Hebrew Biblicial Poetry

Extracted text from Biblical_Hebrew_poetry.docx:

In the Aftermath of Kugel and Alter: Hebrew Biblical Poetry 1985-1990 No new dramatic developments in the study of Hebrew biblical poetry have appeared since the influential books by James Kugel (The Idea of Biblical Poetry) and Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Poetry) signalled a change in direction in the basic understanding of biblical poetry in general and biblical parallelism in particular. The field has not lacked drama, however, as Kugel and Alter have engaged in bitter public recriminations, and a spate of articles have appeared taking sides in the ideological debate if not in the personal battle. Alter accuses Kugel of taking a basically good idea - that the fundamental dynamic of biblical parallelism is intensification rather than synonymy - too far, while Kugel accuses Alter of stealing his ideas. While not many have joined the debate on plagiarism (but cf. Hershel Shanks and John Grammie in Bible Review), quite a few have joined Alter in trying to recover a place for synonymy in parallelism. Considering the different type of parallelism possible (semantic, syntactic, phonetic, etc.), it is at times difficult to know whether scholars are really disagreeing or just using different terms. The argument against Kugel's formula runs more or less as follows: Kugel is right that parallelism is not mere repetition - in fact, much of it is not repetitive at all, but intensificatory, etc. But he goes too far when he indicates that there is nothing more than the unity inherent in the two-line structure to hold the idea of parallelism together. It is true that there is a continuum from "zero perceivable correspondence" to "near-zero perceivable differentiation," but this continuum, while it may be basic to biblical poetry, is not what constitutes parallelism. There is another continuum of structures of complete or partial repetition, from assonance to rhyme and rhythm, similar letters, synonyms, repeated ideas, words, phrases, parallel poetic lines, verses, refrains (at line and verse and stanza level), all the way to such things as inclusio and beyond. It is this continuum (fairly universal in the poetry of any time and place) which seems to many to be more to the point with regard to the definition of parallelism. This does not deny some of Kugel's essential insights regarding the dynamic nature of biblical poetry - that it more often intensifies in various ways than repeats, for example, and that it is built on a two (sometimes three) line verse as a basic building block. He may even be right about biblical poetry being "A, and what's more B," at its very core. After all, that definition includes much more biblical poetry than the "structures of repetition" continuum in spite of the argument that repetition is more universal in character as a definition of poetry in general. The point here is merely that parallelism ought to mean something like what is seems to mean - that something parallels (not just corresponds to) something else, however imperfectly. Ziony Zevit ("Roman Jacobson, Psycholinguistics, and Biblical Poetry") has recently followed Adele Berlin's lead (The Dynamics of Biblical Poetry) in placing parallelism within the larger framework of repetition - both at the linguistic and poetic levels. He warns, however, that Kugel's "perceivable correspondence" may be at times finely tuned scholarly perception and even over-interpretation rather than the more obvious "apparent correspondence" of the parallelism in the ears of the original hearers. David Noel Freedman ("Another Look at Biblical Hebrew Poetry") looks at the occurrence of "prose" particles in biblical texts as a diagnostic for poetry. In particular, the definite article h-, the marker of the definite direct object 'et, and the relative pronoun 'aer are used for his tests. On the basis of frequency counts in various texts, Freedman claims to be able to correctly predict whether a text is poetry or prose in a large majority of cases. If the particle count is below 5%, it is almost certainly poetry. If it is over 15%, it is almost certainly prose. In the 5-10% range we either have poetry or prophetic discourse, says Freedman, and in the 10-15% range we probably have prose with some poetic elements. If this kind of counting seems strange, it is well to remember that nearly everyone agrees that a significant component of poetry is terseness. D.J.A. Clines ("The Parallelism of Greater Precision") tries to bring a greater degree of precision to Kugel's "A, and what's more B" paradigm of parallelism. Clines points out that the relationship is most often one of specification, so that the formula in the majority of cases should be "A, namely B." He admits at the same time that the possibilities for the relationship between the two lines are so varied that the general formula should perhaps be even more general than Kugel's - "A is related to B."

Quite apart from the possibility of interacting systems and structures of repetition, tendencies toward condensation, and dynamics of intensification, many scholars (Grossberg, Fish, et.al.) have noticed a tension between the expected and the unexpected in biblical poetry. The idea is that if you utilize any feature too much, you may bore your audience, but if you are constantly introducing new features, you may lose your audience altogether. Thus parallelism is broken (or used at one level and subverted at another), intensification is interspersed with synonymy, and condensation coexists with embellishment. The resulting tension both holds the text together and makes it interesting. These insights are of course not new to those interested in poetry in general, but in some cases are just now being applied seriously to biblical texts. Scholars have exhibited contradictory tendencies as well recently, denying for the most part the possibility of or even the utility of a new taxonomy of biblical parallelism while rarely resisting the temptation to make some sort of a list (e.g. Schkel). Most agree with Kugel that we may have one kind of parallelism, or a hundred, but not two or three (or five or ten). Still, most offer typologies and/or taxonomies of some kind, if only to present a favorite type and give it prominence. A number of our UBS colleagues (Kasshlke, Reyburn, Sterk, Stine, Wonderly) have also contributed articles on biblical poetry during this period, mostly of a practical sort meant to help translators, but also touching on theoretical or technical issues at times. Reyburn's contribution serves as the essential background reading needed in order to fully appreciate this update. Stine's article summarizes features of poetry in general and applies them to biblical poetry, which lends some outside validity to the endeavor. He quotes Anthony Easthope, saying that poetry is recognized by "the special use the text makes of the signifier in patterns of repetition and condensation." A careful exegesis of that sentence touches on virtually every important area of study within biblical poetry for the last half decade. Bob Bascom

Extracted text from Bascom-Poetry.pdf:

TIC TALK Newsletter of the United Bible Societies Translation lnfonnation Clearinghouse

[

1

t ik tok] No. 14, Winter 1991

In the Aftermath of Kugel and Alter: Hebrew Biblical Poetry 1985-1990

N o new dramatic developments in the study of Hebrew biblical poetry have appeared since the influential books by James Kugel (The Idea ofbiblical poetry) and Robert Alter (The Art of biblical poetry) signalled a change in direction in the basic understanding of biblical poetry in general and biblical parallelism in particular. The field has not lacked drama, however, as Kugel and Alter have engaged in bitter public recriminations, and a spate of articles have appeared talcing sides in the ideological debate if not in the personal battle. Alter accuses Kugel of talcing a basically good id~that the fundamental dynamic of biblical parallelism is intensification rather than synonymy-too far, while Kugel accuses Alter of stealing his ideas. While not many have joined the debate on plagiarism (but cf. John Gammie in Bible Review), quite a few have joined Alter in tryim' tