. 17), and especially "heritage" (vs. 18) 30), are all found in vs. 19. We suggest, therefore, that along with the insertion of vss. 14-18 into the Deuteronomic sermon, or afterwards, strophe I D of Jeremiah's poem, iii 19-20, was moved from its proper place after vs. 5 to its present unnatural setting. Conclusion If our reconstruction is correct, it first of all frees the redactors of Jeremiah from some undeserved criticism. To the appreciation which Thiel and others express for the work of those who produced Jer. iii 6-13 31), we may add admiration also of the subtle placing of this section, just at the turning point in the poem from indictment to penitence. Even those who added vss. 14-18, though they may be responsible for the dislocation in the poem, have made iii 6-18 into an impressive unit which uses the strophe in vss. 12b-13, just as the original poem did, as a pivot from doom to hope. But most striking is the achievement of Jeremiah's poem itself. Working with two different literary forms, he has created a perfectly balanced verse-drama in two acts, on an intricate rhetorical structure, in which the prophetic theology of apostasy and doom, repentance and hope, receives classic expression. Addendum Before its publication, and by the kindness of the author, we have received W. L. Holladay's book, The Architecture of Jeremiah 1-20 (Lewisburg, 1976), which was unavailable during the writing of our paper. (All page references in what follows are to this book.) It contains a fascinating reading of our text, diverging from our own. This is not the place to comment on Holladay's comprehensive approach to Jer. i-xx, and the assumptions on which it is based, but we offer some brief remarks on his analysis of our text. We begin with general comments. Holladay does not, firstly, discuss strophes, and seems not to consider them important for analysis. 30 31

) In vs. 18 in the verb form, "give as a heritage", in vs. 19 in the noun form. ) See above, notes 25, 26.

We, following Rudolph, Muilenburg and others, see them as very important. Secondly, many of the valuable detailed observations which Holladay makes do not affect the analysis we have presented or the issues dividing us from him. He finds a number of echoes or parallels in the poem (e.g. "call" and "my father" in iii 4 and 19 (p. 49), "be angry forever" in iii 5 and 12 (ibid.)) which are well observed and no doubt important for a full analysis. We have restricted discussion to patterned correspondences of certain kinds (beginning and end patterns, cross-correspondences). The issues between us are three. On the first, the inclusion of vs. 14a with iii 12b-13 (pp. 48-52), we have nothing to add—our case rests on the strophic analysis. The second issue is the placing of iii 12b-13 (or 14a) within the larger poem. Holladay sees iii 1-5, 12b-14a, 19-25 as the continuation and close of a "Harlotry Cycle" containing also ii 5-37 (pp. 35-54; we are grateful for his careful work on the connections of our poem with ch. ii, which we have not, however, found amenable to similar strophic analysis.) He fully acknowledges the links, on the one hand between iii 1-5 and iii 19-20, on the other hand between iii 12b-14a and iii 21-25 (pp. 49-51), and so finds in the poem "the structural pattern A-B-A'-B' " (p. 51). This pattern is no doubt elegant (despite one's reservations over the brevity of Β and A' in comparison to A and B'), but the only real reason for preferring it is that it preserves the existing order of verses. Indeed, one should not too readily posit the displacement of verses, and the burden of proof is always on the one who does so. We have tried to show that the text reads much better if we assume the displacement of iii 19-20 (with support in the almost compelling likelihood that iii 6-13 once followed vss. 19-20); but we have also offerred an account of how the displacement occurred. Another point must be mentioned. Holladay, following J. R. Lundbom 32), finds in iii 1-5 an example of inclusio, suggesting that these verses constitute a deliberate section (p. 52). If true, this would damage our case for a four-strophe first part (iii 1-5, 19-20) to our reconstructed poem. But the only evidence for inclusio is (1) hn at the beginning of the first line, and hnh at the beginning of the last line, of iii 1-5 (to be translated in each case, according to Lundbom and Holladay, "behold"), and (2) the "double rhetorical ques32 ) Jeremiah·. A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (Missoula, Montana, 1975), pp. 37-9.

tions in the center" (p. 38) of strophes 1 and 3 (Lundbom's notation, i.e. vss. laß.Iba, and vss. 4.5a). But hn and hnh have different forms, hn is regarded by most commentators as having the nuance "if", and hnh is very widely pointed hēnnāh, ("these things, thus"). As evidence for inclusio, this is at least shaky. And the pattern of questions is spoiled by the presence of other questions in vss. lbß and 2a (admittedly not with the prefix h). One wonders whether inclusio would have been suspected here if iii 19-20 followed directly on iii 1-5. The third issue is iv 1-2, since we agree with Holladay that iv 3-4 does not belong with ch. iii. His case here is impressive but insufficient. He claims that iv 1-4 and viii 4-10a, 13 are prelude and postlude to a "Foe Cycle", iv 5 - vi 30 (pp. 55-7, 97-9, with vii 1 - viii 3 intrusive (p. 102)). But he admits the tenuous connection between iv 1-2 and iv 3-4, suggesting the possibility that vss. 3-4 were inserted only on the addition of a "Supplementary Foe Cycle" (viii 14 - χ 25) (pp. 57, 120). Between iv 1-2 and ch. viii Holladay finds only two connections, one of them indirect: (1) the punning on šwb in iv la and viii 4c, and (2) close connection on the one hand between iv 2aoc and ν 2, on the other hand between viii 5b and ν 3c (so that the consecutive verses ν 2 and 3 form a bond between iv 2 and viii 5) (p. 56) 33). The thesis is fascinating but hardly conclusive. In the delicate area of rhetorical analysis, our perceptions are sharpened by the existence of divergent readings by different scholars ; and perhaps it is wrong to expect that objective decisions can always be made between them. 33

) Holladay (p. 55) finds further evidence for the separateness of iv 1-2 in an inclusio formed in ch. iii by ncry (vs. 4) and mn'-wrynw (vs. 24) (one of our crosscorrespondences). This is implausible, since vs. 4 is so far from the beginning of the poem.

THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF THE FIRST TWO POEMS OF BALAAM (Num. xxiii 7-10, 18-24) by ANGELO TOSATO*) Rome

The aim of this article is to show: 1. that the first two poems of Balaam (Num. xxiii 7-10 and xxiii 18-24), commonly ascribed to E, are composed according to the stylistic principle of concentric symmetry, the strophes being organized in a scheme A-B-A' (first poem) and A-B-C-B'-A' (second poem); 2. that it is advantageous for biblical scholars to be aware of the exact literary structure of these poems. 1. The literary structure Today's Bibles, in both Hebrew and modern translations, commonly present these two passages as poetic compositions, arranged in a free succession of stichs or verses. They do not mark the presence of strophes. In fact, even though some scholars have proposed a subdivision into strophes1), others have rejected it as improbable2). My examination confirms the presence of strophes, in the subdivision proposed by Tournay (see n. 1); and it goes farther, finding *) The English of this article was kindly revised by Sr. Margaret Macdonald. 1 ) For instance: S. Mowinckel, " D e r Ursprung der Bil'ämsage", ZAW 48 (1930), pp. 262-3; R. Tournay, RB 71 (1964), p. 284. Mowinckel distinguishes four strophes in the first poem: 7ab + cd; 8ab + (a supposedly missing verse similar to v. 20); 9ab + cd; 10ab + cd; in the second poem five strophes: 18ab + 19ab; 19cd + 20ab; 21ab + cd; {y. 22 is suppressed, as a repetition of 24, 8) 23ab + cd; 24ab + cd. Tournay distinguishes: in the first poem an initial distich (7ab) and three strophes (7cd + 8ab; 9ab + cd; 10ab + cd); in the second poem an initial distich (18ab) and five strophes (19ab + cd; 20ab + 21ab; 21cd + 22ab; 23ab + cd ; 24ab + cd). Thus he neither adds nor suppresses anything. 2 ) For instance: W. F. Albright, " T h e Oracles of Balaam", JBL 63 (1944), pp. 207-33; M. Noth, Das 4. Buch Mose — Numeri (Göttingen, 1966).

among the strophes a precise interrelation, governed by a scheme of concentric symmetry3). Let us reread and reconsider the two poems. a) Num. xxiii 7-10 7a mn 'rmynhny blq b mlk mw^b mhrry qdm

From Aram has brought me Balak, the king of Moab from the eastern mountains.

7c Ikh ‫נ‬rh lyy'qb d wlkh mh y ir'/ 8a mh >qb l'_qbh V b wmh l· ^m yhwh

"Come, curse for me Jacob! Come, execrate Israel!" How can I denounce him whom God has not denounced? How can I execrate him whom YHWH has not execrated ?

9a b c d

ky mr^š srym >r'nw wmgb 'wt ‫י‬šwrnw hn ‫ •י‬m 1bddyškn wbgwym l^—ythib

10a my mnh '•pr^y'-qb b wmspr V. rb'ysr'l c tmt npïy mwt—ysrym d wthy ''hryty kmhw

For from the top of the rocks I see him, from the hills I behold him: Lo, a people dwelling alone, not reckoning itself among the nations. Who can count the dust of Jacob? Who can number the dust-clouds of Israel ? Let me die the death of the righteous! Let my end be like his!

On the left, I give the consonantal text of the Hebrew tradition, from BHS. The connecting line under two words denotes that they supposedly form a single metric (word-concept) unit. The subdivision and arrangement of the poem anticipate the results of the examination. For a conjectural reconstruction of the original text, see the article of Albright mentioned in n. 2. I adopt only two minor corrections of the MT in v. 10b. Instead of ûmispār I read ûmî sāpar (see below, under 2a). Thus the MT has here probably lost a metric unit. Instead of 'et rābā' I read tārbūlāt (see below, under 2a). Thus the MT has here probably regained the lost metric unit (a metric 3 ) This is a well known device of ancient literary compositions. See for instance : E. Galbiati, La struttura letteraria dell'Esodo (Roma, 1956); L. Alonso-Schökel, Estudios de Poetica hebrea (Barcelona, 1963), chap. I X ; H. Sauren, " Z u r poetischen Struktur der Sumerischen Literatur", UF 3 (1971), pp. 327-34; J. W. Welch, "Chiasmus in Ugarit", UF 6 (1974), pp. 421-36.

compensation). We can therefore reconstruct the original metric division of the stich 10b as follows: wmy spr trb^t ysr'l. On the right, I give an English translation. In v. 7d and in the following verses I do not translate the waw at the beginning of the second stich, judging it to be only a literary device, connecting two stichs in a verse. It is here indicated by the simple typographical device of indenting the second stich. The reasons then for my choices in the translation will be elucidated by the following remarks. This arrangement of the first poem emphasizes the presence of 14 stichs, 7 verses (each of two stichs), 3 strophes (each of two verses) placed in a concentric scheme (A-B-A'), 1 introductory distich. If we now submit these 14 stichs to a metric analysis (based on the word-concept as the unit of metre)4), in order to determine the number and the position of their metric units, we obtain the following results5): single distich: 7ab, 3/2 = abc/c'a' strophe A : 7cd+ 8ab, 3/3+3/3 = abc/a‫׳‬b‫׳‬c‫ ׳‬+ abc/a‫׳‬b‫׳‬c‫׳‬ strophe Β : 9ab + 9cd, 3/2+3/2 = abc/b‫׳‬c‫׳‬ + abc/b‫׳‬c‫׳‬ strophe A': 10ab+lOed, 3/3+3/3 = abc/a‫׳‬b‫׳‬c‫ ׳‬+ abc/a‫׳‬b‫׳‬c‫׳‬ The astonishing order which appears in the number and position of the metric units suggests the objectivity and exactitude of the proposed arrangement of the poem. But let us consider it in detail. Subdivision of verses, each of two stichs. This is immediatly evident from the regular, parallel repetition of the first stich in the second. Note also how every second stich begins with waw\ three times out of six (7d, 8b, 10b) it also repeats the first word of the first stich6). Division of the poem into introductory distich and corpus. The first verse, unlike all others, has its stichs arranged in chiasmus, thus giving the impression of a complete unit, a solemn beginning. Subdivision into three strophes, each composed of two verses. Strophe one (7cd+8ab): both verses deal with the problem of cursing (frh-^mh, 7cd; ‫ג‬qb, qbh-lm, 8ab) Israel (y'qb-ysr'i, 7cd; qbh, 8a). Note the inclusive antithesis between the first words lkh-wlkh 4 ) The consonantal stichometry seems, in this case at least, meaningless. The word-concept stichometry, on the contrary, seems significant. Cf. methods and results of the analyses of B. Margalit, "Studia Ugaritica I: 'Introduction to Ugaritic Prosody' ", UF 7 (1975), pp. 289-313. 6 ) Cf. H. Kosmala, " F o r m and Structure in Ancient Hebrew Poetry", VT 14 (1964), p. 430; he obtains different results. e ) The N E B suppresses the typographical relief to the verses. I judge this a regression in comparison with the RSV.

(7cd) and the last ‫י‬l-yhivh (8ab). N o t e also the assonance and alliterat i o n b e t w e e n y'qb (7c) and ‫־‬,qb, qbh (8a) ;jur 7 (7d) and 7 (8a). Strophe t w o ( 9 a b + 9 c d ) : the t w o verses d e v e l o p a single theme, the v i s i o n o f Israel {,r'nw-'ïwrnw,

9ab; hn ,m, 9c). N o t e the grammatical inter-

d e p e n d e n c e : the p r o n o m i n a l suffix o f the verbs (9ab) anticipates the n o u n ( l m , 9c), p o i n t i n g t o it as to a necessary clarification. N o t e also the alliteration b e t w e e n wmgb(1vt (9b) and wbgwym (9d). Strophe three ( 1 0 a b + 1 0 c d ) : b o t h verses deal w i t h the b e n e d i c t i o n o f Israel. T h o s e blessed by prosperity (10ab) b e c o m e a blessing (10cd). N o t e also the strict parallelism b e t w e e n the final w o r d s o f each o f the f o u r stichs ( y (qb, ysr7, yšrym,

kmhw).

C o m p o s i t i o n o f the three strophes according to a s c h e m e A - B - A ' . Strophe o n e ( = A ) and strophe three ( = A ' ) encircle strophe t w o ( = B ) . N o t e in fact the exact concentric symmetry o f a syntactical c o r r e s p o n d e n c e : to the rhetorical q u e s t i o n s o f the s e c o n d verse in strophe A (8ab: mh ‫י‬qb . . ., wmh

. . .) c o r r e s p o n d the rhetorical

q u e s t i o n s o f the first verse o f strophe A ' (10ab: my mnh . . .,

wm(y)

spr . . . ) ; to the hortative exclamations o f the first verse in strophe A (7cd: Ikh

'rh . . ., wlkh ^mh

. . .) c o r r e s p o n d the hortative exclama-

tions o f the s e c o n d verse in strophe A ' (10cd: tmt J

hryty . . . ).

npsy . . .,

wthy

N o t e also the same exact concentric symmetry o f a

conceptual antithesis: Balaam has to curse (strophe A ) , instead he g i v e s a blessing (strophe A') ; it is i m p o s s i b l e to curse Israel ( s e c o n d verse o f strophe A), or rather, it is i m p o s s i b l e t o measure the bless i n g o f Israel (first verse o f strophe A ' ) ; Balaam has to w i s h this p e o p l e evil (first verse o f strophe A ) , o n the contrary he w i s h e s f o r himself the same g o o d that they will h a v e ( s e c o n d verse o f strophe A'). In this resulting inclusion, the central strophe assumes a peculiar relief. T h e author seems to g i v e here the reason w h y Israel c a n n o t be cursed (this is the c o n c l u s i o n of the subject treated in strophe A ) , and w h y Israel m u s t o n the contrary be blessed (this is the b e g i n n i n g o f the subject treated in strophe A'). b) Num. xxiii

18-24

18a qwm blq wim1 b h*zynh cdy bnw

spr

19a >yl wyk%b b wbn *dm wytnhm c hhw* *mr iv/'—y'sh d wdbr wl‫—'־‬yqymnh

Rise, Balak, and hear, hearken to me, son of Zippor. N o t a man is G o d to lie, not a son of man to repent. Has He said and will He not do, has He spoken and will He not fulfil ?

20a b 21a b

hnh brk Iqhty , wbrk wl· lybnh l· hbyt ^wn bylqb wl· r'h cml bjšr V

Behold, to bless I received (a command), He has blessed, and I will not revoke it. He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, He has not seen crime in Israel.

21c d 22a b

yhwh ‫־‬,Ihyw cmw wtrwct mlk bw '/ mwsy^m mmsrym ktwlpt r^m Iw

Y H W H his G o d is with him, the royal acclamation is in him. God was He w h o brought them out of Egypthorns of the wild ox he has.

23a b c d

ky 1' nhs by cqb wl· qsm bysr V k ct y ''mr ly cqb wlysr'l mh—p 7 V

24a hn ‫ •י‬m klby* yqwm b wk‫נ‬ry ytnl· c l>_yskb 'kl trp d wdm^-hllym yšth

Because there is no divinadon in Jacob, no augury in Israel, n o w it will be said to Jacob, to Israel what will God do: Lo, a people as a lioness rises up, as a lion it lifts itself; it does not lie till it devours the prey, (till) the blood of the slain it drinks.

H e r e again I g i v e the consonantal text o f the H e b r e w tradition, taken f r o m B H S . I a d o p t o n l y a m i n o r correction o f the M T in v. 22b. Instead o f ketôlâphôt

I read wetöläphöt

(see b e l o w , under 2.a), c o n -

sidering the c h a n g e o f the initial w i n t o k to be an o l d e m e n d a t i o n (later amplified in ancient versions) o f the original text. T h i s arrangement o f the s e c o n d p o e m emphasises the presence o f 2 2 stichs, 11 verses (each o f t w o stichs), 5 strophes (each o f t w o verses) placed in a concentric s c h e m e ( A - B - C - B ' - A ' ) , 1 introductory distich. T h e stichometric analysis, made according t o the same principles as the p r e c e d i n g o n e , g i v e s the f o l l o w i n g results 7 ): single distich: 18ab 3/3 strophe A : 19ab + 19cd, 3/24-3/2 strophe Β : 20ab-f21ab, 3 / 2 + 3 / 3 strophe C : 21cd+22ab, 3 / 2 + 3 / 2 strophe B 2 3 : ‫ ׳‬a b + 2 3 c strophe A 2 4 :‫׳‬ab+24cd, 3 / 2 + 3 / 2

= = = = d , =

abc/c'db' abc/a‫׳‬c‫׳‬+abc/b‫׳‬c‫׳‬ abc/b‫׳‬c‫׳‬+abc/a‫׳‬b‫׳‬c‫׳‬ abc/b‫׳‬c‫׳‬+abc/b‫׳‬c8 ‫) ׳‬ 3 / 2 + 3 / 3 = abc/b‫׳‬c‫׳‬+abc/c‫׳‬de abc/b‫׳‬c‫׳‬+abc/c‫׳‬b‫׳‬

') Cf. H. Kosmala, cit. η. 5, pp. 430 f. ; he differs again. ) The denomination of the metric units in the second stich of each verse of the strophe C, here given as b'c' and b'c', is only approximate. It could also be given as a'c' and a'c'. 8

F o r the s e c o n d time, w e have an impressive and significant order 9 ), w h i c h amply justifies the p r o p o s e d structural arrangement o f the p o e m . But, here t o o , let us consider it in detail. T h e s u b d i v i s i o n o f verses, each o f t w o stichs. T h i s is evident, f r o m the regular parallelism b e t w e e n the c o m p o n e n t s o f every first stich and t h o s e o f every s e c o n d stich. N o t e also, as in the preceding p o e m , waww).

that the s e c o n d stich always b e g i n s with the D i v i s i o n into an introductory

distich and the corpus o f the p o e m .

A s in the preceding p o e m , the first t w o stichs constitute a chiasmus, thus f o r m i n g an indépendant, self-sufficient unit. D i v i s i o n into five strophes,

each c o m p o s e d o f t w o verses.

This

clearly results f r o m the fact that a single t h e m e is h a r m o n i o u s l y d e v e l o p e d in every t w o verses. Strophe o n e : G o d certainly keeps his w o r d . T h e truth, w h i c h the first verse proclaims w i t h an exclam a t i o n (19ab:

}

yí Ί . . ., whn

‫ג‬

dm . . .), is repeated b y the s e c o n d

w i t h a rhetorical q u e s t i o n (19cd: hhw1‫ ־‬ymr . . ., wdbr . . .). Strophe t w o : G o d has g i v e n to Israel a d e s e r v e d blessing. W h a t the

first

verse a n n o u n c e s as a fact (20ab : brk Iqhty wbrk . . .), finds its explanation in the s e c o n d (21ab: / ' hbyt

y

wn . . ., wl· r'h

1

ml.

. .). Strophe

three: G o d is w i t h his people. T h e situation w h i c h the first verse describes (21 cd: . . .wtnv'-t

mlk bw) is d e v e l o p e d in its past and pre-

sent effects b y the s e c o n d (22ab: . . .<w>twlpt

rym Iw). Strophe f o u r :

G o d will n o w g i v e to Israel a n e w , justified blessing. T h e faithfulness present in Israel, w h i c h the first verse asserts (23ab : ky /' nhs bylqb,

. . . bhsr'l),

is taken b y the s e c o n d as a g r o u n d f o r the faith-

fulness o f G o d to Israel ( 2 3 c d : klty'mr five:

lylqb,

wlys'r'l.

. . ). Strophe

Israel will completely o v e r c o m e his enemies. T h e c o m p a r i s o n ,

w h i c h the first verse b e g i n s (24ab: hn lm klby*yqwm y

and c o n c l u d e d b y the s e c o n d (24cd: l yškb

(

‫ג׳‬

d ; kl

. . .), is c o n t i n u e d trp . . .).

C o m p o s i t i o n o f the five strophes in a s c h e m e A - B - C - B ' - A ' . T h i s fact e m e r g e s e v e n m o r e clearly than in the first p o e m . Consider strop h e t w o ( = B ) and strophe f o u r ( = B ' ) , or better their verses (respectively B a / B b and B'a'/B'b'). T h e s e are reversed thus: Ba/BbB'b'/B'a', and s o f o r m a concentric i n c l u s i o n o f t w o circles r o u n d ·) Some apparent irregularities in the position of the metric units are probably not fortuitous. So the abcja'c' of the first verse of strophe A (19ab) opens an inclusion that is closed by the abc/c'b' of the last verse of strophe A' (24cd). The repetition abc/a'b'c' in the second verse of strophe Β (21 ab) corresponds to the expansion abclc'de in the second verse of strophe B' (23cd). The semantic interest seems to influence the stylistic peculiarities. 10 ) For the "exception" of 22b see below, under 2.a.

the central strophe ( = C ) . T h e narrower, first circle is represented b y the s e c o n d verse o f Β (21ab) and the first verse o f B ' (23ab). T h e y c o r r e s p o n d exactly. I n b o t h appear the identical w o r d s and then, the t w o parallel expressions / ' hbyt 'wn-wP and Ρ nhš-wP

by^qb-bysr'l·,

r‫"־‬h 'ml (of B)

qsm (of B') p o i n t t o the same reality (the absence o f

idolatry), w i t h the sole difference o f time (21ab regards the past; 23ab regards the present). T h i s b e c o m e s clear f r o m the fact that b o t h expressions have an identical semantic f u n c t i o n : the tested faithfulness o f Israel is put f o r w a r d as the g r o u n d o f the irrevocability o f G o d ' s blessing. T h i s b l e s s i n g is the subject o f a s e c o n d circle, constituted b y the first verse o f Β (20ab) and the s e c o n d verse o f B ‫׳‬ 23)cd). T h e link b e t w e e n these t w o verses is o n l y thematic. T o the brk Iqhty wbrk

(of B), p o i n t i n g to the past blessing already g i v e n ,

c o r r e s p o n d s the k'ty'mr

. . . mhpH

7 (of B‫)׳‬, p o i n t i n g to the f o l l o w -

i n g , n e w blessing. A larger, third circle around C, c o m p l e t i n g the inclusion, is f o r m e d b y strophe o n e ( = A ) and strophe five ( = A ' ) . T o the negative c o m p a r i s o n corresponds wk'ry

the p o s i t i v e

o f A (19ab : Ρ 'jš 7 . . . , wbn 'dm . . .)

comparison of A 2 4 )

‫ ׳‬a b :

l

m

klby ‫ י‬. . .,

. . .). B o t h h a v e the f u n c t i o n o f e m p h a s i z i n g a sure fulfilment:

o f the w o r d o f G o d (19cd: hbiv‫י *־‬mr wPy action o f Israel (24cd: Pyškb

'dy'kl

‫י‬Ρ . . .), o f the v i c t o r i o u s

trp . . .). It is indeed o n e and the

same fulfilment. T h e p o s i t i v e explanation o f all that is said in this p o e m s e e m s to be g i v e n in the central strophe C (the n e g a t i v e is g i v e n in Β and B') : G o d has fulfilled and w i l l fulfil his w o r d o f blessing, Israel has o v e r c o m e and will o v e r c o m e his e n e m i e s till he attains a c o m plete victory, because the p e o p l e has lived and still lives faithfully w i t h its G o d . T o c o n c l u d e , n o t e the perfect a n a l o g y o f the t w o p o e m s b o t h in stylistic structure and in theological content. 2. Advantages

for biblical

study

T o be aware o f this literary structure s e e m s a d v a n t a g e o u s a) f o r the textual criticism o f the t w o p o e m s ; b) f o r their interpretation; c) f o r the study o f ancient H e b r e w p r o s o d y . a) For textual

criticism

It is c o m m o n practice t o replace the umspr v . 10b by wmy spr and trb^ty/r'l;

and the V rbl jsryI

of

the first o n the g r o u n d o f the Sama-

ritan Pentateuch and L X X (see BHS),

the s e c o n d f o r m o r e c o m p l e x

reasons 1 1 ). B u t this is also (and perhaps m o r e correctly) required b y ») See W. F. Albright, art. cit. η. 2, p. 213 η. 28.

the parallelism: in v. 10a there is in fact my mnh and ‫י‬pr y lqb. A l s o o n the g r o u n d o f parallelism it s e e m s necessary to reject as very improbable the conjectured reading o f the M T (see BHS).

y

brk f o r the wbrk in v. 2 0 b o f

I n fact, w i t h o n e e x c e p t i o n o n l y , the s e c o n d stich

o f the verses b e g i n s w i t h n>aw (15 times o u t of 16). T h u s I w o u l d rather s u g g e s t as very probable the conjecture that this sole except i o n (in v. 22b, w h i c h b e g i n s w i t h ktw'pt) an original

is a later e m e n d a t i o n o f

wtw'-pt.

Because o f metrical considerations w e can reject the s u p p o s i t i o n o f Albright 1 2 ), according t o w h i c h the mh and wmh o f M T at the b e g i n n i n g o f the stichs 8ab conceal an original my h‫ ג‬and wmy h‫*־‬. W e w o u l d thus h a v e an unique and irregular 4/4. M o r e o v e r , the d o u b t s expressed a b o u t the authenticity o f v. 22ab and o f v. 23ab (see BHS)

appear clearly u n f o u n d e d . T h e s e t w o verses

c o h e r e w i t h the w h o l e as constitutive elements o f an organic, c o n centric scheme. T h e first verse is in fact in perfect paralellelism w i t h v. 21 cd, the s e c o n d w i t h v. 21 ab.

b) For the interpretation

of the poems

A f t e r h a v i n g d e n i e d the presence o f a structure ( " S t r o p h e n g l i e d e rung") in the second p o e m , M . N o t h c o n t i n u e s : " I n h a l t l i c h s t e h e n verschiedene

Themen

reichlich

unverbunden

nebeneinander" 1 3 ).

Style and c o n t e n t are strictly correlated. T h e recovery o f the structure leads to the recovery o f a single, articulated theme. It signifies the possibility o f a correct understanding o f the p o e m s in their totality and in their parts. Let us consider o n e point o n l y : the rec o v e r y o f the concentric s c h e m e dispels d o u b t s about the interpretation o f t21.‫׳‬ab and z>.23ab14). T h e author says in negative f o r m w h a t he says in p o s i t i v e f o r m in 9cd and in 21cd-f-22ab. In Jacob, in Israel there is n o idolatry (21 ab, 23ab); Israel lives faithfully segregated f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e s (9cd) and consecrated

to Y H W H ,

his

God

( 2 1 c d + 2 2 a b ) . T h i s faithfulness is presented as the reason f o r the irrevocability o f the divine blessing o n Israel. T h e y are in fact the ysrym

12

(10c).

) p. 212 n. 18. ) p. 163. 14 ) In v. 21ab: do 'wn and '•ml mean "iniquity" and "crime", or "calamity" and "trouble"? In v. 23ab: do nh"s by'qb and qsm bysr'l mean "divination in Jacob" and "augury in Israel", or "divination against Jacob" and "augury against Israel"? 13

c) For the study of ancient Hebrew prosody It has been f o u n d that in these t w o p o e m s : 1) the metrical unit is the w o r d - c o n c e p t ; 2) the stichs are c o m p o s e d of three or t w o metric units; 3) the verses are always c o m p o s e d o f t w o stichs; 4) the strophes are always c o m p o s e d o f t w o verses; 5) the p o e m s are comp o s e d of an o d d number of strophes (3,5), and according to a concentric scheme; 6) the p o e m s have an introductory verse, arranged in chiasmus. In conclusion, these t w o p o e m s offer a very clear example of biblical, pre-exilic (from the Northern K i n g d o m , probably) poetry. This can therefore be an useful criterion for the study of ancient H e b r e w prosody.

POETIC AMBIGUITY AND BALANCE IN PSALM XV by P A T R I C K D . M I L L E R , Jr. Richmond, Virginia Psalm x v is a "torah" liturgy w h i c h sets forth the c o n d i t i o n s for entry into the sanctuary for w o r s h i p . It is t o be compared

with

Psalm x x i v and such prophetic passages as Is. xxxiii and Mic. vi 6-8. W h a t e v e r the precise cultic o c c a s i o n or liturgical acts i n v o l v e d , the intention o f the psalm is clear. It declares the necessity for purity o f life and righteous c o n d u c t as a prerequisite for appearing before the h o l y G o d (cf. Is. xxxiii 14) in his sanctuary and elaborates the character o f such c o n d u c t in the b o d y o f the psalm. T h e inextricable link bet w e e n w o r s h i p and ethics w h i c h runs t h r o u g h o u t the O l d T e s t a m e n t is the underlying a s s u m p t i o n o f the w h o l e Psalm. T h e structure o f the psalm is self-evident. It b e g i n s w i t h a q u e s t i o n t o Y a h w e h a b o u t w h o may sojourn in his tent (vs. 1). T h e rest o f the psalm g i v e s the divine answer in a series o f clauses describing the requisite c o n d u c t , or m o r e precisely, describing in terms o f c o n d u c t the o n e w h o may sojourn. V e r s e 5c f o r m s a clear c o n c l u s i o n to the psalm, b e i n g tied to the p r e c e d i n g verses (see b e l o w ) but m o v i n g f r o m perfect tense t o imperfect tense as it m o v e s f r o m the preceding description o f moral c o n d u c t to an assurance o f future well-being. T h e p s a l m is n o t w i t h o u t its textual p r o b l e m s especially in verse 4. O f particular interest, h o w e v e r , are the p o e t i c d i m e n s i o n s o f the psalm, w h i c h , as they contribute to the aesthetic or "literary" character o f the psalm and t o the nuances o f m e a n i n g , have n o t been f u l l y e x p l o r e d or e x p l o i t e d 1 ). Kraus summarizes the meter o f the poetry ( w h i c h is the extent o f his discussion o f the poetry) as f o l l o w s : Im Metrum überwiegt der Doppeldreier (1. 3. 4. 5). Im Versmass 4 4 3 ‫ ־‬ist 2 zu lesen. Als nicht ergänzter Dreier steht der erste Halbvers v o n 3. In 4b wird man wahrscheinlich mit der Verstümmelung eines Vollverses rechnen müssen 2 ). 1

) Ν. Ridderbos has taken an important step in the right direction for this psalm and the Psalter generally in his monograph, Die Psalmen. Stilistische Verfahren und Aufbau mit besonder Berücksichtigung von Ps 1-41, BZ A W 117 (Berlin, 1972). This article may be seen as an attempt to carry the discussion of the poetic style of Psalm xv still further. H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen I (Neukirchen, 1960), p. 110.

G u n k e l , w h o s e analysis is presumably the basis f o r that o f Kraus, c o m m e n t s that the psalm contains the usual Doppeldreier Ein^eldreier

with a few

(3a, 4c) that m a y be later additions t h o u g h o n e cannot

say that w i t h certitude. H e also n o t e s the l o n g final line, as at the e n d o f other psalms, and s u g g e s t s the fact that there are ten requirements, w h i c h o n e can c o u n t o n the fingers, m a y n o t be accidental 3 ). A s i d e f r o m the fact that there may be e l e v e n requirements (see b e l o w ) , there are at least t w o p r o b l e m s w i t h s u c h analyses. O n e lies in the o v e r e m p h a s i s o n the so-called Doppeldreier.

While 3 + 3 metrical

lines are o f t e n the d o m i n a n t p o e t i c line, e n o u g h variations exist in the Psalter and other poetry t o caution against an over-emphasis o n that type o f line and especially w h e n it leads t o s u g g e s t i o n s that additional or separate cola w h i c h violate a series o f 3 + 3 lines are later g l o s s e s t o the original text. T h e other w e a k n e s s o f the kind o f analysis g i v e n b y Kraus and G u n k e l lies in w h a t they d o n o t say. O n e needs t o r e c o g n i z e that a c o m m e n t a r y d o e s n o t a l l o w a large a m o u n t o f space f o r discussion o f p o e t i c aspects o f the Psalms 4 ). T h e principal p r o b l e m in this case, as frequently in

commentary

discussion o f the Psalter, is that s u c h brief notes, primarily a b o u t meter, d o very little to o p e n u p the p o e t i c d i m e n s i o n s o f the psalm as they are present t o create p r o s o d i e f o r m and c o n v e y meaning. E v e n if the matter o f m e a n i n g is kept o u t o f the picture (albeit a difficult task), there is little in Kraus's statement that g i v e s o n e a sense of Psalm x v qua poem, except in the m o s t mechanical sort o f way. M o r e significant in this p s a l m than purely metrical matters is the w a y in w h i c h it manifests p o e t i c a m b i g u i t y s ) and balance, especially in verses 2 and 3 but also at least partially in the rest o f the psalm. A c o m p a r i s o n o f the w a y in w h i c h B H 3 and B H S line o u t the H e b r e w text o f vss. 2 - 3 and a c o m p a r i s o n o f t w o translations demonstrate at a glance alternative w a y s o f c o m p r e h e n d i n g the cola o f the p s a l m : s

) H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen 5 (Göttingen, 1968), p. 49. ) Kraus does have a general bibliographical discussion of the poetic form of the Psalter in his introduction. It gives major attention to questions of meter (probably the least important characteristic of Hebrew poetry) with some discussion of parallelism, strophe, and acrostic poems. For stylistic analysis of Pss. i-xlii the commentaries now need to be supplemented by Ridderbos, although much fruitful work on the poetry of the Psalter remains to be done. 6 ) The presence of ambiguity as a characteristic of poetry is well recognized. The writer hopes to present a number of examples of ambiguity in the Psalter in the near future. For a general discussion of ambiguity in literature see M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms (New York, 1971), pp. 8-10, and the references cited there, as well as Stephen Ullmann, Semantics. An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford, 1977 repr.), pp. 188 ff., and the references there. 4

B H 3 2) hâlēk tāmîm ûpôlêl sedeq l

3) lö^-rägal

wedôbër

met

bilbâbô

e

al-l sônô

lö^-'äsäh lerêlêhû rālāh

weherpāh l0*-nāíā*

c

al-qerôbô

ûpô(ēl sedeq

B H S 2) hôlêk tāmîm wedôbêr

ie

>e

met bilbâbô

3) lö^-rägal

lā^-^āsāh ^rē^ēhû rāCāh

l

al-lesônô

weherpāh lā^-nāšā^

Í

al-qerābâ

2) H e w h o w a l k s blamelessly, and d o e s w h a t is right, and speaks truth f r o m his heart; 3) w h o d o e s n o t slander w i t h his t o n g u e , and d o e s n o evil t o his friend, nor takes up a reproach against his n e i g h b o r ; (RSV) 2) H e that leads an uncorrupt life and d o e s the t h i n g w h i c h is right: w h o speaks the truth f r o m his heart and has n o t slandered w i t h his t o n g u e ; 3) H e that has d o n e n o evil t o his f e l l o w : n o r v e n t e d abuse against his n e i g h b o u r ; (The Psalms.

Λ New Translation for Worship)

6

)

In the case o f B H 3 and the R S V hôlêk tāmîm and úpālēl sedeq are read as a single c o l o n balanced b y wedābēr

>e

met bilbâbô. Verse 3a is n o t

seen as h a v i n g a balancing m e m b e r in B H 3 but is f o l l o w e d b y the b i c o l o n 3 b and 3c. R S V translated the series o f three clauses in verse 3 in effect as a tricolon. In b o t h cases verses 2 and 3 are poetically separate, verse 2 b e i n g c o m p o s e d o f a b i c o l o n ( B H 3 and R S V ) and verse 3 b e i n g c o m p o s e d o f a single c o l o n plus b i c o l o n ( B H 3 ) or a tricolon ( R S V ) . A different arrangement is present in B H S and The Psalms.

H e r e the p o e t r y o f verses 2 and 3 is analysed as a series o f

bicola. hôlêk tāmîm is parallel to ûpôtël sedeq·, the final c o l o n o f verse 2 is seen as balancing the first c o l o n o f verse 3. T h e final cola make u p a b i c o l o n also. T h e question arises: W h i c h arrangement o f the text is correct? T h e p o i n t o f this article is that s u c h a q u e s t i o n is unnecessary, if n o t misdirected. T h e differences in the t w o arrangements ( B H 3 and R S V = a\ B H S and The Psalms

— b) d o n o t necessarily reflect a correct

·) A new translation prepared for the Church of England by a committee under the chairmanship of Prof. J. A. Emerton of Cambridge (London, 1977).

reading and incorrect reading(s) but different w a y s o f reading or s p e a k i n g the p s a l m that are there in the text.

A n d indeed one may

s u g g e s t a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a that is equally present in the H e b r e w text as w e h a v e it. W h i l e o n e m a y g i v e m o r e reasons in f a v o r o f a particular reading o f the lines, the other reading(s) c a n n o t be dism i s s e d or regarded as incorrect. T h e r e is a g e n u i n e a m b i g u i t y in the poetry, and the different ways o f p e r c e i v i n g the poetry g i v e different nuances or force t o it. T h e arrangement o f the text f o u n d in B H S and The Psalms r e c o g n i z e s the clear relationships in a series o f parallel cola that c o m p r i s e three bicola. T h e clauses hôlêk tāmîm

and pô'êl

sedeq are precisely parallel

or balanced in m e a n i n g , l e n g t h , meter, and syntactical f o r m . T h e t w o cola 2 c and 3a balance each other as p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e expressions in length, meter, and semantics, the last in the fact that b o t h h a v e t o d o w i t h the realm o f s p e e c h and b o t h speak o f that b y referring t o a part o f the b o d y as the source or instrument o f the s p e a k i n g (in the c o n s t r u c t i o n p r e p o s i t i o n + and lal-lesônô).

organ +

suffix: bilbâbô

T h e fact that the first c o l o n has a participial f o r m o f

the v e r b and the s e c o n d c o l o n a v e r b in the perfect tense d o e s n o t v i o l a t e the balance. Finite f o r m s o f the verb, perfect or imperfect may c o n t i n u e a participial c o n s t r u c t i o n in parallel lines o f p o e t r y 7 ). T h e final t w o cola in verse 3 are clearly parallel and balance o n e another a c c o r d i n g t o any o f the alternative arrangements o f the lines. They

h a v e the same l e n g t h and meter, and the parallelism

is:

a : b : c : : c ' : a ' : b \ T h e k e y terms that b i n d the cola t o g e t h e r and indicate the particular f o c u s o f the b i c o l o n are lerē<ēhú and

i

al‫׳‬qerôbô,

terms f o r n e i g h b o r , another person. Such an understanding o f the arrangement o f these verses n o t o n l y p r o d u c e s the intricate and careful k i n d o f s y m m e t r y or balance described a b o v e , b u t it also leads t o a w a y o f understanding the progress o f t h o u g h t . T h e first b i c o l o n is c o m p o s e d o f parallel cola g i v i n g general statements of right conduct. T h e verbs hālak b o t h characterize general

8

) and pālal

or overall b e h a v i o r and tāmîm

10

9

)

) and

sedeq ‫ ) ״‬are in like manner general or broad terms f o r right or right') Sec Gesenius-Kautsch, § 116 χ. ) See BDB, bālak, Qal, II, 2a. 9 ) See BDB, pā(aI, Qal, I, b, especially in such phrases as pāla1ê ‫נ‬ātven, common in the Psalter in reference to the wicked or the enemies, hlk and pi appear in a similar parallelism in Ps. cxix 3. 10 ) See BDB, tâmîm, 4. ‫״‬ ) See BDB, sedeq, passim. 8

e o u s living. T h e s e c o n d b i c o l o n b e g i n s the particular or concrete explication o f the general c o n d u c t described in 2a and b

12

). T h e first

specification o f righteousness and blamelessness, therefore, has t o d o w i t h the morality

of speech, w h a t o n e d o e s and d o e s n o t say. T h e

p o s i t i v e l y formulated description o f proper speaking calls f o r speaking the truth f r o m or in one's heart

13

). T h e negative parallel

colon

describes the r i g h t e o u s w o r s h i p p e r as o n e w h o has n o t slandered w i t h his t o n g u e

14

) or w a l k e d o v e r his t o n g u e

15

teristic o f right c o n d u c t has t o d o w i t h proper

). T h e s e c o n d characrelationship

with one's

neighbor, w h i c h means neither doing anything bad t o another p e r s o n

12

) So also Kraus, p. 112, although he does not see the explication beginning until verse 3. 13 ) The precise nuance of the preposition be- in bilbâbô is not entirely clear. There appear to be at least four alternatives : a) "in his heart"—The versions interpret the Hebrew this way and are followed by Kraus and others, having in mind the innermost stirrings of thought and will, which should be true and reliable. This understanding of the text is supported by the frequent use of >āmar + belēb(āb) with this meaning as well as the one other instance of the Qal participle of dābar + belēbāb + suffix in Ps. xxvii 3. Further it may be noted that in not a few instances in the Old Testament what one says in one's heart is not true, e.g. Dt. viii 17, ix 4, etc. b) "from his heart"—This translation suggesting the notion that one speaks the truth as one knows it within oneself seems to fit better in the context and in light of the frequency of the Qal participle of dābar with such words as *"met, tāmîm, mêšārîm, šeqer, kā%āb, and the like, as object and usually, if not always, referring to speaking in a social situation, e.g. Amos ν 10. Further, the verb dābar -+‫'"' ־‬met appears four more times, all of which are a speaking to someone and two of which are moral instruction about speaking truth to the neighbor (Jer. ix 4; Zech. viii 16). The usage of be- to mean " f r o m " is a meaning wellattested in Ugaritic and sporadic in Hebrew. This translation has been adopted by the RSV and The Psalms. A New Translation for Worship. c) "with his heart".—The preposition be- can have an instrumental meaning though this usage, as far as the writer can tell, is confined to phrases that include köl, i.e. bekol lebābekā. d) "(that is) in his heart"—2 Chr. xxxii 31 by analogy indicates the possibility of understanding the prepositional phrase to be governed not by the verb dābēr but by the noun iemet in an elliptical expression, thus "the truth that is in his heart". This meaning would be close to that discussed under b). It is difficult to determine with even relative certainty which of the above translations is the one intended by the Psalmist. 14 ) For this meaning and a use of V with rāgal in Ben Sira similar to rāgal cal here see Gunkel, p. 49. 16 ) Dahood's "stumble over his tongue" is not implausible in this verse in the light of Ps. xxxix and has the virtue of maintaining the denominative character of rāgal, which, as BDB notes, means in its literal sense "to foot it". See M. Dahood, Psalms I 1-50 (Garden City, N.Y., 1966), p. 84. The use of this rather unusual verb is not accidental. It is a part of the ambiguity and balance of the psalm (see below).

n o r saying a n y t h i n g bad against a n e i g h b o r . T h e arrangement o f the text f o u n d in B H S and The Psalms

is, therefore, a legitimate inter-

pretation o f the passage and o n e that leads t o a certain understanding o f h o w t h e d i v i n e w o r d d e v e l o p s or u n f o l d s as an answer t o the q u e s t i o n in v e r s e 1. But there are aspects o f the p o e t i c f o r m and character o f these verses that stand in tension w i t h this arrangement or fail t o be h i g h l i g h t e d as a result o f the arrangement, particularly the series o f participles in v e r s e 2 and n e g a t i v e perfect v e r b s in verse 3. L a y i n g o u t the text as d o B H 3 and R S V brings these characteristics o f the poetry o f the p o e m to the fore and g i v e s a slightly different balance o f sense. I w o u l d p r o p o s e as an alternative w a y o f arranging the text a m o d i f i e d f o r m o f this arrangement: 2) hôlêk tāmîm // ûpôlël sedeq // 1veddbēr l

3) Ιδ'-rāgal l

e

al-l sônô // lö'-'-äsäh

e

l

Ìe

l rē ēhû

met

bilbābâ l

rā āh // weherpāh

lö'-näsä*

e

al-q rôbô

N o w the text is seen t o be c o m p o s e d o f t w o tricola rather than three bicola

16

). T h e tricola are each balanced b y closely parallel syntactical

structures

17

) : in verse 2 a series of masculine singular Qal participles

w i t h abstract n o u n s o f moral quality as objects and in verse 3 a series o f 10‫ י‬+ perfect v e r b third m a s c u l i n e singular + prepositional phrase. le

) One may in this case speak of "apparent tricolon" with regard to verse 2, though to do so is to beg the question, in my judgement. I cannot agree with Mowinckel's general denial—with a few exceptions—of the existence of tricola in poems that are for the most part composed of bicola nor his view of Ps. xv as "monocolic". See S. Mowinckel, Real and Apparent Tricola in Hebrew Psalm Poetry (Oslo, 1957), esp. pp. 98-9. 17 ) There are a number of poetic lines in the Psalter that are normally seen as bicola with a 4 + 3 meter but are also capable of being seen as containing three parallel and balanced elements, i.e. the long colon has two parts which balance each other and also balance the second colon, producing a line that may be viewed as 2 + 2 + 3 as well as 4 + 3. For examples, see viii 9, ix 6, xvi 9, xvii 3, xxxii 11, xxiv 15, xlix 3; cf. Hos. iv lb. Variations of this sort of line may be found throughout the Psalter. Few if any of the other examples seem to have the degree of genuine poetic ambiguity in relation to surrounding cola that Ps. xv reveals. Not surprisingly the closest analogue I have discovered is xxiv 4, which is, of course, directly parallel to xv 2-3. In xxiv 4 the colon ‫־‬a /er /0' nāiā* laHāw‫ נ‬napší may be read either in parallel with the preceding colon (again a 4 + 3 line which can also be analysed as 2 + 2 + 3) indicated by the relationship of kappayim, lēbāb, and napH, or in parallel with the following colon indicated by the obvious balance of Wnāšā* laššān^ and /0‫ ־‬nišba'• Iemirmäh. The dangers of mangling poetic lines in a thorough fashion by a rigid view of poetry and meter without sensitivity to nuances and variations in the poetry may be seen in the way C. A. Briggs handles such verses as xv 2 and xvi 9 in his commentary on the Psalms in the International Critical Commentary.

T h e balance of sense is no longer that f o u n d in the BHS-27‫ ?׳‬Psalms arrangement. T h e m o v e m e n t from general to more specific conduct is still there but it appears in different fashion. All the participles o f verse 2 describe right conduct in general or abstract fashion: walking blamelessly d o i n g righteousness speaking truth T h e /0' clauses o f verse 3 then g o o n to describe more specific or concrete actions that begin to spell out the content or details of verse 2. T h e y may all have to d o with the neighbor, but that is not necessarily so. T h e first concerns what one has done with his tongue, the second w i t h h o w one behaves toward another person, and the last w i t h one's attitude and manner of speech vis à vis s o m e o n e else. T h e symmetry and balance discerned in the first arrangement o f the text is partially lost here, but a s o m e w h a t different perception of meaning and balance is arrived at by this second way o f analysing the text. Neither w a y is w i t h o u t g o o d foundation in the H e b r e w and a claim to be an authentic comprehension o f the poetry and meaning o f the text. T h e p h e n o m e n o n o f balance in these arrangements as described so far falls essentially within the bicola or tricola, as is usually the case w i t h parallelism in H e b r e w poetry. But there are many cases, of course, where w h o l e lines (bicola or tricola) are parallel to each other in s o m e fashion (e.g. A m o s ν l i b ; Psalm xxxviii 14-15; etc.), and these need to be clarified in one's attempt at sensitivity to poetry and meaning. In the second alternative discussed above, that of B H 3 and R S V modified into t w o tricola, a subtle but definite balance between the respective elements of the t w o tricola as manifest in the verbs carries out the m o v e f r o m general to the specific example. It may be characterized as f o l l o w s : hôlêk (2a) pôlèl (2b) dôbër (2c)

lā^-rāgal (3a) 15'- <āsah (3b) lô'-nâsâ herpāh (3c)

E a c h participle has its negative counterpart or corollary expressing the action of the participle w i t h another but similar or s y n o n y m o u s verb. A n d the negative verbs appear in the same order as their participial counterparts. T h e verb lāíāh is clearly a s y n o n y m o f pô'ël. Virtually all commentators point out the connection between nasai

herpāh and nāšā‫ י‬qôl. B o t h expressions h a v e t o d o w i t h speaking, as d o e s döber. W h e n these w o r d s are seen in relation t o each other, t h e n it b e c o m e s clear w h y the rather unusual v e r b rāgal plus

l

al-

e

l sönö is used in 3a. N o t t o " f o o t " it o v e r one's t o n g u e p r o v i d e s a close correlation w i t h " w a l k i n g blamelessly" (cf. Ps. xxxix 2 in this regard). A t the same time the use o f rāgal w i t h lāšân in reference to slander enables the c o l o n in w h i c h it appears t o be seen in parallel or balance w i t h 2c or w i t h 3c. A marked case o f a m b i g u i t y and balance is, therefore, created b y the c h o i c e o f the v e r b rāgal, and the specific examples o f right c o n d u c t expressed in the n e g a t i v e clauses o f verse 3 are seen t o h a v e a m o r e intimate and direct relationship back t o the general or abstract moral qualities o f verse 2 than appears at first glance. Aesthetics and semantics flow t o g e t h e r in the m o v e m e n t o f the p o e m . T h a t the rest o f the psalm manifests a similar p o e t i c a m b i g u i t y and balance w i t h i n lines and across lines is less clear. N o r is it necessary that it d o so. T h e textual and syntactical p r o b l e m s o f verse 4 make it difficult t o understand the verse or to analyse it as poetry. N e v e r theless, a f e w t h i n g s may be n o t e d a b o u t the p o e t r y o f verses 4 and 5 that relate back t o w h a t is said a b o v e a b o u t verses 2 and 3. In terms o f style verse 4 is a k i n d o f s w i n g or p i v o t verse. It m o v e s o n to delineate in antithetical but p o s i t i v e l y f o r m u l a t e d cola the proper attitude o f the w o u l d - b e sojourner in the divine presence vis à vis the o n e s w h o fear Y a h w e h and t h o s e w h o are w o r t h l e s s or rejected (by Y a h w e h ? ) . H a v i n g shifted in the m i d d l e b i c o l o n

to

p o s i t i v e statements, the psalm returns in 4c and 5a and b to the series o f negatively f o r m u l a t e d characteristics, u s i n g /0' 4‫ ־‬verb. T h e first o f these is the m o s t difficult c o l o n in the psalm. Its m e a n i n g is quite uncertain. M o s t p r o b a b l y it is t o be u n d e r s t o o d as indicating either o n e w h o swears an oath e v e n t o his o w n harm and w i l l n o t break it or o n e w h o swears an o a t h t o his n e i g h b o r (reading lerēlēhû lehāral)

18

for

) and will n o t break it. In either case the requirement has

t o d o w i t h k e e p i n g oaths. S o m e interpreters w o u l d understand the c o l o n as in fact a b i c o l o n and perhaps w i t h m i s s i n g w o r d s (so Kraus). T h a t seems less likely in this case. T h e r e is n o textual e v i d e n c e

19

)

18 ) For discussion of these alternatives see the commentaries. The Septuagint, followed by the Peshitta and the Gallican Psalter of Jerome, translates "to his neighbor". In his Psalterium iuxta Hebraeos Jerome translated the Hebrew: iurat ut se adfligat et non mutât, i.e. understanding the Hebrew according to the first alternative indicated above. 19 ) Psalm xv is not present in any of the Qumran manuscripts and fragments so far as the writer knows.

f o r a haplography, a l t h o u g h it is possible that o n e occurred at an early stage o f the transmission o f the text. T h e meter and syllabic l e n g t h o f the four w o r d s c o r r e s p o n d to the meter and l e n g t h o f the t w o f o l l o w i n g cola as well as the three /0' sentences o f verse 3. Verse 5 then continues the negative series w i t h t w o balancing cola, the s u b ject o f w h i c h is the use o f m o n e y (against usury and taking o f bribes). T h e s e three cola clearly balance the three /
2‫נ‬

20

), xxii 25, c x v 7, cxxxi 1,

), it is rather unusual to h a v e t w o series o f three separated b y

o n e verse in a psalm o f o n l y five verses. Presumably the /
22

). But Ps. x x i v 3 and 4 has o n l y t w o /
it is a m u c h shorter description than Ps. x v

23

). Whatever the reasons

f o r using the /0' sentences, the e n d result is a carefully balanced p o e t i c structure. T h e final indication o f that balanced structure is the last half o f verse 5, the c o n c l u s i o n o f the psalm that b o t h ends the description o f the o n e w h o w o u l d sojourn in Y a h w e h ' s tent and assures eternal w e l l - b e i n g and security for o n e w h o fits this description

24

). T h e

assurance as a p o e t i c c o n c l u s i o n picks up b o t h of the d o m i n a n t clause f o r m a t i o n s o f the psalm

25

). T h e first c o l o n , ‫ •י‬ôsëh 'ēlleh, e c h o e s the

initial participial clauses o f vs. 2, hôlêk tāmîm, pā V7 sedeq, and döber >emet bilbâbô. T h e s e c o n d c o l o n , 16* y im mot Ie ,olärn, then e c h o e s the /0' sentences o f verses 3 and 5. T h e p o e m thus c o n c l u d e s w i t h the s y m m e t r y o f structure that it manifests t h r o u g h o u t . 20

) The writer intends to treat the poetry of this passage in a separate note. ) See the marginal notes to Pss. xv 2 and 5, and xxii 25 in BHS. 22 ) In addition to the similar formulations in the Old Testament one may compare the first person negative protestations of innocence in the 125th chapter of the Egyptian Book of the Dead (see ANET, pp. 34-6) and the Biographical Inscriptions of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasty. The latter are discussed in a paper of Katherine Havice presented to the Task Group on Legal Forms of the Society of Biblical Literature, October 26, 1974 entitled "The Concern for the Widow and the Fatherless: The setting and function of the concern in the Egyptian Biographical Form". 23 ) The move from general, abstract positive statements to more specific negative sentences is, of course, paralleled in Ps. xxiv 4. 24 ) It is possible to read verse 5 either as result or promise. 25 ) Cf. Κ. Koch, "Tempeleinlassliturgien und Dekaloge", in R. Rendtorff and K. Koch (ed.), Studien zur Theologie der alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen (Neukirchen, 1961), p. 46. 21

THE UNITY OF THE SONG OF SONGS by R O L A N D E. M U R P H Y Durham, North Carolina Scholars s e e m to be in a g r e e m e n t that the S o n g o f S o n g s deals w i t h l o v e . B e y o n d that, there is little consensus. H u m a n l o v e (the moderns),

or d i v i n e l o v e

(the ancients, b o t h o f s y n a g o g u e

and

church), or b o t h ? A collection o f several disparate p o e m s , or a f e w ? P o e m s set w i t h i n a marriage celebration or w i t h o u t ? P o e m s o f the S o l o m o n i c p e r i o d or o f various times and places ? T h e q u e s t i o n s can be multiplied, b u t this article will concentrate o n o n e issue : the unity o f the w o r k , as e v i d e n c e d by the m a n y repetitions w i t h i n it. T h e large n u m b e r o f repetitions w i t h i n e i g h t chapters makes the S o n g u n i q u e w i t h i n the H e b r e w Bible, w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f Q o h e l e t . T h e r e are several hapax

legomena\

yet m a n y ordinary

w o r d s are repeated o v e r and over. H e n c e the q u e s t i o n arises: are the repetitions significant e n o u g h t o warrant the claim that the S o n g is, b y and large, a unity, and n o t simply a l o o s e collection or a n t h o l o g y o f disparate p o e m s ? In other w o r d s , o n e w o u l d n o t expect to find this inner thread o f unity (significant repetitions) in p o e m s that are w i d e l y p r e s u m e d t o h a v e b e e n written o v e r m a n y years b y different hands. W h a t if o n e s h o u l d urge that the unity w a s a c h i e v e d b y an editor w h o l o c k e d t o g e t h e r several p o e m s b y means o f these repetitions? Perhaps an adequate reply is that the original p o e t w o u l d h a v e b e e n as expert at this kind o f t h i n g as the (later) editor w o u l d h a v e been. T h e repetitions can be treated under the headings o f "refrains", themes, and simple repetitions o f w o r d s and phrases. I.

Refrains

W e shall understand refrain as a simple reprise, a g r o u p o f w o r d s w h i c h recurs several times. T h i s prescinds f r o m any strophic implications. T h u s there w i l l be a difference b e t w e e n the "refrains" in the S o n g and the strophic refrains in Is. ix 11-20 ("his wrath is n o t turned back, and his h a n d is still outstretched"). 1. T h e adjuration a b o u t the a w a k e n i n g o f l o v e . T h i s l e n g t h y verse appears three times, o n c e w i t h m i n o r variations: ii 7, iii 5, viii 4 (variations). T h e r e is in ν 8 a f o u r t h adjuration (uttered b y the w o m a n

to the Daughters) that is evocative o f this particular refrain. T h e three adjurations occur at the ends o f what many commentators (L. Krinetzki, R. Gordis, H. Ringgren) judge to be poetic units. 2. T h e refrain about embracing occurs twice, and significantly just before t w o o f the three adjurations: ii 6 and viii 3. It does not occur before iii 5 (third adjuration), but it should be noted iii 4 speaks of the w o m a n taking hold of the man, not letting him g o till she had brought h i m unto her mother's house. 3. T h e mi %oyt ( " w h o is this?") refrain occurs twice, hailing someo n e c o m i n g f r o m the desert. In each case the "this" is variously identified: Solomon's litter (iii 6-7) and the w o m a n (viii 5). T h e third instance (vi 10) is a cry o f admiration from "daughters" (presumably, queens and concubines). There is perhaps s o m e significance that this refrain f o l l o w s immediately u p o n the adjuration refrain in the t w o specific instance of " w h o is this c o m i n g up from the desert" : iii 5-6, viii 4-5. T w o of these refrains (iii 6 and viii 5) occur at the beginning of what many commentators (Krinetzki, Gordis, Ringgren) judge to be poetic units. 4. T h e possession refrain ("I am my lover's, he is mine") occurs w i t h only variations in w o r d sequence in ii 16 and vi 3 and substantially also in vii 11 where the interesting variation about the man's "yearning" (tešûqāh: cf. Gen. iii 16) appears. With the exception o f vii 11, the instances appear at the end of units (ii 16 g o e s w i t h the e n d i n g of ii 17). 5. T h e day/shadow refrain is characterized by deliberate variations in ii 17 (cf. ii 8b-9a!) and iv 6. In the former the w o m a n invites the lover t o turn and be like a gazelle o n the mountain(s) (thus ii 17 forms an inclusio w i t h ii 9). In the latter, without a mention of the gazelle, the man affirms his resolution to g o to the mountain. A third form appears in viii 14 without the day/shadow phrase, where the w o m a n invites the man to flee and be like a gazelle o n the m o u n tains. T h e m o v e m e n t in these refrains is to the mountain(s); the metaphor o f m o v e m e n t is the gazelle (except iv 6) and twice the time (day/shadow) is mentioned. This is perhaps the m o s t interesting example of variations of a refrain. II. Themes 1. T h e garden motif is central to iv 12-16 (cf. viii 13). Associated w i t h it is the image of the lover g o i n g to the garden: iv 16 ("Let m y

lover c o m e t o his garden"); ν 1 ("I have c o m e to m y garden"), vi 2 ("my lover has g o n e d o w n to his garden") ; vi 11 ("I w e n t d o w n to the nut-garden"—spoken perhaps by the w o m a n ) . 2. Allied t o the motif o f the b e l o v e d as a garden is the metaphor o f the vineyard. T h e w o m a n refers to herself w h e n she speaks of " m y o w n (Jellî) vineyard" in i 6, and there may be a hidden or implicit reference to herself in the "vineyards o f E n g e d i " (i 14), the vineyards devastated by the little foxes (ii 15), and the "let us be off early to the vineyards" (vii 13). There can be n o doubt that she is contrasting her o w n self (šellî) w i t h S o l o m o n ' s vineyard in viii 11-12. 3. T h e motifs of vineyard and garden are specific, compared to the general atmosphere of flowers, b l o s s o m , fruit, precious perfumes, etc., w h i c h appear frequently in Cant. O n c e there is a descent to the nutgarden (vine, pomegranates, vi 11). T w i c e an invitation is issued to witness the g r o w t h of nature : in the s o n g o f spring (flowers, fig-tree, vine, ii 12-13), and in an early visit to the vineyards (vine, p o m e granates vii 13). Several times flowers, fruits, and trees are used as terms o f comparison (ii 1-3, iv 3 = vi 7, ν 13, vi 3, 8-9). This kind o f idyllic language is further reflected in the several references to animais, especially gentle animals such as d o v e s (i 15, ii 14, iv 1, ν 12, vi 9), gazelles and hinds (ii 9, 17, viii 14), fawns (iv 5 = vii 4), and flock (ii 7, iv 1-2 = vi 5-6). 4. T h e theme o f seeking/finding occurs in the remarkably parallel units, iii 1-4 and ν 2-9. S o m e w h a t related to this are t w o passages: the request to k n o w of his whereabouts (i 6) and the w i s h expressed by the w o m a n (viii 2), that if she f o u n d her lover in public (and he were her brother), she w o u l d kiss h i m and lead h i m to the house of her mother; see the sequence in iii 4-5 (she f o u n d h i m and brought h i m to the h o u s e o f her mother). 5. T h e invitation motif appears four times. In ii 8-13 the man invites the w o m a n to witness the renewal o f nature in the spring. In iv 8 he bids her c o m e f r o m L e b a n o n ; in iv 16b she invites h i m to "his garden". In vii 12 she invites h i m to the countryside t o see the b l o s s o m i n g . T h e renewal o f nature appears three times: ii 10-13, v i 17, vii 12-13. 6. A l t h o u g h it seems hardly important in itself t o constitute a theme, a " h o u s e " is mentioned frequently e n o u g h to deserve mention here. T h e h o u s e o f the w o m a n ' s mother twice serves as a place to w h i c h she can bring the lover (iii 4, viii 2). A mother is referred to in many other instances (iii 11, v i 9, viii 1, 5), and also to designate

the w o m a n ' s brothers ("sons of m y mother" i 6). A h o u s e is also mentioned by the lovers in i 17, and the w o m a n says that the king has brought her to the "house o f w i n e " (ii 4), and to his chambers (14).

7. Another motif is the lily (Jôsannàh). T h e w o m a n claims in ii 2 to be "the lily of the valleys" and the man takes up this term in ii 3. T h e n the usage becomes complicated. " H e w h o browses a m o n g the lilies" is an epithet of the lover in the mutual possession formula (ii 16, vi 3). But in iv 5 ( = vii 4) the breasts o f the w o m a n are c o m pared to twin fawns that "browse a m o n g the lilies" and in vii 3 her belly is described as "surrounded by lilies". There is an almost casual mention of lilies in vi 2 where the lover g o e s d o w n to gather lilies. But o n the other hand, she describes his lips as lilies (vi 13). T h e theme of love-sickness occurs twice (ii 5, ν 8). III. Repetitions of Words and Phrases 1. T h e "Daughters of Jerusalem" are mentioned six times, four times in adjurations (ii 7, iii 5, ν 8, viii 4, all in vocative case), and twice they are addressed in a discourse by the w o m a n (i 5, ν 16). Only once are they mentioned outside of direct address (iii 10; the text is uncertain; cf. "daughters of Z i o n " in iii 11). T h e Daughters of Jerusalem deserve special comment. T h e y seem to have little, if any, independent existence within the Song. T h e y are freely i n v o k e d in three adjurations by the w o m a n (rather than by the man, as N E B and others have it) : ii 7, iii 5, viii 4. But in all three instances they do not reply to the address. O n e has the impression that they need not be present, that the Daughters are merely figures in the fantasy world in w h i c h the w o m a n m o v e s . O n l y twice are they clearly identified as speaking. In ν 8 they respond w i t h a question to an adjuration o f the w o m a n concerning her beloved, and are swept into a dialogue in which they raise another question (vi 1). But these questions merely provide the w o m a n an opportunity to continue what w o u l d otherwise be a m o n o l o g u e concerning her absent lover: his physical appearance (v 10-16), and his presence (vi 2-3). T h e Daughters never describe themselves, nor reveal inner feelings and values. A t the m o s t they have an interest in the man, but this is p r o v o k e d by the words of the w o m a n (v 8 ff.). T h e y express admiration for her ("most beautiful a m o n g w o m e n " ) , but they remain colorless. Elsewhere in the p o e m , certain lines may be interpreted, rather insecurely, as spoken by the D a u g h -

ters: i 4 ("we"); vii 1 ("we"). But this interpretation is admittedly subjective. T h e Daughters appear to be merely a foil for the w o m a n in the Song, whatever might be their original identity in concrete Israelite life. 2. " M o s t beautiful a m o n g w o m e n " is addressed to the w o m a n in i 8, ν 9, vi 1. In the last t w o instances it is certainly the Daughters of Jerusalem w h o speak ; in i 8 probably the lover. "Beautiful" ( y p h ) is used frequently by the man in addressing the w o m a n . Three times an inclusio is f o r m e d by the w o r d : ii 10-13, iv 1-7; vii 2-7. Elsewhere she is either addressed as "beautiful" or this w o r d is used to describe s o m e attribute: her love (iv 10), her feet (vii 7). 3. T h e occurrence of the proper name, S o l o m o n , is particularly noteworthy, and there seem to be efforts to play o n the name. T h e name itself occurs in i 1, 5, iii 7, 9 , 1 1 ; viii 11-12. T h e reference to the tent-cloths of S o l o m o n in i 5 may have been favored over Ša1mah (as m o s t moderns read the text), because o f the prominence o f the Israelite monarch in the p o e m . Perhaps šallāmāh ("lest' 5 ) o f i 7 is another case of deliberate paronomasia. There is reason t o interpret the enigmatic Shulammite of vii 1 as a play o n S o l o m o n , as also her claim concerning šālâm ("peace") in viii 10. References to the king (unnamed) are f o u n d in i 4 , 1 2 and vii 6 (a difficult text), and the term "king" is used explicitly of S o l o m o n in iii 9, 11. T h e only mention in the O l d Testament of "queens", as referring to a royal consort, (melâkôt) occurs in vi 9. 4. In contrast to the frequent royal designation stands the relatively rare indication o f the lover as shepherd. This role is e v o k e d by i 7, and as w e have seen he is twice g i v e n the epithet, " w h o browses (härö'-eb) a m o n g the lilies". 5. T w i c e the man requests to hear the v o i c e o f the w o m a n (ii 14, viii 14), and twice she responds, the first time with the lines about the little foxes (ii 15), and the second time w i t h a reminiscence o f her earlier w o r d s to h i m (viii 14; cf. ii 17, iv 6). 6. There are t w o wasfs in w h i c h the physical charms of the w o m a n are described: iv 1-7, vii 2-7. But there is a clear insertion of lines f r o m iv 1-7 in vi 5-7. T h e repetitions are apparently quite deliberate, and the variants are negligible. Comparisons between the t w o major descriptions can be made at i v 5 and vii 4 (breasts); iv 4 and vii 5 (neck); iv 1 and vii 5 (eyes), etc. There is one wasf dealing with the man's physical beauty (v 10-16), and it is to be expected that there w o u l d be a repetition o n eyes, lips, etc.

T h u s far I have presented the various p h e n o m e n a o f repetition w i t h i n the S o n g , w i t h a v i e w t o d r a w i n g a c o n c l u s i o n a b o u t its unity. In terms o f m e t h o d , the q u e s t i o n is : are the n u m b e r and nature o f the repetitions such that they s u g g e s t unity rather than a mere collection o f disparate s o n g s o f l o v e ? T h e r e is n o claim a b o u t w h a t the unity consists in, as t h o u g h a s m o o t h structure c o u l d be presented. It is just that the chapters are l o c k e d t o g e t h e r b y means o f repetitions. T h e various " p o e m s " in the S o n g s h o w a remarkable h o m o g e n e i t y , n o t merely in the t o p o i associated w i t h l o v e , but in specific details. W h i l e a certain similarity is to be expected a m o n g any collection o f l o v e p o e m s , the repetitions w i t h i n the S o n g are striking e n o u g h t o s u g g e s t a deliberate, contrived, unity. T h e experiences o f the l o v e r and the b e l o v e d are relatively limited and continually

repeated:

l o s i n g and finding, mutual c o m p l i m e n t s , descriptions o f each other's beauty. T h i s h o m o g e n e i t y g o e s b e y o n d , for example, the c o h e r e n c e and similarities existing in the collections o f E g y p t i a n l o v e s o n g s , w i t h w h i c h the S o n g is rightly compared. It is to be expected that there w o u l d be significant differences b e t w e e n the f o u r major collections o f E g y p t i a n l o v e poetry, that are datable as collections to distinct periods. B u t e v e n w i t h i n any o n e o f these collections, there is lacking the signs o f h o m o g e n e i t y w h i c h w e have just surveyed for the S o n g 1 ). It seems intrinsically m o r e probable that o n e author has g i v e n a unity t o his l o v e p o e m s b y repeating certain w o r d s and m o t i f s w i t h i n t h e m . T h e unity is also secured b y d i a l o g u e 2 ), and as in m u c h o f h u m a n d i a l o g u e (especially the language o f love), certain t h i n g s are repeated o v e r and over. T h e repetitions serve to p o i n t up the unity 1

) The four collections, Papyrus Harris 500, the Turin Papyrus, the Cairo love songs, and the Chester Beatty Papyrus I, are conveniently translated and collected in W. K. Simpson, The Literature of Ancient Egypt (New Haven, Connecticut, 1972). For translation and analysis, see John B. White, A Study of the Language of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry (Missoula, 1978). 2 ) For an attempt to portray the dialogical unity, see R. E. Murphy, "Towards a Commentary on the Song of Songs", CBQ 39(1977), pp. 482-96. The approach of form criticism, although necessary, tends to fragment the Song; cf. R. E. Murphy "Form-critical Studies in the Song of Songs", Int. 27 (1973), pp. 413-22. The commentaries of Gerleman and Würthwein bear this out. The approach of rhetorical criticism appears more successful. Although the articles of J. Angénieux and J. Cheryl Exum have not gained general acceptance, they are more on target in suggesting greater unity than other scholars have recognized. Cf. the three studies of J. Angénieux in ETL, 1965-8, especially "Structure du Cantique des Cantiques", ETL 41 (1965), pp. 96-142; J. C. Exum, " A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs", ZAW 85 (1973), pp. 47-79.

o f the Song. T h e man and the w o m a n never tire o f saying the same things to each other: h o w beautiful the other is, personal l o n g i n g , trysts in the garden and other idyllic places, narratives o f visits—all the l o v e experiences that are typical. This is held together by dialogue, and e v e n by what one might call dramatic articulation. T h e S o n g is n o t a drama, but it is dramatic. T h e mutual d e v o t i o n and fidelity of the man and the w o m a n remains constant, from beginning t o e n d ; but the literary articulation of this is w o r k e d out in a dramatic way. That is to say, there is m o v e m e n t within the p o e m f r o m one experience of l o v e t o another. This is sustained from the outset d o w n to the aphorism about l o v e in viii 6, w h i c h serves as a kind o f climax. This dramatic m o v e m e n t is initiated in the ardent expostulations of the w o m a n in i 1-6, w h i c h end with a mention o f the harsh treatment she has received f r o m her brothers, w h o will appear at the very end o f the w o r k , in a kind of inclusio (viii 8-10). In a dialogue w i t h the man, the w o m a n takes up the theme o f his presence/absence (i 7-8), and they launch into an exchange o f mutual descriptions and c o m pliments (i 9-ii 7), ending w i t h an adjuration to the Daughters o f Jerusalem. In ii 8-17 the theme o f presence is to the fore, as the w o m a n describes a visit and invitation f r o m her lover, and this ends w i t h the day/ s h a d o w refrain. Chapter iii continues the presence/absence theme, as she recounts a dream-like sequence in w h i c h she s o u g h t h i m and f o u n d him, ending w i t h an adjuration to the Daughters of Jerusalem. There is a seeming interruption in iii 6-11, w i t h a third party describing S o l o m o n " o n the day o f his marriage, o n the day of the joy of his heart". In chapter iv the lover begins the first o f his descriptions of the physical charms o f his b e l o v e d (the wasf), desires her presence (v. 8, " C o m e f r o m L e b a n o n . . . " ) , and describes her as a garden (vv. 12-16); she invites h i m to c o m e to his garden and eat, and he affirms his possession of her ( ν 1). In another dream-like sequence (v 2 ff. ; cf. iii 1-5) the w o m a n describes a visit f r o m her lover, but also her failure t o find him w h e n she searched for him. T h e Daughters lead her o n by questions to a description o f his physical beauty, and also to her claim that he is always w i t h her (vi 2-3). A s if in reply t o her ardor, he launches into a ivasf and statement of her uniqueness (vi 4-10). T h e enigmatic w o r d s about the nut garden f o l l o w (vi 11-12). In chapter vii w e are introduced t o another description o f the

w o m a n ' s beauty as she is e n g a g e d in the "dance of the t w o camps" (vii 1-6), and the man expresses his desire for union w i t h her (vii 7, 10), w h i c h she readily w e l c o m e s (vii 10-viii 4), and she ends with a repetition of the adjuration to the Daughters of Jerusalem. There is a singular verse in viii 5, w h i c h is not easily understood in the context (a repetition of iii 6, " w h o is this c o m i n g up from the desert?"). T h e so-called appendices in chapter viii contain the striking aphorism about the p o w e r o f l o v e (vv. 6-7), the marriage plans which her brothers (cf. i 5-6) have for the w o m a n , along w i t h her response (vv. 8-10), the "parable" about S o l o m o n ' s vineyard (vv. 11-12; cf. i 6) and a snatch o f conversation in vv. 13-14 which is reminiscent of ii 14-17. Such is the rough sequence o f "events" in the Song, and these are not without a f e w tenuous points of joining. But this fact is not e n o u g h to argue against unity; one must beware o f i m p o s i n g a preconceived notion of conceptual unity o n the work. What needs to be recognized here is the evidence o f the dramatic presentation of love-experiences that continually repeat themselves. This constitutes an argument for unity.

THE JUXTAPOSITION OF SYNONYMOUS AND CHIASTIC PARALLELISM IN TRICOLA IN OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW PSALM POETRY by J O H N T. WILLIS Abilene, Texas I n several o f his writings, W . F. A l b r i g h t called attention t o the use o f tricola in Ugaritic and in the O l d T e s t a m e n t 1 ), and stated that it "is m u c h c o m m o n e r b o t h in Ugaritic and in the Bible than hitherto r e c o g n i z e d " 2 ). S. M o w i n c k e l d e v o t e d a m o n o g r a p h t o the examinat i o n o f tricola in the Psalms, and c o n c l u d e d that w h i l e s u c h certainly exist they are n o t nearly s o n u m e r o u s as A l b r i g h t a n d others h a v e t h o u g h t 3 ). Generally speaking, scholars d o n o t s e e m t o h a v e c o n sidered it sufficiently important or fruitful t o e x a m i n e this p h e n o m e n o n at l e n g t h in O l d T e s t a m e n t p o e t r y 4 ). T h e present writer has disc o v e r e d several different structures in tricola in various O l d Testam e n t p o e t i c passages. O n e o f these is the l i n k i n g t o g e t h e r o f the first t w o cola 5 ) o f a t r i c o l o n in s y n o n y m o u s parallelism and o f the last t w o cola in chiastic parallelism (or v i c e versa), s o that the m i d d l e 1

) W. F. Albright, "The Furniture of El in Canaanite Mythology", BASOR 91 (1943), p. 43; "The 'Natural Force‫ ׳‬of Moses in the Light of Ugaritic", BASOR 94 (1944), pp. 32-3; "The Old Testament and Canaanite Language and Literature", CBQ 7 (1945), pp. 21, 24-5; "The Psalm of Habakkuk", in H. H. Rowley (ed.), Studies in Old Testament Prophecy presented to T. H. Robinson (Edinburgh, 1946), pp. 3-7, 13, n. i, 14, n. j, 15, n. w. 2 ) "The Old Testament and Canaanite Language and Literature", p. 21. Cp. also his strong statements in "The Psalm of Habakkuk", p. 3. 3 ) S. Mowinckel, Real and Apparent Tricola in Hebrew Psalm Poetry (Oslo, 1957), p. 5. *) E.g., L. Alonso Schäkel, "Poésie Hébraïque", DBS 8 (1972), cols. 47-90, in an otherwise very comprehensive treatment of Old Testament poetry, devotes only approximately half a column, 71, to little more than a bare introduction to tricola. 6 ) Scholars have not been consistent in their use of such terms as "stich", "hemistich", "line", "half-line", etc., in dealing with Old Testament poetry, and it seems least ambiguous to employ "colon" and the like, in spite of the fact that Mowinckel, pp. 6-7, insists that "stich" is preferable to "bicolon" and "distich" to "colon" in describing Hebrew poetry. Cf. Albright's struggle with this problem reflected in "The Furniture of El in Canaanite Mythology", p. 43, n. 40; and in "The Old Testament and Canaanite Language and Literature", p. 20.

c o l o n is simultaneously a vital element o f both. A reading o f the Psalms in H e b r e w reveals several examples o f this technique. T h i s article d o e s n o t attempt to offer an exhaustive list o f relevant passages, but to cite sufficient examples to support the thesis that this technique m u s t be taken seriously in approaching O l d T e s t a m e n t poetry, and t o s u g g e s t certain didactic and theological reasons f o r its use. Before e x a m i n i n g illustrative passages in the Psalms, a f e w remarks c o n c e r n i n g M o w i n c k e l ' s study are in order. H e is correct in insisting that the main rule f o r determining w h e t h e r a poetic piece is tricolic is "that all the three cola (membra) s h o w m o r e or less exact parallelism b e t w e e n each other" (p. 17). A n d yet, this s h o u l d be unders t o o d in conjunction w i t h M o w i n c k e l ' s perception o f a w i d e range o f possibilities in his o w n analyses o f the interrelationships o f cola in tricola in the Psalms (pp. 17-21), and w i t h the fact that precise identity o f terms in parallel cola is rare in H e b r e w poetry 6 ). M o w i n c k e l is also correct in e m p h a s i z i n g that the reading o f the M T , the Massoretic divisions indicated by athnach and other accents, the d i v i s i o n o f verse lines in BHK3

and the like may be in error or mis-

leading (pp. 2 2 ff.). H o w e v e r , scholars may disagree as to the specific passages in w h i c h these errors h a v e occurred, and it is at this point that m a n y will find it necessary to differ w i t h M o w i n c k e l . M o w i n c k e l g o e s t o o far in insisting that w h o l e psalms or distinct sections o f psalms must be regular in scansion t h r o u g h o u t b o t h in " t h o u g h t r h y m e " and in meter 7 ). A l m o s t invariably he refuses to a l l o w a tricolon to stand in a p o e m that he scans o t h e r w i s e as bicolic. H i s m o n o g r a p h is filled w i t h w h a t justifiably may be termed a rew r i t i n g o f the H e b r e w text o f passages w h i c h d o n o t fit his scheme. H e r e m o v e s cola, adds cola t o f o r m parallels for existing cola, rearranges and e m e n d s the text, and the like, all in an effort t o restore the original regular p o e t i c pattern as he e n v i s i o n s it, and all resulting in the removal o f "apparent" tricola in the midst of o t h e r w i s e bicolic poetry. Surely, s o m e t i m e s marginal g l o s s e s w e r e w r o n g l y incorporated e

) J. Muilenburg, "A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style", SVT 1 (1953), p. 98; and T. H. Robinson, "Hebrew Poetic Form: The English Tradition", SVT 1 (1953), p. 130, have emphasized that in reality even synonymous parallelism is only rarely strictly synonymous. 7 ) Mowinckel, p. 22. One of Mowinckel's major contentions is that the basic unit of Hebrew poetry is the bicolon, which has four beats to each colon (4:4), not three (3:3), and that the fundamental stanza or strophe is a 2 and 2 bicolon or the distich, pp. 6-7, 10, 97. With regard to meter, he writes: "the metrical structures as a rule are much more regular than often supposed", p. 67. On the problem of regularity in Hebrew poetry, cp. Alonso Schökel, cols. 63-64.

into the biblical text by later scribes; cola or phrases or w o r d s were dropped out of the text; the text was disarranged in the process o f oral or written transmission; scribes miscopied the text, etc. H o w e v e r , Mowinckel's changes are motivated by the pre-established theory with w h i c h he approaches poetic material. A large number o f his emendations are conjectural, w i t h o u t any support from the ancient versions, as he himself admits (p. 100). M o w i n c k e l caustically refers to those w h o allow the M T to stand, and thus see variety in poetic f o r m within a single piece, as "lovers of irregularity" (p. 62). In response, it may be pointed out that what may appear to be irregular to the modern, disciplined, sophisticated, Western mind may not have seemed irregular at all t o the ancient Oriental mind. The irregularities w h i c h M o w i n c k e l discovers are so numerous as to suggest that perhaps o n e should take another l o o k at the text as it stands at first instance, if perhance there might appear a type o f symmetrical beauty which has been overlooked. There may be g o o d reasons for the incorporation of tricolic verses in the midst of non-tricolic poetry, as M o w i n c k e l himself sometimes admits, especially in his analysis o f Ps. lxviii 28 (pp. 94-5, 100). Tricola take on a variety of forms in the Psalms. T h e present article deals exclusively w i t h those in w h i c h the three cola contain roughly the same basic thought, w i t h o u t a verbatim repetition of the first c o l o n in the second or third or of the second in the third, or the use of the so-called "synthetic" or "formal" or "numerical" parallelism, or the like. This study, then, falls naturally into three parts : (1) tricola in w h i c h all three cola f o l l o w the same order; (2) tricola in which cola a and b are arranged s y n o n y m o u s l y and b and c chiastically; and (3) tricola in which cola a and b are arranged chiastically and b and c synonymously. The first part serves as a guideline to emphasize the other t w o . T h e numbering o f chapters and verses f o l l o w s the M T . T h e small R o m a n numerals (i), (ii), and (iii) are used to divide the cola into smaller units in order to s h o w the correspondence o f the individual elements in each colon. Tricola in which all three cola follow the same order This category consists o f three types of linguistic expression. a. T h e psalmist may be stating a fact concerning the past, present, or future. In d o i n g so, he may employ the perfect w i t h or without a waw.

Ps. vii 15 hinnēh

(i) yehabbel

(ii)

c

(i) w hārāh (ii)

1

e

(i) weyālad

āwen ārnāl

(ii) sāqer

B e h o l d , he c o n c e i v e s trouble, and is pregnant w i t h mischief, and brings f o r t h deception. T h e w o r d order in each c o l o n is verb-object (in each case w i t h o u t *et) 8 ). T h e verbs indicate a p r o g r e s s i o n f r o m c o n c e p t i o n to pregnancy t o birth, w h i l e the objects m a y be s y n o n y m o u s ; if so, actually the p o e t has reference to basically the same t h i n g in all three cola, but at the same time describes the s l o w but sure increase o f evil in the life o f the w i c k e d 9 ). hinnêh stands outside the c o u n t . Ps. lxxviii 55 (i) wayegāreš (ii) mippenêhem (i) ìvayyappîlēm

(iii) gôyïm

(ii) behebel (iii) nahalāh

(i) wayyaškēn (ii) be*oh°lêhem (iii)

šibtêyisrā*ēl

A n d he d r o v e o u t f r o m before t h e m nations, A n d he assigned t h e m b y line an inheritance, A n d h e caused to dwell in their tents the tribes o f Israel

10

).

T h e w o r d s in each c o l o n are almost slavishly put in a strict order ( w h i c h is f o l l o w e d here in translation for effect) : (i) each c o l o n b e g i n s w i t h a waw + the i m p e r f e c t ; (ii) then c o m e s a third p e r s o n masculine plural suffix ( w i t h or w i t h o u t an additional w o r d ) ; (iii) the object o f each v e r b is left t o the e n d o f the c o l o n , apparently for emphasis. T h e v e r b s clearly c o n v e y a p r o g r e s s i o n o f t h o u g h t , w h i c h is especially w e l l w o r k e d o u t in this verse. In stating a fact, the p o e t may also use the participle.

8

) In view of the beautiful symmetry of these three cola, it is hard to understand why C. A. and E. G. Briggs, The Book of Psalms I (Edinburgh and New York, 1906), pp. 55, 60, argued that šāqer is an interpretive gloss which makes the colon too long and mars the effect of Cāmāl. β ) So A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms I (London, 1972), p. 99, is correct when he says: "This verse portrays graphically the growth of evil by using metaphors of conception, pregnancy and birth", and again: "In this context, 'evil', 'mischief' and 'lies' may be used for the sake of parallelism, and need not necessarily represent a progression", although his wording is somewhat confusing. 10 ) Briggs, The Book of Psalms II, pp. 189, 196, deletes colon c as a gloss, but gives no justification for doing so.

Ps. xviii 48-49a hā ,êl (i) hannôtên (ii) neqâmôt

lî

(i) 1vayyadbēr (ii) ‫י‬ammîm tahtay (i) mepalletî

(ii)

mēy5jebāj

The G o d w h o gave vengeance to me, and turned back p e o p l e s under m e , ( w h o ) delivered m e f r o m m y e n e m i e s

11

).

E a c h c o l o n b e g i n s w i t h a v e r b f o r m (a participle in a and c and an imperfect +

waw in b; the participle and the imperfect o f t e n occur

in parallelism in this way), and contains the first p e r s o n singular suffix at the end, e m p h a s i z i n g w h a t G o d had d o n e in behalf o f the psalmist. 2 Sam. xxii 4 8 has the participle môrîd ( " w h o brings d o w n " ) at the b e g i n n i n g o f b and môsPî ( " w h o brings m e out") at the b e g i n n i n g o f c, w h i c h makes the s y m m e t r y m o r e p r o n o u n c e d because o f the use o f the participle t h r o u g h o u t . Ps. cxlvii 8 (i) hamekasseh (ii) šāmaytm (iii)

beÍābîm

(i) hammēkîn (ii) lä'äres (iii) mātār (i) hammasmîah

(ii) hārîm (iii) hāsîr

W h o c o v e r s the h e a v e n s w i t h clouds, W h o p r o v i d e s f o r the earth rain, W h o causes m o u n t a i n s t o sprout grass ‫״‬

12

).

) Mowinckel, pp. 38-39, argues that the original order of verses here was 44a (doublet of 49a) + 49b (doublet of 46a), 49c + 44/;, 44c + 45a, 45b + 46b, because the benediction in verse 47 is not the place to take up again the battle picture given in verses 36-46; and yet he himself retains verse 48 in its present position as a brief recapitulation of verses 36-46. Such a rearrangement is too arbitrary and extensive to be convincing. Briggs, The Book of Psalms I, p. 139; and M. Dahood, The Psalms I (Garden City, 1966), p. 104, translate 49b and c as if the MT had participles here, but the Hebrew text changes to the imperfect second masculine singular in these two cola, so that verses 48-49a form a tricolon and 49b-c a bicolon of synonymous parallelism. Dahood, p. 119, correctly observes that verse 49 lists three classes of enemies, but it is equally true that verses 48-49a enumerate three mighty acts of God in behalf of the psalmist against his enemies. Consequently, there is a tricolon in 48-49a, not in 49. For a fuller discussion of the problems involved here, see G. Schmuttermayr, Psalm 18 und 2 Samuel 22: Studien Zu einem Doppeltext (München, 1971), pp. 189-97, who sees in verses 48-9 a "Vokativ Cal)—Attribute (vv. 48b-49a)—Prädikat (v. 49bc)", pp. 191,194. 12 ) Dahood, The Psalms III (Garden City, 1970), p. 346, correctly observes that colon a has an accusative followed by a prepositional phrase; b, a prepositional phrase followed by an accusative; and c, two accusatives. But this does not warrant the conclusion that a and b are chiastic. It is not "rain" that is parallel to "heavens", nor "earth" that is parallel to "clouds". Several scholars, including Briggs, The Book of Psalms II, pp. 535, 537; H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen 4 (Göttingen, 1929), pp. 614, 616; H. Schmidt, Die Psalmen (Tübingen, 1934),

T h i s verse is c o n n e c t e d w i t h the preceding, w h e r e the subject ( " Y a h w e h " , " o u r G o d " ) is introduced, and it is t o this subject that the participles at the b e g i n n i n g o f each c o l o n refer. E a c h c o l o n has three e l e m e n t s : (i) a participle describing Y a h w e h ' s activity in nature; (ii) a major p o r t i o n o f creation w h i c h he affects; (iii) the element he uses t o affect each p o r t i o n o f creation. T h e three cola s o u n d like s t e r e o t y p e d phrases that w o u l d normally be used in the cult. T h e general t h o u g h t is strikingly similar to the d o x o l o g i e s in

Amos

i v 13, ν 8-9, ix 5-6. Apparently there is a deliberate progression f r o m the distant to the near expressed in the s e c o n d (substantival) p o r t i o n o f each c o l o n

13

).

T h e psalmist m a y also state a fact by u s i n g the infinitive. Ps. cvi 5 (i) lir'ôt (ii) b'tôbat

behîreykā

(i) lismôah (ii) bešimhat (i) lehithallēl

(ii) Hm

gôyekâ nahalātekā

T o see the prosperity o f thy c h o s e n ones, T o be glad in the gladness o f thy nation, T o g l o r y t o g e t h e r w i t h thy heritage. V e r s e 5 m u s t be taken w i t h verse 4 as the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the psalmist's prayer. T h e t e r m i n o l o g y and the apparent natural stereotyped flow o f t h o u g h t o f the three cola in verse 5 s u g g e s t that these three infinitival phrases w e r e c o m m o n formulas used in the cult, perhaps in the very order presented here. T h e s e lines c o u l d certainly fit c o n texts other than prayer. Each c o l o n contains t w o basic e l e m e n t s : (i) I e +

an infinitive expressing the psalmist's desire t o a c k n o w l e d g e

G o d ' s blessings o n his p e o p l e ; and (ii) a substantival

expression

preceded b y a preposition designating that g r o u p o f p e o p l e

with

w h o m the p o e t w i s h e s t o participate in sympathetic approval

14

).

p. 254; et al., add a colon ("and green herbs for the service of man") from Ps. civ 14 with some manuscripts of the LXX and with the Vulgate, in order to complete the couplet begun in colon c. However, it is possible that the translators of these manuscripts of the L X X and Jerome added this line here from Ps. civ 14 because of the similarity of language between the two verses. Its occurrence in these versions does not necessarily prove that it was in the Hebrew manuscripts of Ps. cxlvii 8 which they were copying. 13 ) Cp. a similar progression in the strophic structure of the following psalm (cxlviii) from the heavens (vv. 1-6) to the earth (vv. 7-10) to peoples on the earth (vv. 11-14). 14 ) Two Hebrew manuscripts, L X X , Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and Quinta read ^0^râwî, "remember us", and poqdênû, "visit us", in verse 4; and this reading is adopted by Gunkel, pp. 462, 465; Schmidt, pp. 193, 194; W. O. E.

T h e v e r b s may reflect the author's desire t o portray an intensification in his participation in displaying approval o f G o d ' s rich gifts for his p e o p l e : he sees w h a t G o d has d o n e , he rejoices w i t h t h o s e w h o h a v e received G o d ' s gifts, and he exuberantly glories in these gifts. O t h e r psalm texts w h i c h b e l o n g to this g r o u p include x i v 3

=

liii 4, xvii 3, x x i v 4, Iii 7, 9, 1xxviii 21, lxxix 1, c 5, cxvi 8, c x x x v 11, and cxliii 3. b.

T h e p o e t may be m a k i n g a plea t o G o d or offering an i n v i t a t i o n

to man, in w h i c h case he uses the imperative. Ps. x v i i 1 (i) ïim'âh

YHWH

(ii) sedeq

(i) haqšîbāh (ii) rinnātî (i) ha,a^înāh

(ii) tepillāti

be10' šiptê mir mäh

Hear, Ο L o r d , a just cause, G i v e attention t o m y cry, G i v e ear t o m y prayer ( w h i c h I offer) w i t h o u t lips o f deceit. E a c h c o l o n contains t w o basic e l e m e n t s : (i) an emphatic imperative ( n o t e the -ah e n d i n g o n all three imperatives), and (ii) a direct object ( w i t h o u t ,et). T h e parallelism w o u l d i n d e e d be neater if c o l o n a read sidqi,

"my just cause"

15

), but in a prayer o f this type sedeq is m o s t

effective if t h e psalmist's p u r p o s e is t o appeal t o Y a h w e h ' s concern for v i n d i c a t i n g a right cause rather than to help him as an individual falsely accused by adversaries. T h e lectio difpcilior

is p r o b a b l y the

correct reading. T h e appearance o f " Y a h w e h " in c o l o n a is quite understandable in a petition, and the phrase

siptê mirmāh

be taken as a "triple-duty m o d i f i e r " applying to all three cola

may 16

),

thus falling o u t s i d e the rhythm c o u n t . Oesterly, The Psalms (London, 1939), pp. 449, 450, 451 ; A. Deissler, Le Livre des Psaumes, Verbum Salutis, Ancien Testament 2 (Paris, 1966), pp. 146, 149; and H. J. Kraus, Psalmen 3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1966), pp. 724, 726. But this does not alter the fact that verse 5 is a tricolon, as also Kraus, p. 726. Mowinckel, p. 71, has no real argument against the tricolic nature of this verse, but, guided by his presupposition that tricola cannot occur in poems that otherwise are bicolic, he deletes colon c a s a variant of b. 15 ) Indeed, the LXX has δικαιοσύνης μου, and Kraus, Psalmen3 p. 128, teadssidql. 1β ) Dahood, The Psalms I, p. 93, emends belo' to the piel imperative balle'', and reads, "Destroy deceitful lips!" He claims that this brings out the theme of the psalm, viz., that the psalmist has been falsely accused. However, after this psalm's first three cola, such a reading is abrupt and isolated. E. J. Kissane, The Book of Psalms I (Dublin, 1953), pp. 66, 68, apparently assuming that Hebrew poetry must follow a bicolic pattern wherever possible, proposes that 3c be moved after If as its parallel colon.

Ps. c l b - 2 (i) hârî'û (ii) laYHWH

kol hâ'âres

(‫ )נ‬Hbdû (ii) ,et YHWH e

(i) bô'û (ii) l pānājw

¥šimhāh

birnānāh

S h o u t t o Y a h w e h , all the earth, Serve Y a h w e h in gladness, C o m e b e f o r e h i m w i t h a r i n g i n g cry

17

).

E a c h c o l o n contains t w o fundamental c o m p o n e n t s : (i) an imperative in the s e c o n d masculine plural, s u m m o n i n g all mankind to w o r s h i p Y a h w e h w i t h enthusiastic j o y ; and (ii) a nominal or pronominal object, s p e c i f y i n g t o w h o m this w o r s h i p is to be directed, kol

hâ'âres

is necessary in a t o clarify the addressees, and thus needs n o equivalent in b and c. H o w e v e r , the presence o f this phrase is balanced b y additional n o u n s w i t h be in b and c. T h e v e r b hārîlû contains w i t h i n it the c o n c e p t o f enthusiastic joy, and s o requires n o additional term t o m a k e this clear, as d o the m o r e general and less descriptive verbs in b a n d c. In this category o f tricolic psalm texts b e l o n g also xvii 13b-14b, lxvi l b - 2 , and Ixxx 15. c.

T h e psalmist may utter a plea to G o d or a c o m m a n d to m e n

or a prayer f o r an individual or a g r o u p or an imprecation against enemies, and thus e m p l o y the jussive. Ps. lxvi 4 kol hâ'âres (i) yutaha1vû

(ii) Iekā

e

(i) wî%amm rû (ii) lāk (i) ye%ammerû

(ii)

šimekā

Let all the earth b o w d o w n to thee, A n d let t h e m s i n g t o thee, Let t h e m s i n g to thy n a m e . T h e three cola h a v e t w o fundamental e l e m e n t s : (i) a jussive in the third masculine plural; and (ii) an object w i t h the s e c o n d masculine singular suffix, kol hä'äres in a is necessary t o identify the object, and thus t o the t h o u g h t , but falls outside the r h y t h m count. T h i s type o f passage also includes xvii 14c-e, xviii 47, lxix 16, and lxxii 4. 17

) Briggs, The Book of Psalms II, p. 310, scans this verse as a synonymous tristich. Kraus, Psalmen1, p. 686, interprets verses \b-A as "drei Trikola-Verse ( 3 + 3 + 3 ) " . So similarly Gunkel, pp. 431, 432; and Kissane, The Book of Psalms II (1954), p. 135. Mowinckel, pp. 14, 18, thinks Psalm c is composed of real tricola throughout.

Tricola in which cola a and b are arranged synonymously and b and c chiastically T h e O l d T e s t a m e n t psalms offer several examples o f this tricolic structure. T h e y s e e m t o fall naturally i n t o the same three categories as tricola in w h i c h t h e w o r d order is s y n o n y m o u s t h r o u g h o u t , alt h o u g h the texts w h i c h e m p l o y this structure p r e d o m i n a n t l y b e l o n g to the t y p e in w h i c h the p o e t states a fact. T h e translation in this and the f o l l o w i n g sections f o l l o w s the w o r d order o f the M T , and thus is s o m e w h a t labored at times. H o w e v e r , the usual translation

of

these texts o f t e n obscures the chiastic relationship o f the cola, the v e r y p o i n t w h i c h the present article is a t t e m p t i n g t o emphasize. a.

P s a l m texts m a y use this structure to state a fact or t o make

an affirmation, but, s o far as I h a v e b e e n able t o discover, they always e m p l o y the perfect or imperfect w i t h or w i t h o u t the waw in d o i n g this. Ps. v i 9 b - 1 0 kt (i) Jama' (ii) YHWH 1

(i) šāma

(iii) qôl bikyî

(ii) YHWH

(ii) YHWH

(iii)

(iii) topillâtî

t'hinnâtî (i) yiqqāh

F o r Y a h w e h has heard the s o u n d o f m y w e e p i n g , Y a h w e h has heard m y supplication, Y a h w e h m y prayer has accepted

18

).

In excellent balance, each o f these cola contains the same three c o m p o n e n t s : (i) a v e r b d e n o t i n g Y a h w e h ' s acceptance o f the psalmist's p e t i t i o n ; (ii) the divine name Y a h w e h ; and (iii) a term f o r the psalmist's petition to Y a h w e h . T h e s e statements are g i v e n as a reason w h y the psalmist's e n e m i e s s h o u l d leave h i m alone. T h e y s e e m t o f o r m a k i n d o f stereotyped f o r m u l a

19

), w h i c h t h e p o e t has taken

18 ) Some have suggested that 10a is a gloss on 9b. However, Briggs, The Book of Psalms I, p. 51, contends that it fits the meter and assonance better than 11a. He excises 11a because it is a pentameter and least suitable to the context of any line in verses 9-11, then argues that the arrangement in these verses is introverted or chiastic, viz., a (9a)-b (9£)-b (10a)-b (10£)-a (11 b). Against this it should be noted that (1) 9b, 10a, and 10b are not really synonymous; (2) 9a is imperative and is addressed to the psalmist's enemies, while 11 b is imperfect and contains a confident announcement about the fate of those enemies; (3) 11a and 11 b form a synonymous parallelism, including the repetition of yēbāšû, the word play on yēbāšÍÌ and yāšūbÛ, and two verbs in both cola, as well as an excellent example of the so-called "two-way middle" or "double-duty modifier" kol ‫נ‬öyebäy, cf. M. Dahood, "A New Metrical Pattern in Biblical Poetry", CBQ 29 (1967), p. 575; and "Poetry, Hebrew", IDB Supplementary Volume (1976), p. 670. 19 ) Note the recurrences of ïâmac qôlî in Pss. xviii 7, lv 18, lxiv 2, cxix 149; iāmac qôl tahanûnay in xxviii 2, 6, xxxi 23, cxvi 1, (cp. lxxxvi 6); and the idea of Yahweh accepting one's prayer in lxvi 19-20, cii 18.

f r o m the cult and reapplied as an implied w a r n i n g or e v e n curse. Surely these lines c o u l d be and w e r e s p o k e n in a w i d e variety o f settings in Israelite life; they are hardly limited to a w a r n i n g t o one's enemies! In c, the v e r b is placed at the e n d instead o f at the beginn i n g , as in a and b, g i v i n g an emphatic, climactic effect. If o n e is p r o n e t o see a discrepancy in the s y m m e t r y o f vi 7 or vi 9 b - 1 0 because in 7a the perfect is used w h i l e in 7b-c the imperfect, and in 9b-\Qa

the perfect occurs but in 10b the imperfect, it s h o u l d be re-

membered

that "in ancient

Canaanite

poetry

the prefixed

(yiqqah) w a s the normal f o r m for expressing the past narrative" Ps. cxliii 5 (i) ^ākartî

20

).

( i i ) y ā m î m miqqedem

(i) hāgîtî (ii) bekol po e

tense

la

(ii) b ma sēh yādeykā

<0

lekā

(i)

>a

šâhēah

I r e m e m b e r the days o f old, I meditate o n all thy deeds, O n the w o r k o f thy hands I m u s e

21

).

E a c h c o l o n has t w o basic elements: (i) a v e r b expressing the psalmist's personal i n v o l v e m e n t in G o d ' s m i g h t y acts; (ii) a phrase referring t o t h o s e acts. T h e use o f the perfect and imperfect in poetry is regular; the imperfect at the e n d in a chiastic arrangement may be a deliberate means o f c o n v e y i n g a climax in a progression o f t h o u g h t . T h e parallelism indicates that the "days o f o l d " in a refer to times w h e n G o d did certain m i g h t y acts. Psalm texts like vi 7, ix 6, xviii 44, xxii 25, 30, lxiv 10, lxxvii 18, lxxviii 31, and cxl 6 may be included in this g r o u p . b.

T h e p o e t may use a tricolon in s y n o n y m o u s - c h i a s t i c structure

in pleading w i t h G o d or s u m m o n i n g man, and thus e m p l o y the imperative. Ps. xxii 2 4 ( i ) j ‫ ׳‬/ W YHWH

(ii)

haNûhâ

(i) ko I•^era'•ya 'aqöb (ii) e

kabbedûhû

(ii) 1v gûrû mimmennû (i) kol ^era‫ז‬

yisrā*ēl

Y o u w h o fear Y a h w e h , praise h i m ; All y o u offspring o f Jacob, h o n o r h i m ; A n d stand in a w e o f h i m , all y o u offspring o f Israel. 20

) Dahood, The Psalms I, p. 39. ) Gunkel, p. 601; Schmidt, p. 249; and Kraus, Psalmen3, p. 936, scan this verse as a tricola. Mowinckel, p. 41, conjectures that 5b and c are text-variants. 21

T h e s y m m e t r y here is striking. E a c h c o l o n contains : (i) an appropriate stereotyped expression for G o d ' s p e o p l e ; (ii) a v e r b f o r m in the imperative, calling o n G o d ' s p e o p l e t o render h i m the reverence due t o h i m ; and (iii) a third p e r s o n masculine singular suffix referring to Y a h w e h (in c, mìmmennû is used instead o f the suffix attached t o the verb because gûr +

min c o m p o s e s a H e b r e w i d i o m , cf. xxxiii 8)

22

).

O n e may also include in this category Ps. lxix 19, taking "because o f m y e n e m i e s " as a "triple-duty m o d i f i e r " falling outside the r h y t h m count. c.

O n e psalm text e m p l o y s the jussive in a self-imprecation w i t h

the s y n o n y m o u s - c h i a s t i c structure o f a tricolon. Ps. vii 6 (i) yiraddöp

,

ôyêb (ii) napšî

weyašíēg

(i) weyirmôs (ii) là*ares hayyāy (ii) ûkebôdi le'âpâr

(Ì)yaškēn

Let an e n e m y pursue m y soul and overtake, and let h i m trample t o the earth m y life, and m y g l o r y in the dust let h i m lay. W i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f weyaššēg, reading o n yiraddôp

w h i c h s o m e consider to be a variant

(perhaps originally written in the margin and

later incorporated into the text)

23

), each o f the three cola has t w o

basic c o m p o n e n t s : (i) a jussive expressing a disclamatory self-imprecation; and (ii) a Hebraic i d i o m f o r the i n d i v i d u a l — " m y s o u l " , " m y life", " m y h o n o r " , all o f w h i c h actually m e a n " m e " in this text. In addition, each c o l o n has an e x p a n d i n g t e r m : ‫י‬ôyêb in a to identify the subject o f the jussives in all three cola, and a further extension o f the ideas expressed b y the jussives in b and c. W h i l e the terms for the individual p o e t are s y n o n y m o u s , the verbal expressions c o m p o s e a p r o g r e s s i o n o f t h o u g h t leading to a climax: f r o m pursuit (and apprehension) t o v i o l e n t destruction t o the oblitération o f one's m e m o r y f r o m the earth

24

).

Tricola in which cola a and b are arranged chiastically and b and c synonymously A l m o s t as m a n y examples o f this type of tricolic structure occur in the Psalms as t h o s e in w h i c h the first t w o cola are s y n o n y m o u s and 22 ) Briggs, The Book of Psalms I, p. 205, emends the text to gûrûhû to agree with the verb forms in a and b and metri causa. 23 ) So Buhl in BHK3. Mowinckel, p. 75, thinks the object of weyaššēg must have dropped out and so inserts ,ô/f sorer. 24 ) Cp. Davison, p. 66 ; and Anderson, p. 95, who, however, thinks the progrèssion is from pursuing to trampling down to death.

the last t w o chiastic. T h e s e may be arranged in the same three g r o u p s linguistically, a l t h o u g h again they are e m p l o y e d p r e d o m i n a n t l y in affirmations or statements o f fact. a.

T h e psalmist may use this structure in m a k i n g an affirmation

or stating a fact. Here, usually the perfect or imperfect w i t h or w i t h o u t the waw occurs, b u t s o m e t i m e s a participle is e m p l o y e d ( o n c e each in xlvi 10 and lxxiv 9 [ w i t h V»], and t w i c e in cxlii 5b-d [ w i t h V»]). Ps. i 1 'ašrê hā'îš

>a

Ier (i) 10' hālak (ii) ba
(ii) ûb môsab (iii) lêsîm (i)

rešālîm

(i) 10'

l

āmād

10'yāšāb

Blessed (is) the m a n w h o walks n o t in the counsel o f w i c k e d ones, and in the w a y o f sinners stands not, and in the seat o f scorners sits not. 'asrê hā'î$

'ašer is an introductory alliterative

formula w h i c h falls outside the r h y t h m c o u n t

"triple-duty" 25

'aire-

) ; this is f o l l o w e d

b y three cola that f o r m a w e l l - c o n s t r u c t e d symmetry. E a c h c o l o n consists o f three fundamental elements : (i) the n e g a t i v e 10' + a v e r b in the perfect; (ii) a preposition be +

a n o u n d e n o t i n g the activity

or e n v i r o n m e n t o f the w i c k e d ; (iii) a term for the w i c k e d in the masculine plural, a and b are chiastic, and b and c are s y n o n y m o u s . T h e verbs s h o w a p r o g r e s s i o n o f t h o u g h t f r o m " w a l k i n g " t o "standi n g " t o "sitting"

26

), w h i l e the prepositional phrases c o n n o t e basically

the same idea, viz., s o m e sort o f association w i t h g r o u p s o f w i c k e d p e o p l e . T h i s d o e s n o t have to mean, h o w e v e r , that lēsāh, derek, and môlab must h a v e the same general m e a n i n g . Rather, it is the general thrust o f the prepositional phrases w h i c h is parallel Ps. Ixxvii 2 0 (i) bayyām (ii) (ii) ûšebîlekā e

e

).

darkekā

(i) bemayim

(ii) w Hqq bôteykâ

27

(i) /o

rabbîm c

nödä'ü

25 ) Mowinckel, p. 87, argues that sometimes there are introductory formulae that fall outside the rhythm (like Ps. ii 7a, lxxxi 6c, lxyi 16, and possibly cx 1), and the structure of i 1 would seem to indicate that such is the case here. 26 ) Cf. P. A. Vaccari, " 'Cathedra pestilentiae' (Ps. I, 1)", VD 9 (1929), pp. 144-5; D. G. Castellino, Libro dei Salmi, La Sacra Bibbia, Antico Testamento (Torino, 1955), pp. 733-34, et al. 27 ) Contra Ε. F. Sutcliffe, "De Psalmo Primo", VD 6 (1926), p. 16; A . A . Anderson, The Book of Psalms I, pp. 58-9; et al. On this issue, cp. G. W. Anderson, " A Note on Psalm I 1", VT 24 (1974), pp. 231-3.

In the sea w a s thy w a y , and t h y path w a s in m a n y waters, and thy f o o t p r i n t s w e r e n o t k n o w n . E a c h c o l o n has t w o f u n d a m e n t a l c o m p o n e n t s : (i) a phrase e m p h a s i z i n g the h i d d e n n e s s or invisibility o f G o d ' s presence in his activities; and (ii) a term describing t h o s e activities. Scholars differ as t o w h e t h e r c is i n t e n d e d as a parallel or a contrast t o b; in light o f the present analysis, the f o r m e r seems to be m o s t likely. I n a the term f o r G o d ' s activity appears at the end, but in b and c at the b e g i n n i n g . T h u s , a and b are chiastic, w h i l e b and c are s y n o n y m o u s . It is w o r t h y o f n o t e that tricola o c c u r in five verses o f Ps. lxxvii, viz., 3, 17, 18, 19, and 20

28

). Verses 17-20 contain ideas and t e r m i n o l o g y that call to m i n d

Canaanite m y t h o l o g y , and several scholars h a v e s u g g e s t e d that t h e y c o m p o s e an early h y m n w h i c h the psalmist reapplied t o his situation (see the d i s c u s s i o n b y Kraus, p. 533). A m o n g other p s a l m texts w h i c h m a y be listed in this category are χ 10, xviii 9, 36, xlvi 10, lxxiv 9, lxxvii 19, and cxlii 5b-d. b.

T h e r e is at least o n e e x a m p l e in w h i c h the p o e t uses the chiastic-

s y n o n y m o u s tricolic structure in a general negative plea t o his hearers. H e employs W +

the imperfect, w h i c h is virtually equivalent to a

n e g a t i v e imperative. Ps. lxii 11 (i) V tìbtehû (ii) be<5šeq (ii) ûbegā%ēl (i) V (ii) bayil kîjānûb

tebbālû (i) 'al tāšîtû leb

Y o u shall n o t trust in extortion, and b y robbery y o u shall n o t be filled w i t h vain h o p e s , o n w e a l t h that increases y o u shall n o t set y o u r heart. E a c h c o l o n contains t w o basic e l e m e n t s : (i) W + the s e c o n d masculine plural imperfect, w a r n i n g the hearers against u s i n g d e v i o u s means f o r securing w e a l t h ; and (ii) a term describing t h o s e means. T h e n e g a t i v e appears at the b e g i n n i n g o f a, b u t at the e n d o f b and c, s o that a and b are arranged chiastically, and b and c s y n o n y m o u s l y . T h e last c o l o n is quite l o n g , but in this case this m a y be due t o the fact that the psalmist w a s m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h w h a t h e w a s trying t o say than w i t h the r h y t h m o f his poetry. 28

) Cp. Briggs, The Book of Psalms II, pp. 175-6, on verses 17, 18, and 19. Kraus, Psalmen3, p. 533, says concerning verses 17-20, "Bemerkenswert ist die Trikola und der tautologische Parallelismus"; cp. also p. 530. Mowinckel, pp. 16, 18-19, thinks that verses 14-21 are tricolic throughout.

c. T h e r e is also o n e instance in w h i c h the psalmist utters an i m p r e c a t i o n against his enemies, u s i n g the jussive, in w h i c h he e m p l o y s the arrangement o f a c h i a s t i c - s y n o n y m o u s tricolon. Ps. x x x v 8 (i) tebâ*ēhú (ii) so*äh lô* yêdâ1 (ii) wcristô

>a

šer tāman (i)

e

(ii) b Iô*àh (Ì)yippāl

tilkedô

bāh

M a y a pit c o m e u p o n t h e m unawares, and m a y their net w h i c h they concealed ensnare t h e m , in a pit may they fall. A d m i t t e d l y there are s o m e difficult grammatical and lexicographical p r o b l e m s in this verse. T h e third masculine singular is probably a collective, and thus is t o be translated as a plural. T h e m e a n i n g o f sô'âh in a and c is hard t o determine. Nevertheless, all three cola c o n v e y basically the same t h o u g h t , viz., a s t r o n g n e g a t i v e wish, or an imprecation, that the psalmist's e n e m y (or enemies) m i g h t be ensnared b y the v e r y s c h e m e s w h i c h he (or they) had d e v i s e d to trap t h e psalmist. In a the v e r b occurs in first position, w h i l e in b and c it appears at the end, so that the pattern is chiastic in a and b, and s y n o n y m o u s in b and c

29

).

Conclusions Tricola appear in the Psalms in m u c h greater abundance than that w h i c h is represented in this article, because here w e h a v e limited our c o n c e r n t o tricola w h i c h h a v e (1) a s y n o n y m o u s s c h e m e t h r o u g h o u t , (2) a s y n o n y m o u s arrangement in the first t w o cola and a chiastic arrangement in the s e c o n d and third, and (3) a chiastic pattern in the first t w o cola and a s y n o n y m o u s pattern in the s e c o n d and third. Tricola also o c c u r quite o f t e n in early H e b r e w poetry, in other O l d T e s t a m e n t p o e t i c b o o k s , and in the prophets. O f course, this is n o t t o s u g g e s t that tricolic arrangements rival bicolic patterns numerically in the O l d Testament. But it is to emphasize that tricola are used frequently e n o u g h t o be taken seriously and to be analysed responsibly for the sake o f m o r e precise exegetical interpretations o f specific texts. T h e r e d o e s n o t s e e m t o be substantial e v i d e n c e t o support 29

) Gunkel, p. 148; and Schmidt, p. 65, delete a because it disturbs the connection between verses 7 and 8be and falls outside the meter. Mowinckel, p. 72, deletes it as an explanatory prose gloss on the metaphors in verse 7. However, this does not really explain the later acceptance of this colon in the extant text.

Mowinckel's bicolic

30

claim that the tricolic pattern d e v e l o p e d f r o m

the

). Rather, bicolic and tricolic s c h e m e s s e e m to h a v e s t o o d

side b y side t h r o u g h o u t the history o f O l d T e s t a m e n t poetry. F r o m the passages discussed and m e n t i o n e d in this study, it m a y be c o n c l u d e d that there are several g o o d reasons w h y the kind o f tricola e x a m i n e d here w e r e used b y O l d T e s t a m e n t poets. 1. T h e Israelite m i n d apparently had a natural attraction f o r triads. J o b ( J o b ii 11) and D a n i e l ( D a n . iii 23) each had three friends. Ezekiel affirms that e v e n if three m e n — N o a h , D a n i e l , and J o b — l i v e d in Judah in his day, they c o u l d d o n o t h i n g m o r e than save their o w n lives b y their righteousness ( E z e k . x i v 14, 16, 18, 20). Y a h w e h offers D a v i d a c h o i c e o f b e i n g p u n i s h e d f o r n u m b e r i n g his army.

The

alternatives are three years o f famine, three m o n t h s o f fleeing before his foes, or three days o f pestilence (2 Sam. x x i v 13 = 1 Chron. xxi 12). T h e r e s p o n s e t o the q u e s t i o n , " W h o shall ascend the hill o f the L o r d ? " , is t h r e e f o l d : H e w h o has clean hands and a pure heart, w h o d o e s n o t lift u p his soul to w h a t is false, and d o e s n o t swear deceitfully (Ps. x x i v 4). T h e examples f r o m the O l d T e s t a m e n t , f r o m early J e w i s h extracanonical literature, and f r o m the N e w T e s t a m e n t c o u l d be multiplied

31

). A c c o r d i n g l y , it w o u l d certainly be in k e e p i n g w i t h the

J e w i s h attitude o f m i n d to use tricola in p o e t i c literature; and that, n o t o n l y in w h o l e p o e m s or parts of p o e m s

32

), but sporadically here

and there in pieces o t h e r w i s e g i v e n to different scansions. 2. T h e p o e t m a y h a v e taken u p an earlier h y m n , s o n g , or p o e m (or a p o r t i o n t h e r e o f ) written in tricola, and inserted it into his o w n 30 ) Mowinckel, p. 21. Albright, "The Psalm of Habakkuk", p. 3, declared that tricola are "common in the earlier psalms, very rare in the later ones", but this seems to be somewhat of an overstatement. 31 ) Numerous examples are given throughout the monograph of W. M. W. Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament·. A Form-Critical Study, SVT 13 (1965), see especially pp. 6-7, 11, 14, 33, 39-42, 53, 56-8. 32 ) Mowinckel, p. 92, suggests that Ps. xxiv Ac may be a later addition motivated by a desire for a tripartite answer to the question in verse 3. But there is sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that a tripartite answer was actually used early in the Israelite cult. Cp. K. Galling, "Der Beichtspiegel. Eine gattungsgeschichtliche Studie", Ζ AW 47 (1929), pp. 125-30; Κ. Koch. "Tempeleinlassliturgien und Dekaloge", Studien zur Theologie der alttestamentliche Überlieferungen (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1961), pp. 45-60; and Th. Lescow, "Die dreistufige Tora. Beobachtungen zu einer Form", ZAW 82 (1970), pp. 362-79.

psalm

33

). Since it c a m e t o h i m in tricola, he preserved it and h a n d e d

it d o w n i n the same f o r m . 3. T h e p o e t may n o t h a v e b e e n able t o say all that he w i s h e d in t w o cola, and thus c h o s e three

34

). T h i s p o s e s n o p r o b l e m w h a t s o -

ever unless o n e approaches the text w i t h the predetermined assumption that a p o e t m u s t f o l l o w a regular, almost invariable, pattern t h r o u g h o u t his w o r k . 4. It is possible that a psalm or p o e m w a s written dramatically u n d e r e m o t i o n s o f excitement w i t h c h a n g i n g scenes and voices, and therefore the scansion varied f r o m strophe t o strophe or f r o m verse t o verse

35

).

5. Apparently the use o f tricola w a s p o p u l a r in the cult. It is easy t o see h o w it c o u l d be an aid to the m e m o r y , or a g o o d teaching device, or a contributing factor t o a certain r h y t h m or m o o d that the cultic officiants m i g h t w i s h to create t o p r o d u c e a certain effect o n the worshippers. 6. Tricola g a v e the psalmist an o p p o r t u n i t y t o build a t h o u g h t or an e m o t i o n to a climax. By u s i n g tricola, h e c o u l d k e e p his hearers or readers in suspense, and thus gain or h o l d their attention and have t h e m t h i n k i n g w i t h h i m as he attempted to drive h o m e the c o n c e p t that he desired t o c o n v e y . T h i s w a s usually d o n e b y means o f verbs, as in Ps. i 1. 33

) Mowinckel, pp. 16, 17, thinks this is the case with Pss. lxxvii 14-21 and xcvii 7-10. 34 ) In order to justify scanning Ps. lxxix 1-2 as two real tricola, although these verses are followed by a poem in regular 2 and 2 bicola, Mowinckel, p. 17, claims, ". . . The poet has felt that what he had to say could not be said in two sentences only; the tricola will stress the lament and thus make the appeal the more urgent". However, he does not allow the same or a similar explanation for tricola in other poems which are generally bicolic. 35 ) Mowinckel, p. 35, admits this possibility for Ps. cxviii 27.

PAU SAL FORMS AND THE STRUCTURE OF BIBLICAL POETRY by E . J.

REVELL

Toronto Introduction 1

It has l o n g been the c o n s e n s u s that biblical Plebrew poetry is

c o m p o s e d in g r o u p s o f t w o (rarely three) short units, m o r e or less equal in length, and related (parallel) in m e a n i n g . D e s p i t e the general agreement, h o w e v e r , this v i e w c a n n o t be said to be securely g r o u n d e d . It is a valid description o f the patterns w h i c h appear m o s t c o m m o n l y in the text, but it cannot be s h o w n w i t h certainty that these were the o n l y patterns acceptable. 2

In s o m e ancient poetry, the basic structural units are clearly

defined: b y scribal c o n v e n t i o n s (e.g. in Akkadian), b y metre (Greek, Syriac, Arabic), or by other p h o n o l o g i c a l features identifiable in written texts, such as the syllable structures w h i c h mark the ends o f the lines in H o m e r i c or A k k a d i a n poetry, or the pausal f o r m s in Arabic. N o such defining feature is r e c o g n i z e d for the structural units o f biblical poetry 1 ). Pausal f o r m s d o exist, but, because o f the c o m m o n belief that o n l y the letters o f the text can reflect features o f the ancient literature 2 ), their use has never been studied. 1

) Metre, so far as it has been seen in biblical Hebrew, is not relevant here, since metre can define structural units only if it is regular, and so predictable. Where metre is seen as based on syllables, as in D. K. Stuart's Studies in Early Hebrew Metre (Missoula, 1976) the number of syllables per stich is not predictable. Where the metre is seen as based on words, or "beats" per line, the metre is regular, but the way it is expressed in the language is not. E.g. J. A. Sanders, analysing the metre of l l Q P s a civ in DJD IV, gives (0‫)׳‬V one beat in verse 5, 6, 11a, but none in 4 or l i b , and in 4, one word is said to carry two beats. These may be correct descriptions, but the metrical pattern is not predictable from features of the text itself, and so cannot be said to define structural units. 2 ) The immutability of the letters is a Rabbinic view of unknown age. It is not in evidence at Qumran, where Sanders sees the text before the first century as "fluid" ( J B L 98 [1979], p. 14). Because the spelling of the MT is generally older than that typical of Qumran (cf. D. N. Freedman in Textus 2 [1962], p. 87-102, also the regular retention of "silent alef" in the MT) it seems unlikely that this fluidity affected the transmission of the received text to any great degree, but the observation does raise the question of the justification for regarding the written text as significantly more stable than the reading tradition before the turn of the era.

3

T h e vast majority o f grammarians h a v e always accepted the

mediaeval v o w e l signs, and s o m e o f the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y the accent signs, as a generally faithful reflection o f the ancient s o u n d system 3 ). Sources such as the different mediaeval traditions o f vocalization,

transliterations,

translations,

and

the

Qumran

spelling,

reflect different processes (or stages in a process) o f p h o n o l o g i c a l c h a n g e (e.g. in the reflexes o f original short v o w e l s ) , s o m e variations in the v o w e l l i n g o f particular c o n s o n a n t g r o u p s 4 ), and s o m e retention o f earlier patterns lost in other f o r m s o f the language 5 ). T h i s information, then, reflects normal processes o f p h o n o l o g i c a l change, and (as d o the letters o f the text) the existence o f variant traditions, and s o m e t e n d e n c y t o retention o f archaic f o r m s . Such a situation d o e s n o t require that the vocalization be i g n o r e d , but, o n the contrary, that it be carefully evaluated. 4

Pausal f o r m s occur in the same p o s i t i o n s ( w i t h m i n o r variations)

in all three traditions o f mediaeval vocalization 6 ). T h e y are n o t dep e n d e n t o n the accentuation in any o f these traditions. Contextual f o r m s never occur w i t h silluq at the end o f a verse, and o n l y rarely w i t h the strongest pausal accents w i t h i n the verses: ‫ז‬

‫ג‬

atnah in the

7

" p r o s e " accentuation and oleh we-yored in the p o e t i c ). Pausal f o r m s regularly occur w i t h these accents, but they m a y also occur w i t h any other accent, disjunctive or c o n j u n c t i v e 8 ), and in s o m e b o o k s o n e quarter o f the pausal f o r m s occur w i t h these other accents (as D e u t e r o n o m y , 115 o f 485 f o r m s , or Ezekiel, 143 o f 491). It is clear that, 3

) The only serious attempt to disprove this, that of Paul Kahle, failed. ) The only detailed assessment of this phenomenon I am aware of is that of L. C. Allen in The Greek Chronicles II, SVT T1 (Leiden, 1974). The cases in Chronicles in which the Greek appears to be based on the same letters as the MT but on different sounds are listed on p. 67-75. There are just 101—not a very significant proportion of variation. 6 ) E.g. the final vowel on the suffixed forms of the 2 m.s. pronoun, on which see Z. Ben-Hayyim, Studies in the Traditions of the Hebrew Language (Madrid/ Barcelona, 1954), chapter I. e ) Variation in pausal forms within the Tiberian tradition is mostly confined to the use of qames where Β HS has patah or sego I with 'atnah or silluq. Palestinian MSS almost invariably mark pausal forms where BHS does, and this is also true of Babylonian, with significant variation only in segolate nouns (of which the Tiberian and Babylonian vowelling varies in other features as well); see I. Yeivin, Masoret ha-Lisbon ha-Tvrit ha-Mishtaqefet be-Niqqudha-Bavli (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 33. ') For contextual forms with *atnah, see Gen. xxxiv 31; Dt. xxi 7; with coleh we-yored, Prov. xxx 15. 8 ) E.g. pausal forms occur in Dt. ν 14 with revia, telisha, and the conjunctive munah·, in Job xvii 1 with de hi and revia, in Ps. xxv 5 with legarmeh, and in Ps. iii 9 with the conjunctive munah. 4

in p r o s e texts, the pausal f o r m s reflect a reading tradition in w h i c h the text w a s d i v i d e d into units o n principles similar t o t h o s e underlying the d i v i s i o n b y the accents, but the resulting d i v i s i o n w a s n o t always the same 9 ). T h e pausal f o r m s must, therefore, h a v e b e e n fixed in the tradition at s o m e time prior t o the fixing o f the accentuation in its present f o r m . T h e fact that the three mediaeval traditions generally agree in the use o f pausal f o r m s , b u t n o t in m a n y other features o f vocalization, and n o t in accentuation, s h o w s that the pausal f o r m s m u s t h a v e b e c o m e fixed in the tradition at a relatively early time. 5

O r i g e n ' s transliterations w e r e able t o represent a distinction

b e t w e e n pausal and contextual f o r m s in o n l y a limited n u m b e r o f situations, but, in these, pausal f o r m s occur w h e r e they are e x p e c t e d

10

).

T h e Q u m r a n spelling p r o v i d e s n o i n f o r m a t i o n o n these f o r m s

11

).

Pausal f o r m s , then, reflect p h e n o m e n a fixed in the tradition at s o m e p o i n t b e f o r e A D 200. Pausal Forms in Biblical 6

Poetry

If the pausal f o r m s in poetry mark the e n d s o f the units in

w h i c h the text w a s read, as they d o in prose, then they presumably mark the e n d s o f the units o f poetical structure, as they d o in Arabic. T h e y will thus reflect the w a y in w h i c h the structure o f H e b r e w poetry w a s u n d e r s t o o d w h e n these f o r m s b e c a m e fixed in the text. A study o f the w a y these f o r m s are used in p o e t i c texts supports this a s s u m p t i o n 7

12

).

T h e vast majority o f the verses in Psalms, J o b and P r o v e r b s

contain t w o stichs 9

13

). In s u c h verses, the last w o r d in either stich

) E.g. lists are typically divided into groups of two or three items by the accents. In some lists these groups form verses, as Neh. xii 2-6, etc. In Lev. xiv 54-56 such a division is marked both by the pausal forms and by the verse divisions. In Dt. ν 14, the pausal forms reflect a division of this sort, while in the accentuation, the whole list forms a χμψΐ clause. 10 ) See E. Br0nno, Studien über hebräische Morphologie und Vokalismus (Leipzig, 1943), pp. 429-32. 11 ) Cases of the 2 m.s. suffix written with final he where, in BHS, it is pausal and has no final vowel (as in l l Q P s a cxxxii 11, 12) indicate only that -VCV in this situation is not yet changed to -VC, not whether or no the form was "in pause". 12 ) The following is based on a comprehensive study of the pausal forms in Psalms, Proverbs and Job, although other poetical texts have also been surveyed. All the patterns commonly revealed by the pausal forms in the Three books are treated here. Uncommon patterns and anomalies are treated in the addendum (pp. 198-9). 13 ) According to the stich divisions of BHS, which are taken here as a type example of the work of modern critics.

regularly ends in a pausal f o r m w h e r e this is possible. A pausal f o r m c o u l d occur in s o m e 1700 cases. Contextual f o r m s occur in less than 2 % o f these, a negligible p r o p o r t i o n o f e x c e p t i o n s

14

). O n this basis,

it can be established that each o f the t w o stichs in a distich ends w i t h a pausal f o r m . In these verses, then, as a general rule, the m o d e r n understanding o f poetical structure agrees w i t h that reflected b y the pausal f o r m s 8

15

).

In l o n g e r verses, this h a r m o n y b e t w e e n m o d e r n scholarship

and mediaeval e v i d e n c e is n o t maintained. M o d e r n scholars regularly divide such verses i n t o relatively short units m o r e or less equal in length. W h e r e three such units are seen, the pausal f o r m s s o m e t i m e s s h o w that the verse w a s read as three stichs, and s o agree w i t h the modern view

16

). M o r e o f t e n , h o w e v e r , w h e r e m o d e r n scholars see

three or m o r e units, it is clear that the verse w a s read, in the pausal reading tradition, in o n l y t w o

17

). In a n u m b e r o f cases the d i v i s i o n

marked b y the pausal f o r m s simply s h o w s an ordinary couplet w i t h l o n g e r stichs than t h o s e seen b y m o d e r n critics (e.g. Ps. xxxi 4 in Β HS).

H o w e v e r the pausal f o r m s also reveal the existence o f t w o

other verse patterns in c o m m o n use besides the simple distich. 9

T h e first o f these patterns m a y be called the " d o u b l e distich"

since each o f the t w o stichs o f verses o f this type can be seen as c o m p o s e d of t w o (or rarely m o r e ) subordinate units. T h e first unit o f s u c h a pair ends in a contextual f o r m , the s e c o n d in a pausal f o r m , s h o w i n g , b y the rule established in § 7, that the t w o units t o g e t h e r f o r m a single stich. In m o s t cases these sub-units f o r m a single clause, w h i l e the stichs t h e m s e l v e s s h o w s o m e f o r m o f parallelism. Ps. ν 8 14

18

E.g.

):

) It must be emphasized again that this does not depend on the accentuation. Pausal forms occur at the end of the first stich where the accent is not ,·oleh weyored, or ‫נ‬atnah (as Ps. xxxv 24, Iii 6, 8), and some of the exceptional contextual forms occur with these accents (as Ps. cvii 35, cx 5; Prov. xxiv 30, xxx 15). 15 ) There is, of course, some disagreement. E.g. Ps. xxxvii 23 in BHS. le ) E.g. Ps. ν 9, xxviii 9, lxxxvi 11. 17 ) This analysis is based on the verse division of the received text, since it seems highly likely that this was in place (perhaps with occasional differences) when the pausal forms were fixed in the tradition. If the verse division is disregarded, however, the patterns discussed here can still be shown to exist, since some examples of each pattern are separated from what precedes and follows by selah, pausal forms, or differences in subject matter. 18 ) Since the MT cannot be reproduced here, but is easily available, examples are presented in English paraphrase intended to indicate the semantic relationship implied by the pausal forms; (c) indicates that the preceding unit ends with a contextual form, (p) a pausal form. Double distichs with all four sub-units (or

And I, in the magnitude of thy mercy (c) I will enter thy house (p); I will b o w towards thy holy temple (c) in awe of thee (p). I n a f e w cases t h e sub-units d o s h o w parallelism, a p h e n o m e n o n recalling the use o f internal r h y m e in E n g l i s h poetry. lxxviii 2 0

19

E.g.

Ps.

).

He smote the rock and water flowed (c) and streams gushed out (p). Can he also give bread, or provide meat for his people? 10

T h e d o u b l e distich pattern has b e e n n o t e d b y others

20

), but

stress is laid o n the existence o f short units, n o t o n the l o n g e r o n e s w h i c h they create. Y e t it w a s the l o n g e r units w h i c h w e r e structurally significant f o r the pausal reading tradition, as is s h o w n b y the distrib u t i o n o f the pausal f o r m s . M a n y m o d e r n critics d o , h o w e v e r , accept the v i e w that t w o short units in verses o f this sort f o r m a unit equivalent t o a l o n g e r stich in other verses, s o that their analysis o f verses o f this t y p e is generally in a g r e e m e n t w i t h that reflected b y the pausal forms 11

21

).

T h e s e c o n d c o m m o n verse pattern revealed b y the pausal

f o r m s has n o t , s o far as I k n o w , b e e n explicitly r e c o g n i z e d before. T h i s m a y be called the "unbalanced distich" since in verses o f this even the first three) marked by contextual or pausal forms are rare. Examples are Is. xli 11; Jer. xxii 21; Hos. xi 10; Ex. xv 13. For partially marked examples see Ps. xxxv 4, xl 15, xliii 3, lxx 3 (1st and 3rd sub-units marked with contextual forms) and Ps. xiii 4, 11, lv 23, ci 3 (1st sub-unit with contextual, 2nd with pausal form). 19 ) Cf. Ps. xxxi 3, xl 3; Prov. xxx 14; Is. xi 13, xiv 12; Jer. viii 23, etc., but I know of no case in which the first three sub-units are all marked by contextual or pausal forms. 20 ) E.g. Stuart, p. 216. Short examples may be accepted as ordinary distichs. E.g. Job xxxiii 9 in BHS. 21 ) See Stuart, p. 80 in his analysis of the poem in Ex. xv, where four short (b) units are said to form a couplet. The first of a pair of such short units ends in a contextual form (Ex. xv 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, etc.), the second in a pausal form (Ex. xv 12, 13, 13, 15, etc.), showing that, for the pausal reading tradition, a stich was formed either of two short units or of one long unit (as Ex. xv 14, 14). I.e. the number of grammatical units forming the poetical unit (the stich) was a matter of style, not of poetical structure. It is highly probable that the same was true for the original composition. Ex. xv 8a (prepositional phrase/verb, subject) or xv 14b (subject, verb/object), which Stuart takes as single stichs, are not significantly different from Ex. xv 7a (prepositional phrase/verb, object) or xv 18 (subject, verb/prepositional phrase) which he takes as couplets. In Ex. xv 15 (a triplet according to Stuart) the first eight words could form two pairs of short units, but the last four must form a single long one, unless one accepts kl as an adverb "utterly", which is unknown elsewhere and is required only by a particular view of poetic structure (so F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry2 [Missoula, 1975], p. 63, n. 46).

pattern o n e o f the t w o stichs is l o n g e r than the other. T h e l o n g e r stich may be c o m p o s e d o f t w o (or m o r e ) sub-units, as in the d o u b l e distich pattern, w h i l e the shorter stich is o f t e n n o l o n g e r than o n e o f these sub-units. W h e r e the l o n g e r stich is f o r m e d o f a pair o f subunits, the first ends in a contextual f o r m , the s e c o n d in a pausal f o r m , as in the d o u b l e distich, s h o w i n g that the t w o together f o r m a stich. T h e first stich in verses o f this type is m o r e c o m m o n l y the longer, as in Ps. ii 2 : The kings of the earth take their stand (c) and princes take counsel together (p) Against the Lord and his anointed; or Ps. lxxix 3 : They have spilled their blood like water (c) around Jerusalem (p) With none to bury; or J o b iii 2 6 : I have neither peace nor quiet (c) nor rest (p), But turmoil comes 22). E x a m p l e s w h e r e the first stich is shorter are Ps. x x x v 2 0 : For they speak non-peace (p), And against the placid of the land (c) they devise treacherous plots (p); and Ps. lxxxiv 11 : For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand (p); I have chosen (c) doorkeeping in the house of my God (c) above dwelling in the tents of wickedness; and Ps. cxxi 5: The Lord is thy guardian (p) ; The Lord is thy defence (c) upon the right hand (p) 12

23

).

T h e sub-units o f the l o n g stich in such verses s o m e t i m e s s h o w

s y n o n y m o u s parallelism (as Ps. ii 2 ; J o b iii 26), but this is usually n o t the case, and the l o n g stich may consist o f a single clause (Ps. lxxix 3, 22

) Other examples are (marked by both a contextual and a pausal form) Ps. xiii 6, xxxix 6, lix 7, 15, xci 7, cxix 48, cxx 3; Job vii 4, xiii 27, xiv 19, xix 29, xxiv 15, 18, xxxiv 33. Many more are marked only by a contextual form, as Ps. xi 2, xliv 2, liv 5, lxvi 16. 23 ) Other examples are (marked by both pausal and contextual forms) Ps. xxvii 12, xxxv 15, lxviii 14, lxxxvi 2; Prov. xxx 16, and marked only by the contextual form Ps. liii 5, lxvi 12, lxxxi 8, cxxx 7.

x x x v 20, etc.). W h e n the s e c o n d stich is the shorter, it m a y consist o f a phrase m o d i f y i n g b o t h units in the first stich (Ps. ii 2, xi 2, x l i v 2, l x v i 16). M o r e c o m m o n l y it consists o f a clause w h i c h m a y c o n t i n u e the statement o f the first (Ps. lxxix 3, cx 2, cxix 48) or g i v e s a c o n sequence o f it (Ps. xiii 6, xxxi 12, lxxi 6) or g i v e s a c o m m e n t or reflect i o n o n it (Ps. xxxix 6, liv 5). T h e clause c o n s t i t u t i n g the s e c o n d stich m a y parallel the latter part o f the first stich (Ps. iii 8, x x v 2 ; P r o v . xxxi 15); occasionally b o t h units o f the first stich and the s e c o n d stich are parallel (Ps. lxviii 4, Ixix 16, xci 7 ; J o b xiii 27). 13

T h e same types o f relationship b e t w e e n the t w o stichs occur

w h e r e the first stich is the shorter. B o t h parts o f the s e c o n d stich m a y be parallel t o the first, as J o b iii 9, or the t w o stichs m a y be parallel (Ps. x x x v 2 0 , lxxxvi 2, cxxi 5), or the s e c o n d stich m a y present a c o n s e q u e n c e o f the first (Ps. Ixix 21, l x x x i v 11, cviii 2), or an explanat i o n o f it (Ps. xxvii 12, c 3, cxxx 7 ; P r o v . xxiii 5) and so on. 14

In general, it can be said that if the verse had t o be d i v i d e d

into t w o parts (e.g. f o r p u r p o s e s o f antiphonal chant) the pausal f o r m s mark the logical p o i n t o f division. M o d e r n critics d o occasionally agree w i t h the pausal f o r m s in the analysis o f short examples o f the unbalanced distich type (as Ps. cxix 103 in Β HS),

but usually

s u c h verses are treated as tristichs, or the imbalance is r e m o v e d b y d i v i d i n g the verse into an equal n u m b e r o f parts (as Ps. lxxxiv 11 in BHS)

or b y e m e n d a t i o n , o f t e n based solely o n the c o n s e n s u s v i e w

o f p o e t i c structure (as Ps. ii 2, xci 7, cxix 48, etc., in BHS).

Since the

analysis o f m o d e r n critics is generally consistent w i t h that reflected b y the pausal f o r m s in the other c o m m o n verse structures, the lastn a m e d m e t h o d o f dealing w i t h the situation s h o u l d raise the q u e s t i o n h o w w e k n o w that the analysis reflected b y the pausal f o r m s is w r o n g in the case o f this pattern. In realistic terms this q u e s t i o n m u s t be p u t as " W h e n can it be s h o w n that the unbalanced distich pattern w a s first used or r e c o g n i z e d ? " . 15

S u c h e v i d e n c e as there is f o r the date o f the pausal f o r m s

t h e m s e l v e s has been discussed a b o v e . T w o items m a y be significant f o r the date o f their fixture in the p o e t i c texts. Ps. iii 9 is the o n l y case w h e r e a pausal f o r m occurs before selah

24

). Presumably the f o r m

marks the original e n d o f the verse, b e f o r e selah w a s added to it. T h e terminus ante quem f o r this is J e r o m e ' s translation (cf. L X X ) .

Some

P s a l m s texts o f the first century A D are written in stichs. If this 24

) Cf. Ps. xxi 3, xxxii 4, lxii 5, lxvi 4, lxxvi 10, lxxxii 2, lxxxix 5.

reflects the w a y the texts w e r e read

25

), it can be argued that, since the

stich divisions they s h o w are generally consistent w i t h the masoretic accentuation, and occasionally disagree w i t h the d i v i s i o n marked by the pausal f o r m s , these texts represent the time w h e n the d i v i s i o n marked b y the pausal f o r m s w a s b e i n g superseded b y that marked b y the accents. 16

T h e principles g o v e r n i n g the use o f the pausal f o r m s in

poetry s e e m very similar to t h o s e g o v e r n i n g their use in prose. T h u s , w h e r e the e n d of a stich m i g h t be expected, but a contextual f o r m is used, that f o r m stands w i t h i n a clause c o n t i n u e d in w h a t f o l l o w s , (Ps. ν 8 twice, viii 2) or stands at the e n d o f a clause closely joined t o the f o l l o w i n g (Ps. x x v i i 6 ; P r o v . x x x 9 ; J o b iii 26)

26

). Pausal f o r m s

d o n o t o f t e n occur w i t h i n clauses, but w h e r e they d o , their use can usually be paralleled in p r o s e

texts.

F o r example,

"explanatory

m o d i f i e r s " are o f t e n separated f r o m the b o d y o f the clause, as in Ps. ii 2. T h e m o s t striking examples o f this sort are the lists o f f o u r items in P r o v . x x x 16 and x x x 19, b o t h o f w h i c h appear t o h a v e been d i v i d e d into t w o g r o u p s o f t w o , f o l l o w i n g the c o n v e n t i o n a l treatment o f lists in p r o s e (see n o t e 9). T h e r e is reason t o believe that the use o f pausal f o r m s in prose texts reflects features of the s p o k e n l a n g u a g e o f the biblical p e r i o d

27

). If this is true o f their use in prose, it is

likely that their use in poetry has equally ancient roots. Extra-Biblical 17

Parallels

E x a m p l e s f r o m early literature are o f d u b i o u s value (since

various interpretations o f t h e m are possible) unless p o e t i c structure is clearly indicated in the text. H o w e v e r it seems certain that the unbalanced distich is used in the apocryphal materials in l l Q P s a . In l l Q P s a cli 6 the clause liv' bhrjhwh 26

'Iwhjm bm can o n l y be accepted

) The texts are 4QPs b , 8Q2, 5/6 Hev. Ps, Mas Ps. Only 4QPs b provides a text of any extent, and its evidence is of uncertain value since Ps. cxviii is mostly written one verse per line, not one stich per line as in the rest of the MS.This suggests that scribal convenience may have dominated other factors in this stich division, so that col. 21, line 14 and col. 22, line 6 may not be significant for the reading tradition. In mediaeval MSS of the Psalms the stich division is purely conventional, and sporadic relationship to poetic structure is not significant. 2e ) In some cases (E.g. Ps. xl 8; Job vii 4) the contextual form stands at the end of a unit introducing speech, where pausal forms are not often used in prose, cf. Gen. xxxiv 31 ; Dt. xxi 7. 27 ) See my article "Pausal Forms in Biblical Hebrew" to appear in JSS 25 (1980), pp. 165-79.

as a distich c o m p o s e d in 3 : 2 meter s h o w i n g synthetic parallelism if it is accepted that there is n o necessary c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n stich d i v i s i o n and syntactic structure

28

). It s e e m s better t o accept this

clause as part o f a larger structure: hgbhym bqwmtm hypym bscrm Iw* bhryhwh 'Iwhym bm Those tall of stature, those beautiful of hair, The Lord God did not choose them. T h a t is, an unbalanced distich in w h i c h the t w o units in the l o n g e r stich s h o w parallelism

29

). A g a i n , in l l Q P s a civ 4 Sanders's v i e w o f

metre requires h i m t o state that wbqšty

carries t w o beats. It seems

m u c h m o r e likely that this w o r d d o e s n o t f o r m the first half o f a couplet, but b e g i n s the s e c o n d stich o f o n e : ht >w%nkh wtn ly V Pity wbqïty V tmn'• mmny Incline thine ear and grant me what I ask for, And my request do not withhold from me. A g a i n an unbalanced distich in w h i c h the s e c o n d unit in the l o n g stich g i v e s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f the first, and is g i v e n in chiastic parallel in the s e c o n d stich 18

30

).

T h e tablets p r o v i d e n o certain e v i d e n c e o f the w a y in w h i c h

the scribes u n d e r s t o o d the structure o f Ugaritic poetry, and in the absence o f any g u i d e b e y o n d the l a n g u a g e itself, different scholars interpret the structure in different w a y s . F o r example, the passage in K R T A ( C T A 14), lines 6 2 - 6 4 : Wash yourself and rouge yourself; Wash your hands to the elbow, your fingers to the shoulder. is treated b y G o r d o n as t w o distichs, and b y Stuart as a tristich. T h e arrangement o f G i n s b e r g ' s translation in ANET 28

s u g g e s t s that he

) For the description see Sanders, DJD IV, p. 54. In this writer's opinion, the typical stich is an independent semantic unit, defined in very much the same way as the units marked by pausal forms in the prose texts. The words ‫י‬Iwhym bm are neither independent nor a unit. If they are indeed a stich, we must accept that the language does not necessarily provide any guide to poetic structure. 2‫־‬ ) I.e. the units which Sanders calls "lines" there are equivalent to the "stichs" of this article, and the situation is the same as that noted in Ex. xv (note 21): a stich is composed either of a pair of short units or of a single longer unit. The difference is stylistic, not structural. I know of no biblical verse showing a semantic pattern closely similar to this, but Ps. liv 5 is not far different. 30 ) For a similar pattern (without chiasm) cf. Ps. xxv 2.

saw it as an unbalanced distich, and certainly this v i e w w o u l d s e e m as valid as any 19

31

).

T h e c o n v e n t i o n s f o l l o w e d b y A k k a d i a n scribes d o reflect

p o e t i c structure. In m o s t tablets the l i n e s — t h e basic units o f structure—-are written separately. It appears that they are m o s t l y t o be taken in pairs (single units and triplets also occur). T h e t w o lines in a pair m a y s h o w the various f o r m s o f parallelism f o u n d in H e b r e w . T h e s e lines are thus the equivalent o f the stichs o f H e b r e w poetry. If this v i e w is correct, the unbalanced distich is a fairly c o m m o n pattern E . g . in Atra-Hasis

32

).

1:1-2:

i-nu-ma i-lu a-wi-lum ub-lu du-ul-la 1%-bi-lu iu-up-Si-

\i\k-ka

When gods like man Bore the work, suffered the toil, w h e r e 2a c o n t i n u e s 1, and 2 b is parallel t o 2a, (cf. Ps. cxxx 7) or 1 : 3 - 4 : šu-up-íi-ik i-li ra-bi-[m]a du-ul-lu-um ka-bi-it ma-a-ad

ia-ap-ia-qum

The toil of the gods was great, The work was heavy, the distress was much, w h e r e 3, 4a, and 4 b are all parallel (cf. J o b iii 9). D o u b l e distichs ( w h i c h can be seen in Ugaritic) are also f o u n d in Akkadian, as Hasts

Atra-

1:194-5

at-ti-ma íà-as-sú-ru bi-ni-ma lu-ul-la-a

ba-ni- 'at1 a-wi-lu-ti li-bi-ilh ab-ia-nam

Y o u are the birth goddess Create Lullu,

creatress of mankind; let him bear the yoke.

20

T h e Atra-Hasis

dated c. 1635

33

material is taken f r o m O l d Babylonian tablets

). Exactly the same patterns occur in texts f r o m

Ashurbanipal's library

34

). T h i s clear continuity o v e r a l o n g period,

31 ) See H. L. Ginsberg in ANET2 (Princeton, 1955), p. 143, C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature (Rome, 1949), p. 68, and Stuart, p. 56. 32 ) For brief descriptions of Akkadian poetic structure, see A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, Sumerische und Akkadische Hymnen und Gebete (Zürich/Stuttgart, 1953), pp. 39 ff., and W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford, 1960), p. vi. The Atra-Hasis passages below are taken from Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-Hasis (Oxford, 1969). 33 ) Lambert and Millard, p. 32. 34 ) E.g. in Enūma Elish I, unbalanced distichs in lines 5-6, 7-8, 37-38, etc., double distichs in lines 13-14, 67-68, 87-88. One can note also the material from Atra Hasts quoted in Gilgamesh XI (indicated in Lambert and Millard, notes to tablet Ì1I).

marked by considerable political turmoil, n o t to speak of the transfer o f the literary culture f r o m Babylonia to Assyria, s h o w s that it is not necessary to assume that the political misfortunes of Israel resulted in the destruction of the ancient cultural patterns. It is a serious deficiency of the historical study o f H e b r e w literature that such a hiatus is tacitly assumed, but never put in a historical context. T h e study of the relationship of H e b r e w and Ugaritic poetry has produced the consensus v i e w o f H e b r e w poetic structure. It is assumed, for example in Sanders's treatment of the apocryphal material in l l Q P s a , that this v i e w was still held at the end of the biblical period, but there has been n o attempt to s h o w h o w it developed into the very different v i e w of the structure of poetry expressed in the received text. T h e f o l l o w i n g historical sketch can be suggested on the basis of the v i e w s expressed here. The History of Poetical

Structure

21 Ancient H e b r e w poetry s h o w s a number o f features c o m m o n to the poetry of other ancient Semitic languages, the unbalanced distich pattern a m o n g them. T h e difference in length between the t w o stichs in this pattern is often greater in the received H e b r e w text than in the examples in Ugaritic or Akkadian, possibly indicating a development of the pattern peculiar to H e b r e w literature. The pattern remained in use until the end of the biblical period, as is s h o w n by the apocryphal materials in 11 Q P s a . 22 T h e majority o f the poetry f r o m the end o f the biblical period (Job, Proverbs, Ben Sira) exhibits very regular structure in pairs of stichs of similar length, with less use of literary ornament, such as parallelism and chiasm, than is f o u n d in earlier compositions. This may simply reflect the c o n v e n t i o n s of the W i s d o m genre, but it could also reflect the sterility of the classical style at the end of its life span. Certainly n e w styles were adopted at Qumran, for in 1 Q H and elsewhere w e find the "free verse" of ancient H e b r e w poetry. Pairs of parallel stichs are occasionally visible, but it is difficult to see that any structural conventions were generally observed. 23 In piyyut, the next stage o f H e b r e w poetry of w h i c h w e have evidence, n e w conventions are established, and remain stable for a considerable period. S o m e continuity with biblical conventions can be seen. For example, the use o f acrostics (also f o u n d in the apocryphal materials in l l Q P s a ) is continued and developed. Pairs of parallel stichs can be found, but the patterns based o n arrangements o f w o r d s

and their m e a n i n g s , such as parallelism and chiasm, w h i c h are typical o f biblical poetry, are n o l o n g e r a significant feature in piyjut.

This

later poetry is o r n a m e n t e d w i t h patterns o f s o u n d : rhyme, c o n s o n a n c e , and

assonance,

showing

composition of poetry 24

35

a c o m p l e t e l y different approach t o

the

).

T o s u m up, then, the e v i d e n c e , such as it is, s u g g e s t s that the

c o n v e n t i o n s g o v e r n i n g the structure o f poetry and its ornamentation remained basically the same t h r o u g h o u t the biblical period, a l t h o u g h p o s s i b l y c h a n g i n g s l o w l y f r o m the f r e e d o m and vitality o f the earlier period t o the regularity and sobriety o f the later. T h e hiatus w h i c h separates H e b r e w poetry f r o m its ancient Semitic b a c k g r o u n d c o m e s at the e n d o f the biblical period, w h e n w e have e v i d e n c e o f considerable c h a n g e in all areas o f culture, literary language a m o n g them. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , n o reason t o s u p p o s e that the c h a n g e in the c o n v e n t i o n s under w h i c h n e w p o e t r y w a s written caused a c h a n g e in the understanding o f the structure o f the p o e t r y o f the Bible. Conclusions 25

A study o f Psalms, J o b , and P r o v e r b s , s h o w s that,

when

pausal f o r m s w e r e fixed in the reading tradition, f o u r patterns o f verse structure were in c o m m o n use: the simple distich, the tristich, the d o u b l e distich, and the unbalanced distich. T h e c o n s e n s u s v i e w o f the structure o f ancient H e b r e w poetry agrees w i t h this analysis except in its rejection o f the unbalanced distich, and in seeing the sub-units o f the d o u b l e distich rather than the stichs w h i c h they f o r m , as structurally significant. H o w e v e r the d o u b l e distich and the unbalanced distich w e r e b o t h used in A k k a d i a n poetry, and can be seen in Ugaritic. It is probable, then, that these patterns w e r e b o t h used in early H e b r e w poetry, and the c o n s e n s u s v i e w s h o u l d be adjusted t o admit this probability. 26

T h e m o r e important result of this study is the d e m o n s t r a t i o n

o f the significance of the pausal f o r m s . T h e s e f o r m s are in a g r e e m e n t w i t h stich d i v i s i o n according t o the c o n s e n s u s v i e w o f p o e t i c structure in a considerable majority o f verses, w h e t h e r that v i e w is c h a n g e d or no. T h e y are clearly a generally valid g u i d e t o the ancient understanding o f the structure o f H e b r e w poetry 36

36

). T h i s evaluation m u s t

) Such sound patterns can be seen in biblical poetry, but are not a significant feature of it. 3e ) Change in wording certainly occurred, but this need not affect the poetic structure, as can be seen from the transmission of folk-songs. It seems significant

b e applied t o the v o w e l signs in general, as there is n o reason t o believe that the p o i n t i n g o f contextual f o r m s is less trustworthy than that o f pausal. T h i s writer w o u l d argue, then, that, as a rule o f t h u m b , the vocalization

o f any clause (subject t o p h o n o l o g i c a l

change)

s h o u l d be regarded as c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h its letters, w h e t h e r the latter are the p r o d u c t o f author, editor, or scribal error. M a n y except i o n s t o such a rule will be f o u n d , b u t each s h o u l d be evaluated individually. It is time that the use o f the received text f o r the study o f ancient literature w a s p u t o n a rationally defensible basis. Addendum T h e study o f the pausal f o r m s in Psalms, Proverbs, and J o b g i v e s rise t o the f o l l o w i n g general c o n c l u s i o n s : contextual f o r m s are n o t used at the e n d o f stichs. Pausal f o r m s are n o t used w i t h i n stichs. T h e verses marked b y these f o r m s are s h o w n t o h a v e been read as distichs (simple, d o u b l e , or unbalanced) or as tristichs. T h e e x c e p t i o n s to these statements are o u t l i n e d b e l o w . I. Absence of Pausal Forms at the End of Stichs 1) Patah

or segol reflecting original short " i " m a y be replaced b y

qames in pause (as h'mnty Ps. cxix 66), but m o r e c o m m o n l y is not, s o f o r m s like hsknth

( w i t h patah

and silluq,

Ps. cxxxix 3) cannot be

c o n s i d e r e d as contextual f o r m s . 2) Patah

also remains in the imperfect f o r m s o f HRŠ,

with no

apparent p h o n o l o g i c a l reason (as Ps. cix 1. T h e B D B listing o f a f o r m w i t h qames in Ps. xxxix 13 is w r o n g f o r L, cf.

BHS).

3) Psalms verses i n c o r p o r a t i n g a title o f t e n d o n o t s h o w pause w i t h i n the verse, as Ps. x x v i 1, x x x v 1, cxxiii 1, cxxix 1 (cf. 2), cxliii 1, and ( w i t h hllw yh) cxlviii 1. Ps. 1 1, lxxix 1, and apparently x v 1 are exceptions. 4) A p a r t f r o m this, there are s o m e t w o d o z e n cases w h e r e w h a t appears t o be the first stich o f a distich e n d s in a contextual f o r m , as Ps. x v i i 10, x x x v 19, xlviii 5. II. Presence of Pausal Forms within

Stichs

T h e s e can b e u n d e r s t o o d as : 1) Plural n o u n s w i t h 2 m . s . suffix defectively written, as

mšptk

Ps. cxix 175, etc., cf. the Masorah. that, despite the very different wording of 2 Sam. xxii 2-3 and Ps. xviii 2-3, verse 2 in both contains a single unit, and verse three three units, with the main division (marked by the accents) after the first.

2) N o u n s deriving from bases of form *CaCC- or *CVCy- in w h i c h the change in the original short v o w e l (completed in m o s t nouns) is still in progress. E . g . dl Prov. xiv 31, cf. Ex. xxiii 3; pty Prov. xiv 15, cf. mry Ez. ii 8, etc. 3) T h e 1 c.s. pronoun 'ny, which appears to be undergoing change similar to that o f the *CVCy- type nouns. E . g . Ps. xiv 2, cf. ‫ ג‬ny (with qames) in 2 Sam. xviii 22 with 'th (not pausal) in a closely similar situation in 1 Sam. xxviii 22, and also by ‫־‬,ny and similar phrases. 4) T h e above cases need not be considered genuine pausal forms. There remains a small number of apparent anomalies: brktk Ps. iii 9 (but this certainly once stood at the end of the verse); t'hbwn Ps. iv 3; tmnu‫ ׳‬Ps. ix 16; b'mtk Ps. xxv 5; lnny Ps. cxviii 5; w'rs Prov. xxv 3; Ik (1st) J o b vii 20. III.

Verses Possibly Read in More than Three Stichs

In s o m e verses in Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, most obviously Ps. Ixxix 1, xciii 1, xcix 1, cii 27, and J o b ix 20, the placing of the pausal forms suggests that the verse was read in more than three stichs. H o w e v e r n o verse in these b o o k s contains more than t w o pausal forms with accents other than silluq, so it is not absolutely certain that any verse was read in more than three stichs. In the Prophets, a number of verses clearly were read in four or more stichs, as Is. xiv 14, lviii 2, 8, ixv 13, but it does not seem justifiable to assume that the t w o bodies o f material were treated alike. Apart f r o m differences in scribal conventions and accentuation, verses of t w o units are the most c o m m o n in the Three B o o k s , verses o f four or more units in the Prophets, which s h o w s that the semantic structures in the t w o bodies were differently perceived. This author is inclined to argue that the verses from the Three B o o k s listed above should be otherwise explained—'ny in J o b ix 20 may not be real pausal f o r m (see II.3 above), the other cases may be due to a change in verse boundaries made w h e n there ceased to be a major pause after the second w o r d — but the question whether any verses in these b o o k s were read in more than three stichs must remain open.

PROVERBS XXXI 10-31 AS HEROIC HYMN: A FORM-CRITICAL ANALYSIS by AL

WOLTERS

Ancaster, Ontario

It is striking h o w little a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n paid to the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n ( P r o v . x x x i 1 0 - 3 1 ) in form-critical d i s c u s s i o n s of a n c i e n t H e b r e w p o e t r y . A l t h o u g h G u n k e l had i n c l u d e d a p a s s i n g r e f e r e n c e to it in his f u n d a m e n t a l Einleitung

in die Psalmen

(Göt-

t i n g e n , 1 9 3 3 ) , p. 3 8 3 , u n d e r the h e a d i n g " W e i s h e i t s d i c h t u n g in den Psalmen",

his brief s u g g e s t i o n

s e e m s n e v e r to h a v e

been

d e v e l o p e d in the later literature o n O l d T e s t a m e n t f o r m criticism. G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , the c o n c l u d i n g s o n g of P r o v e r b s has b e e n left out of a c c o u n t a l t o g e t h e r . A p a r t f r o m o n e or t w o brief a l l u s i o n s — e c h o i n g G u n k e l — t o the s o n g as a w i s d o m p o e m , 1 g e n e r a l discussion of H e b r e w

poetic

forms ignore

it.

Specialized

discussion

d e v o t e d specifically to the genres of w i s d o m literature either fail to m e n t i o n it (so R . F. S c h n e l l , 2 G . v o n R a d 3 a n d J . L. C r e n s h a w 4 ) , or repeat the d e s i g n a t i o n " w i s d o m p o e m " (so R . E. and

even

the n u m e r o u s

studies on

as t h o s e b y S. M o w i n c k e l , 6

the w i s d o m

Murphy,7

K.

Murphy5),

psalms,

K u n t z , 8 a n d L.

such G.

1 O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (3rd edn, Tübingen, 1964), p. 167 = E. tr. The Old Testament. An Introduction (Oxford, 1965), p. 125; and A. Weiser, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (6th edn., Göttingen, 1966), p. 46. 2 Form Criticism of Hebrew Wisdom, with Special Reference to the Book of Proverbs (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1946). 3 Weisheit in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970) pp. 39-73 = E. tr. Wisdom in Israel (London and Nashville, 1972), pp. 24-52. 4 " W i s d o m " , in John H. Hayes (ed.), Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio, 1974), pp. 225-64. 5 Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (Grand Rapids, 1981), p. 82. 6 "Psalms and Wisdom", SVT 3 (1955), pp. 205-24, and The Psalms in Israel's Worship 2 (Oxford, 1962), pp. 104ff. 7 " A Consideration of the Classification 'Wisdom Psalms' " , SVT 9 (1963), pp. 156-67. 8 " T h e Canonical Wisdom Psalms of Ancient Israel—Their Rhetorical,

P e r d u e , 9 scarcely g i v e it a n o d . T h e c o m m e n t a r i e s o n P r o v e r b s f o l l o w the s a m e r e m a r k a b l e pattern: w h e n they c o m e to the c o n e l u d i n g p e r i c o p e of the b o o k they virtually c e a s e to ask form-critical q u e s t i o n s . O n c e it h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d that w e are d e a l i n g w i t h an a l p h a b e t i c a c r o s t i c , 1 0 a t t e n t i o n is t u r n e d to other t h i n g s . E v e n the recent article by T . P. M c C r e e s h d e v o t e d specifically to this s o n g fails to a d d r e s s the form-critical q u e s t i o n . 1 1 T h i s pattern of b e n i g n n e g l e c t is all the m o r e striking w h e n w e o b s e r v e that s t u d e n t s of the H e b r e w Bible, w h e n their form-critical g u a r d is d o w n , so to speak, i d e n t i f y the P r o v e r b s acrostic freely as the sort of p o e m w h i c h it o b v i o u s l y is, n a m e l y a s o n g of praise. In the G e r m a n literature, for e x a m p l e , I h a v e seen it referred to as a Preis lied,12 Lobpreis,13

Lobpreisung14

a n d Lobeshymnus.15

T h e r e is e v e n

a place w h e r e H . W . W o l f f a l l u d e s to the s o n g in p a s s i n g as " d e r grosse H y m n u s a u f die t ü c h t i g e F r a u " . 1 6 It is the thesis of the present article that W o l f f ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the s o n g as a " h y m n to the c a p a b l e w o m a n " is c o r r e c t — n o t o n l y in the l o o s e a n d i n f o r m a l s e n s e in w h i c h W o l f f n o d o u b t i n t e n d e d it, but also in the t e c h n i c a l l y precise s e n s e g i v e n to the term Hymnus

by

G u n k e l a n d his followers. I shall a r g u e that the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n in fact d i s p l a y s m o s t o f the formal characteristics of the hymnic

genre.17

Thematic, and Formal Elements", in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor 0JJames Muilenburg (Pittsburgh, 1974), pp. 186-122. 9 Wisdom and Cult (Missoula, 1977), p. 329, n. 26. 10 That "alphabetic acrostic" is itself a genre designation has been argued by K. C. Hanson, Alphabetic Acrostics: A Form Critical Study (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1984). However, since most acrostics in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls clearly belong to other standard genres (hymn, complaint) Hanson is forced to conclude that the acrostic form constitutes a genre in its own right only in seven out of seventeen examples (including Prov. xxxi 10-31; see the discussion on pp. 315-35). 11 "Wisdom as Wife: Proverbs 31:10-31", RB 92 (1985), pp. 25-46. 12 A. Wünsche, Die Schönheit der Bibel. Erster Band: Die Schönheit des Alten Testaments (Leipzig, 1906), p. 327. 13 H. Rahner, Maria und die Kirche (Innsbruck, 1951) p. 86. 14 O. Plöger, Sprüche Salomes (Proverbia) (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984) p. 379. 15 J . Obersteiner, "Die Erklärung von Proverbia 31, 10-31 durch Beda den Ehrwürdigen und Bruno von Asti", Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 102 (1954), p. 1. 16 Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (Munich, 1973), p. 250. 17 This point is made in passing in my "Sôpiyyâ (Prov 31:27) as Hymnic Participie and Play on sophia", JBL 104 (1985), pp. 577-87.

T h i s is not to d e n y that the s o n g also s h o w s an affinity w i t h the " w i s d o m p s a l m s " , as a brief c o n s i d e r a t i o n will clarify. W e n e e d o n l y c o m p a r e it w i t h Ps. cxii, o n e of the f e w p s a l m s that falls u n d e r e v e r y o n e ' s d e f i n i t i o n of that e l u s i v e c a t e g o r y , 1 8 to n o t i c e a n u m b e r of striking parallels. N o t o n l y are b o t h perfect a l p h a b e t i c acrostics, but there is also c o n s i d e r a b l e t h e m a t i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . P r o v . x x x i d e s c r i b e s " t h e w o m a n w h o fears the L o r d " (vs. 3 0 ) by listing her God-fearing works.

Ps. cxii d e s c r i b e s " t h e m a n w h o fears the

L o r d " (vs. 1) b y listing his G o d - f e a r i n g works. In the o n e case there is a c o n c l u d i n g a n t i t h e s i s b e t w e e n the fear of the L o r d a n d d e c e p t i v e b e a u t y ( P r o v . x x x i 30); in the o t h e r there is a c o n c l u d i n g a n t i t h e s i s b e t w e e n the r i g h t e o u s a n d the w i c k e d ( P s . cxii 10). T h e w o m a n a n d the m a n are b o t h d e s c r i b e d in t e r m s of w i s d o m ( P r o v . x x x i 26; Ps. cxii 5), w e a l t h ( P r o v . x x x i 16, 18, 29; Ps. cxii 3), children to be p r o u d of ( P r o v . x x x i 28; Ps. cxii 2), c o m p a s s i o n a n d liberality to the p o o r ( P r o v . x x x i 20; Ps. cxii 4, 5, 9) a n d a fearless a t t i t u d e to the future ( P r o v . x x x i 25; Ps. cxii 7, 8). It is clearly not w i t h o u t c a u s e that s o m e scholars h a v e a s s o c i a t e d the s o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n with w i s d o m p s a l m s . M o r e o v e r , a hitherto unn o t i c e d w o r d - p l a y o n the G r e e k σοφία 1 9 o n l y r e i n f o r c e s the t h e m a t i c affinity. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the c o m p a r i s o n w i t h Ps. cxii c a n also m a k e clear that form-critical d i s t i n c t i o n s are not hard a n d fast, that features of o n e genre f r e q u e n t l y d o not e x c l u d e t h o s e of a n o t h e r . Ps. cxii is u n i v e r s a l l y classified as a w i s d o m p s a l m , yet it is a kind of mirror i m a g e of its t w i n , Ps. cxi, w h i c h is u s u a l l y classified as a h y m n . 2 0 It, t o o , is a perfect a l p h a b e t i c acrostic, c o n t a i n s a list of praiseworthy d e e d s ( i n c l u d i n g c o m p a s s i o n a n d liberality), a n d c u l m i n a t e s in the t h e m e of the fear of the L o r d . T h e d i f f e r e n c e is that here it is the L o r d h i m s e l f , not a h u m a n b e i n g , w h o s e w o n d e r f u l acts are rec o u n t e d . A s M . D a h o o d r e m a r k s in his c o m m e n t a r y o n the s e c o n d o f the t w i n p s a l m s : " H e r e ... the p o e t ascribes to the j u s t m a n s o m e

18

As far as I know, only three other psalms (ί,χχχνϋ and xlix) share the distinction of being classed in the wisdom genre by all the authors who have dealt with the question of its definition. 19 See Wolters (η. 17), pp. 580-4. On the Valiant Woman herself as the embodiment of God-fearing wisdom, see A. Wolters, "Nature and Grace in the Interpretation of Proverbs 31:10-31", Calvin Theological Journal 19 (1984), pp. 164-5. 20 A few authors (e.g. Mowinckel and Eissfeldt) take Ps. cxi to be a wisdom psalm.

of the attributes he a s s i g n e d to Y a h w e h in Ps. cxi. W h a t w a s a hymn now becomes a Wisdom psalm".21 If

we

learn

from

this

example

not

to

apply

form-critical

c a t e g o r i e s t o o rigidly or e x c l u s i v e l y w e c a n turn D a h o o d ' s w o r d s a r o u n d w h e n w e c o n s i d e r the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n : " w h a t w a s a w i s d o m p s a l m n o w b e c o m e s a h y m n " . A f t e r all, there is n o g o o d r e a s o n to restrict the t e r m " h y m n " to s o n g s in praise of G o d . H i s t o r i c a l l y , at least, the G r e e k ΰ'μνος a p p l i e d to p o e t r y " i n praise of g o d s or h e r o e s " , 2 2 a n d a similar p o i n t can be m a d e w i t h respect to the

Hebrew

tëhillâ

and

its c o g n a t e s .

Neither

the

sapiential

features n o r the h u m a n subject s h o u l d p r e v e n t us f r o m r e a d i n g the S o n g o f the V a l i a n t

Woman

as illustrating the Gattung

G u n k e l g a v e the technical d e s i g n a t i o n

which

Hymnus.

T h e r e is first of all the overall structure of the h y m n . T h i s is g e n e r a l l y d i v i d e d into the i n t r o d u c t i o n , w h i c h a n n o u n c e s the praise w h i c h will be g i v e n a n d n a m e s its subject; t h e n the b o d y or

Haupt-

stück, w h i c h e n u m e r a t e s the p r a i s e w o r t h y attributes a n d d e e d s of the m i g h t y o n e b e i n g a c c l a i m e d ; a n d thirdly the c o n c l u d i n g e x h o r tation to the a u d i e n c e a n d others to j o i n in the p o e t ' s p r a i s e . 2 3 In the acrostic p o e m of P r o v e r b s this c o r r e s p o n d s r e s p e c t i v e l y to vss 1 0 - 1 2 , in w h i c h the subject of praise is i n t r o d u c e d as the V a l i a n t W o m a n , a priceless asset to her h u s b a n d ; to vss 1 3 - 2 7 , in w h i c h are r e c o u n t e d the m i g h t y d e e d s of the w o m a n as efficient m a n a g e r , e n t e r p r i s i n g b u s i n e s s w o m a n a n d g e n e r o u s b e n e f a c t r e s s , a n d to vss 2 8 - 3 1 , in w h i c h first her children a n d h u s b a n d praise her, a n d then the a u d i e n c e a n d her o w n h a n d i w o r k are e x h o r t e d to j o i n in the praise. T o a p p r e c i a t e the last p o i n t , w e m u s t realize that the imp e r a t i v e tenu, with w h i c h the last v e r s e b e g i n s , is a d d r e s s e d to the a u d i e n c e ( s i n c e the i m p e r a t i v e is plural), a n d that it is to be read as a f o r m of the v e r b tānâ,

" c e l e b r a t e in s o n g " ,

not of

nātan,

" g i v e " . 2 4 T h e s o n g therefore c o n c l u d e s w i t h the w o r d s : 21

Psalms III: 101-150 (Garden City, 1970) p. 127. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (revised edn, 1940), s.v. 23 Gunkel, Einleitung, pp. 33-59. See also H. Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction (Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 10-12. 24 See for example W. A. van der Weiden, Le Livre des Proverbes: Notes philologiques (Rome, 1970), pp. 155-6; J . P. Lettinga, "Een bijbelse vrouwenspiegel", in Bezieid Verband: Opstellen aangeboden aan prof. J. Kamphuis (Kampen, 1984), pp. 121, 123; and Tanakh. A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Philadelphia, 1985). Possibly the verb needs to be revocalized as the piel tannû, on the analogy of its occurrences in Judg. ν 11 and xi 40; so L. Alonso22

Extol her for the fruit of h e r h a n d s , A n d let her works praise her in the gates. G i v e n this c o n c l u d i n g call to praise, the overall structural parallel w i t h the h y m n s of the Psalter is striking. T h e parallels also e x t e n d to p o i n t s of detail. In the final c o l o n j u s t q u o t e d it is the w o r k s of the V a l i a n t W o m a n w h i c h are u r g e d , in the third p e r s o n , to g i v e her praise. P r e s u m a b l y this refers to the f a n c y s a s h e s a n d o t h e r w o v e n p r o d u c t s w h i c h she w o u l d offer for sale " i n the g a t e s " to the t r a v e l i n g P h o e n i c i a n m e r c h a n t t i o n e d in vs. 2 4 .

25

men-

J u s t as all a n i m a t e a n d i n a n i m a t e c r e a t u r e s of

the L o r d are e n j o i n e d to praise their m a k e r in the h y m n s of the Psalter, so h e r e the p r o d u c t s of the w o m a n ' s creativity are e x h o r t e d to praise her, to g i v e her credit, to " d o h e r p r o u d " . W e are immediately

reminded

of

familiar

hymnic

phrases

like

"Let

e v e r y t h i n g that b r e a t h e s praise the L o r d ! " ( P s . cl 6) a n d " A l l thy w o r k s shall praise t h e e , Ο L o r d " ( P s . cxiv 10). T h e P r o v e r b s s o n g here

echoes

the

theme

of

"cosmic

praise"

characteristic feature o f Israel's h y m n s .

which

is

such

a

26

A n o t h e r s u c h characteristic feature, p e r h a p s (if G u n k e l is right) the original n u c l e u s o f the p r i m i t i v e h y m n , is the u s e of the phrase halelû-yāh

at the b e g i n n i n g or e n d of the s o n g . It is i n c o n c e i v a b l e

that an Israelite poet w o u l d u s e this p h r a s e in a s o n g p r a i s i n g a h u m a n b e i n g . N e v e r t h e l e s s , the a u t h o r of the P r o v e r b s s o n g dares to u s e a verbal f o r m w h i c h s o u n d s v e r y m u c h like it in his c o n e l u d i n g l i n e . In the w o r d s " a n d let her w o r k s praise h e r " the v e r b in H e b r e w is (wî)halêlûhā. praise,

this c a n n o t

familiar h y m n i c

In the c o n t e x t of the c o n c l u d i n g call to

fail to h a v e r e m i n d e d

the a u d i e n c e of the

halêlû-yāh.

A g r a m m a t i c a l p e c u l i a r i t y w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e s the h y m n f r o m o t h e r genres is the u s e of a participle w h e r e o n e w o u l d e x p e c t ( a n d w h e r e the c o n t e x t o f t e n c o n t a i n s ) v e r b s in the perfect or i m p e r f e c t . T h e s e participles are u s e d to d e s c r i b e the p r a i s e w o r t h y d e e d s rec o u n t e d in the b o d y o f the h y m n . G u n k e l called t h e m hymnische ParSchäkel and J . Vilchez, Prôverbios (Madrid, 1984), p. 536; and the NEB (see L. H. Brockington, The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. The Readings Adopted by the Translators of the New English Bible [Oxford and Cambridge, 1973], p. 168. Note that tānâ is construed with le also in Judg, xi 40. 25 The word for "merchant" there is kênaCānî, "the Canaanite". 26 M. Girard, Louange cosmique. Bible et animisme (Montréal, 1973), especially pp. 40-1.

tizipien,

a n d F. C r i i s e m a n n has m a d e a detailed study of t h e m . 2 7 In

the light of o u r d i s c u s s i o n so far, it is not surprising that s u c h a h y m n i c participle is also f o u n d in the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n , a l t h o u g h it w a s o v e r l o o k e d by C r ü s e m a n n a n d has not b e e n recogn i z e d as s u c h by the c o m m e n t a t o r s . T h e f o r m in q u e s t i o n is sôpiyyâ in vs. 2 7 , w h e r e it is the v e r b in the s e n t e n c e " S h e looks well to the w a y s of her h o u s e h o l d . " A s I h a v e a r g u e d e l s e w h e r e (see n. 17), this is not o n l y a h y m n i c participle, but also a p u n on the G r e e k w o r d σοφία. T h e w o r d - p l a y w a s possible b e c a u s e the a u t h o r k n e w a n d e x p l o i t e d this g r a m m a t i c a l p e c u l i a r i t y of the h y m n i c genre. It is possible to list a n u m b e r of other p o i n t s in the s o n g w h i c h are r e m i n i s c e n t of the h y m n i c style. For e x a m p l e , w h e n the poet writes " S t r e n g t h a n d d i g n i t y are her c l o t h i n g " (vs. 25) this e c h o e s the p h r a s e o l o g y of the h y m n s in praise of Y a h w e h (see Ps. xciii 1, civ 1). Particularly the u s e of hādār, " d i g n i t y " , or " h o n o u r " is telli n g in this regard, since this w o r d , as expression for G o d ' s praise of Israel (Ps. xcvi T h e h y m n i c praise of the perience of his historical hādār, THAT 1, p. 471,

regal dignity.. .plays a special role in the 6; civ I; cxi 3; cxiv 5, 12; 1 C h r . xvi 27). " b e a u t y " of Y a h w e h . . .arises out of the exdeeds (Ps. cxi 3; cxiv 5, 12). (D. V e t t e r , my translation.]

I m i g h t also m e n t i o n the t h e m e of G o d ' s i n c o m p a r a b i l i t y , w h i c h is so f r e q u e n t in Israel's h y m n s , a n d w h i c h f i n d s its h u m a n c o u n t e r part in P r o v . x x x i 29: " M a n y w o m e n h a v e d o n e v a l i a n t l y , but y o u surpass t h e m a l l . " But e n o u g h has b e e n said to s u b s t a n t i a t e m y m a i n thesis that the S o n g o f the V a l i a n t W o m a n , f r o m a f o r m critical point of v i e w , is h y m n i c in character. T h e failure to r e c o g n i z e this h y m n i c c h a r a c t e r in the past is n o d o u b t d u e to a n u m b e r of factors, i n c l u d i n g the failure to u n d e r s t a n d the s i g n i f i c a n c e of sôpiyyâ in vs. 27 a n d tënû in vs. 3 1 . But the m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n is u n d o u b t e d l y the habitual a s s o c i a t i o n of " h y m n " w i t h the praise of G o d rather than mortals. T h e P r o v e r b s acrostic did not present itself to p e o p l e ' s m i n d s as a c a n d i d a t e for the h y m n i c genre b e c a u s e it w a s a s o n g in praise of a h u m a n b e i n g — a n d a w o m a n at t h a t . 2 8 N o m a t t e r h o w e x t r a o r d i n a r y her 27

Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), pp. 81-154. 28 Cf. Hanson (η. 10), p. 330: " O n e might call it a 'hymn to the capable wife', but this would require extensive stretching of the genre 'hymn' " .

a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s w e r e , they w e r e n e c e s s a r i l y i n c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h the m i g h t y acts of G o d .

Moreover,

since for G u n k e l

and

his

followers a literary f o r m w a s strictly linked to its Sitz im Leben (the t e m p l e w o r s h i p service in the case of h y m n s ) it w a s difficult to i m a g i n e it as f u n c t i o n i n g in a n o t h e r setting. C e r t a i n l y , o n e c a n hardly i m a g i n e the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n as h a v i n g its original s i t u a t i o n in the cult. A c o n s e q u e n c e of m y thesis, a c c o r d i n g l y , is that the h y m n i c f o r m in Israel is not strictly tied either to the praise of G o d or to the t e m pie liturgy. T h e acrostic p o e m in P r o v e r b s , if its h y m n i c character is r e c o g n i z e d , p r o v i d e s us with a u n i q u e p e r s p e c t i v e o n the possible early history a n d f u n c t i o n of the h y m n in I s r a e l — a

perspective

q u i t e different f r o m that a f f o r d e d by the liturgical h y m n s . O b v i o u s l y , this is a t h e m e w h i c h is too vast to e x p l o r e in the c o n text of this article. Let m e point o u t , h o w e v e r , that there are s o m e a s p e c t s of the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n w h i c h s u g g e s t that it s t a n d s in a tradition of h e r o i c p o e t r y — a tradition w h i c h m a y also u n d e r l i e the h y m n s of the Psalter. H e r o i c poetry is a type of literature w h i c h is f o u n d in m a n y cultures. E x a m p l e s are the H o m e r i c e p i c s of a n c i e n t G r e e c e , the O l d N o r s e p o e t r y of the V i k i n g s a n d the heroic s o n g s of c o n t e m porary Y u g o s l a v i a . T h e y are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the r e c o u n t i n g of the m i g h t y d e e d s of h e r o e s , u s u a l l y the military e x p l o i t s of n o b l e warriors. A s s o c i a t e d with the l o n g e r heroic narrative p o e m or epic are shorter f o r m s s u c h as the p a n e g y r i c o d e in praise of a v i c t o r i o u s c h a m p i o n or the l a m e n t , c e l e b r a t i n g the great feats of a fallen warrior.29 It has b e e n p o i n t e d out that the literature of a n c i e n t Israel also c o n t a i n s p o e t r y of this t y p e . T h e S o n g of D e b o r a h is a n o t a b l e exa m p l e , as is D a v i d ' s l a m e n t for Saul a n d J o n a t h a n in 2 S a m . i. W e also hear o f the s o n g w h i c h the w o m e n s a n g w h e n Saul a n d D a v i d c a m e h o m e v i c t o r i o u s f r o m battle a g a i n s t the Philistines (1 S a m . xviii a n d x x i ) . I n d e e d , it has b e e n a r g u e d that the t i m e of the J u d g e s a n d of D a v i d w a s Israel's H e r o i c A g e , a n d that m u c h of the literature a s s o c i a t e d with it is heroic in k i n d . 3 0 29

See H. M. Chadwick, The Heroic Age (Cambridge, 1912), H . M . and N. K. Chadwick, The Growth of Literature (Cambridge, 1932-1940) 1, chs. 2-5; and C. M. Bowra, Heroic Poetry (London, 1952), ch. 1. :t0 See Chadwick, Growth 2, p. 645. According to Bowra, true heroic poetry was never developed in Israel (pp. 14-15), but this is largely because he, unlike the Chadwicks, excludes panegyric and lament from his definition.

A g a i n s t this b a c k g r o u n d it is striking that the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n d i s p l a y s a n u m b e r of features w h i c h are clearly r e m i n i s c e n t of p o e t r y of the heroic t y p e . I list the f o l l o w i n g items: 1. T h e subject of the s o n g is called an ^ēšet hayil, a term w h i c h has b e e n translated in m a n y different w a y s , but w h i c h in this c o n text s h o u l d p r o b a b l y be u n d e r s t o o d as the f e m a l e c o u n t e r p a r t of the gibbôr hayil, the title g i v e n to the " m i g h t y m e n of v a l o u r " w h i c h are o f t e n n a m e d in D a v i d ' s a g e . T h e p e r s o n w h o is celebrated in this s o n g is a " m i g h t y w o m a n of v a l o u r " . 2. T h a t this is the m e a n i n g i n t e n d e d e m e r g e s also from the r e c u r r e n c e of the w o r d hayil in vs. 2 9 n e a r the e n d of the s o n g , f o r m i n g a kind of inclusio w i t h ^ēšet hayil at the b e g i n n i n g . It there o c c u r s in the i d i o m Cāšâ hayil, w h i c h regularly m e a n s " t o d o valiantl y " in a military c o n t e x t . 3 1 3. B e s i d e s

these

two occurrences

of hayil,

a word

meaning

basically " p o w e r " or " p r o w e s s " , it is r e m a r k a b l e h o w o f t e n the w o m a n ' s strength is m e n t i o n e d in the s o n g . " S h e girds her loins with s t r e n g t h " (vs.

17) a n d " s h e is c l o t h e d w i t h strength

and

c

h o n o u r " (vs. 2 5 ) , w h e r e the H e b r e w w o r d is 0z in b o t h cases. T h e s e c o n d line of vs. 17 adds: " S h e s t r e n g t h e n s her a r m s "

(^immēs).

C

4. A n u m b e r of w o r d s a n d p h r a s e s b e s i d e s āšâ hayil s e e m to h a v e a specifically military c o n n o t a t i o n . In the e x p r e s s i o n " y o u surpass t h e m a l l " (vs. 29) the phrase

C

ālâ cal is o f t e n u s e d e l s e w h e r e in the

s e n s e of g o i n g out to d o battle a g a i n s t an e n e m y . (In fact the m e a n i n g " s u r p a s s " is a s s i g n e d to it o n l y here. S e e B D B a n d K B 3 s . v . C

ālâ.) In vs. 19 the a p p a r e n t l y i n n o c e n t w o r d s " s h e stretches out her

h a n d s to the d i s t a f f " translate the i d i o m šālahyād

be, w h i c h (as Paul

H u m b e r t h a s p o i n t e d o u t ) 3 2 a l w a y s has an a g g r e s s i v e c o n n o t a t i o n e l s e w h e r e , so that its u s e in this p e a c e f u l c o n t e x t is e x c e p t i o n a l . It is r e m a r k a b l e ,

moreover,

that

the

same

expression

(with

the

p r e p o s i t i o n le) is u s e d in the heroic c o n t e x t of the S o n g o f D e b o r a h to d e s c r i b e J a e l ' s g r a s p i n g of the tent p e g w i t h w h i c h she kills Sisera

31

TKe idiom can also mean "gain riches" (see the lexica s.v. hayit), and the poet is probably exploiting this ambiguity in Prov. xxxi 29. The more common meaning, however, is the military one. 32 " 'Etendre la main' (Note de lexicographie hébraïque)", VT 12 (1962), p. 387: " O r , avec be la tournure šālah yād a toujours un sens préhensif ou agressif, sauf dans Prov. xxxi 19." The idiom with be occurs 21 times in the Old Testament. For a total of 57 instances of šālah yād (with or without a preposition), the connotation is usually hostile, "mais, très exceptionellement, pacifique" (p. 388).

( J u d g . ν 2 6 ) . I m i g h t m e n t i o n also the u s e of the warlike w o r d s šālāl, " p l u n d e r " (vs. 11) a n d terep, " p r e y " (vs. 15) in the u n u s u a l d e r i v e d s e n s e s of " p r o f i t " a n d " f o o d " , 3 3 r e s p e c t i v e l y . 5. It is n e c e s s a r y a g a i n to n o t i c e the u s e of tānâ in the c o n c l u d i n g v e r s e of the s o n g , this t i m e to point o u t that this rare v e r b o c c u r s e l s e w h e r e o n l y in the c o n t e x t of heroic p o e t r y . 3 4 It is o n c e u s e d to d e s c r i b e the s o n g in w h i c h the d a u g h t e r of J e p h t h a h w a s a n n u a l l y c e l e b r a t e d , e i t h e r in l a m e n t or praise ( J u d g . xi 4 0 ) . Its o t h e r occurrence is in the S o n g of D e b o r a h , in the w o r d s : consider the voice of the singers at the w a t e r i n g places. T h e y recite (yètannû) the righteous acts of the L o r d , the righteous acts of his warriors in Israel. ( J u d g . v. 10;

ΝIV)

A c c o r d i n g to F. F. B r u c e in his c o m m e n t o n the v e r b here, " t h e actual s e n s e is ' s i n g r e s p o n s i v e l y ' , a n d the r e f e r e n c e is to the s o n g of v i c t o r y s u n g b y the m a i d e n s at the w e l l s in the f o l l o w i n g t i m e s of p e a c e " . 3 5 S u c h s o n g s m a y well h a v e b e e n the original n u c l e u s of heroic p o e t r y in g e n e r a l , a n d the v e r b u s e d to d e s c r i b e t h e m w o u l d m e a n to c e l e b r a t e in s o n g the m i g h t y d e e d s of the v i c t o r i o u s warriors. It is to such c e l e b r a t i o n that the a u d i e n c e is e x h o r t e d after h e a r i n g of the e x p l o i t s of the m i g h t y w o m a n of v a l o u r . 6. A characteristic of heroic poetry is that it is a poetry of action. It d o e s not dwell o n the i n n e r f e e l i n g s or the physical a p p e a r a n c e of the hero, but s i m p l y d e s c r i b e s the m i g h t y feats of v a l o u r w h i c h he a c c o m p l i s h e s ( B o w r a [n. 2 9 ] , ch. 2). In line w i t h this, the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n is a portrait in v e r b s . T h e o n l y a d j e c t i v e s in the p o e m (there are o n l y t w o ) d e s c r i b e not the h e r o i n e but her m e r c h a n d i s e (tob, vs. 13) a n d her rivals (rabbôt, vs. 2 9 ) . In a w o r d , s h e is p i c t u r e d as w i s d o m in a c t i o n . W h e n she is c o m p a r e d to the m e r c h a n t ships in vs. 14, it is not her appearance which

is d e s c r i b e d ,

but h e r action of t r a v e l i n g

long

d i s t a n c e s to a c q u i r e f o o d for her h o u s e h o l d . In fact her physical app e a r a n c e is a l l u d e d to o n l y in vs. 3 0 , w h e r e the v a n i t y of b e a u t y is c o n t r a s t e d w i t h the fear of the L o r d .

33 34

These are the common interpretations, see e.g. KB 3 s . w . An exception is the hitnû of Hos. viii 9, if this is not a corrupt text or another

root. 35

See his contribution on Judges in F. Davidson et al. (ed.), The New Bible Commentary (London and Grand Rapids, 1954), p. 244.

7. Finally, heroic poetry typically d e s c r i b e s the e x p l o i t s of m e n b e l o n g i n g to an aristocratic class, a class in w h i c h h o n o u r a n d ind i v i d u a l initiative rank h i g h o n the scale of v a l u e s . 3 6 T h e h e r o is typically a n o b l e m a n . S o t o o the valiant w o m a n of P r o v . x x x i is clearly a w e a l t h y lady of the u p p e r classes. S h e w e a r s purple a n d fine l i n e n (vs. 2 2 ) , e x p e n s i v e fabrics i m p o r t e d f r o m P h o e n i c i a a n d E g y p t . H e r h u s b a n d sits as a r e s p e c t e d m e m b e r o n the c o u n c i l of elders in the city gates (vs. 23). S h e has m a i d s , nacàrôt (vs. 15), w h o are p r o b a b l y t h e m s e l v e s of h i g h social s t a n d i n g . 3 7 S h e has e n o u g h capital of her o w n to invest in the d e v e l o p m e n t of a n e w v i n e y a r d , a m a j o r agricultural project (vs. 16). S h e has the r e s o u r c e s to g i v e to the p o o r a n d n e e d y (vs. 20). M o r e o v e r , d i g n i t y a n d (hādār), sonal

honour

as w e h a v e s e e n , is her very g a r m e n t (vs. 2 5 ) , a n d the perinitiative

she takes

in t r a v e l i n g

for p r o v i s i o n s (vs.

14),

d e v e l o p i n g n e w agricultural land (vs. 16) a n d e n g a g i n g in trade (vs. 24) is truly r e m a r k a b l e . S h e is clearly the kind of aristocrat of pron o u n c e d i n d i v i d u a l i t y w h i c h is characteristic of the p r o t a g o n i s t s of heroic p o e t r y . All these traits in the p o e m g i v e us reason to s u p p o s e that the V a l i a n t W o m a n is d e l i b e r a t e l y d e s c r i b e d in t e r m s b o r r o w e d f r o m a tradition of heroic p o e t r y . S h e is a h e r o i n e in the full s e n s e of the w o r d , a n d m e a n t to be p e r c e i v e d as s u c h . T h i s i m p r e s s i o n is so effectively created that the heroic features of this portrait k e e p cropping

up

in

translations

and

commentaries,

despite

the

many

m i s c o n c e p t i o n s to w h i c h it has b e e n subject. T h e L X X , for e x a m pie, translated

^ēšet hayil as γυνή άνδρεία, w h i c h m e a n s not o n l y

" m a n l y w o m a n " but also " w o m a n of c o u r a g e " . A n d

Jerome,

baffled b y the o b s c u r e w o r d kisôr w h i c h w e translate " d i s t a f f " , prod u c e d the inspired g u e s s fortia,

" g a l l a n t d e e d s " . 3 8 T h e translators

of the K i n g J a m e s V e r s i o n w e r e also s e n s i t i v e to the heroic t e m p e r of the p o e m ; their " v i r t u o u s w o m a n " in fact m e a n t as m u c h as " h e r o i c w o m a n " in the E n g l i s h o f t h a t t i m e . 3 9 36

See Chadwick Growth (n. 29), 1, pp. 64-7; pp. 2, 666-7; Bowra (n. 29), chs 1 and 3. 37 See J . MacDonald, " T h e Status and Role of the nacar in Israelite Society", JNES 32 (1976), pp. 147-70. 38 See Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982), s.v. "fortis," 8 ("gallant", "heroic", "valiant", with references to fortia as a substantive in this sense in Vergil and Livy). 39 See Oxford English Dictionary s.v. "virtuous," I. 1 a-c ("valiant", "heroic", "capable").

W h a t c o n c l u s i o n s are w e to draw from all this? From the point of view of form criticism, the heroic characteristics of the S o n g , coupled with the recognition that its genre is that of a h y m n , m a y provide us with a clue to the historical origins of the h y m n . It m a y well be that the h y m n s of the Psalter, like the S o n g of the Valiant W o m a n , are both d e v e l o p m e n t s of an earlier heroic tradition in Israel or its e n v i r o n m e n t which is largely lost but which is preserved for e x a m p l e in the S o n g of D e b o r a h . It is particularly telling in that regard that the S o n g of D e b o r a h , as w e have seen, uses the verb tānâ of the celebration of both Y a h w e h and h u m a n heroes. T h e S o n g of the S e a , with its explicit statement that " Y a h w e h is a m a n of w a r " (Ex. xv 3), m a y well represent the h y m n at a stage still closely linked to specifically heroic poetry. In any case it is clear that heroic t h e m e s a b o u n d in the h y m n i c s o n g s of the Psalter. If this hypothesis is correct, then it is not as u n u s u a l as it m a y s e e m that the Valiant W o m a n is celebrated in a literary form otherwise reserved for the praise of Y a h w e h . In other words, the h y m n i c form of the Proverbs acrostic is not so m u c h an imitation of the liturgical genre (which might well have s o u n d e d b l a s p h e m o u s to a G o d - f e a r i n g Israelite), but a parallel d e v e l o p m e n t of another genre, the heroic panegyric. W h e r e a s the liturgical h y m n uses the formal resources of the heroic s o n g to celebrate the m i g h t y acts of Y a h w e h , the Proverbs acrostic draws o n those s a m e resources to extol the great deeds of a n o b l e w o m a n w h o m a n a g e s a large estate. Finally, we must ask the question: what is the significance of this " h e r o i c i z i n g " of the a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s of an enterprising and G o d fearing wife a n d m o t h e r in Israel? Let m e briefly suggest, by w a y of c o n c l u s i o n , that an a n s w e r to this question must be f o u n d in the light of two factors: the twofold polemic which the S o n g e m b o d i e s , and the e m e r g i n g revaluation of military prowess which it exemplifies. O n an overt and explicit level the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n constitutes a critique of the literature in praise of w o m e n which w a s prevalent in the ancient N e a r East. A s a distinct tradition, this literature was o v e r w h e l m i n g l y preoccupied with the physical c h a r m s of w o m e n from an erotic point of v i e w — i n a word, with their sex appeal. Against the ideal of f e m i n i n e perfection reflected in this widespread erotic poetry, w h i c h w a s cultivated in the context of royal courts and h a r e m s , the acrostic p o e m glorifies the active g o o d works of a w o m a n in the ordinary affairs of family, c o m m u n i -

ty a n d b u s i n e s s l i f e — g o o d w o r k s w h i c h for all their e a r t h l i n e s s are r o o t e d in the fear of the L o r d . " C h a r m is d e c e i t f u l , a n d b e a u t y is v a i n , but a w o m a n w h o fears the L o r d , s h e is to be p r a i s e d " (vs. 30). O n a subtle a n d m o r e indirect level, the s o n g also c o n t a i n s a p o l e m i c a g a i n s t the intellectual ideal of H e l l e n i s m , as I h a v e sugg e s t e d e l s e w h e r e ( [n. 17], p. 5 8 6 ) . It is w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d that the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n portrays its h e r o i n e as the p e r s o n i f i c a tion of w i s d o m , 4 0 the i n c a r n a t i o n of w h a t it m e a n s to be w i s e . T h a t this i n v o l v e s a critique of G r e e k i n t e l l e c t u a l i s m b e c o m e s e v i d e n t if w e r e c o g n i z e sôpiyyâ in vs. 27 as a w o r d - p l a y o n the G r e e k w o r d σοφία. T h e point of the s o n g t h e n b e c o m e s : not abstract theoretical w i s d o m rooted in impartial rationality is the p r a i s e w o r t h y ideal, but c o n c r e t e practical w i s d o m r o o t e d in the fear of the L o r d . O n b o t h levels it is the heroic c o l o u r i n g of the h y m n i c g e n r e w h i c h h i g h l i g h t s the c o n c r e t e a n d active d i m e n s i o n s of the altern a t i v e ideal of w o m a n l y w o r t h w h i c h the s o n g celebrates. T h e s e c o n d factor to c o n s i d e r is the e m e r g e n c e w i t h i n J u d a i s m of a n e w interpretation of the gëbûrâ, " h e r o i c p r o w e s s " , w h i c h is so p r o m i n e n t in the historical b o o k s of the H e b r e w Bible. In a recent article entitled

"Dangerous

L e g e n d a r y W a r r i o r s " , HUCA

Hero:

Rabbinic

Attitudes

Toward

54 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , pp. 1 8 1 - 9 4 , R i c h a r d G .

M a r k s h a s p o i n t e d out that the r a b b i n i c r e s p o n s e to the gibbôrîm

of

Israel's H e r o i c A g e took two literary forms: one was to glorify t h e m in legend while warning against reliance on t h e m ; a second was to redefine gevurah so that its associated glory applied to academic a n d moral victories (p. 181). It w o u l d s e e m that the P r o v e r b s acrostic is an early variant of this s e c o n d literary tradition. T h e h e r o i s m of the battlefield is transp o s e d in this c a s e not to the a c a d e m i c a n d moral s p h e r e but to a w o m a n ' s vita activa in h o m e a n d c o m m u n i t y . By w a y of c o n c l u s i o n I s u b m i t that a form-critical a n a l y s i s of the S o n g of the V a l i a n t W o m a n s h o w s it to be a h e r o i c i z i n g h y m n a d a p t e d to a w i s d o m c o n t e x t . T o i g n o r e its literary f o r m , or to f o c u s o n l y o n its sapiential f e a t u r e s , is to m i s s i m p o r t a n t d i m e n s i o n s of this e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y rich a n d c o m p l e x s o n g of praise.

40

Most recently, by Claudia V. Camp, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (Sheffield, 1985), pp. 186-91.

INTERNAL

OR HALF-LINE PARALLELISM CLASSICAL HEBREW AGAIN

IN

by W I L F R E D G . E.

WATSON

Newcastle upon Tyne 1.

Introductory T h e usual f o r m of parallelism in H e b r e w v e r s e is the c o u p l e t

w h e r e the s e c o n d line of the c o u p l e t is parallel to the first. In " i n t e r nal p a r a l l e l i s m " ( h e r e a b b r e v i a t e d to IP) the s a m e f e a t u r e o c c u r s w i t h i n a single v e r s e line. In s u c h lines, a c c o r d i n g l y , the first half of the line h a s a parallel in the s e c o n d .

T h i s characteristic

is

reflected in the a l t e r n a t i v e label " h a l f - l i n e p a r a l l e l i s m " . A l t h o u g h I h a v e already written three articles o n I P , 1

there are

several

r e a s o n s for yet a n o t h e r . T o b e g i n w i t h , q u i t e a n u m b e r of n e w exa m p l e s h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d a n d these n e e d to be set o u t . M a n y of these e x a m p l e s are i n t e r e s t i n g in t h e m s e l v e s . In a d d i t i o n , e x a m p l e s h a v e b e e n f o u n d in b o o k s of the O T p r e v i o u s l y u n r e p r e s e n t e d . IP in the f o r m of t w o h a l f - l i n e s is as i m p o r t a n t an e l e m e n t in H e b r e w p o e t r y as it is in s o m e o t h e r a n c i e n t

Semitic verse

traditions

( U g a r i t i c , A k k a d i a n ) t h o u g h h e r e I will limit m y s e l f to classical H e b r e w , a n d n e e d s to be e x a m i n e d in respect of its i m p l i c a t i o n s for m e t r e , l i n e a t i o n a n d the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n b e t w e e n prose a n d p o e t r y .

2. List of passages T h e s e q u e n c e f o l l o w e d will be that o f the H e b r e w Bible w i t h the a d d i t i o n of B e n Sira. O n l y a selection of p a s s a g e s c a n be set o u t a n d discussed. 1

"Internal Parallelism in Ugaritic Verse", Studi epigrafici e linguistici 1 (1984), pp. 53-67; "Internal Parallelism in Ugaritic Verse: Further Examples", UF 17 (1985), pp. 345-56; "Internal Parallelism in Classical Hebrew Verse", Bib 66 (1985), pp. 365-84. The line with IP has its nearest equivalent in "Leonine Verse" (which has internal rhyme), a term defined in M. Drabble (ed.), The Oxford Companion to English Literature (London, 1985), p. 564.

Genesis ii 2 3 2 , vii 4, 12, viii 2, 2 2 , xi 1, 6, xiii 10, x v 17, xvi 12b, xvii 2 0 , x i x 4, x x i v 3 5 , XXV 3 4 , x x i x 17, x x x 4 2 , x x x i 3 6 , 4 3 a , x x x i i 12, x x x i x 10, xli 3, 4, 19, 4 4 , xliii 3 3 , xlix 3 3 , 1 9. T h e core of viii 22 is an enumeration: c

d kl-ymy Prs

D u r i n g all E a r t h ' s d a y s

c

zr wqsyr wqr whm wqys whrp wywm

s e e d i n g , h a r v e s t , cold, h e a t , wlylh

s u m m e r , winter, day and night shall not e n d . 4

Ρyšbtw Exodus iv 10, vi 9, ix 3 1 , x v 11. x v 11 ( s e e b e l o w , 4 . 7 ) nwr‫י‬

thlt csh pP

Awe-inspiring,

Wonder-

worker. Leviticus ν 4, vi 13, xii 4 5 , x x v i i 3 0 (cf. ii 10, 2 8 , χ 10, x i x 26, 3 5 , 3 6 ) . M o s t of these are phrases u s e d in l o n g e r s e n t e n c e s . Numbers ν 22 ( / / 2 7 ) , χ 3 5 (cf. Ps. lxviii 2), xiv 8, x v 16, xvii 2 7 , x x 2 0 , xxi 5a, xxiii 2 4 , x x i v 6, 9, xxxiii 55 (cf. x v 3 9 , xxi 17b, 18b). x x i v 9 mbrkyk brwk w^rryk

\wr

B l e s s e d be a n y o n e b l e s s i n g y o u , c u r s e d be a n y o n e c u r s i n g y o u . Deuteronomy x x v i 8, x x v i i i 3 - 6 ( / / 1 6 - 1 9 ) , x x i x 2 2 , x x x 15, x x x i i 14c, 2 4 , 2 5 b (cf. xii 15, x x v i i i 4 - 5 , x x x i i 2 9 ) . 2

Discussed in my contribution to the P. C. Craigie Memorial Volume (Sheffield, in the press): "Some Additional Wordpairs". 3 S. Gevirtz, " T h e Reprimand of Reuben", JNES 30 (1971), pp. 87-98. Is this an expansion of khy wr^šyt ‫נ‬wny in the same verse? 4 G. Del Olmo Lete, Aula Orientalis 2 (1984), p. 14. See, in addition W. Brueggemann, "Kingship and Chaos. (A Study of Tenth Century Theology)", CßQ.33 (1971), pp. 317-22.

Joshua χ 13, x i v 11, xxiii 13 ( / / N u m . x x x i i i 5 5 ) . χ 13 wydm hšmš wyrh

c

md

T h e s u n s t o o d still, stay did the m o o n 5

Judges ν 3, 4, 2 1 , 2 5 6 (cf. iv 7, ix 2 8 , x i v 16, x v i 2 8 , 2 9 ) . ν 21 nhl gyšwn grpm

W a d i K i s h o n swept them away,

nhl qdwmym

nhl qyšwn

the o n r u s h i n g w a d i , Wadi Kishon.7

T h e q u a s i - a c r o s t i c c o m p o n e n t 8 c o m e s in b o t h e l e m e n t s of the c o u p l e t : n- q- lin- q- lin-

q-.

1 Samuel ii 3 0 c , xii 4, xvi 1 2 , 1 8 , x v i i 4 4 , 4 6 , x x 1, x x i v 15, x x v 3, 6, 9, 2 5 , x x v i 12, x x x 8 (cf. 13).

2 Samuel i 2 1 , 21 9 2 2 , 2 3 , iii 2 9 b , 3 1 a , xii 3, x v 2 1 , x v i 7 , 1 0 xxii 1, xxiii 5d. 5 J . Sanmartin Ascaso, Las guerras de Jostle. Estudio de Semiática narrativa (Valencia, 1982), p. 159, n. 457, considers this phrase to be a secondary gloss, in prose, inserted in place of a lost or deleted line originally parallel to cd yqm gwy 'ybyw. 6 Discussed by A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington, 1985), pp. 12-13. 7 Contrast M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, 1980), p. 226: "Wadi Qishon is an ancient wadi". 8 Explained in my Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (Sheffield, 1984, 1986), pp. 195-6; UF 12 (1980), pp. 445-7. It is the use of the same letter to begin lines, half-lines or corresponding sub-sections of half-lines. 9 Contrast P. Kyle McCarter, J r , II Samuel Garden City, 1984), pp. 66, 71, and W. H. Shea, "Chiasmus and the Structure of David's Lament", JBL 105 (1986), pp. 13-25, esp. p. 15. 10 The phrase is discussed in detail by McCarter, p. 373.

qrcw bgdykm whgrw

sqym

R i p y o u r clothes, w e a r sacking

wspdw

Ipny

‫נ‬

bnr

a n d beat the breast in front of A b i n e r . 1 1

N o n e o f the p a s s a g e s in 1 or 2 S a m u e l is p u r e verse. 1 Kings iii 2 2 , 2 6 , viii 5 7 c , xviii 2 6 , x i x 6, x x 8 , 2 5 , xxii 4 (cf. iii 2 4 , ν 13a, 18c). 2 Kings iii 7, iv 2 6 , 3 0 , 3 1 , ν 2 6 , vii 6, xiv 2 6 , xviii 12 (cf. iii 14, ν 7, vi 2 7 , vii 4). Isaiah i 2, 4 a , 7, 8, 9 b , 16 ( e t c . ) , 2 3 , 2 6 b , ii 10, 20, iii 1, 8, iv 1, ν 15, 2 0 , 2 7 , 2 9 a , vi 7b, 10a, vii 7, 11, viii 1, 9 , 13b, 2 0 , ix 2, 9, 11, 13, χ 6, xi 9, xii 4 b , xiii 16, xiv 4, 5, 2 0 b , 3 1 , xvi 2, 3a, 3c, x i x 2, xxi 2 b , 5, 7, xxii 2, 1 2 - 1 3 , 19, xxiii 4, x x i v 2, 13, 16, 23, x x v 4 - 5 , 6, x x v i 19, x x v i i i 2, 5, 9, 11, 16, 2 5 , 2 9 , x x i x 9 a , 15b, 2 0 , x x x 5, 11a, 2 0 - 1 , 2 7 , x x x i 3, xxxiii 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 2 2 , x x x i v 6, 11, x x x v i i 2 2 , xl 7, 8, 10( = Iii 11), 2 1 , 2 4 , xii 14, 2 6 , 29, xiii 2, 4, 6, xliii 2 4 b , 2 8 , xliv 6, 8, 13d, 2 2 , xiv 7, 13, 14, xlvi 1, 4 b , l i b , 13, xlvii 2 - 3 , xlviii 2, 8, 2 0 , xlix 7, 13, 14, Iii 7, liii 3, liv 2, 10, lv 12, lvi 1, lvii 8 b , 14a, lviii 9 b , 13f, lx 10b, 19, lxii 6 b , 11, lxiii 3, lxiv 7, Ixv 3b4 a , 19a, 19c, lxvi 3, 12, (cf. ix 5a, x i x 15, xxviii 7, x x x i i 18b, xii 10, lvii 19b, lxv 2 2 b ) . ix 11 \m

mqdm wplštym

m \r

A r a m a e a n s f r o m the east a n d Philistines f r o m the w e s t .

11

See McCarter, pp. 105, 110, 119, on this passage. For the gestures cf. M. I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East II (Rome, 1980), p. 447.

1viii 9 b šlh °sbC wdbr

^wn

to point the finger a n d utter slander.

Jeremiah i 10, 18, ii, 19, iii 2 3 , 2 4 , iv 5a, 8, 11, 18a, ν l i b , 2 1 b , vii 12, 17 ( e t c . ) , 3 4 , viii 2, 2 0 , ix 2 4 , 2 5 , xii 7, 8, 13, 14, x i v 2, 3, 18, x v 10, 11, 13, xvi 9, 2 1 , xvii 8, 10, 2 0 , 2 5 , xviii 7, 18, x i x 3, x x 6, 8, xxi 6, xxii 18, 2 3 a , x x v 10, x x x 1 2 - 1 3 , x x x i 9, 12, 2 3 , 2 7 , 2 8 , x x x i i 2 1 , 3 1 , x x x i i i 1 0 - 1 1 , xliv, 6, 12, xlvi 14, 18b, xlvii 3, 7, xlviii 8 b , 15, 2 1 , 2 8 a , 3 2 , xlix 3 1 , 4 ( = 2 0 ) , 15, 3 5 b , 4 4 ,

fill,

12, 2 6 , 3 0 (cf.

vi 14b ( = viii 11), 18, 2 3 , viii 9, xii 6, xiii 11, 2 5 , 27, x x x 2 4 , x x x i 19, xlvi 6, xlviii 2 0 , xlix 8, 3 0 , 1 2, 11).

iv 5a hgydw byhwdh

wbyršlym

hšmyCw

P r o c l a i m in J u d a h a n d in J e r u s a l e m declare.

xxii 2 3 a yšbty

blbnwn mqnnty b\zym

D w e l l e r in L e b a n o n , N e s t e r in the cedars.

Ezekiel ii 5, 7, iii 11, vi 4 f f . , 11, vii 6, 7, 10ff., xii 2 4 , xiii 6, 8, 9, xvi 3, 4 4 , xvii 1, 3, 8, 17, 2 3 , xviii 9, x i x 7, 14, xxi 17, xxiii 3 4 , x x i v 8, x x v 6, 10, x x v i 12, x x v i i 2 7 , xxviii 12, x x i x 5, 18c, 19, x x x 4, 14, x x x i 3, 4 a , x x x v i i 11, xlviii 2 1 - 2 4 a , 1 2 (cf. xxi 14, x x v i i i 4a).

vi 11 hkh bkpk wrqc brglk

clap your hand and stamp your foot.12

12 Y. Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984), p. 83, notes that the word pair kp II rgl is rare and that yd II rgl is commoner, as in Ezek. xxv 6 (also IP, incidentally).

Hosea ii l b , 7, 1 1 , " 2 1 b , iii 4, iv 2, 3 b , 9 a , 13c, vi 1, 10b, vii l i b , viii 7a, 13, ix 6, 7b, 14b, 16, χ 4 a , l i b , 1 3 a , 1 4 xi 8, xii 2a, xiii 10, 15, xiv 5a, 16 (cf. v l i a ) . Joel i 1 0 - 1 2 , 1 5 14 ( =

ii 15), 17, ii 9, 12, 13, 14, 2 0 , 2 1 , 1 6 2 5 , iii 2, iv

1, 6, 9. ii 2 0 wclh b^šw wtcl shntw

his stink will g o u p a n d his s t e n c h will g o up.

Amos ii 9, iv l b , 9, 13, ν 15, viii 5, ix 7, 11 (cf. ii 2, viii 11). viii 5 Ihqtyn •*yph wlhgdyl

šql

l e s s e n i n g the e p h a h , inc r e a s i n g the shekel.

M o s t o t h e r e x a m p l e s in A m o s are p o o r . 1 7 Jonah ii 1 šlšh ymym

wšlšh lylwt

three d a y s a n d three n i g h t s . 1 8

13 The pattern is unnoticed by F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (Garden City, 1980), pp. 132, 240-1. 14 "Verse 13a has the same feature [as in v. 12a] of short lines. Each line has the same syntax (verb and object), with the same sequence in the first and third, which again achieves symmetry. In the second line the sequence is inverted". Andersen and Freedman, p. 563. 15 The poem, already mentioned in my previous article (Bib 66 [1985], p. 378) is discussed in detail by Andersen and Freedman, pp. 339-40, without recognition of the half-line components. 16 Note the expansion in Joel ii 21. The two verbs occur in exactly the same sequence in the Ammonite Tell Siran Bottle Inscription as ygl wysmh. 17 Note, too, Obad. i 16 (verb, verb). 18 Contrast D. L. Christensen, JBL 104 (1985), p. 223, for whom this is a bicolon.

Micah i 6 , ii 12, iii 2, 7, iv 2, 6, vi 8, vii 1, 4, 9, 19a (cf. i 8, 16, ii 10, iii 10, vii 15). iii 7 wbšw

hhzym whprw

hqsmym

T h e seers shall be d i s g r a c e d a n d the d i v i n e r s put to shame

(RSV).

Nahum i 14, ii 2, 10, iii l - 3 a , 8, 1 4 - 1 5 . N o n e n e w . Habakkuk i 3, 15, 16, ii 2 , 1 9 17. i 3 Imh

Why ‫נ‬

c

tr^ny wn w ml

tbyt

d o y o u m a k e m e see w r o n g s a n d look at trouble?

Zephaniah i 13, 18, ii 3, 6 , 2 0 9c, 14, iii 6, 12, 14, 19 (cf. iii 4). i 13 whyh

Become

hylm 1mšsh wbtyhm

1šmmh

spoil will their w e a l t h , w a s t e their h o u s e s .

Zechariah ii 6, χ 4, xii 1. xii 1 nth šmym wysd

Vj

W h o stretched out the sky, set f o u n d a t i o n s to the earth,

19 For the meaning of this verse cf. D. T. Tsumura, " H a b . 2 2 in the Light of Akkadian Legal Practice", ZAW 94 (1982), pp. 294-5. 20 Text and translation: J . S. Kselman, CBQ 32 (1970), p. 581 and n. 13.

wysr rwh

‫נ‬

dm bqrbw

and formed m a n ' s inner spirit.

Malachi i 4, 2 1 iii 2, 3, 4, 7 (cf. iii 5). All p r e v i o u s l y u n r e c o g n i z e d , iii 4 kymy

c

wlm wkšnym

qdmnywt

as in past d a y s , as in f o r m e r years.

Psalms ii 2, iv 3 , 2 2 vii 15, 2 3 viii 9, ix 6 a , χ 17, xii 5, 6, xiv 7, x v 2, xvi 9, xvii 3a, 6 b , 13, xviii 1, 4 7 , x i x 4, x x 8, xxii 7, 25, x x i v 4, x x v i 1 l b , x x v i i 2d, 7, 9c, 12b, x x i x 9, x x x 6, x x x i i l a , x x x i v 15a ( =

xxxvii

2 7 a ) , x x x v i i 8a, 2 7 , 3 7 , x x x v i i i 1 l a , 19, x x x i x 10, xliv 4, xiv 8, xlvi 7, 10b, 11, 2 + xlviii 3, 6 b , 9 a , xlix 3, liii 7 ( = xiv 7), lv 7b, 8 b , 14, lix 13, lx 9, lxii 4, lxv 8 , 1 1 , lxvi 4, lxviii 2, 5a, 6a, 8, 16, 2 6 a , 2 8 b , lxxii 24, l x x i v 2 , 2 5 16, l x x v 8 , 2 6 lxxvi 3, lxxviii 12, 2 0 a , 3 6 , lxxxi 3, 9, lxxxii 5, lxxxiii 2b, l x x x i v 4, l x x x v 9 b , l x x x v i i i 7 b , 2 7 l x x x i x 12, 14b, xc 7, xcii 4, x c v i 2a, l i a , c 4, ci 5, cii 2 7 , ciii 8, civ 8a, 2 0 , cv 2, cvi 6, 3 1 , 4 8 , cvii 3 b c , 2 6 , 3 7 , cviii 9, cix 2 8 , cxiii 6 b , c x v 1 ( / / c x x x v i i i 2), c x i x 113, 1 2 7 b , c x x 2 - 3 , cxxi 4, cxxii 7, cxxiii 4, c x x v 5 - 6 , c x x v i 5, c x x v i i i 2 b , c x x x 5 - 6 , c x x x i i i 1, c x x x v 6, c x x x v i 12, c x x x v i i 2, c x x x i x 12, cxi 13, cxliv 14, cxiv 8, cxlviii 8 f f . ( c f . x x v i i 6c, 10a, 14, x x x v 4, xiv 4, lvii 8, l x x x v i 15, ciii 20, civ 9, c x i x 15, c x x 7, cxxi 5, 6, 8, c x x i v 5, cxii 5, cxliv 2). xviii 47 hy yhwh

wbrwk

swry

Y a h w e h lives! Blessed be m y Rock

21 For a possible example in Mal. i 6 (with verb ellipsis) cf. A. Berlin, JANES 10 (1970), p. 40. 22 For different stichometry cf. P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (Waco, 1983), p. 78. 23 According to J . T. Willis, VT 29 (1979), p. 468, this is a tricolon. 24 Ps. xlvi 11 has been compared with Isa. xxxiii 10 by M. Weiss, Bib 42 (1961), p. 297. 25 The line with IP occurs within a longer verse, examined recently by P. Auffret, VT 33 (1983), p. 131, though he did not recognize the half-lines. 26 Avishur (n. 12), p. 554, recognized "intra-colon" parallelism here. 27 For the stichometry cf. Ο. Loretz, tfabiru—Hebräer (Berlin, 1984), p. 255.

lxxv 8 zh yšpyl

wzh yrym

o n e he p r o m o t e s , a n o t h e r h e demotes.

job i 1, 2 1 , ii 2, 11, iii 2 6 , iv 10, vii 12, ix 4 a , χ 10, xiv l b , x v 2 9 , 3 5 , xvii 11, xviii 19, x x 8, 13, x x v i 7, x x i x 2 5 , x x x 8, 2 0 , 2 6 , xxxiii 9, 15, x x x v i i 13, x x x v i i i 3 b ( / / xl 7b / / xiii 4 b ) , x x x i x 2 1 , xiii 6 (cf. x i x 14). xv 3 5 hrh cml wyld

‫נ‬

wn

Pregnant with mischief they g i v e birth to e v i l . 2 8

Proverbs iii 2, 7b, iv 5, 7, ν 19a, vi 10 ( =

x x i v 3 3 ) , 12a, 13, 14, 17a, 19b,

2 3 , vii 7, 12a, ix 2, χ 9, 2 6 , xiv 5 b , x v i 2 4 , xvii 3 ( = x x v i i 2 1 ) , 15, x i x 2 0 , 2 6 , x x 1, 10, 12, xxi 4, 6 b , 9 ( / / x x v 2 4 ) , 3 0 , xxii 8, xxiii 2 3 , 2 9 a , 3 2 , x x v 3, 12, 19, 2 6 a , x x v i 1, 3, 10, 2 1 , x x v i i 3, 4, 2 1 a , 2 7 , xxviii 15, x x x 4, 3 1 a , x x x i 2, 3 0 a , 2 9 (cf. xviii 2 2 , xxiii 9). xix 20 šmC

c

sh wqbl mwsr

L i s t e n to a d v i c e a n d accept instruction ( R S V ) .

S o n g of S o n g s i 5 c d , ii 1, 5, 7 ( e t c . ) , iv 8 , 12, 14, 16, ν 7, 16, vi 10, vii 7 (cf. ii 8). N o n e n e w . Qoheleth i 2, 4, 5a, 6, 9 - 1 0 , 18, ii 2 5 , iii 2 - 8 , 11, 17, ν 2, vi 4, vii 12a, viii 16, ix 1, 2, 10, xii 1, 5, 14. 28

M. H. Pope, Job (Garden City, 1965), p. 113, compares Ps. vii 14, adding "Apparently it was a proverbial expression". 29 Other possible examples in Proverbs are i 18, ii 4, iii 7a, 22, vi 32a, viii 2a, 3a, 14, xiv 29. See also note 55 (below).

Ì 4 dwr hlk wdwr

Ρ

a generation goes, a generation c o m e s .

Lamentations i 4, 5, 2 2 , iii 15, iv 13, 18 (cf. i 12, iii 4 9 ) . N o n e o f these e x a m p l e s is clear.

Esther ii 7, iii 2, 7, vii 16, ix 13 ( a n d p a r . ) (cf. iii 13).

Daniel xi 2 0 . 3 0 Nehemiah %

i 6, 10, viii 10.

1 Chronicles xii 15b, 19, 3 1 4 1 a , x x v i i i 9, 2 0 b , x x i x 2, 5.

xii 15b Im-'h hqtn whgdwl

Pip

the smallest (a m a t c h ) for a h u n d r e d , for a t h o u s a n d the biggest.32

2 Chronicles ii 3, 13, 14 ( E V V , 4, 14, 15), x i x 7b, x x x i i 7 (cf. x x x v i 17b).

30

See Gruber (η. 11), p. 485, for discussion of this phrase. See J . M. Myers, I Chronicles (Garden City, 1965), pp, 93, 97, and, with a Ugaritic parallel, B. Levine and J . - M . de Tarragon, JA OS 104 (1984), pp. 658-9. 32 The succinct combination of numerical and chiastic parallelism is noteworthy. 31

B e n Sira vi 2, 11 f f . , vii 2 1 , 3 1 , χ 10b, 2 2 , xi 7, 14, xii 5, 7, 18a, xii 2 4 , x i v 4, 5a, 18b, x v i 12, 16a, 2 2 , x x v 2 2 , x x x 2 3 , x x x v 10b, x x x v i 6 - 7 , x x x v i i 18, x x x v i i i 2 2 b , x x x i x 15, xii 14, xiii 11c, 2 1 , xliii 9, 17a, xliv 6, xiv 4, 12, xlvi 13, 19, xlvii 2 3 , xlix 7, 15, 1 2 7 , Ii 5. ( C f . iii 11, vi 2 7 , χ 2, x i v 16a, x x v i 3, x x x i i 8, 2 3 , xxxiii 12, 14a, 2 0 , xliii 6, Ii 2 5 . ) xii 18a r^s y ny'· whnyp yd. w

H i s h e a d h e will n o d a n d r u b his h a n d s .

3. Features F o l l o w i n g the p l a n of m y p r e v i o u s article 3 3 I will first p r o v i d e exa m p l e s for i n n e r - l i n e f e a t u r e s of the a d d i t i o n a l texts w i t h half-line p a r a l l e l i s m p r e s e n t e d in this article. C e r t a i n f e a t u r e s will be t a k e n as read s i n c e they o c c u r so f r e q u e n t l y ( a s s o n a n c e , alliteration in the f o r m of the q u a s i - a c r o s t i c , repetition a n d w o r d pairs) a n d will not n e e d d o c u m e n t a t i o n u n l e s s of e x c e p t i o n a l interest. T h e n I will list n e w p a s s a g e s w h e r e c l u s t e r i n g o c c u r s . N e x t c o m e a c c o u n t s of structural p a t t e r n s a n d rhetorical features. T h e last p a r a g r a p h deals w i t h compression. 3.1 Phonological

aspects

Assonance is e v i d e n t in G e n . xvi 12b; 1 S a m . x x x 8; 2 K i n g s x i v 26; Z e c h . ii 6; P s s x x x i i l a , l x x v 8 b , etc. Alliteration

w i t h i n an acrostic:

Ps. χ 17 Pwt

c

nwym šmCt yhwh

Y o u h a v e h e a r d the desire of of the afflicted, Y a h w e h .

tkyn Ihm tqšb ^znk

Y o u will s t r e n g t h e n their heart; y o u will turn y o u r ear.

Pss i x - x f o r m a n a l p h a b e t i c acrostic a n d in the c l o s i n g

taw-strophe

the u s e of initial tau is e x t e n d e d b e y o n d the first line to b o t h h a l v e s of the s e c o n d (in the t r a n s l a t i o n the p a t t e r n Τ 33

Bib 66 (1985), pp. 370-5.

// Τ

// Τ

is reflected in the u s e of " y o u " ) . S e e also Pss x x i v 15 ( =

xxxvii

2 7 a ) a n d contrast c x i x 15. S o m e t i m e s o n l y the second c o m p o n e n t s of e a c h half-line b e g i n w i t h the s a m e letter (or cluster) as in Ps. xlviii 3 hr sywn yrkty spwn

M o u n t Z i o n , the recesses of Zaphon.

A l s o G e n . xi 1( ‫) י‬, 6 ( ‫ ; ) נ‬L e v . x i x 2 6 (/); 1 K i n g s xx 8(/), 25(A); Isa. ix 11 (m); J e r . xii 7 ( 3 ); xxii 23 (b); H o s . vi 1 ( w y ) \ M i c . iii 7 (h)\ M a i . iii 7 ( 3 ); Ps. c x i x 15 ( 3 ); J o b ii 11 (A), xiv 7 0 ) ; P r o v . vi 13 (b), xvii 3 ( =

x x v i i 2 1 ) (/), x i x 2 6 ( 3 ); N e h . viii 10 (‫ ;)!מ‬Sir. vii 21

(m), xii 18a (y), xiii l i e ( c ) , 3 4 13 (also c ). T h i s is a feature of s o m e Babylonian verse.35 End-rhyme

o c c u r s in G e n . x x x i 3 6 , x x x i x 10; 1 K i n g s viii 57c; Isa.

i 2 3 , vii 11, x x x i i i 2 0 , xl 1 0 ( = lxii 11); J e r . xii 14, x x x i i 3 1 , 1 15, 3 5 b ; H o s . vii l i b ; M i c . iii 7, iv 6, vii 9 a ; Z e p h . i 18; Z e c h . ii 6; Pss xvii 6 b , x x i x 9, xlviii 3, lix 13, lxvi 4, lxxi 24, Ixxxii 5, c x i x 13, cxxiii 4, c x x x v i 12, c x x x v i i i 2, c x x x i x 12; P r o v . x x 9, x x x 4; J o b χ 10; Q o h . ix 1; N e h . viii 10; 1 C h r o n . xii 19; Sir. x x v 2 2 , xiv 4, etc. Sound pairs: A s o u n d pair is d e f i n e d b y Berlin as " t h e repetition in parallel w o r d s or lines of the s a m e or similar c o n s o n a n t s in a n y o r d e r w i t h close p r o x i m i t y " ([n. 6], p. 104). S i n c e a line w i t h IP b e h a v e s like a c o u p l e t it c a n also c o n t a i n a s o u n d pair. E x a m p l e s are few; J e r . xlvi 14 hgydw bmsrym whšmyCw

bmgdwl

G i v e out in E g y p t a n d ann o u n c e in in M i g d o l .

34 For the text cf. Β. Jongeling, " U n passage difficile dans le siracide de Masada (Col. IV, 22a = Sir. 42,11e)", in W. C. Delsman, et al. (ed.), νωη Καnaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für J. P. M. van der Ploeg... (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982), pp. 303-10. 35 The poems have been edited by J . A. Black, "Babylonian Ballads: A New Genre", JAOS 103 (1983), pp. 25-34, with corrections by W. G. Lambert, RA 77 (1983), p. 191, though this feature (lines 1b-3b, 4b-5b, 6b-7b, 13b-14b, 16b-17b, 23b-28b) has gone unnoticed.

T h e w o r d s hGyDw

a n d mGDwl

are related o n l y b y similarity of

s o u n d . A better illustration is P r o v . iii 7b yerā3

3

et-yahweh wesûr mērāC

R E V E R E Y a h w e h a n d turn from E V I L .

S i m i l a r l y , H o s . ix 14b ( M Š k y l — ŠdyAÍ)·,36

cf. E z e k . x i x 14, b e l o w

(3.2). S o u n d pairs w h i c h are also w o r d pairs ( B e r l i n [n. 6], p p . 1 0 6 - 8 ) ine l u d e G e n . x v 17 (Cšn II 3s); J e r . viii 2 0 (qsyr II qys); H o s . ix 6 (qbs II qbr)\ H a b . i 15 (hkh II hrm — contrast firm II mkmrt in i 16); Pss x x x v i i i 19 {3gyd II 3d3g), exxii 7 (šlwm II šlwh) ( d i s c u s s e d b y Berlin, p. 107); J o b xiii 6 (see b e l o w ) ; L a m . i 4 9 (cyny

— m3yn).

Strictly

s p e a k i n g , w o r d pairs b e l o n g in a s e m a n t i c c a t e g o r y but s o m e are m e n t i o n e d here b e c a u s e of their c o n n e c t i o n w i t h s o u n d pairs (see 3.3).

P r o v . ν 19a 3

ylt

3

hbym wyHl-hn

A l o v e l y D E E R , a graceful DOE.

T h e s o u n d + w o r d pair 3ylt —yclt

i n v o l v e s repetition of the letters

y, I a n d t w h i c h m a y e x p l a i n the u s e of r a r e y c l h here. S e e also Sir. xiv 18b 3

hd gwc

w3hd gmwl

o n e is B L I G H T E D ,

another

BLOOMS. 3 . 2 Structural

features

C h i a s t i c p a t t e r n s o b t a i n in E z e k . vii 6 qs b3 b3 hqs

A n e n d c o m e s , c o m e s the end.37

36

Perhaps also Mal. i 6; Pss exxii 4, exxiv 5. The chiasmus is noted by M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 (Garden City, 1983), pp. 145-7. The next line comprises two non-parallel half-lines. 37

E z e k . x i x 14 qynh hy‫ נ‬wthy qynh

T h i s is a dirge a n d a d i r g e it becomes.38

B o t h these c o m p r i s e " m i r r o r c h i a s m u s " . 3 9 Ps. lxxviii 2 0 a hn hkh-swr wyzwbw

W h e n he struck a rock

mym wnhlym yštpw

w a t e r g u s h e d a n d gullies overflowed.

T h e c h i a s m u s here is p h o n o l o g i c a l (-îm -û II -û -im), (Verb

Subject

//

Subject

Verb)

and

semantic

grammatical

(there

is

weak

o n o m a t o p o e i a too). A l s o , G e n . xvi 12b; Isa. vi 7b, xliv 13d; 4 0 J e r . iv 5a, x i v 2, xliv 12; H o s . iv 13c; A m o s ix 11 ; H a b . i 3, 15; Z e p h . iii 19; Pss x x x v i i i 11a, 19, lxxvi 3, xc 7, c x i x 15, c x x i v 5, cxii 5; J o b x i x 14, x x v i 7; P r o v . x v i i 15; Sir. xii 18a, x i v 5a. IP o c c u r s in the s e c o n d line in G e n . xvi 12b; 1 S a m . xvi 12b, xvii 4 4 b ; Isa. vi 10, lviii 9b; J e r . ν 2 1 b ; Pss lxvi 4b, cxi 13b, cxiv 8b; J o b xiv l b ; P r o v . iii 7b, xiv 5 b , xvi 2 4 , xxi 6 b , 9 ( / / x x v 2 4 ) , x x x v i 10b; Sir. vi 16b, xi 7b, xiii 2 4 , x x x v 10b, x x x v i i i 2 2 b , xlix 15, 1 2 7 . P r o v . xiv 5 b c

d ‫י‬mwnym

Ρykzh

A truthful w i t n e s s d o e s not lie

wypyh kzhym

Q

d šqr

but a l y i n g testifier is a false witness.

In s o m e of these p a s s a g e s the s e c o n d line glosses (or is parallel to) the last w o r d or w o r d s of the first line, e . g . Isa. lviii 9 b

m i d s t injustice: ‫נ‬

c

šlh sb

wdbr

‫נ‬

wn

p o i n t i n g the f i n g e r , speaker slander.

38

So Greenberg, p. 354. See Watson (n. 8), p. 203. For apposite comments on the possible danger of over-labelling see L. Alonso Schökel's review, Bib 67 (1986), p. 122. Another example of mirror chiasmus is Prov. xvii 15. 40 Cf. T. Collins, Line-forms in Hebrew Poetry (Rome, 1978), p. 123. 39

A l s o Ps. lxvi 4b; P r o v . x v i 2 4 b ; 2 C h r o n . x i x 7b ( p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e s : J e r . iv 8; Ps. xlviii 6 b ) . N o t e the enjambment (previously: Jer. xv

in Ps. cxl 13

lib).

IP c o m e s in the third line in Ps. c x v 1 Ρ Inw yhwh

Ρ Inw

N o t to us, Y a h w e h , not to us, but to y o u r o w n n a m e g i v e

ky-Umk tn kbwd

honour c

l hsdk wH

b e c a u s e of y o u r k i n d n e s s a n d

‫נ‬

mtk

fidelity.41 3 . 3 Semantic

features

Antithetic parallelism

o c c u r s in N u m . x x i v 9; J u d g . ν 2 5 ; J e r . xii 13,

xlviii 2 8 a ; H o s . vi 1; M a l . i 4; Pss x x x i v 15, xiv 8, l x x v 8 (cited a b o v e ) , cii 2 7 , cix 2 8 , c x i x 113, c x x v i 5; Q o h . i 4, ν 2, vi 4; Sir. χ 10b, xii 7, x i v 4, 5 a . 4 2 O f these the m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g is Ps. xiv 8 a ‫נ‬

hbt sdq wtsn‫ג‬

ršC

Y o u loved uprightness and hated wickedness,

i.e. [ + love] + [ + Word pairs,

g o o d ] / / [- l o v e ] + [‫ ־‬g o o d ] . 4 3

of c o u r s e , are u s e d in a l m o s t all the texts. O f interest

a n d i m p o r t a n c e are the f o l l o w i n g ; Isa. ix 11, liii 13, lx 6; J e r . x x x i i 3 1 , xlviii 8 b , 1 3 5 b ; E z e k . vi 11, x x v i i i 12; H o s . vii l i b ; M a i . iii 4, Pss ci 5, cvii 3 7 ; J o b x v 3 5 ; P r o v . vi 12a, x x 12, xxi 4; Q o h . ix 1; Sir. x x x 2 3 . S e e also a b o v e ( 3 . 1 ) . L i n e s w h i c h u s e or a m o u n t to formulas

are: G e n . x x i x 17 ( / / x x x i x

6; 1 S a m . x v i 12, x x v 3; E s t h e r ii 7); 4 4 N u m . χ 3 5 ( / / Ps. lxviii 2), 41

Previous example: Ps. lxviii 28b. Already noted by J . Kraš0vec, Antithetic Structure in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, SVT 35 (Leiden, 1984), pp. 124-7: Num xxiv 9; Jer. xii 13a; Pss cii 27-8, cix 28, cxix 113; Qoh. i 4. 43 Cf. šarru kīma d[/jamaš mīšara irām [ragga izîr], "Like Shamash, the king loves righteousness and hates evil"; W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford, 1960), p. 223: 5, transi., p. 234. 44 Avishur (n. 12), pp. 215, 219, 644, 730. 42

x i v 18; 1 S a m . x x x i v 15; J e r li 2 6 ( c o m b i n e s Isa. x x v i i i 16 a n d i 7, b o t h e x a m p l e s of I P ) , x i x 2 5 ; J o e l ii 13; M i c . iii 2; Pss ciii 8, cxxi 5, c x x x v i 12, c x x x v i i i 2 ( = c x v 1); J o b x x x v i i i 3b, etc. S e e b e l o w . Positive-negative parallelism o c c u r s in P r o v . xxiii 23; J o b x x 13; a n d hendiadys in J e r . ν 30; P s . l x x x v 9 b (cf. 2 S a m . xvi 7). 3.4

Clustering

A s I e s t a b l i s h e d in a p r e v i o u s article ([n. 3 3 ] , pp. 3 7 5 - 9 ) , sust a i n e d s e q u e n c e s of lines w i t h I P o c c u r in classical H e b r e w v e r s e as well as in A k k a d i a n t h o u g h not in U g a r i t i c . H e r e , a d d i t i o n a l exa m p l e s (for H e b r e w ) are listed a c c o r d i n g to the n u m b e r of full lines per cluster. ONE AND A HALF: G e n . xvii 2 0 , x x x i 4 3 a ; 1 S a m . x x v i 12; 1 K i n g s xviii 2 9 , xxii 4; 2 K i n g s iii 7, iv 26; H o s . ii 7, χ 4 a , l i b , x i v l b ; J o e l ii 9, 12; Ps. x x x v i i 27; J o b i 1, ii 11, x v i i 11; P r o v . ix 2, xxi 3 0 ; Q o h . ix 6, xii 1; L a m . iii 4 9 . T w o : G e n . x x i v 35; D e u t . x x v i 8, x x v i i i 3 - 6 ( / / 16-19); 1 S a m . x x v 2 5 ; 2 S a m . iii 2 9 b ; 1 K i n g s v 13a; Isa. ix 9, xxxiii 22; J e r . iii 2 4 , x x x i 28; E z e k . x x x i 3; H o s . xi 8; Ps. 1xv 11 ; J o b . x x x 2 6 , xiii 6; E z r a i 4; Sir. xii 7 (cf. N u m . x x i v 6; 1 S a m . x v 3; 2 K i n g s vi 27; Ps. xlviii 9a; J o b x x x i i i 9). T w o AND A HALF: J e r . ix 2 5 , xviii 7, x x x i i 2 1 , li 30; 1 C h r o n . x x i x 2; 2 C h r o n . ii 13. THREE: 1 S a m . xvi 18; H o s . iii 4 , 4 5 ix 6; Sir. vi 1 1 - 1 3 . FOUR: Isa. lxvi 3. FIVE AND A HALF: J e r . xlviii 2 1 - 2 4 a , 1 2. MIXED: E z e k . vii 10-12; Ps. cxlviii 8 f f . ; Sir. xi 14.

3 . 5 Structural

patterning

T h e m a i n t y p e is

A —

A —

A as in D e u t . x x i x 22; 1 S a m . xii 4, x x 1; Isa. xii 26; A m o s viii 5; Z e p h . iii 12; P s s xcii 4, cxliv 14, J o b xviii 19, x x x v i i 13.

•5 ‫ ״‬T h e s j x items are grouped in three pairs"; Andersen and Freedman (n. 13), p. 305.

J o b x x x v i i 13 3

m -1šbt ‫נ‬m-Prsw

W h e t h e r for a c o r r e c t i o n , w h e t h e r for his g r a c e ,

3

m-lhsd ymPhw

(or) w h e t h e r for k i n d n e s s — i t reaches him.46

T h e pattern is e x t e n d e d in Z e c h . χ 4, i n v e r t e d in J u d g . ν 21; 1 S a m . x x v 6 a n d Ps. χ 17. 3.6

Rhetorical

functions

A s a n opening line: Isa. x x x v i i 2 2 , lvii 14a; J e r . iv 5 a , xlvi 14, xlviii 2 8 a , 1 4; E z e k . x x x 4; H o s . x i v 5a; J o e l iv 1; Z e p h . iii 14; Pss xii 5 - 6 , xviii 4 7 , x x i v 4, x x i x 9, x x x i i l a , lxxxii 5, c x x x i i i 1; Sir. xi 7b, xvi 2 2 . T o close: N u m . x x i x 9; Isa. xii 10; J e r . xiii 11, xxii 23; E z e k . iii 11, x i x 24, xxiii 3 4 ; Pss ii 2, iv 3, x x x i v 15, lxvi 4, exxii 4, e x x x i x 12; J o b xiii 6;

47

Q o h . xii 4; Sir. x x x i x 15, xlvi 19 (cf. 1

2 7 ) . A s a delaying device‫׳‬. E z e k . x x v 10; H o s . iv 3b; P r o v . xvii 3 ( = x x v i i 2 1 ) , x i x 2 6 , xxi 4; Sir. x x v 2 2 , x x x v i i 18. 3.7

Compression

I n t o a line w i t h IP c a n be p a c k e d the e q u i v a l e n t of a c o u p l e t , w h i c h m a y e x p l a i n w h y this t y p e of p a r a l l e l i s m is u s e d in s a y i n g s a n d p r o v e r b s . F o r e x a m p l e , J e r . viii 2 0 c

br qsyr klh qys

Past is the h a r v e s t , g o n e the s u m m e r heat,

w-'nhnw Iw‫ נ‬nwšCnw

but w e are not yet r e s c u e d .

S u c h c o u p l e t s c o u l d also be c o n s i d e r e d t r i c o l a — w i t h the e q u i v a l e n t of three l i n e s p a c k e d into t w o — o r they m a y be the f o r e r u n n e r s of true tricola w i t h three full l i n e s . 4 8 O f particular interest is the artificial p r o p e r n a m e u s e d in Isa. viii 1, 3: 46 The meaning "his favour" proposed for \sw (root rsh, with prosthetic aleph) by M. J . Dahood, has been accepted by Pope (n. 28), pp. 243-4, and L. L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job (Missoula, 1977), pp. 117-19. 47 On this verse cf. W. Morrow, "Consolation Rejection and Repentance in Job 42:6", JBL 105 (1986), pp. 211-25. 48 In fact, R. Yaron, " T h e Climactic Tricolon", j f / S 37.(1986), pp. 153-9, considers Prov. χ 26, xvii 3, 15, xx 12, xxv 3, xxvii 3 and xxxi 30a to be sets of three lines, not two.

mhr III hš bz

S p e e d y for spoil, precipitate for p l u n d e r ,

w i t h the t w o h a l v e s in p a r a l l e l . 4 9 T h e w o r d pair šll II bz recurs in Isa. χ 6 a n d E z e k . x x i x 19. A l s o , the c o l l o c a t i o n of mhr a n d Ay/ (Isa. ν 19) is h e r e " b r o k e n u p " o v e r t w o half-lines. W i t h four w o r d s the w h o l e horror of w a r is e v o k e d a n d s u c h c o m p r e s s i o n is a s t r o n g feature of lines with IP. O ' C o n n o r h a s c o m m e n t e d o n the c o n s t r a i n t s shared b y p r o p e r n a m e s a n d v e r s e in H e b r e w . In fact, he cites Isa. viii 3 ( o n l y ) , b u t d o e s not remark o n the f e a t u r e s d e s c r i b e d here ([n. 7], pp. 1 6 0 - 1 , § 1 . 7 . 3 ) . A n o t h e r , e v e n m o r e artificial n a m e o c c u r s in Isa. ix 5 (also cited b y O ' C o n n o r ) a n d it, t o o , m a y be a d o u b l e i n s t a n c e of IP. T h i s aspect is also to the fore in E x o d . x v a n d implicit in m y renderi n g a b o v e (2). 4. Occurrence and

Distribution

W i t h n o c l a i m for p r e c i s i o n , the f i g u r e s that e m e r g e

overall

( c o u n t i n g in all the p a s s a g e s listed a b o v e in 2, but d i s r e g a r d i n g d u b i o u s e x a m p l e s a n d not c o u n t i n g single l i n e s w i t h i n clusters) are as follows: Genesis

27

Jonah

1

Exodus

4

Micah

11

Leviticus

4

Nahum

6

Numbers

11

Habakkuk

5

Deuteronomy

7

Zephaniah

10

Joshua

3 4

Zechariah

3

Malachi

5

Judges ν 1 Samuel

14

Psalms

2 Samuel 1 Kings

11

Job Proverbs S o n g of S o n g s

27

Qoheleth

20

2 Kings Isaiah i - x x x i x xl-lv lvi-lxvi 49

8 8 80

119 51 12

35

Lamentations

6

16

Esther

5

Literally, "Hastening for booty, rushing for plunder". For philological discussion cf. H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1-12 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1972), pp. 312-13. According to him both has and mahēr (for m?mahēr) are most probably participles. He translates "Eilbeute—Raschraub" and my own version is an attempt at alliteration.

Jeremiah Ezekiel Hosea Joel Amos

72 40 27 14 8

Daniel Nehemiah 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles B e n Sira

1 3 7 5 40

S o m e of these books were unrepresented in m y previous article ( i . e . , G e n e s i s , E x o d u s , Leviticus, N u m b e r s , J o s h u a , 2 S a m u e l , 1 and 2 K i n g s , J o n a h , M i c a h , Zechariah, M a l a c h i , Esther, D a n i e l , N e h e m i a h , 1 and 2 C h r o n i c l e s ) , while to others ( N a h u m , S o n g of S o n g s ) there h a v e been no additions. N o t u n e x p e c t e d l y there are relatively few in the prose books, t h o u g h G e n e s i s and Q o h e l e t h have quite a few e x a m p l e s . T h e figure for 2 S a m u e l is partly skewed by the p o e m s incorporated there, the totals for Isaiah, Ezekiel, H o s e a , J o e l , Z e p h a n i a h , M a l a c h i , Psalms, and Ben Sira are large and N a h u m is rich in clusters. H i g h density of lines with IP is also evident in 2 S a m . i 21 (see b e l o w ) , J e r . xxxi 1; and Pss. x x v i , xiv, xlviii, lv, lxviii and lxxviii. T h e impression c o n v e y e d by these n u m b e r s is that lines with IP are far from rare and occur in almost every book. 5. IP and the formula In v i e w of the widespread use of lines with internal parallelism, or m o r e accurately, half-line parallelism in H e b r e w verse d o c u m e n t e d a b o v e (as well as in other verse traditions) it s e e m s worth l o o k i n g a little m o r e closely at the function of such half-lines in the process of versification as far as w e can recontruct it. If, for instance, w e take " D a v i d ' s L a m e n t over Saul and J o n a t h a n " (2 S a m . i 19-27) apart and pick out the half-lines (or their equivalents) it contains and arrange t h e m in groups, the result is as follows. (1) n o u n in b o u n d form + n o u n : ''hy yhwntn; bnwt hcrlym; bnwt ysr‫נ‬/; bnwt plštym; hsby ysPl; hrb !,wl; kly mlhmh; mgn gbrym; mgn Pwl; (w)šdy trwmt; cdy zhb; qšt yhwntn. (2) as (1), with preposition: bhwswt ,šqlwn; btwk hmlhmh; hry bglbc; m^hbt nšym; mdm hllym; mhlb gbwrym; (3) n e g a t i v e + n o u n : ‫נ‬ / tl; 1‫ כ‬mtr.

(4) negative ‫נ‬

+

verb:

/ tbsrw; Ρ hprdw; pn-tclznh;

(5) adverb + m^rywt gbrw;

pn-tsmhnh.

verb: mnsrym

qlw.

(6) adjective + preposition

+ suffix:

sr-ly. (7) verb + preposition

+ suffix:

c

n mt-ly T h e s e p h r a s e s a c c o u n t for nearly half the total w o r d s of the p o e m (Too);

50

therefore

it s e e m s

more

then

likely

that

one

of

the

" b u i l d i n g b l o c k s " u s e d by the poet w a s the half-line. A n o t h e r e x a m p l e is Ps. ci, recently a n a l y s e d f r o m a different v i e w p o i n t b y J . S. K s e l m a n . 5 1 O f its 81 w o r d s , 42 m a k e u p halflines, t h o u g h the p o e m itself is not a cluster of half-lines. T h e s e too c a n be classified u n d e r a n u m b e r of syntactical h e a d i n g s . ( 1 ) n o u n in b o u n d state + pcly

‫נ‬

wn; ršCy

‫נ‬

noun:

rs.

( 2 ) as (1), w i t h p r e p o s i t i o n : bdrk tmym; bqrb byty (twice); btm-lbby;

Ingd cyny (also twice).

(3) co-ordinated nouns: hsd-wmspt. (4) noun

+

adjective:

gbh-'-ynyrn; Ibb Cqš; rhb Ibb. (5) verb / noun: dbr-blyH;

dbr šqrym;

c

s'h-stym;

c

s'h rmyh.

( 6 ) v e r b + p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrase: 3

wtw

‫נ‬

smyt; yswr

mmny;

(7) negative +

verb:

P-^šyt. P-ykwn;

P-yšb.

T h e repetition of t w o of the p h r a s e s (vv. 2a, 7a a n d 3 a , 7b) is significant not o n l y in d e t e r m i n i n g the overall structure, as recognized

52

already

but also b e c a u s e it i n d i c a t e s these phrases to be self-

c o n t a i n e d units. A d d i t i o n a l p r o o f c o m e s f r o m K s e l m a n ' s article in w h i c h he s h o w e d (in a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t ) that m a n y o f the halfline u n i t s are identical w i t h or c o r r e s p o n d to half-line u n i t s in o t h e r s e c t i o n s of H e b r e w poetry ( J o b , P r o v e r b s , o t h e r P s a l m s ) . 50

On the "vertical parallelism" in 2 Sam. i 23 cf. Watson (n. 8), p. 170. "Psalm 101: Royal Confession and Divine Oracle", JSOT 33 (1985), pp. 45-62. 52 H. Kenik, "Code of Conduct for a King",y5Z. 95 (1976), pp. 391-403. 51

P h r a s e s of this t y p e c o r r e s p o n d to the " p a i r e d e x p r e s s i o n s " or " e x p r e s s i o n p a i r s " collected b y A v i s h u r in his s t u d y of w o r d pairs ([n.

12], 3 1 8 - 2 1 , 6 0 7 - 2 5 , 7 6 9 , f o l l o w i n g U . C a s s u t o ) . M a n y of

these e x p r e s s i o n s consist of p a i r e d n o u n s c o n n e c t e d by waw.

This

is not the p l a c e for a s y s t e m a t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n o f " e x p r e s s i o n p a i r s " , but t w o further e x a m p l e s p r o v i d e an i n d i c a t i o n of the material yet to be s t u d i e d . O n e is Ps. x x v i i , w h i c h c o n t a i n s s e v e n s u c h express i o n s (,by w,my; wnplw;

sry w^by)

,

wry wyšCy;

,

šyrh w,zmrh;

hzq wy,ms;

finny wcnny;

kšlw

as well as s o m e h a l f - l i n e s (vv. 4, 9, 12, 12). T h e

o t h e r is L a m . i-v, w i t h o v e r 4 0 g r o u p s of t w o n e a r - s y n o n y m s c o n n e c t e d b y waw,

e . g . btwlty

wbhwry,

" m y lasses a n d l a d s " ( L a m . i

1 8 c ) . 5 3 S i m i l a r g r o u p i n g s e l s e w h e r e h a v e also b e e n i d e n t i f i e d by o t h e r s c h o l a r s . 5 4 Particularly s i g n i f i c a n t is H . W e i p p e r t ' s s t u d y of the s p e e c h p a s s a g e s in prose of J e r e m i a h , 5 5 In it she i d e n t i f i e d several f o r m u l a s w h i c h , in fact, c o r r e s p o n d in l e n g t h to t w i n halflines. E x a m p l e s are by d hzq h wb(,)zr(w)c and extended arm";

56

ntwyh, " w i t h p o w e r f u l h a n d

c

l wp hšmym wlbhmt h,rs,

" f o r the birds of the

air a n d b e a s t s of the l a n d " ; 5 7 a n d Plh wlšmh wlšrqh wlhrph, a c u r s e , a terror, a h i s s i n g a n d a b y w o r d " .

" t o (be)

58

It w o u l d s e e m , t h e n , that the e x p r e s s i o n pair, in w h a t e v e r g u i s e , is e q u i v a l e n t to the ( t w i n ) h a l f - l i n e , a n d e a c h is u s e d as an ins e p a r a b l e c o m p o n e n t of v e r s e . T h i s a m o u n t s to s a y i n g that the half-

53

Also Lam. i 7, 12, 18, 19, ii 2, 5, 6, 6, 8, 9, 9, 11, 12, 14, 14, 18, 20, 21, 21, 22, 22, iii 2, 2, 4, 5, 8, 18, 19, 19, 38, 47, 47, 50, 63, iv 12, 21, 21, ν 1 (without waw: ii 16, 19; note the repetitions in i 16 and iv 15). Avishur's assertion (n. 12), p. 624, that "the Book of Lamentations is fundamentally composed of verses rooted in expression pairs similar to those of the El Amarna letters" is a little sweeping but has a core of truth in it. 54 O'Connor (n. 7), pp. 380-1; B. Margalit, "Studia Ugaritica I: Introduction to Ugaritic Prosody", UF 7 (1975), pp. 289-313, esp. p. 294. 55 Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (Berlin, 1973), esp. pp. 107-227. 56 Deut. iv 34, ν 15, vii 19, xi 2, xxvi 8; 1 Kings viii 42; Jer. xxxii 21; Ezek. xx 33, 34; Ps. cxxxvi 12; 2 Chron. vi 32; and with reversal of attributes, Jer. xxi 5. See Weippert, p. 76 and n. 217. 57 Jer. vii 33, xv 3, xvi 4, etc. This formula and its variants are set out in tabular form by Weippert, p. 185; see also pp. 184 and 186. To the texts cited by her add Dan. ii 38 (see next note). 58 Jer. xxix 8, etc., as tabulated by Weippert, p. 188. For the "build/plant ‫־‬ destroy" formula (with half-line parallelism) in Jer. xviii 7, 9, xxi 28, see Weippert, p. 194. IP formulas in Aramaic are also collected by P. W. Coxon, " T h e 'List' Genre and Narrative Style in the Court Tales of D a n i e l ' ' , J S O T 35 (1986), pp. 95-121; texts include sets of one and a half in Dan. ii 38, 47, and sets of two (according to Coxon, p. 100, a "fourfold list") in ii 2, 27, iii 21, iv 4 and ν 11.

line

corresponds

to

the

formula

of o r a l - f o r m u l a i c

theory.

In

e s s e n c e , this is not a n e w s u g g e s t i o n since R . C . C u l l e y put f o r w a r d m u c h the s a m e proposal several y e a r s a g o . 5 9 H o w e v e r , m y app r o a c h is different f r o m his. H e w a s l o o k i n g at H e b r e w v e r s e for the e q u i v a l e n t of the f o r m u l a e s t a b l i s h e d b y M . Parry a n d others a n d he isolated s e g m e n t s of v e r s e - l i n e s w h i c h s e e m e d to fit metrical slots. S o m e of these s e g m e n t s are, in fact, h a l f - l i n e s . 6 0 I h a v e b e e n e x a m i n i n g s y m m e t r i c a l p a r a l l e l i s m w i t h i n the line, c o n c l u d i n g that half-lines t e n d to be m e t r i c a l l y i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e . In effect this m e a n s that C u l l e y ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f the f o r m u l a m u s t n o w be e x t e n d e d to ine l u d e half-lines (the " h a l f c o l o n " in his t e r m i n o l o g y ) . 6 1 T h i s d o e s not a c c o u n t for lines w h i c h c a n n o t be split into half-lines, or are l o n g e r t h a n t w o half-lines ( p e r h a p s e v e n i n c o r p o r a t i n g half-lines, as in Ps. lxvi 4 a n d e l s e w h e r e ) or e v e n shorter.

6.

Stichometry T h e isolation of lines w i t h i n n e r ( h a l f - l i n e ) parallelism is b o u n d

u p w i t h d e t e r m i n i n g the l i n e a t i o n of a p o e m or s e g m e n t of verse. O c c a s i o n a l l y , r e c o g n i t i o n of s u c h l i n e s c a n help solve p r o b l e m s of tricky s t i c h o m e t r y . A n e x a m p l e is M i c . vii 1: (a)

3

lly ly ky hyyty

(b) k3spy-qys

kHlwt

(c) ) n - skwl (d) bkwrh

‫נ‬

wth

bsyr

Pkwl npšy

W o e is m e ! For I a m like (after) the s u m m e r h a r v e s t , the g r a p e s ( a l r e a d y ) g l e a n e d . T h e r e is n o cluster to e a t , or ripe fig w h i c h m y a p p e t i t e c r a v e s . L i n e (b) m a t c h e s lines (c) a n d its parallel ( d ) in l e n g t h , w h i c h m a y

59 Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms (Toronto, 1967). He concludes (p. 118) "If the investigation of the preceding chapters is correct, it appears that the major device in Hebrew oral composition was the formula". 60 Examples are \k 'pym wrb hsd (Num. xiv 18, Exod. xxxiv 6; Joel ii 13; Jon. iv 2; Pss lxxxvi 15, ciii 8, cxiv 8) - Culley, pp. 62-3 (§55); swr mrc wcs'h twb (Pss xxxiv 15, xxxvii 27) - Culley, p. 84, (§144); šyrw Iw zmrw Iw (Ps. cv 2) - Culley, pp. 59-60, (§51, where the variants are listed) and ^šyrh w'zmrh (Pss xxvii 6, lvii 8) - Culley, p. 75 (§102). 61 The coincidence of line and formuIa(ic phrase) is discussed by Culley, p. 29.

i n d i c a t e t h e l a y o u t as a b o v e . 6 2 A n o t h e r difficult p a s s a g e is Ps. χ 17, set o u t a b o v e ( 3 . 1 ) . 2 K i n g s ν 2 6 ; Pss lix 13, lxii 4, l x x x v i i i 7, c x x x 5 - 6 , c x x x v 6; P r o v . vi 1 2 - 1 4 , vii 7 a n d o t h e r p a s s a g e s also present p r o b l e m s o f this n a t u r e w h i c h m a y be r e s o l v e d b y i d e n t i f y i n g lines with IP. 7. Closing My

comments

evaluation

of the material

presented

here clearly

needs

r e f i n e m e n t . A s p e c t s of m e t r e h a v e o n l y b e e n t o u c h e d o n ( c h i e f l y w i t h r e f e r e n c e to the f o r m u l a ) , b u t the line w i t h I P is e v i d e n t l y o n a par w i t h the acrostic as a m e a n s of d e f i n i n g metrical patterns. T h e c o n t r i b u t i o n that " e x p r e s s i o n s p a i r s " or the t w i n h a l f - l i n e f o r m u l a c a n m a k e to the t h o r n y p r o b l e m of d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p a s s a g e is p r o s e , p o e t r y or " h i g h - f l o w n p r o s e " 6 3 h a s yet to be a s s e s s e d . T h e s e p r o b l e m s m u s t b e held o v e r for a n o t h e r o c c a s i o n . 62

For different lineation cf. R. Vuilleumier and C.-A. Keller, Michée Nahoum Habacuc Sophonie (Neuchâtel, 1971), p. 78, and W. Rudolph, Micha - Nahum Habakuk - Zephanja (Gütersloh, 1975), pp. 120-1. For an explanation of ‫נ‬lly cf. Watson (n. 8), p. 310. 63 My approximate rendering of "Kunstprosa", on which see Weippert (n. 55), pp. 76-81, esp. p. 80. Whether or not one can speak of "Entmetrisierung" in several stages (p. 78) remains to be determined.

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS IN HEBREW VERSE: A SURVEY OF RECENT WORK by W I L F R E D G.E.

WATSON

Newcastle upon Tyne

(1) Introduction:

some general trends

S i n c e the p u b l i c a t i o n of Classical Hebrew Poetry1 substantial progress has b e e n m a d e in the s t u d y of v e r s e traditions in H e b r e w , A k k a d i a n a n d U g a r i t i c . S o m e a c c o u n t of w h a t h a s b e e n a c h i e v e d will be p r e s e n t e d h e r e . 2

Hebrew T h e 1 9 8 0 s saw an u p s u r g e in p u b l i c a t i o n s o n H e b r e w v e r s e , n o t a b l y g e n e r a l b o o k s b y L. A l o n s o S c h ä k e l , 3 R . Kugel,

5

M. O'Connor.

6

Alter,4 J . L .

T h e r e w e r e also several m o n o g r a p h s o n

1 W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (Sheffield, 1984; 2nd edn, 1986). The second edition incorporated some minor corrections and several additional pages of bibliography. The more significant reviews are L. Alonso Schäkel, Bib. 67 (1986), pp. 120-4; A. Berlin, JAOS 106 (1986), pp. 57880; J . Healey, Scripture Bulletin 17 (1987), pp. 49-50; A. Niccacci, Liber Annuus 35 (1985), pp. 470-3; H. Simian-Yofre, Aula Onentalis 6 (1988) 285-7; W.J. Urbrock, J B L 106 (1987), pp. 328-30; and J . Wansbrough, BSOAS 50 (1987), pp. 360-1; W. T. W. Cloete, " A Guide to the Techniques of Hebrew Verse", JNSL 16 (1990), pp. 223-8. 2 Versions of this article were given as papers at a seminar in Kampen, on 24 March 1992, and at the Erasmus Intensive Programme (The Hebrew Bible: Exegesis and Linguistics) in Leuven, on 4 April 1992. 3 A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome, 1988). 4 The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York, 1985). 5 The Idea 0JBiblical Poetry. Parallelism and Its History (New Haven, Conn., and London, 1981). For a review cf. A. Cooper, " O n Reading Biblical Poetry", Maarav 4 (1987), pp. 221-41. 6 Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, 1981).

more

specific

chiasmus,

10

topics:

colometry,7

parallelism,8

centripetal a n d c e n t r i f u g a l structures,

11

antithesis,9 the s t r o p h e , 1 2

w o r d pairs, 1 3 m e t r e 1 4 a n d r e p e t i t i o n . 1 5 In a d d i t i o n , there h a v e b e e n c o l l e c t i o n s of articles o n H e b r e w v e r s e . 1 6 F u r t h e r m o r e , there h a s b e e n c o n s i d e r a b l e p r o b i n g i n t o the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n b e t w e e n prose a n d v e r s e . 1 7 T h e r e is, t o o , a w e l c o m e t r e n d for s t u d y i n g p o e t i c texts n o t o n l y in respect of their s m a l l e r c o m p o n e n t u n i t s but also in t e r m s o f larger s t r u c t u r e s . 1 8

Akkadian M o r e a t t e n t i o n h a s b e e n f o c u s e d r e c e n t l y b y A k k a d i a n scholars o n v e r s e . 1 9 I n a l e n g t h y article G . B u c c e l l a t i d i s c u s s e s the dif7

O. Loretz and I. Kottsieper, Colometry in Ugaritic and Biblical Poetry. Introduction, Illustration and Topical Bibliography (Altenberge, 1987). W.T.W. Cloete, Versification and Syntax in Jeremiah 2-25. Syntactical Constraints in Hebrew Colometry (Atlanta, 1989). Cf. W . T . W . Cloete, " T h e Colometry of Hebrew Verse", JNSL 15(1989), pp. 15-29. 8 A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington, 1985); D. Pardee, Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism. A Trial Cut. ( c nt I and Proverbs 2), SVT 39 (Leiden, 1988). 9 J . Krasovec, Antithetic Structure in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, SVT35 (Leiden, 1984); J . A. Loader, Polar Structures in the Book of Qohelet, BZAW 152 (Berlin, 1979). 10 J . Welch (ed.), Chiasmus in Antiquity (Hildesheim, 1981). 11 D. Grossberg, Centripetal and Centrifugal Structure in Biblical Poetry (Atlanta, 1989). 12 P. van der Lugt, Strofische Structuren in de Bijbels-Hebreeuwse Poëzie (Kampen, 1980). 13 Y. Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literature (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984). 14 H . W . M . van Grol, De versbouw in het klassieke Hebreeuws. Fundamentele Verkenningen Deel een: Metriek (Amsterdam, 1986); G. Fecht, Metrik des Hebräischen und Phönizischen (Wiesbaden, 1990). 15 Ε. Zurro, Procedimientos iteratives en la poesia ugariticay hebrea (Rome and Valencia, 1987). 16 D.J.A. Clines, D . M . Gunn and A.J. Hauser (ed.), Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature (Sheffield, 1982); E.R. Follis (ed.), Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (Sheffield, 1987); W. van der Meer and J . C . de Moor (ed.), The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (Sheffield, 1988). 17 W. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (Sheffield, 1990), and many articles in journals, e.g. R.D. Haak, " 'Poetry' in Habakkuk 1:1-2:4?‫״‬, JAOS 108 (1988), pp. 437-44. 18 See D. Grossberg, Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures in Biblical Poetry (Atlanta, 1989). 19 Notably E. Reiner, Your thwarts in pieces, Your mooring rope cut. Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria (Michigan, 1985), as well as J . M . Sasson (ed.), Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East ... Samuel Noah Kramer, JAOS 103 [1983], pp. 1-

f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n E u r o p e a n a n d M e s o p o t a m i a n verse t r a d i t i o n s . 2 0 B e s i d e s the A k k a d i a n m e t r i c a l s y s t e m 2 1 h e also deals w i t h d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s , c o m p o s i t i o n a l d e v i c e s a n d stylistic analysis. H e d e f i n e s the foot, the c o l o n , the v e r s e a n d the s t a n z a ( w h i c h h e calls a m a x i m a l u n i t ) a n d t h e n applies all this to the first lines of enüma eliš. S i g n i f i c a n t , t o o , w a s the p u b l i c a t i o n of a selection of A s s y r i a n texts, chiefly in v e r s e . 2 2

Ugaritic T h e r e is n o w a g e n e r a l t e n d e n c y to e v a l u a t e U g a r i t i c p o e t r y o n its o w n m e r i t s , that is to say, not so m u c h in relation to H e b r e w — as e x e m p l i f i e d b y K . A i t k e n ' s s t u d i e s o n f o r m u l a , t h e m e a n d w o r d p a i r s . 2 3 D . P a r d e e ' s r e - e d i t i o n o f s e l e c t e d U g a r i t i c texts is i m p o r tant b e c a u s e it i n c l u d e s , a l m o s t as a m a t t e r of c o u r s e , a presentation a n d d i s c u s s i o n of these texts as v e r s e . 2 4 T h e narrative aspects o f U g a r i t i c v e r s e h a v e also b e e n e x a m i n e d . 2 5

( 2 ) The Methodology

of appoach

O n e criticism of m y Guide m a d e b y several r e v i e w e r s w a s that it d o e s not a p p l y a n overall t h e o r y . 2 6 T h i s is largely b e c a u s e scholars t h e m s e l v e s h a v e not yet f o r m u l a t e d s u c h a t h e o r y . I n his r e v i e w , A n d e r s e n stated: " U n t i l a m o r e c o n v i n c i n g i n t e g r a t e d general t h e o r y is w o r k e d o u t w h i c h c a n a d e q u a t e l y deal w i t h [ m e t r e , s t a n z a

353). Previously, the only monograph on Akkadian verse was K. Hecker's Das akkadische Epik (Neukirchen-Vluyn and Kevelaer, 1974). 20 " O n Poetry—Theirs and O u r s " , in T. Abusch, J . Huehnergard and P. Steinkeller (ed.), Lingering over Words (Atlanta, 1990), pp. 399-427. 21 According to Buccellati ([n. 20] p. 404), there are metrical and non-metrical words; non-metrical words have no effect on the foot which can comprise one *metrical word with or without additional non-metrical words. 22 A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, State Archives of Assyria III (Helsinki, 1989). 23 "Oral Formulaic Composition and Theme in the Aqhat Narrative", UF 21 (1989), pp. 1-16; "Word Pairs and Tradition in an Ugaritic Tale", ibid., pp. 1738; "Formulaic Patterns for the Passing of Time in Ugaritic Narrative", UF 19 (1987), pp. 1-10. 24 Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961) (Paris, 1988). 25 T.L. Hettema, " 'That it be repeated' A Narrative Analysis of KTU 1.23", JEOL 31 (1989-90), pp. 77-94. 26 T. Andersen, "Problems in Analysing Hebrew Poetry", East Asia Journal of Theology 4 (1986), pp. 68-94, esp. p. 88; Berlin [n. 1],

and

stophe,

parallelism]

and

other

phenomena,

a

satisfactory

a c c o u n t of the t e c h n i q u e s o f H e b r e w p o e t r y will be u n a t t a i n a b l e " ( [ n . 2 6 ] p. 9 3 ) . A n d e r s e n h i m s e l f w o u l d like to see e v e r y t h i n g c o m e u n d e r the u m b r e l l a of " i n f o r m a t i o n t h e o r y " . 2 7 A n o t h e r c o m m e n t b y r e v i e w e r s r e g a r d s the lack o f aesthetic a w a r e n e s s : d e s c r i b i n g a n d c a t a l o g u i n g the t e c h n i q u e s of a p o e m is not a s u b s t i t u t e for aesthetic a p p r e c i a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , s o m e r e v i e w s of P a r d e e ' s recent b o o k 2 8 c o n s i d e r that the w h o l e is lost in the c a t a l o g u e s of m i n u t e detail ( v a r i o u s t y p e s o f p a r a l l e l i s m , listing of c o n s o n a n t f r e q u e n c i e s , e t c . ) . 2 9 S i n c e t h e n there h a v e b e e n studies of i n d i v i d u a l p o e m s w h i c h i n v o l v e a m o r e holistic a p p r o a c h . 3 0 It is i n t e r e s t i n g that r e c e n t l y in l i n g u i s t i c s there h a s b e e n s o m e s t u d y of the c o h e s i v e c h a r a c t e r o f p o e t i c t e c h n i q u e s . L . J . Brinton 3 1 reminds

us

Schemes—e.g.,

of

the

distinction

between

schemes

and

a n a p h o r a , a n a d i p l o s i s (terrace p a t t e r n ) ,

tropes.

asyndeton

( o m i t t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n b e t w e e n c l a u s e s ) , ellipsis or g a p p i n g , h y p e r b a t o n ( u n u s u a l w o r d o r d e r ) e t c . — i n v o l v e a c h a n g e in f o r m or a r r a n g e m e n t t h o u g h the m e a n i n g stays the s a m e .

Tropes—e.g.,

m e t a p h o r , m e t o n y m y , h y p e r b o l e , i r o n y , e t c . — i n v o l v e a c h a n g e in meaning.

Brinton

argues

that

"schemes

function

as

cohesive

d e v i c e s , w h i l e at the s a m e t i m e t h e y o f t e n c o n t r i b u t e to t h e m a t i c c o h e r e n c e " (p. 163). " I n s c h e m e s of p a r a l l e l i s m , the repetition of structures

rather

than

of w o r d s

will

create

perceptible

bonds

b e t w e e n c l a u s e s of a t e x t " (p. 171), in o t h e r w o r d s , o n e of the funct i o n s of p a r a l l e l i s m is c o h e s i o n . H e e x a m i n e s a w h o l e r a n g e of s u c h

27 111 this respect the joint article by M.C.A. Korpel and J . C . de Moor, "Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry", t / / 1 9 8 6 ) 18 "‫)׳‬, pp. 173-212, reprin with minor changes in Structural Analysis ([n. 16] pp. 1-61), is important as a proposai of a large-scale hypothesis. 28 [n. 8] a comparison between a passage from the Ugaritic Baal Epic and Prov. ii. 29 I can also refer to S. Geller, "Theory and Method in the Study of Biblical Poetry", JQR, NS 73 (1982), pp. 65-77, a review article on the books by Kugel and O'Connor (nn. 5 and 6), and to Z. Zevit, "Roman Jakobson, Psycholinguistics. and Biblical Poetry", JBL 109 (1990), pp. 385-401, with the rebuttal by F. Landy, " I n Defense of Jakobson", JBL 111 (1992), pp. 105-13. 30 E.g. M.L. Barré, "Psalm 116: Its Structure and Its Enigmas", JBL 109 (1990), pp. 61-78; Stephen A. Geller, " T h e Dynamics of Parallel Verse: A Poetic Analysis of Deut 32:6-12", HTR 75 (1982), pp. 35-56; A.R. Ceresko, "Psalm 149: Poetry, Themes (Exodus and Conquest), and Social Function", Bib 67 (1986), pp. 177-94, and many others. 31 " T h e Iconicity of Rhetorical Figures: "Schemes" as Devices for Textual Cohesion", Language and Style 21 (1988), pp. 162-90.

d e v i c e s a n d it w o u l d be a useful e x e r c i s e to t r a n s p o s e his f i n d i n g s to H e b r e w . W h e r e a s s o m e r e v i e w e r s c o n s i d e r there is t o o m u c h e m p h a s i s o n i s o l a t i n g these t e c h n i q u e s , scholars like B r i n t o n s h o w h o w significant r e c o g n i t i o n of these s c h e m e s c a n b e . O n e scholar w h o has g o n e a l o n g this road is G r o s s b e r g in his b o o k o n structural e l e m e n t s in H e b r e w verse. A s he says: " I p r o v i d e a r e a d i n g that seriously a d d r e s s e s the w h o l e of the r e l e v a n t texts a n d not j u s t i n d i v i d u a l parts like w o r d - p a i r s or p o e t i c l i n e s . " 3 2

( 3 ) New or neglected topics O n the o t h e r h a n d , t h e r e are s o m e n e w topics w h i c h w e r e not i n c l u d e d in m y Guide. O n e is " H a l f - l i n e or Internal P a r a l l e l i s m " , o n w h i c h I h a v e written several articles. 3 3 T h i s topic will not be disc u s s e d h e r e . (I s h o u l d n o w h a v e to re-write m u c h o f the Guide to take a c c o u n t of half-line p a r a l l e l i s m . ) H o w e v e r , I e m p h a s i z e its i m p o r t a n c e for d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r the b a s i c unit in H e b r e w a n d U g a r i t i c verse c o m p r i s e s t w o h a l f - l i n e s or a single h a l f - l i n e . 3 4 A n o t h e r topic is metathetic

parallelism,

a f o r m of

synonymous

parallelism w h e r e the c o r r e s p o n d i n g o b j e c t s a n d p r e d i c a t e s are t r a n s p o s e d . T h e switch is n o t actually e f f e c t e d but the s e n t e n c e is read as if it h a d b e e n a n d o n l y t h e n d o e s the c o u p l e t b e c o m e fully intelligible. T h i s t y p e of p a r a l l e l i s m w a s i d e n t i f i e d b y N . W . Broznick in H e b r e w , 3 5 a n d I a d d e d f u r t h e r texts f r o m U g a r i t i c a n d A k k a d i a n . 3 6 A n o t h e r e x a m p l e in H e b r e w is Isa. x x i x 10: For Yahweh has poured into you a spirit of deep sleep wycsm •3t-^ynykm ‫נ‬t-hnby-'ym w3t r-'sykm hhzym ksh 52

Centripetal refers to the poem as a structural whole; centrifugal refers to the parts which make it up. These terms were coined by E. Stakiewicz (Semiotica 38 [1982], pp. 217-42). " "Internal Parallelism in Classical Hebrew Verse", Bib 66 (1985), pp. 36584; "Internal or half-line parallelism in Classical Hebrew again", VT 39 (1989), pp. 44-66; "Internal or Half-line Parallelism Once More", Liber Annuus 39 (1989), pp. 27-36. 34 For the half-line as an independent colon see the article mentioned above (n. 27). 55 " 'Metathetic Parallelism':—An Unrecognized Subtype of Synonymous Parallelism", Hebrew Annual Review 3 (1979), pp. 25-39. 36 " M o r e on Metathetic Parallelism", WO 19 (1988), pp. 40-4.

Literally: " a n d h a s shut y o u r e y e s , the p r o p h e t s / a n d y o u r h e a d s , t h e seers, h a s h o o d e d " . 3 7 I n fact, c l o s i n g e y e s s h o u l d c o r r e s p o n d to seers; c o v e r i n g h e a d s c o r r e s p o n d s to p r o p h e t s . P o s s i b l y : the eyes of the seers (hzh) are closed—they cannot see the future the heads of the prophets (nb3) covered—they cannot speak. N o t e the aspect of p o e t i c j u s t i c e : p r o f e s s i o n a l s are p u n i s h e d in a w a y w h i c h p r e v e n t s t h e m f u n c t i o n i n g a g a i n . T h i s practice is k n o w n from Mesopotamia, e.g. blinding a diviner.38 S i m i l a r l y , J o b x x x v i i i 10: w3šbr clyw hqy w^sym bryh wdltym W h e n I shattered my bounds upon it, I imposed bolt and doors. T o m a k e s e n s e of this c o u p l e t w i t h o u t c o r r e c t i n g the text E . P . D h o r m e s u g g e s t s that the t w o v e r b s s h o u l d be t r a n s p o s e d . 3 9 T h i s t y p e of p a r a l l e l i s m , in fact, u n d e r l i e s the w e l l - k n o w n s a y i n g from Ahiqar: (Ahiqar X V I

1)

[‫ג‬/ th]hwy lcrby ym? w[l]sydny [ \ht‫ נ‬zy mdbr] ky c[b]ydthm pryš[n] [Do not s[how a Bedu the sea or [a] Sidonian [the desert roads] for their 0[cc]upati0ns are differe[nt]. Schematically:

Arab

sea χ

Sidonian It m a y e x p l a i n K TU

1.17 (CTA

desert 17) ii 8 - 9

bd(.1)m[l] pnm. tšmh. wH. yshl pit 37

W . H . Irwin, Isaiah 28-33. Translation with Philological Notes (Rome, 1977), p.

56. 38

An example of this is discussed by U. Jeyes, Old Babylonian Extispicy. Omen Texts in the British Museum (Leiden, 1989), p. 36; she comments: "it was in accordance with the thinking of the times to punish a professional so that he forever after should be prevented from functioning in his task". 39 A Commentary on the Book ofJob (London, 1967; E. tr. of Le livre de Job [Paris, 1926]), pp. 578-79.

While Danil's face was happy, and above his brow gleamed etc. 4 0 B. M a r g a l i t p o i n t s o u t that pit is p r o b a b l y f e m i n i n e a n d the t w o verbs should be interchanged.41 Accordingly,

" W h i l e D . ' s face

g l e a m e d / a n d a b o v e (his) f o r e h e a d w a s h a p p y " .

Confirmation

c o m e s f r o m H e b r e w w h e r e , as M a r g a l i t m e n t i o n s , the v e r b shl is u s e d w i t h pnym ([n. 4 1 ] p. 174, n. 2 0 ) . Clusters.

" I n the 'cluster' the biblical writer d r a w s f r o m the

poetical r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e to h i m a n u m b e r of w o r d pairs a n d s t a n d a r d e p i t h e t s a n d u s e s t h e m to c o n s t r u c t a c o m p l e x

poetic

structure, or to set the b a c k g r o u n d f r a m e w o r k of the material that he is p r e s e n t i n g . " 4 2 H i s e x a m p l e s i n c l u d e H o s . xiii 12 a n d J o b x x v i 7 - 8 w h e r e the phrase srrt spn is b e i n g p l a y e d w i t h . H e also d i s c u s s e s Ps. xxi 3 , 5 in t e r m s of p a s s a g e s f r o m the U g a r i t i c tale o f A q h t . Parody. A c c o r d i n g to G . A . Y e e , 4 3 Isa. xiv is a p a r o d y of the d i r g e f o r m as u s e d in 2 S a m . i. It is s i g n i f i c a n t that Isa. x i v is o n l y fully intelligible o n c e the e l e m e n t of p a r o d y is r e c o g n i z e d . A n o t h e r such p a r o d y , it c a n be a d d e d , is Isa. xxiii 7 - 9 : a dirge o v e r T y r e . A l s o , E z e k . x v 1-5 is a p a r o d y of Israel as the v i n e s t o c k , o n w h i c h M . G r e e n b e r g c o m m e n t s : " C o m p a r i s o n o f the v i n e s t o c k to J e r u s a l e m [íw. 6 f f . ] is a g r o t e s q u e d i s t o r t i o n of the traditional u s e of the v i n e as a figure for I s r a e l . " 4 4 In fact, as G r e e n b e r g remarks, the oracle a p p r o a c h e s a l l e g o r y here. Antithesis

is m o r e than antithetic parallelism.

Alonso

Schökel

states " I n H e b r e w poetry [ ] antithesis is o n e of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t stylistic t e c h n i q u e s " ([n. 3 ] p. 8 5 ) . In fact, he d e v o t e s a w h o l e c h a p t e r to " A n t i t h e s i s a n d P o l a r i s e d E x p r e s s i o n " . K r a s o v e c w e n t further a n d w r o t e a w h o l e b o o k o n t h e topic, w h i l e L o a d e r l o o k e d at polar structure in the b o o k of Q o h e l e t h [n. 9 a b o v e ] . Y e t there is still r o o m for further s t u d y . E x a m p l e s are Sir. x x x v i i i 2 4 - x x x i x 40

The translation follows E. Verreet, Modi ugaritici (Leuven, 1988), p. 242, who shows that here there is a temporal clause. For the use of this couplet in formulaic speech introductions cf. G. del Olmo Lete, Anuario de Fitologia 2 (1986), pp. 234-6. 41 The Ugaritic Poem of Aqht, BZA W 182 (Berlin, 1989), p. 174: "for grammatical reasons we must suppose that in line 9 the (masc.) pnm has interchanged with the fem. pit". However, his own reconstruction of the whole couplet is rather drastic. 42 J . C . Greenfield, " T h e 'Cluster' in Biblical Poetry", Maarav 5-6 (1990), pp. 159-68. 43 " T h e Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14", CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 565-86. 44 Ezekiel, 1-20 (Garden City, New York, 1983), p. 268

11 w h e r e the life of t h e scholar is c o n t r a s t e d w i t h a series of c r a f t s m e n — a n d the m o d e l for this p a s s a g e , directly or indirectly, w a s the f a m o u s E g y p t i a n Satire o n T r a d e s ( A N E T , p p .

432-4),

a n o t h e r e x a m p l e of s u s t a i n e d antithesis. O t h e r p a s s a g e s are Isa. x x x i 1-3 ( " W o e to t h o s e w h o rely o n h o r s e s . . . but d o not look to the H o l y O n e of I s r a e l " ) a n d 1 S a m . xvi 7: " A m a n l o o k s o n the o u t w a r d a p p e a r a n c e , but Y a h w e h l o o k s o n the heart ( = m i n d ) " . 4 5 Syntax,

w i t h a f e w e x c e p t i o n s , 4 6 r e m a i n s a n e g l e c t e d aspect of

H e b r e w v e r s e . T h e v e r b , in particular, r e q u i r e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

( 4 ) Further comments on topics already

considered

Acrostics. T h e acrostic h a s c o m e u n d e r scrutiny a g a i n . It is s h o w n as b e i n g m o r e t h a n m e r e l y o r n a m e n t a l . 4 7 Stol u s e s the n e w t e r m " t e l e s t i c " to d e s c r i b e p o e m w h e r e the e n d s of the l i n e s f o r m a pattern, b u t the telestic is f o u n d o n l y in B a b y l o n i a n . H e also s h o w s that the acrostic is not n e c e s s a r i l y a c o n s t r u c t of w i s d o m b u t is u s e d in a v a r i e t y o f g e n r e s , for aesthetic r e a s o n s a n d not for e a s e of m e m o r i z a t i o n . 4 8 S i g n a l s of t h e acrostic are the a l p h a b e t i c arrangem e n t a n d the repetition of s t a n z a - s t r u c t u r e , particularly e v i d e n t in Ps. c x i x . Functions.

T h e work of B r i n t o n h a s already b e e n

mentioned.

Z u r r o ( n . 15) h a s c a t a l o g u e d a w h o l e r a n g e of r e p e t i t i o n s ( c h i e f l y s h o r t - r a n g e repetitions), b u t h a s c o m m e n t e d o n l y v e r y little o n the f u n c t i o n o f repetition. H e d o e s m e n t i o n the f o l l o w i n g : the i n t e n s i f y i n g f u n c t i o n ( b y partial r e p e t i t i o n of t h e s y n t a g m a w h e n the adjectives are s e m a n t i c a l l y

related),

k i n g s " ( P s . c x x x v i 17-18; pp.

e.g.

( w h e n the a d j e c t i v e s are a n t o n y m s ) , 45

"great

kings" ^ "powerful

151-2); to b r i n g o u t the contrast e.g.

"prudent"

^

"dis-

See my review in CBQ 50 (1988), p. 504. E.g., M.L. Barré, "Jonah 2,9 and the Structure of Jonah's Prayer", Bib 72 (1991), pp. 237-48. 47 W . M . Stol, "Babylonian and Biblical Acrostics", Bib 69 (1988), pp. 305-23. 48 See also J.F. Brug, "Biblical Acrostics and Their Relationship to Other Ancient Near Eastern Acrostics", in W.W. Hallo et al. (ed.), The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature. Scripture in Context III (Lewiston and Queenston and Lampeter, 1990), pp. 283-304: he rejects "quasi-acrostics" in Ugaritic. Buccellati (n. 20) also states that the acrostic "provides a compositional frame which should not be underestimated in its literary effect". Also, D. Pardee, "Acrostics and Parallelism: The Parallelistic Structure of Psalm 111", Maarav 7-8 (1992) [forthcoming], and H. Quecke, "Eine koptische alphabetische Akrostichis", Or NS 61 (1992), pp. 1-9. 46

g r a c e f u l " ( P r o v . χ 5; p p . 1 5 2 f f . ) ; for m e r i s m u s . e . g . " t h e e a s t e r n sea" ^

" t h e w e s t e r n s e a " (Joel ii 2 0 ; Z e c h . x i v 8; p p . 1 5 4 f f . ) ; to

e x p r e s s s t r o n g h y p e r b o l e : hmwnym hmwnym,

"ever more multitudes"

(Joel iv 14; p. 170), a n d to c o n n e c t s u c c e s s i v e b i c o l a , as in P s . c x x i 1-2 " . . . m y h e l p / M y h e l p " (p. 1 7 2 ) . Metre.

T h i s topic is t o o c o n t r o v e r s i a l a n d t o o technical to be

p r e s e n t e d in brief but t w o recent e x p l a n a t i o n s c a n b e m e n t i o n e d . A c c o r d i n g to v a n G r o l ( n . 14) the u n d e r l y i n g m e t r i c a l patterns are regular, b u t are realized o n the surface in v a r y i n g w a y s . T h e r e f o r e , the s t r o p h e is m o r e i m p o r t a n t for m e t r e t h a n the v e r s e - l i n e . Fecht g i v e s a d e t a i l e d list of v e r s e rules for H e b r e w ([n. 14] p p . 4 7 - 6 0 ) a n d Phoenician (pp.

183-90) cataloguing metrical and

non-metrical

w o r d s , to u s e B u c c e l l a t i ' s t e r m i n o l o g y ; h o w e v e r , w e are not told h o w these rules are d e r i v e d . A s e v e r , in the a b s e n c e of actual objective data, there is the d a n g e r of circular r e a s o n i n g . M y o w n v i e w is that m e t r e , if it is p r e s e n t , 4 9 s h o u l d be t r a n s p a r e n t a n d o b v i o u s so that the l o n g a n d c o m p l e x rules o f F e c h t a n d M a r g a l i t s e e m o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n . V a n G r o l ' s a p p r o a c h is m o r e attractive b e c a u s e it is s i m p l e r . In actual fact, H e b r e w v e r s e , like U g a r i t i c a n d A k k a d i a n p o e t r y , c a n be a p p r e c i a t e d a n d u n d e r s t o o d e v e n t h o u g h w e c a n n o t describe metre exactly. Prose or verse. In his p r e s i d e n t i a l a d d r e s s to the A n n u a l M e e t i n g of the L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y o f A m e r i c a in 1 9 8 9 W . B r i g h t 5 0 p r e s e n t e d material

from American

I n d i a n oral p o e t r y a n d m a d e

several

p o i n t s of great s i g n i f i c a n c e to o u r s t u d i e s . T h e y are as follows. (1) T h e verse of A m e r i c a n I n d i a n oral p o e t r y s h o u l d n o t be j u d g e d b y E u r o p e a n traditions. ( 2 ) " S o m e f o r m s o f verbal art u s e l i n e s w h i c h are in part d e f i n a b l e in t e r m s of n o n p h o n o l o g i c a l criteria ... u n i t s w h i c h o n e m a y i d e n t i f y as L I N E S , a n d h i g h e r - o r d e r u n i t s w h i c h m a y be called V E R S E S , c a n o f t e n be d e f i n e d b o t h b y the occurranee of 'initial particles' — o f t e n translated as E n g l i s h and then, so then, or the l i k e — a n d also b y internal p a t t e r n s of m o r p h o s y n t a c t i c , s e m a n t i c , a n d lexical P A R A L L E L I S M " ( [ n . 5 0 ] pp. 4 3 7 - 8 ) . ( 3 ) A l t h o u g h the ( s e m a n t i c a l l y parallel) c o u p l e t is general in the verbal art of M e s o - A m e r i c a , the single line a n d the triplet also o c c u r . ( 4 ) T h e f o r m a l oratory of Classical N a h u a t l c o m p r i s e s a series of e m b e d d e d parallel l i n e s . 49

For scepticism on this matter see my Guide, pp. 91, 109. 50 ‫׳ ״‬With one lip, with two lips': Parallelism in Nahuatl", Language 66 (1990), pp. 437-52.

S i g n i f i c a n t in s u c h t e x t s are: (a) the s u s t a i n e d u s e of parallelism; ( b ) t h e u s e o f v e r s e in w h a t is e s s e n t i a l l y a p r o s e s t a t e m e n t ; (c) the use of certain couplets with metaphorical function (e.g. " w i t h one lip, w i t h t w o l i p s " = " s p e a k i n g

indirectly").

Further (d)

non-

parallel materiell c a n b e m i x e d w i t h parallel m a t e r i a l ; this has i m p l i c a t i o n s for o u r s o - c a l l e d " s y n t h e t i c p a r a l l e l i s m " in H e b r e w , w h e r e the s e c o n d line o f a c o u p l e t s i m p l y c o n t i n u e s the first line ( i . e . , is not parallel to it). T h i s m a y be a f e a t u r e of oral v e r s e tradition. S o m e t i m e s n o n - p a r a l l e l material m a y break u p the parts of a c o u p l e t . C o m p a r e , for e x a m p l e , " T h e y h a v e p o s s e s s i o n s , / t h o s e p e o p l e , / t h e y h a v e p r o p e r t y " , w i t h P s . c x x 7: " I a m for p e a c e / b u t w h e n I s p e a k / t h e y are for w a r " . W e are f a m i l i a r w i t h the r e s e a r c h e s of M . Parry a n d A . B . L o r d into Y u g o s l a v i a n folk p o e t r y . W e c a n n o w look to M e s o - A m e r i c a for c o m p a r a t i v e m a t e r i a l in o u r a t t e m p t s to u n d e r s t a n d

Hebrew

(and Ugaritic) verse traditions. Alliteration.

T h e chief e x p o n e n t of this d e v i c e is M a r g a l i t , 5 1 but he

h a s b e e n criticized for a t t a c h i n g e x c e s s i v e i m p o r t a n c e to alliteration a n d for i n a c c u r a t e d a t a . I n a n a t t e m p t at o b t a i n i n g m o r e exact d a t a , P a r d e e [n. 8 ] p r o v i d e d an o v e r w h e l m i n g a n d e x h a u s t i v e set of consonantal

counts

for s a m p l e

texts

in b o t h

Ugaritic

and

Hebrew. Other topics.

In spite o f several s t u d i e s 5 2 i m a g e r y still requires

m o r e e x t e n s i v e t r e a t m e n t . A m b i g u i t y h a s b e e n s t u d i e d in respect o f the p s a l m s 5 3 a n d as a f o r m o f r e p e t i t i o n . 5 4 Word, pairs.

Compilations

o f cross-cultural w o r d pairs in the

a n c i e n t N e a r East, p r i n c i p a l l y A v i s h u r ' s c o l l e c t i o n of w o r d pairs b u t also the listings in Ras Shamra Parallels

ITII (Rome,

1972-81),

h a v e b e e n criticized precisely b e c a u s e t h e y look at w o r d pairs across l a n g u a g e s i n s t e a d of w i t h i n a particular l a n g u a g e / p o e m . A c c o r d i n g to A i t k e n [n. 2 3 ] , w o r d pairs are a b y - p r o d u c t of u s i n g f o r m u l a s a n d p a r a l l e l i s m , a n d t h e r e w e r e n o " d i c t i o n a r i e s " o f parallel w o r d 51

Full references in my Guide, p. 229. E.g., J . Day, God's conflict with the dragon and the sea. Echoes of a Canaanite myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge, 1985); M.S. Smith, " T h e Near Eastern Background of Solar Language for Yahweh", JBL 109 (1990), pp. 29-39. 53 P.R. Raabe, "Deliberate Ambiguity in the Psalter", JBL 110 (1991), pp. 213-27. 54 A.R. Ceresko, " T h e Function of Antanaclasis (m^ " t o find' ' ^ mp " t o reach, overtake, grasp") in Hebrew Poetry. Especially in the Book of Qoheleth", CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 551-69. 52

pairs. H o w e v e r , data f r o m other areas also n e e d to be c o n s i d e r e d . In M e s o p o t a m i a " i t w a s u s u a l for a l m o s t e v e r y type of i n f o r m a t i o n to be s u m m a r i z e d a n d r e c o r d e d b y listing pairs of a s s o c i a t e d i t e m s , a r r a n g e d in c o l u m n s " . 5 5 F u r t h e r , current w o r k o n M e s o - A m e r i c a n l a n g u a g e s i n d i c a t e s s u c h a v i e w to be too simplistic. In a recent s t u d y W . M . N o r m a n 5 6 has s h o w n that " i n the Q u i c h é - s p e a k i n g c o m m u n i t i e s 5 7 . . . a special f o r m of s p e e c h , m a r k e d b y e x t e n s i v e u s e o f g r a m m a t i c a l l y parallel c o u p l e t s , is u t i l i z e d [for c e r e m o n i e s ] " . Ceremonial

s p e e c h e s of this t y p e w e r e d e l i v e r e d b y

k n o w n as k'amal

specialists

b'eh, " g u i d e s " (literally " b r i n g e r of the r o a d " )

a n d others w h o l e a r n e d their craft f r o m y e a r s of a p p r e n t i c e s h i p w i t h a "guide".

"The

most

striking f e a t u r e of Q u i c h é

ceremonial

s p e e c h is its c o u p l e t structure: lines c o m e in pairs, o n e w o r d of the s e c o n d line c o n t r a s t i n g w i t h the c o r r e s p o n d i n g w o r d o f the first l i n e . " O n e of its m o s t salient characteristics: " t h e s a m e pairs of lexical i t e m s are r e p e a t e d a n u m b e r of t i m e s t h r o u g h o u t the s a m e text"; e.g.

p a t h ^ road,

b r i n g t raise,

wall ^ fortress.

"In

most

cases the relative order of t h e paired i t e m s is i n v a r i a n t . " N o r m a n also d i s c u s s e s t h e q u e s t i o n : " w h a t m u s t a k'amal

b'eh

learn . . . to be able to p r o d u c e c e r e m o n i a l rhetoric . . . ? " Part of the a n s w e r is that he " m u s t m e m o r i z e the stock lexical pairs . . . " H e also n o t e s that the k'amal

b'eh " m a y p r e s e n t c o u p l e t s in either an

e x p a n d e d or a c o n d e n s e d f o r m , w i t h several i n t e r m e d i a t e stages b e t w e e n t h e m o s t e x p a n d e d a n d the m o s t c o n d e n s e d s t y l e " . T h e r a n g e ( f r o m e x p a n d e d to c o n d e n s e d ) is r e p r e s e n t e d b y this e x a m p l e (given by N o r m a n ) : It echoes in the forbidden T R E E It echoes in the forbidden V I N E Its V O I C E , its S P E E C H , echoes wonderfully in the forbidden T R E E , in the forbidden V I N E . It also echoes in the forbidden T R E E , the forbidden V I N E . Further word pairs. T w o of the m a n y a d d i t i o n a l w o r d pairs c a n be discussed here. 55

A. Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Oxford, 1986), p. 2. 56 "Grammatical Parallelism in Quiché Ritual Language", Berkeley Linguistics Society 6 (1980), pp. 378-99. 57 Quiché is a language spoken in Guatemala, in the communities of Santa Caterina Ixtahuacán and Nahua1á.

"Throne"

"footstool"

It h a s l o n g b e e n k n o w n that b o t h U g a r i t i c a n d H e b r e w u s e the pair ks-'Xhdm. T h e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e c a n be s h o w n as e v e n closer since H e b r e w ks^Xhdm

rgl, " t h r o n e " ‫ " ^י‬f o o t s t o o l " (Isa. lxvi 1) is m a t -

c h e d b y U g a r i t i c ks3\hdm

pcnh in KTU

1 . 1 6 1 1 3 - 1 4 . 5 8 Is this lexical

b o r r o w i n g or d o e s it p o i n t to a shared tradition o f v e r s i f i c a t i o n ? 5 9 "Nose" V'cheek(s)" I n a text l i s t i n g c o l o u r f u l n a m e s for bird-calls 6 0 c o m e s a f a s c i n a t i n g a p p e l l a t i o n for the cry of the h e r o n : quddudu appāšu lētāšu dakkā,

"Its

nose is b e n t d o w n , h o l l o w its cheeks". T h e w o r d pair in H e b r e w also o c c u r s o n l y o n c e , in J o b xl 2 6 ( E V V . xii 2) as part of the d e s c r i p t i o n o f B e h e m o t h ( r e c e n t l y e q u a t e d b y J . D a y w i t h " t h e calf of Ilu, c

A t i k " ) ([n. 5 2 ] pp. 7 5 - 8 4 ) : htsym 'gmwn b°pw wbhwh tqwb Ihyw

C a n you place a cord through his nose, or pierce his cheek with a hook?

A p a r t f r o m the w o r d pair, the o n l y factor c o m m o n to b o t h texts is that t h e y c o n c e r n a n i m a l s . H o w e v e r , it can be n o t e d that a little further o n in the s a m e p a s s a g e , the beast is c o m p a r e d to a bird: J o b xl 2 9 a ( E V V . xii 5a): " C a n y o u play w i t h h i m as w i t h a forc/?" Ballast

variant.

K u g e l ([n. 5] p p . 2 3 - 6 ) d i s c u s s e s the e x p r e s s i o n

" b a l l a s t v a r i a n t " o n l y to reject it as incorrect. H i s e x a m p l e is P r o v . ii 16: T o save you from a "foreign" woman, from an alien woman who talks smoothly K u g e l e x p l a i n s that ellipsis h e r e ( i . e . , the o m i s s i o n of " t o s a v e y o u " ) ( 1 ) frees s p a c e in the s e c o n d line for s o m e e l a b o r a t i o n o f a parallel i t e m in the first l i n e , a n d ( 2 ) isolates for a t t e n t i o n the e x p a n d e d topic. " S i n c e t h e v e r b 'to s a v e ' d o e s d o u b l e d u t y for b o t h 58

Identified in A. Caquot, J . - M . de Tarragon and J.-L. Cunchillos, Textes ougaritiques Tome II (Paris, 1989), p. 107, n. 328, because of the reading hdm pcnh established by P. Bordreuil and D. Pardee, Syria 59 (1982), p. 125. 59 Note, too, the word pair common to "the G O D S approached, the STARS were invited" (D. Edzard, ARET V [Rome, 1984], p. 29 = text 6 ix 2b-3) and "when the STARS of the morning sang together and all the GODS (lit., sons of God) cried o u t " (Job xxxviii 7) recognized by W. G. Lambert, "Notes on a Work of the Most Ancient Semitic Literature", JCS 41 (1989), pp. 1-33 (p. 20). 60 W. G. Lambert, AnSt 20 (1970), pp. 111-17.

versets, the poet h a s s p a c e in the s e c o n d verset to m a k e the d a n g e r o u s t e m p t r e s s the subject of a b r i e f s u b o r d i n a t e clause [ " w h o talks s m o o t h l y " ] . " H o w e v e r , e l s e w h e r e the ballast v a r i a n t is clearly a filler as in P r o v . vii 16: I have decked my couch with coverings, coloured spreads of Egyptian linen, w h e r e the ellipsis of a l m o s t all the first line allows for a little e m b r o i d e r y in the s e c o n d .

( 5 ) The distinctive

character of Hebrew

verse

I will close b y c o m m e n t i n g o n the features w h i c h g o to m a k e H e b r e w v e r s e u n i q u e . It is well k n o w n that H e b r e w , U g a r i t i c , a n d , to a lesser e x t e n t , A k k a d i a n ( B a b y l o n i a n ) a n d P h o e n i c i a n verse traditions h a v e m a n y a s p e c t s in c o m m o n : p a r a l l e l i s m , a r a n g e of v e r s i f y i n g t e c h n i q u e s , the u s e o f f o r m u l a s , etc. In a short article written s o m e years a g o I a t t e m p t e d to establish the characteristics of U g a r i t i c v e r s e . 6 1 T o o m a n y articles ( i n c l u d i n g several b y m y s e l f ) a n d b o o k s ( e . g . Z u r r o ' s c a t a l o g u e of repetition [n. 15]) f o c u s o n similarities; but it is also i m p o r t a n t to d e t e r m i n e w h a t m a k e s H e b r e w v e r s e different f r o m U g a r i t i c or A k k a d i a n or, for that m a t t e r , f r o m E g y p t i a n v e r s e . T h i s is a topic r e q u i r i n g careful research. W e are h a m p e r e d to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t b e c a u s e there is less U g a r i t i c v e r s e t h a n H e b r e w , w h i c h s k e w s a n y c o n c l u s i o n s w e m i g h t r e a c h . ( A n d there is e v e n less P h o e n i c i a n p o e t r y . ) F o r e x a m pie, there are n o a l p h a b e t i c acrostics in U g a r i t i c : is this b e c a u s e they w e r e u n a w a r e of t h e t e c h n i q u e or is the r e a s o n , p e r h a p s , that t h e y preferred not to u s e it? O r d o e s c h a n c e e x p l a i n the fact that n o U g a r i t i c acrostics h a v e b e e n d i s o v e r e d so far? T h e r e are v e r y f e w short p o e m s in U g a r i t i c since it is m o s t l y l e n g t h y e p i c a n d the r a n g e of literary f o r m s is m u c h n a r r o w e r t h a n in H e b r e w . Is this accident

or

design?

Such

considerations

are

significant

in

e v a l u a t i n g cross-cultural c o m p a r i s o n s . U l t i m a t e l y , w e c a n u s e o n l y the material w e h a v e a v a i l a b l e , a l w a y s a w a r e that n e w d i s c o v e r i e s c o u l d alter o u r c o n c l u s i o n s . 61

" T h e Character of Ugaritic Poetry", JNSL

11 (1983), pp. 157-69.

INDEX OF MODERN

Abrams, M.H. 140n5 Abusch, T. 223n20 Aistleitner, J. 47 Aitken, K. 223, 230 Albright, W.F. 5, 25n1, 56n5, 116n3, 130n2, 136n11, 137, 156, 156n1, 156n5, 157, 170n30 Allen, L.C. 173n4 Alonso-Schökel, L. 57, 131n3, 156n4, 157n7, 190n24, 211n39, 221, 221n1, 227 Alter, R. 221 Andersen, F.I. 203n13, 203n14, 203n15, 213n45 Andersen, T. 223, 223n26, 224 Anderson, A.A. 159n9, 166n24, 167n27 Anderson, B.W. 71n1 Anderson, G.W. 90n1, 167n27 Angénieux, J. 153n2 Ascaso, J.S. 200n5 Auffret, P. 205n25 Austerlitz, R. 101, 101n1, 101n2, 102

Avishur, Y. 202n12, 205n26, 212n44, 218, 222n13, 230 Barr, J. 112n5 Barré, M.L. 224n30, 228n46 Beer, G. 58n1, 58n2 Ben-Hayyim, Z. 173n5 Benson, L.D. 108n1 Bentzen, A. 88n2 Berlin, Α. 200n6, 205n21, 209, 210, 221n1, 222n8 Berridge, J.M. 120n3, 120n4, 120n7 Black, J.A. 209n35 Bordreuil, P. 232n58 Borger, R. 113n1 Bowra, C.M. 192n29, 192n30, 194, 195n36 Briggs, C.A. & E.G. 144r117, 159n8, 159n10, 160n11, 160n12, 163n17, 164n18, 166n22, 168n28 Bright, J. 120n2, 120n4, 123, Ì24n19, 126n23

AUTHORS

Bright, W. 229 Brinton, L.J. 224, 225, 228 Brockelmann, C. 31nl Brockington, L.H. 190n24 Brown, J.P. 110n3 Broznick, N.W. 225 Br0nno, Ε. 174η 10 Bruce, F.F. 194 Brueggemann, W. 199n4 Β rug, J. F. 228n48 Buber, M. 114n1 Buccellati, G. 222, 223n21, 228n48, 229 Budde, Κ. 63, 69n2, 76n1 Buhl 166n23 Bu11Ūugh, S. 50 Burrows, M. 31 n2 Buxtorf 3 Camp, C.V. 197n40 Caquot, A. 232n58 Cassuto, M.D. 91, 91n1, 91n2, 91n4, 92n1, 101 Cassuto, U. 218 Castellino, D.G. 167n26 Cazelles, H. 110n1 Ceresko, A.R. 224n30, 230n54 Chadwick, H.M. & N.K. 192n29, 195n36, 192n30 Christensen, D.L. 203n18 C1ines, D.J.A. 222n16 Cloete, W.T.W. 221n1, 222n7 Collins, T. 211n40 Combs, Α.Ε. 112n1, 112n3, 114n4 Cooper, Α. 221n5 Coxon, P.W. 218n58 Craigie, P.C. 111n3, 113n3, 205n22 Crenshaw, J.L. 186 Cross, F., Jr. 58n5, 71n1 Cross, F.M. 110, 110n3, 111n4, 112n4, 114n4, 176n21 Crüsemann, F. 191 Culley, R.C. 97n2, 219, 219n60, 219n61 Cunchillos, J.-L. 232n58

Dahood, M. 56, 63n6, 64, 66, 66n2, 67, 67n2, 72, 79n3, 82n1, 82n4, 90n1, 110n3, 116, 143n15, 160n11, 160n12, 162n16, 164n18, 165n20, 188, 189, 214n46 Davidson, F. 194n35 Davison 166n24 Day, J. 230n52, 23 Deissler, Α. 162n14 Delsman, W.C. 209n34 Dhorme, E.P. 226 Drabble, M. 198n1 Driver, G.R. 47, 82n1 Driver, S.R. 55n4, 75n1 Duhm, Β. 1, 23n2, 121, 121n11 Eissfe1dt, Ο. 62n2, 118n3, 186n1, 188n20 Emeneau, M.B. 102, 102n1, 103 Ewald, Η. 55, 55n3 Exum, J.C. 153n2 Falkenstein, Α. 181n32 Fecht, G. 222n14, 229 Fensham, F.C. 110, 111n1 Fisher, L R. 115n4 Follis, E.R. 222n16 Freedman, D.N. 112n4, 172n2, 176n21, 203n13, 203n14, 203n15, 213n45 Friedrich, N.P. 108n2 Galbiati, E. 131n3 Galling, Κ. 170n32 Gaster, T.H. 110n3, 112n5 Gelin, A. 110n1 Geller, S.A. 224n29, 224n30 Gerleman, G. 46n1, 153n2 Gesenius-Kautzsch 72n2, 142n7 Gevirtz, S. 56, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67n1, 68, 69, 72, 74, 76, 76n3, 77, 77n2, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 97n2, 98n2, 199n3 Ginsberg, H.L. 47, 55, 56, 56n3, 70, 70n4, 82n1, 90, 90n2, 90n3, 90n4, 92, 92n2, 102, 110, 110n3, 180, 181n31 Girard, M. 190n26 Goetze, Α. 59n2 Good, E.M. 113n1 Gordis, R. 149

Gordon, C.H. 5, 45, 47, 47n2, 48, 56n2, 58n4, 64n1, 82n1, 180, 181n31 Grabbe, L.L. 214n46 Graetz 74 Gray, J . 47 Greenberg, M. 210n37, 211n38, 227 Greenfield, J.C. 227n42 Gressmann, H. 55n4, 76n1 Grol, H.W.M. van 222n14, 229 Grossberg, D. 222n11, 222n18, 225 Gruber, M.I. 201n11, 207n30 Guillaume, Α. 113n2 Gunkel, H. 140n3, 143n14, 160n12, 161 η 14, 163n17, 165n21, 169n29, 186, 189n23, 190, 192 Gunn, D.M. 222n16 Haak, R.D. 222n17 Hainsworth, J.B. 97n6 Hallo, W.W. 228n48 Hanson, K.C. 187n10, 191n28 Harrelson, W. 71n1 Harris, Ζ. 58n1, 58n3, 58n4, 58n5, 59n2 Hauser, A.J. 222n16 Havice, K. 147n22 Hayes, J.H. 186n4 Healey, J. 221n1 Heckcr, K. 223n19 Held, M. 91, 91n2, 91n5, 92, 103 Herder, J.G. 55n2 Herrmann, S. 122x114, 126n26 Hertzberg, H.W. 62n2, 71n4, 74n2, 79n1, 80, 81 Hettema, T.L. 223n25 Hoekstra, A. 97n6, 107n1 Holladay, W.L. 122, 122n13, 124n20, 127, 128, 129, 129n33 Huehnergard, J. 223n20 Humbert, P. 193 Hyatt, J.P. 121, 121n10, 122n15, 126n23 Irwin, W.H.

226n37

Jacob, Ε. 86n2 Jahnow, H. 55n4, 83n2 Jeyes, U. 226n38 Johnson, Α. 110n3

Jones, Η.S. 189n22 Jongeling, Β. 209n34 Kahle, P. 173n3 Kapelrud, Α. 90n1 Keller, C.-A. 220n62 Kenik, H. 217n52 Kirk, G.S. 108n1 Kissane, E.J. 162n16, 163n17 Kittel, R. 71n2, 71n4, 74n2 KJostermann, A. 55n4, 63 Knutson, F.B. 115n4 Koch, Κ. 147n25, 170n32 Koehler, L. & W. Baumgartner 71n5, 75, 80, 83n1 Koopmans, W. 222n17 Korpel, M.C.A. 224n27 Kosmala, H. 71n3, 75n3, 132n5, 134n7 Kottsieper, I. 222n7 Kraš0vec, J. 212n42, 222n9, 227 Kraus, H.-J. 139, 140, 140n4, 143n12, 143n13a, 162n14, 162n15, 163n17, 165n21, 168, 168n28 Krinctzki, L. 149 Kselman, J.S. 204n20, 217 Kugel, J.L. 221, 224n29, 232 Kuntz, K. 186 Lambert, W.G. 181n32, 181n33, 181n34, 209n35, 232n59, 232n60 Landy, F. 224n29 Lescow, T. 170n32 Lettinga, J.P. 189n24 Le vine, Β. 207n31 Liddell, H.G. 189n22 Livingstone, Α. 223n22, 231n55 Loader, J.A. 222n9, 227 Loewcnstamm, S.E. 113111 Lord, A.B. 99n1, 107n1, 108, 108n1, 108n2, 230 Loretz, Ο. 205n27, 222n7 Lowth, R. 3, 5, 55, 55n1, 86 Lugt, P. van der 222n12 Lundbom, J.R. 128, 129 MacDonald, J . 195n37 Magoun, F.P. 97n1 Maisler, B. 90n2 Margalit, B. 132n4, 218n54, 227, 229, 230

Margulis, Β. 111n2, 113n1, 114n2 Marks, R.G. 197 Marsh, J. 55n2 McCartcr, P.K. Jr. 200n9, 200n10, 201n11 McCreesh, T.P. 187 Meer, W. van der 222n16 Mclamed, E.Z. 67, 67n2 Meyer, R. 58n1, 58n2 Millard, A.R. 181n32, 181n33, 1811134 Moor, J.C. de 113n1, 115n4, 222n16, 224n27 Morrow, W. 214n47 Mowinckel, S. 29n1, 118n2, 130n1, 144n16, 156, 156n3, 156n5, 157n7, 158, 160n11, 162n14, 163n17, 1651121, 166n23, 167n25, 168n28 169n29, 170, 170n30, 170n32, 171n33, 171n34, 171n35, 186, 188n20 Muilenburg, J. 53, 122n15, 123n18, 128, 157n6 M u φ h y , R.E. 153n2, 186 Myrcs, J.M., Sir 23, 207n31 Nestle, Ε. 38n1 Niccacci, A. 221n1 Nicholson, E.W. 120n5, 120n6, 121n9, 123n17, 126n24 Nöldckc, T. 31n1 Norman, W.M. 231 Noth, M. 130n2, 137 Nougayrol, J . 116n4 Oberstcincr, J . 187n15 O'Connor, M. 200n7, 215, 218n54, 221, 224n29 Oestcrly, W.O.E. 162n14 Olmo Lcte, G. del 199n4, 227n40 Pardee, D. 222n8, 223, 224, 228n48, 230, 232n58 Parry, M. 97, 97n3, 97n4, 97n5, 97n6, 98, 98n2, 99, 99n1, 99n2, 100, 101, 104, 107n1, 219, 230 Perdue, L.G. 187 Pfeiffer, R H. 34n2 Plöger, Ο. 187n14 Pope, Α. 60, 61

Pope, M.H. 106n2, 206n28, 214n46 Pritchard, J.B. 70n4, 116n2 Quecke, Η.

228n48

Raabe, P.R. 230n53 Rabin, C. 67n2 Rad, G. von 186 Rahner, H. 187n13 Reed, W.L. 113n2 Reiner, Ε. 222n19 Rendtorff, R. 147n25 Ridderbos, N. 139n1, 140n4 Ringgren, H. 149 Robinson, T.H. 3n4, 89, 157n6 Roth, W.M.W. 170n31 Rossi, A. de 3 Rudolph, W. 119, 119η 1, 120n5, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126n23, 128, 220n62 Sanders, J.Α. 96η 1, 172111, 172n2, 180, 180n28, 180n29, 182 Sasson, J.M. 222n19 Schaar, C. 107n1 Schmidt, Η. 160n12, 161n14, 165n21, 169n29 Schmuttermayr, G. 160n11 Schnell, R.F. 186 Schwantes, SJ. 69n2 Scott, R. 189n22 Shea, W.H. 200n9 Sievers, E. 3, 3n4 Simian-Yofre, H. 221n1 Simpson, W.K. 153n1 Skinner, J . 120n6, 121, 121n8, 121n10 Smith, H.P. 55n4, 56n5, 63, 65, 71n2, 74n2, 230n52 Snaith, N.H. 118n3 Soden, W. von 181n32 Stakiewicz, E. 225n32 Steinkeller, P. 223n20 Stol, W.M. 228n47 Strauss, H. 111n1, 114n3 Stowe, C.E. 55n1 Stuart, D.K. 172n1, 176n20, 176n21 Sutcliffe, E.F. 167n27

Tarragon, J.-M. de 207n31, 232n58 Thiel, W. 120n5, 126, 126n29 Thomas, D.W. 112n5 Thompson, R.C. 115n2 Tournay, R. 130, 130n1 Tsumura, D.T. 204n19 Ulimann, S. 140n5 Urbrock, W.J. 221n1 Vaccari, P.A. 167n26 Verreet, E. 227n40 Vilchez, J. 190n24 Vogt, Ε. 115n4 Vuillcumier, R. 2201162 Wansbrough, J. 221n1 Ward, W.A. 113n2 Watson, W.G.E. 211n39, 217n50, 220n62, 221n1 Watts, J.D.W. 112n2 Weiden, W.A. van der 189n24 Weippert, Η. 218, 218n56, 218n57, 218n58, 220n63 Weiser, Α. 118n2, 120n5, 121n8, 126n23 Weiss, M. 205n24 Welch, J.W. 131n3, 222n10 Whallon, W. 97n2, 100n1 White, J.B. 153n1 Widengren, G. 31n1 Wildberger, H. 215n49 Willis, J.T. 205n23 Wilson, J.A. 116n2 Winne«, F.V. 113n2 Wolff, H.W. 187 Wolters, Α. 188η 19 Wright. G.H. 71n1 Wünsche, Α. 187η 12 Würthwein, Ε. 153n2 Yaron, R. 214n48 Yee, G .Α. 227 Yeivin, I. 173n6 Young 5 Young, G.D. 82nl Zevit, Z. 224n29 Zurro, E. 222n15, 228, 233

I N D E X O F BIBLICAL R E F E R E N C E S

Genesis 1.6-8 2.23 3.16 4.14 7.4 7.12 8.2 8.22 11.1 11.6 12.3 13.10 15.17 16.12b 17.20 18.18 19.4 24.35 25.34 26.4 29.17 30.42 31.36 31.43a 32.12 34.31 39.6 39.10 41.3 41.4 41.19 41.44 43.33 49.2 49.3 50.9

15.1-18 27 199 149 124 •199 199 199 199 199, 209 199, 209 124 199 199, 210 199, 208, 211 199, 213 124 199 199, 213 199 124 199, 212 199 199, 209 199, 213 199 173n7, 179 212 199, 209 199 199 199 199 199 68n2 199 199

Exodus 4.10 6.9 9.31 15

199 199 199 3, 176n21, 180n29, 215

15.2 15.3 15.4 15.7 15.7a 15.8 15.8a 15.10 15.11 15.12 15.13 15.14-15 15.14 15.14b 15.15 15.18 15.21 23.3 34.6

111, 112, 117, 118 112, 112n3 196 111n3 176n21 176n21 115 176n21 115, 176n21 114, 199 176n21 112n3, 113, 176n18, 176n21 117n1 176n21 176n21 176n21, 180 176n21 5 185 219n60

Leviticus 2.10 2.28

5.4 6.13

10.10

12.45 14.54-56 19.26 19.35 19.36 27.30

199 199 199 199 199 199 174n9 199, 209 199 199 199

Numbers 5.22 5.27 10.35 14.8 14.18 15.16 15.39 17.27

199 199 199, 212 199 213, 219n60 199 199 199

20.20 21

21.5a 21.17f. 21.17b 21.18b 21.26

21.27-29 22.20

22.39 23 23.5 23.7-10 23.7 23.7a-d 23.7cd 23.7c 23.7d 23.8. 23.8a-d 23.8ab 23.8a 23.8b 23.9 23.9a-d 23.9ab 23.9b 23.9cd 23.9c 23.9d 23.10 23.10a-d 23.10ab 23.10a 23.10b 23.10cd 23.10c 23.16 23.18-24 23.18 23.18ab 23.19 23.19a-d 23.19ab 23.19cd

199 3 199 5 199 199 10 10

11 11 11 11

8, 130, 131 8 130n1, 131 132, 133 133 132, 133 8 130n1, 131 132, 133 132, 133 132 8 130n1, 131 133 133 133, 137 133 133 8, 64 130n1, 131 133 137 131, 132, 136 133 137 11 8, 130, 133 8, 130n1 133 8 130n1, 133 135, 135n9, 136 135, 136

23.20 23.20ab 23.21 23.21ab

23.2 led 23.22 23.22ab 23.22b

23.23 23.23a-d 23.23ab

23.23cd 23.24 23.24a-d 23.24ab 23.24cd 24.1 24.2 24.3f. . 24.6 24.9

24.13 24.15f. 24.16f. 33.55

9, H, 130n1 134, 135, 136 9, 130n1 134, 135, 135n9, 136, 137, 137n14 134, 135, 137 9 134, 135, 137 134, 135n10, 137 9 130n1, 134 135, 136, 137, 137n14 135, 135n9, 136 9, 76, 199 130n1, 134 135, 136 135, 135n9, 136 11 11 11

199, 213 199, 212, 212n42, 214 12 11

9 199, 200

Deuteronomy 4.2 4.34 5.14 5.15 7.19 8.17 9.4 11.2 12.15 21.7

24 218n56 173n8, 174n9 218n56 218n56 143n13a 143n13a 218n56 199 173n7, 179n26

24.5 24.17 24.18-19 26.8

28.3-6 28.4-5 28.16-19 29.22 30.11 30.15 32 32.2 32.14c 32.24 32.25b 32.29 32.42 33.5 33.28 33.29

68n2 68n2 68n2 199, 213, 218n56 199, 213 199 199, 213 199, 213 83 199 3, 70n2, 70n3 71, 73 199 199 199 199 76 68n3 68n2 64

Joshua 10.13 15.11 23.13

200 200 200

1 Samuel 2.30c 4.20 8.12 12.4 15.3 15.22-23 16.7 16.12 16.12b 16.18 17.44 17.44b 17.46 18 20.1 21 24.6 24.15 25.3 25.6 25.9 25.25 26.12 28.22 30.8 30.13 34.15

200 65 85n1 200, 213 15 228 200, 211 200, 200 211 200 192 200, 192 74 200 200, 200, 200 200, 200, 185 200, 200 213

213

212 213

213

212 214 213 213 208

Judges 4.7 5 5.3 5.4-5 5.4 5.10 5.11

5.15 5.19ff. 5.21 5.25 5.26 9.28 11.40

14.16 16.28 16.29 18.11 18.16 18.17

200 108n3, 115 200 115 200 194 82n3, 189n24, 194 194 115 200, 214 200, 212 194 200 82, 189n24, 190n24, 194 200 200 200 85n1 85n1 85n1

2 Samuel 1 1.18-27 1.18-21 1.18-20

1.18-19

1.18

1.19-27 1.19

1.20

192 54, 56n5, 89 75, 88 76, 87 54n2, 62, 65, 70, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 85, 88 54n2, 58, 62, 63, 64, 70, 78, 81, 85 215 58, 62, 63, 64, 76, 80, 81, 82, 85 56n5, 58, 59, 68, 69n2, 70, 73, 76, 78, 80, 81, 87

1.21

1.21a 1.21b

1.22-23 1.22

1.23

1.24-27 1.24

1.25-26 1.25

1.26

1.27 2.1 3.29b 3.31a 3.33-34 3.33 12.3 13.31 15.21 16.7 17.1 Ob 18.22 21.12 22 22.1 22.2-3 22.48 23.5d 24.13

55, 58, 59, 70, 76, 85, 87, 200, 215 58, 68, 70, 71, 74, 75, 85, 87 58, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 83, 85, 87 79, 81 58, 67, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82n5, 85, 87, 88, 200 58, 68, 72, 73, 77n1, 78, 79, 81, 83, 85, 88, 217n50 88 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 88 68 66, 77, 81, 84, 85, 88 58, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88 66, 74, 83, 85, 88 227 200, 213 200 56 60, 63 200 65 200 200, 213 67n1 185 69n3 56n5 200 184n36 160 200 170

Nehemiah.

1 Kings 3.22 3.24 3.26 5.13a 5.18c 8.42 8.57c 18.26 18.29 19.6 20.8 20.25 22.4

201 201 201 201, 213 201 218n56 201, 209 201 213 201 201, 209 201, 209 201, 213

201, 201 201, 201 201 201 201, 201, 201 201 201 201

213 213

220 213

1 Chronicles 12.15b 12.19 12.41a 16.27 21.12 28.9 28.20b 29.2 29.5

207 207, 209 207 191 170 207 207 207, 213 207

2 Chronicles 2.3 2.13 2.14 6.32 19.7b 32.7 32.31 36.17b

207 207, 213 207 218n56 207, 212 207 143n13d 207

Ezra 1.4

207 207 33 207, 209 174n9

Esther 2.7 3.2 3.7 3.13 7.16 9.13

207, 212 207 207 207 207 207

Job

2 Kings 3.7 3.14 4.26 4.30 4.31 5.7 5.26 6.27 7.4 7.6 14.26 18.12

1.6 1.10 8.8 8.10 12.2-6

213

1.1 1.21 2.2 2.11 3.9 3.26 4.9 4.10 7.4 7.12 7.20 8.15 9.4a 9.20 10.10 13.27 14.1b 14.11 14.19 14.26 15.29 15.35 17.1 17.11 18.19 19.14 19.29 20.8 20.13 22.22 24.15 24.18 26.7-8 26.7

206, 213 206 206 170, 209, 213 178, 181 177, 179, 206 105 206 177n22, 179 206 185 95 206 185 206, 209 177n22, 178 206, 211 106n1, 209 177n22 208 206 206, 212 173n8 206, 213 206, 213 206, 211 177n22 206 206, 213 107 177n22 177n22 227 206, 211

29.25 30.4 30.8 30.20 30.26 33.9 33.15 34.33 37.13 38.3b 38.7 38.10 39.21 40.7b 40.26 40.29a 42.4b 42.6

206 6 206 206 206, 213 176n20, 206, 213 206 177n22 206, 213, 214 206, 213 232n59 226 206 206 232 232 206 206, 210, 213, 214

Psalms 1-42 1 1.1

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.2

2.7a 3.8 3.9 4.3 5.5-7 5.8 5.9 6.2 6.7 6.7a 6.7bc 6.9-11 6.9a 6.9b-10 6.9b-10a

140 49, 50, 188n18 49, 167, 167n23, 171 50 50 50 50 177, 178, 179, 205, 214 167n25 178 173n8, 178, 185 185, 205, 214 147 175, 179 175n16 72 165 165 165 164n18 164n18 164, 165 165

6.9b 6.10a 6.1 Ob 6.1 la 6.1 lb 7.6 7.9 7.14 7.15 8.2 8.9 9-10 9.6 9.6a 9.9 9.16 10.10 10.17 11.2 12.5-6 12.5 12.6 13.6 14.3 14.7 14.8 14.21 15

15.1 15.2-3 15.2

15.2ab 15.2c 15.3

15.3a 15.3b

164n18 164n18 164n18, 165 164n18 164n18 166 104, 107 206n28 159, 205 179 144n17, 205 208 144n17, 165 205 104, 107 185 168 205, 208, 214, 220 177n22, 178 214 205 205 177n22, 178 162 205 93 95 139, 139n1, 140, 144n16, 144n17, 146n19, 147 139, 144, 184 140, 141, 144n17 140, 141, 144, 144n16, 144n17, 145, 146, 147, 147n21, 205 143 142, 146 140, 141, 142, 142n12, 144, 145, 146, 147 140, 141, 142, 146 141

15.3c 15.4 15.4c 15.5

141, 146 139, 146 140, 146 146, 147, 147n21, 147n24 15.5a 146 15.5b 146 15.5c 139 16.9 144n17, 205 17.1 162 144n17, 17.3 162 17.3a 205 17.6b 205, 209 17.10 184 17.13 205 17.13b-14b 163 17.14c-e 163 18 56n5 18.1 205 18.7 164n19 18.9 168 18.36-46 160n11 18.44 165 18.44a 160n11 18.44b 160n11 18.44c 160n11 18.45a 160n11 18.45b 160n11 18.46a 160n11 18.46b 160n11 160n11, 18.47 163, 205, 214 160, 18.48-49a 160n11 160n11 18.48 18.49 160n11 18.49a 160n11 18.49bc 160n11 18.49b 1601111 18.49c 160n11 27, 96 19.2 19.4 205 20.8 205 96, 178n24, 21.3 227 227 21.5 22.7 205 22.24 165 22.25 147, 147n21,

22.30 24 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4

24.4c 24.5 24.6 24.7 24.8 24.9 24.10 24.15 25.2 25.5 26 26.1 26.11b 27 27.2d 27.3 27.4 27.6 27.6c 27.7 27.9 27.9c 27.10a 27.12 27.12b 27.14 28.2 28.6 28.9 29

29.1-2 29.1

165, 205 165 50, 139 50 50 50, 147, 170n32 51, 95, 144n17, 147, 147n23, 162, 170, 205, 214 170n32 51 51 51 51, 91n3 51 51 209 178, 180n30 173n8, 185 215 184 205 218 205 143n13a 218 179, 219n60 205 205 218 205 205 177n23, 178, 218 205 205 164n19 164n19 175n16 110, 111, 111n2, 112, 112n2, 113, 114, 114n2, 115, 117, 118 91n3, 114 112n3, 113, 114, 114n2

29.3 29.4ff. 29.9 29.10 29.11 29.11b 30.6 31.3 31.4 31.12 31.13 31.23 32.la 32.4 32.11 33.8 34.15

34.15a 35.1 35.4 35.7 35.8 35.8bc 35.15 35.19 35.20 35.24 37 37.8a 37.20 37.23 37.27 37.27a 37.37 38.1 la 38.14-15 38.19 39 39.2 39.6 39.10 39.13 40.3 40.8 40.15 42.4 42.11

113 91n3 205, 209, 214 115, 115n4 112n3, 113, 116 113 205 176n19 175 178 105 164n19 205, 208, 214 178n24 144n17 166 95, 212, 214, 219n60 205 184 176n18, 205 169n29 169 169n29 177n23 184 177, 178 175n14 188n18 205 105 175n15 205, 213, 219n60 205, 209 205 205, 211 145 205, 210, 211 143n15 146 177n22, 178 205 93, 184 176n19 179 176n18 176n18 176n18

43.3 44.2 44.4 45 45.2 45.4 45.8 46.7 46.10 46.10b 46.11 47 47.2-3 48 48.3 48.5 48.6a 48.6b 48.9a 49 49.2 49.3 49.11 50.1 52.6 52.7 52.8 52.9 53.4 53.5 53.7 54

54.3-5 54.3 54.4 54.5

54.6-9 54.6 54.7 54.7b 54.8b 54.9 54.14 55 55.18 55.23 56.9

176η18 177n22, 178 205 215 185 205 205, 212 205 166, 168 205 205, 205n24 111 117n1 215 205, 209 184 205 212 205, 213 188n18 93 144n17, 205 105 184 175n14 162 175n14 162 162 177n23 205 93, 95, 106. 107, 108, 108n3 106 93, 104 93 93, 177n22, 178, 180n29 107 93, 94 92n3, 93 205 205 93, 107 205 215 164n19 176n18 82n4

57.8 58.2-3 58.2 59.7 59.13 59.15 60.9 62.4 62.11 62.24 64.2 64.10 65.8 65.11 66.1b-2 66.4

66.4b 66.6 66.12 66.16

66.19-20 68 68.2

68.4 68.5a 68.6a 68.14 68.16 68.26a 68.28 68.28b 69.16 69.19 69.21 69.25 70.3 70.4 71.6 71.24 72.4 72.8 72.24 74.2 74.9

205, 219n60 184n36 184n36 177n22 205, 209, 220 1771122 205 205, 220 168 178n24 164n19 165 205 205, 213 163 163, 178n24, 205, 209, 214, 219 211, 212 106n1 177n23 167n25, 177n22, 178 162n19 215 177n23, 199, 205, 212 178 205 205 90 205 205 158 205, 212n41 163, 178 166 178 95 176r118 107 178 209 104, 163 106n1 205 205 167, 168

74.16 75.8 75.8b 76.2 76.3 76.10 77 77.3 77.14-21 77.17-20 77.17 77.18 77.19 77.20 78 78.1 78.12 78.20 78.20a 78.21 78.31 78.36 78.55 79.1-2 79.1 79.3 80.9 80.15 81.3 81.5 81.6c 81.8 81.9 82.2 82.5 83.2b 84.4 84.11 85.9b 86.2 86.6 86.11 86.14 86.15 88.7 88.7b 89.5 89.12 89.31 90.7 91.7

205 205, 212 208 94 205, 211 178n24 168 168 168n28, 171n33 168, 168n28 168, 168n28 165, 168, 168n28 168, 168n28 167, 168 215 107 205 176 205, 211 162 165 205 159 171n34 162, 185 177, 178 93 163 205 94 167 177n23 205 178n24 205, 209, 214 205 205 177, 178 205, 213 178 164n19 175n16 93 205, 219n60 220 205 178n24 205 96 211 177n22, 178

92.4 92.13 93 93.1 94.23 96-99 96.2 96.6 96.7-8 96.7 97.3 97.7-10 98 98.1-2 98.1 98.2 98.3 98.4-7 98.4 98.5 98.6 98.7 98.8 98.9 99.1 99.3 99.4 100.1b-4 100.1b-2 100.3 100.5 101 101.2a 101.3 101.3a 101.5 101.7a 101.7b 102.18 102.27-28 102.27 103.8 103.20 104.1 104.9 104.14 105.2 106.4 106.5 106.6

213 72n4 111 112n3, 185 191 92n3, 93 111 117n1 112n3, 191 114n2 112n3 117n1 171n33 51 117n1 51 51 51 51 51 51, 52 51, 52 52 51, 52 51, 52 117n1, 185 114n2 112n3 163n17 163 178 162 217 217 176n18 217 212 217 217 164n19 212n42 185, 212 213, 219n60 205 191 205 161 η 12 205, 219n60 161, 161n14 161 205

106.8 106.31 106.48 107.3bc 107.26 107.35 107.37 108.2 108.9 108.27 109.1 109.16 109.28 110.1 110.2 110.5 111

111.3 112 112.1 112.2 112.3 112.4 112.5 112.7 112.8 112.9 112.10 112.30 113.6b 113.7 114 114.1 114.2 114.3-4 114.3 114.4 114.5-6 114.7 114.8 115.1 115.7 116.1 116.8 116.17 118 118.5 119.3 119.13

93 205 205 205 205 175n14 205, 212 178 205 171n35 184 95 205, 212, 212n42 167n23 178 175n14 188, 188n20, 189 191 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 188 205 98n3 94, 108, 108n3 94 94 94 94, 106 94, 95 94 93, 94 94 205, 212, 213 147 164n19 162 93 179n25 185 142n9 209

119.15 119.48 119.66 119.75 119.89 119.103 119.113 119.127b 119.149 120.2-3 120.3 120.7 121.1-2 121.4 121.5 121.6 121.8 122.4 122.7 123.1 123.4 124.5 125.5-6 125.6 126.5 128.2b 129.1 130.5-6 130.7 131.1 132.11-12 133.1 135.6 135.11 136.12 136.17-18 137.2 138.2 138.7 139.3 139.12 140.6 140.13 140.13b 141.5 142.2

205, 209, 211 177n22, 178 184 184 64 178 205, 212, 212n42 205 164n19 205 177n22 205, 230 229 205, 210n36 177, 178, 213 205 205 214 205, 210 184 205, 209 205, 210n36, 211 205 205 212 205 184 205, 220 177n23, 178, 181 147 174n11 205, 214 205 162 205, 209, 213, 218n56 228 205 205, 209, 213 93 184 205, 209, 214 165 205, 212 205 205, 211 205

142.5b-d 143.1 143.3 143.5 144.14 145.5 145.8 145.8b 145.10 145.12 147.8 148 148.1-6 148.1 148.7-10 148.8ff. 148.11-14 150.6

167, 168 184 162 165 205, 213 191 205, 219n60 211 190 191 160, 161n12 161 η 13 161 η 13 184 161 η 13 205, 213 161η13 190

non-canonical psalms 155 155.1-16 155.3 155.4 155.5 155.6 155.11a 155.11b 155.14 160

95, 96 96 96 172η 1, 180 172η 1 172η 1 172η 1 172η 1 96 108

Proverbs 1.18 2.4 2.16 3.2 3.7a 3.7b 3.22 3.23 4.5 4.7 4.26 5.16 5.19a 6.10 6.12-14 6.12a 6.13 6.14

206n29 206n29 232 206 206n29 206, 210, 211 206n29 95 206 206 95 94 206, 210 206 220 206, 212 206, 209 206

6.17a 6.19b 6.23 6.32a 7.7 7.12a 7.16 8.2a 8.3a 8.14 9.2 10.5 10.9 10.26

14.5b 14.15 14.29 14.31 16.24 16.24b 17.3

17.15 18.22 19.20 19.26 20.1 20.9 20.10

20.12 21.4 21.6b 21.9 21.30 22.8

23.5 23.9 23.23 23.29a 23.32 24.30 25.3 25.12 25.19 25.24 25.26a

206 206 206 206n29 206, 220 206 233 206n29 206n29 206n29 206, 213 229 206 206, 214r148 206, 211 185 206n29 98n3, 185 206, 211 212 206, 209, 214, 214n48 206, 211, 214n48 206 206 206, 209, 214 206 209 206 206, 212, 214n48 206, 212, 214 206, 211 206, 211 206, 213 206 178 206 206, 213 206 206 1751114 185, 206, 214n48 206 206 206, 211 206

26.1 26.3 26.10 26.21 27.3 27.4 27.21 27.2 la 27.27 28.9 28.15 29.8 30.4 30.9 30.14 30.15 30.16 30.19 30.31a 31 31.2 31.9 31.10-31 31.10-12 31.13-27 31.13 31.14 31.15 31.16 31.17 31.18 31.19 31.20 31.22 31.23 31.24 31.25 31.26 31.27 31.28-31 31.28 31.29

31.30 31.30a

206 206 206 206 206, 214n48 206 206, 209, 214 206 206 107 206 67n4 206, 209 179 176n19 173n7, 175n14 177n23, 179 179 206 195 206 104, 107 186 189 189 194 194, 195 178, 195 188, 195 193 188 193, 193n32 188, 195 195 195 190, 195 188, 191, 193, 195 188 191, 197 189 188 188, 191, 193, 193n31, 194 188, 197 206, 214n48

31.31 36.10b

191 211

Ecclesiastes 1.2

206

1.4

206, 212,

1.5a 1.6

1.9-10 1.18

2.25 3.2-8 3.11 3.17 5.2 6.4 6.11-13 7.12a 8.16

9.1 9.2 9.6 9.10 12.1

12.4 12.5 12.14

212n42 206 206 206 206 206 206 206 206 206, 212 206, 212

213 206 206 206, 209, 212 206 213 206 206, 213 214 206 206

Song of Songs 1.1-6

1.1

1.4 1.5-6 1.5 1.5cd 1.6

1.7-8 1.7 1.8

1.9-2.7 1.12

1.14 1.15 1.17 2.1-3 2.1

2.2 2.3 2.4

154 152 152 155 151, 152 206 150, 151, 155 154 152 152 154 152 150 150 151 150 206 151 151 151

2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8-17 2.8-13 2.8 2.8b-9a 2.9 2.10-13 2.12-13 2.14-17 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 3 3.1-5 3.1-4 3.4-5 3.4 3.5-6 3.5 3.6-11 3.6-7 3.6 3.7 3.9 3.10 3.11 4 4.1-7 4.1-2 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.10 4.12-16 4.12 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.16b 5.1 5.2-9

151, 149 148, 151, 154 150 206 149 149, 150, 150 155 150, 150, 149 149, 152 154 154 150 150 149, 149 148, 151 154 149 149, 152 152, 151 150, 152 154 152 150 150, 150 152 150, 152 149, 150, 206 152 149, 206 206 94 149, 150 150, 150

206 150, 206

150 152

152 152 150,

150 149,

155 179 151,

152

151, 152 154,

5.2fF. 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10-16 5.12 5.13 5.16 6.1 6.2-3 6.2 6.3 6.4-10 6.5-7 6.5-6 6.7 6.8-9 6.9 6.10 6.11-12 6.13 6.17 7.1-6 7.1 7.2-7 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.10 7.11 7.12-13 7.12 7.13 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4-5 8.4 8.5

154

206

8.6-7 8.6 8.8-10 8.10 8.11-12

154 8.13-14

154 206 148, 152 151, 150 150 151, 151 151, 150, 152 149, 154 152 150 150, 150 150, 149, 150, 151 150 155 152 152 151 150, 152 152 152 152, 206 155 149 150 150 150 155 150 150 149 149 148, 149, 155 155 154 154 152 150, 155 155

8.13 8.14 151 152

206 154 151, 150

154 152 206 154

151,

154,

151 150,

152,

149 149, 150, 152

Isaiah 1.2 1.4a 1.7 1.8 1.9b 1.16 1.23 1.24 1.26b 2 2.2-3 2.2f. 2.2 2.3 2.10 2.13 2.14 2.20 3.1 3.8 3.12-15 4.1 5.1-5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.5b 5.6 5.7 5.15 5.19 5.20 5.22 5.27 5.29a 6.7b 6.10 6.10a 7.7-9 7.7 7.11 7.14-15 7.15 7.21-22 8.1

201 201 201, 213 201 201 201 201, 209 95 201 19 18 4n3 18, 27, 94 18 201 95 94 201 201 201 15 201 39 39 39 39, 40 40 39, 40 40 40 40 201 215 201 67nl 201 201 201, 211 211 201 21 201 201, 209 12 4n4 13 201, 214

8.3 8.9 8.13b 8.20 9.2 9.5 9.5a 9.9 9.11-20 9.11 9.13 10.6 11.4 11.9 11.13 11.15 12.4b 13.16 14 14.3-23 14.3-21 14.3 14.4-8 14.4 14.4a 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.10-12 14.10 14.11 14.12 14.13-15 14.13 14.14 14.15 14.16 14.16a 14.16b 14.17 14.18 14.19 14.20 14.20b 14.21 14.22 14.23 14.25 14.30 14.31 16.2

214, 215 201 201 201 201 215 201 201, 213 148 201, 209, 212 201 201, 215 105 201 176η19 106n1 201 201 44, 49, 227 40 23 41, 43 43 42, 43, 201 44 42, 201 42 41, 42 41, 42 40, 42, 43 43 41, 42, 43 42 42 43 42 42, 64 41, 42 40, 42, 43 43 43 40, 42, 43 41, 42, 43 41, 42, 43 41, 42, 43 201 42, 43 41, 42, 43 41, 42, 43 91 98n3 201 201

16.3a 16.3c 19.2 19.5 19.15 21.2b 21.5 21.7 22.2 22.12-13 22.19 23.4 23.7-9 24.2 24.13 24.16 24.23 25.4-5 25.4 25.5 25.6 26.19 28.2 28.5 28.7 28.9 28.11 28.14-15 28.16 28.25 28.29 29.5 29.9a 29.10 29.15b 29.20 30.5 30.11a 30.20-21 30.27 30.29-31 30.31 31.1-3 31.3 32.18b 32.21 33 33.8 33.10 33.14 33.15 33.16 33.18 33.20

201 201 201 106n1 201 201 74, 201 201 201 201 201 201 227 201 201 201 201 201 98n3 93 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 67n4 201, 213 201 201 93 201 225 201 201 201 201 201 201 22 5, 23n1 228 201 201 218n56 139 201 201, 205n24 139 201 201 201 201, 209

33.21 33.22 34.6 34.11 37.22 40.3-5 40.4 40.7 40.8 40.9-11 40.10 40.11 40.12-18 40.12ff. 40.12 40.12a 40.12b 40.13 40.14 40.14a 40.14aß 40.14b-16 40.14b 40.15 40.15a 40.15b 40.16 40.17 40.18 40.19-26 40.21 40.22 40.24 40.25 41.8 41.10 41.11 41.14 41.26 41.29 42.1-4 42.1f. 42.1 42. lbß 42.2 42.3 42.4 42.5 42.6

201 213 201 201 201, 214 19 21ni, 27 26n1, 201 201 16 201, 209 17 27 26 27, 28 27, 52 27, 28, 52 27 4n1 27 28 28 27, 28 27, 28 28 28 27, 28, 28n1 27, 28, 28n1 27, 28, 28n1 29 201 34 201 29 94 201, 214 176n18 201 201, 213 201 29 31 30, 31 29, 30, 31n2 30, 33, 201 30 30, 32, 96, 201 33 201

42.11 43.24b 43.25 43.28 44.6 44.8 44.13d 44.21 44.22 44.23 45.7 45.12 45.13 45.14 46.1 46.4b 46.11b 46.13 46.14 47.1 47.2-3 47.2 47.3 47.4 47.5 47.11 48.2 48.8 48.18 48.20 49 49.1-6 49.1-2 49.1 49.2 49.3-6 49.3 49.4 49.4b 49.5f. 49.5 49.6 49.6a 49.6b 49.6bp 49.7 49.9ff. 49.13 49.14-17 49.14 49.21-23

209 201 96 201 201 201 201, 211 35 96, 201 4n3, 35 34, 201 176n19 201 185, 201 201 201 201 201 209 10 201 11 11 11 10 14 201 201 95, 106n1 201 49 32 29, 32 32, 33 33 29, 33, 34 34, 35, 36, 37 4n1, 34, 36, 37 35 35 34, 36, 37, 39 34, 36, 37 35 35 35 201 20 201 10 201 35

50.4-9 50.4-6 50.6 50.7-9 50.7 50.8 51.4-8 51.4-5 51.4 51.5 51.5a 51.5b 51.6 51.7-8 51.7 51.8 51.8a 51.12ff. 52.7 52.13-ch.53 52.13-53.1 53.3 53.5 53.13 54.2 54.10 55.12 56.1 56.10-12 56.10 56.1 Ob 56.11 56.12 56.12b 57.8b 57.14a 57.19b 58.2 58.8 58.9b 59.13f. 60.6 60.7 60.1 Ob 60.19 62.6b 62.11 63.3 63.5 64.7 65.3b-4a 65.7 65.13

29, 37 37 37 37 37 37 29, 32, 38 29, 38 32, 38, 39 38, 39 38, 39 38, 39 29, 38, 39 29, 38 39 38, 39 38 29 201 29, 37 37 201 36 212 201 201 201 201 26 26 26 26 26 26 201 201, 214 201 185 185 201, 202, 211 201 212 94 201 201 201 201 201 93 201 201 100, 101 185

65.19a 65.19c 65.22b 66.1 66.3 66.12

201 201 201 232 201, 213 201

Jeremiah 1-20 1.10 1.18 2-5 2 2.5-37 2.19 2.20 3 3.1-5

3.1-4.4 3.1-4.2 3.1

3. laß 3.lb 3. Iba 3.2-3a 3.2 3.2a 3.3 3.3b-5 3.4b-5a 3.4

3.5 3.5a 3.6-18

3.6-13 3.6-12a 3.6-11 3.6 3.7 3.8

127 202 202 127 126, 128 128 202 95, 122 129 119, 120, 121, 123n18, 126, 127, 128, 129 121 119, 120, 125 119, 120, 121, 124, 125 129 124 129 119, 120 125 129 125 119, 120 125 125, 128, 129, 129n33 121, 126, 127, 128 129 125, 126, 126n27, 127 119, 126, 127, 128 126 126 126 126 126

3.10 3.11 3.12-14a 3.12-13 3.12 3.12b-14a 3.12b-13

3.12b-13ba 3.12b 3.12bc 3.13

3.14-18 3.14-17 3.14a

3.14b 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19-4.4

3.19-4.2 3.19-25 3.19-20

3.19

3.19c 3.20

3.21-4.4 3.21-4.2 3.21-25

3.21-22

126 126 121n10 122n15, 126 124, 128 128 119, 120, 121, 121n10, 122, 1231118, 127, 128 125 124 125 120, 121, 122, 123, 125 119, 127 126 122, 122n15, 126n23, 127, 128 122 127 127 126, 127, 127n30 119, 120, 121, 123n18 126 128 119, 120, 121, 126, 127, 128, 129 124, 125, 126, 127, 127n30, 128 126 121, 124, 126, 126n29 121n10 119, 120, 121, 127 120, 121 η 10, 128 119, 120

3.21 3.22a 3.22aa 3.22b 3.23-25

3.23 3.24

3.25 4.1-4 4.1-2 4.1 4. la 4. lbß 4.2 4.2aa 4.3-4

4.3 4.5-6.30 4.5a 4.8 4.8a 4.11 4.13 4.18a 5.2 5.3 5.3c 5.11b 5.21b 5.30 6.14b 6.18 6.23 7.1-8.3 7.12 7.17 7.31 7.33 7.34 8 8.1-10a

121, 125, 126 124 122 125 119, 120, 122, 123, 123n18, 125 202 120, 123, 125, 129n33, 202, 213 120, 123, 125 129 119, 120, 129, 129n33 121, 124 124, 125, 129 124 124, 125, 129 129 119, 120, 121, 123n18, 129 125 120, 129 202, 211, 214 212 202 125n21, 202 95 202 129 105, 129 129 202 202, 211 213 202 202 202 129 202 202 123n17 218n57 202 129 129

8.2 8.4c 8.5 8.5b 8.9 8.11 8.13 8.14-10.25 8.20 8.23 9.4 9.24 9.25 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.13 12.13a 12.14 13.11 13.25 13.27 14.2 14.3 14.18 15.3 15.10 15.11 15.11 b 15.13 16.4 16.5 16.9 16.21 17.8 17.10 17.20 17.25 18.7 18.9 18.18 19.1-15.4 19.3 19.5 19.25 20.6 20.8 21.5 21.6 21.8 22.10 22.18

202 129 129 129 202 202 129 129 202, 210, 214 176n19 143n13b 202 202, 213 202 202, 209 202 202, 212 212n42 202, 209 202, 214 202 202 202, 211 202 202 218n57 202 202 212 202 218n57 82n4 202 93, 202 202 202 202 202 202, 213, 218n58 218n58 202 120 202 123n17 213 202 202 218n56 202 218n58 82n4 202

22.20 22.21 22.23 22.23a 23.1-4 23.6 25.10 29.8 30.8 30.12-13 30.24 31.1 31.9 31.12 31.18-20 31.19 31.23 31.27 31.28 31.32 32.21 32.31 33.10-11 44.6 44.12 46.6 46.14 46.18b 47.3 47.7 48.8b 48.14 48.15 48.20 48.21-24a 48.21 48.28a 48.32 49.8 49.15 49.20 49.30 49.31 49.35b 49.44 50.2 50.4 50.11 50.15 50.35b 51.11 51.12

95 176n18 209, 214 202 87n1 94 202 218n58 95 202 202 215 202 202 120 202 202 202 202, 213 122 202, 213 202, 209, 212 202 202 202, 211 202 202, 214 202 202 202 202, 212 67n1 202 202 213 202 202, 212, 214 202 202 202 95 95, 202 202 202 202 202, 213 214 202 209 209, 212 202 202

51.26 51.30 51.36

202, 213 202, 213 95

Lamentations 1-5 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.12 1.18 1.18c 1.19 1.22 1.49 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.11 2.12 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.15 3.18 3.19 3.38 3.47 3.49 3.50 3.63 4.12 4.13 4.18 4.21 5.1

218 207 207 218n53 207, 218n53 218n53 218 218n53 207 210 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 207 218n53 218n53 218n53 218n53 207, 213 218n53 218n53 218n53 207 207 218n53 218n53

Ezekiel 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.11 6.4ff.

202 202 185 202, 214 202

6.11 7.6 7.7 7.10-12 7.1 Off. 11.2 12.24 13.6 13.8 13.9 14.14 14.16 14.18 14.20 15.1-5 15.6ff. 16.3 16.44 17.1 17.3 17.17 17.23 18.9 19.7 19.14 19.24 20.33 20.34 21.14 21.17 23.34 24.8 25.6 25.10 26.12 27.27 28.4a 28.12 29.5 29.18c 29.19 30.4 30.14 31.3 31.4a 37.11 48.21-243 50.2

202, 212 202, 210 202 213 202 95 202 202 202 202 170 170 170 170 227 227 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202, 210, 211 214 218n56 218n56 202 202 202, 214 202 202, 202n12 202, 214 202 202 202 202, 212 202 202 202, 215 202, 214 202 202, 213 202 202 202 202

Daniel 2.2 2.27

218n58 218n58

2.38

1.17 1.20

2.47 3.21 3.23 4.4 5.11 11.30

2.9 2.12 2.13

Hosea

2.21

2.1b 2.7 2.11

2.16f. 2.21b 3.4 4.1b 4.2 4.3b 4.9a 4.13c 5.5 5.11a 6.1 6.10b 7.11b 8.7a 8.9 8.13 9.6 9.7b 9.14b 9.16 10.4a 10.11b 10.13a 11.8 11.10

12.2a 13.10 13.12 13.15 14.1b 14.5a 14.16 Joel 1.10-12

1.14

2.14 2.15 2.20

2.25 3.2 4.1 4.6 4.9 4.14

203 95 203, 213 203, 213 203, 213, 219n60 203 203 203, 229 203, 203n16 203 203 203, 214 203 203 229

Amos 1-3 1 1.3-5

108n3 6, 7

1.6-8

7 / 7/

1.9-10

7/

1.11-12

‫ך‬/

1.13-15 2

7

6, 7

2.1-3

7

2.2

203

2.4-5

7 / 7/

2.6-8ff. 2.6

2.9 4.1 4.1b 4.9 4.13 5 5.8-9 5.10 5.11b 5.12 5.15. 5.25-27 6 7 8.5 8.6 8.11

9.5-6 9.7 9.11

/

98n3 203 98n3 203 203 161, 203 7n1 161 143n13b 145 98n3 203 7, 14 7n1 7n1 203, 213 98n3 203 161 203 203, 211

0badiah 1.16

203n17

Jonah 2.1 4.2

203 219n60

Micah 1.6 1.8 1.10-16 1.10 1.16 2.10 2.12 3.1 3.2 3.7 3.9 3.10 4.1-2 4. If. 4.2 4.6 5.8 6.1 6.6-8 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.9 7.9a 7.12 7.15 7.19a

204 204 69n2 69112 204 204 204 94n2 204, 213 204, 209 94n2 204 19 4n3 204 204, 209 95 100 139 204 204, 219 204 204 209 95, 106n1 204 204

Nahum 1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5-13 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.10 1.14 2.2 2.10 3.1-3a

94, 95, 108, 108n3 94 94, 95 94, 95 95 100, 101 95 95 95 204 204 204 204

3.8 3.14-15

204 204

Habakkuk 1.3 1.15 1.16 2.2 2.17 3

204, 211 204, 210, 211 204 204 204 108n3

^ephaniah 1.13 1.18 2.3 2.6 2.9c 2.14 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.12 3.14 3.19

204 204, 204 204 204 204 204 204 95 204, 204, 204,

209

213 214 211

Zechariah 2.6 8.16 9.10 10.4 10.11 12.1 14.8

204, 208, 209 143n13b 106n1 204, 214 105 204 229

Malachi 1.4 1.6 2.4

212 205n21, 210n36 205

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.7

205 205 205, 212 205 205, 209

Ecclesiasticus 3.11 6.2 6.1 Iff. 6.16b 6.27 7.21 7.31 10.2 10.10b 10.22 11.7 11.7b 11.14 12.5 12.7 12.18a 12.24 13.24 14.4 14.5a 14.16a 14.18b 16.12 16.16a 16.22 25.22 26.3 30.23 32.8 32.23 33.12

208 208 208 211 208 208, 208 208 208, 208 208 211, 208, 208 208, 213 208, 211 208 211 208, 208, 212 208 208, 208 208 208, 208, 214 208 208, 208 208 208

209

212

214 213 212,

33.14a 33.20 35.10b 36.6-7 37.18 38.22b 38.24-39.11 39.15 41.14 42.11c 42.13 42.21 43.6 43.9 43.17a 44.6 45.4 45.12 46.13 46.19 47.23 49.7 49.15 50.27

209, 51.5 52.25 212 211,

210

Matthew 5.18

38 38

Acts 7

212

38

Luke 16.17 21.33

214 209,

208 208 208, 208 208, 208, 228 208, 208 208, 209 208 208 208 208 208 208, 208 208 208, 208 208 208, 208, 214 208 208

14

1 Peter 1.24 1.25a

26nl 26n1

211 214 211 214 209

209

214

211 211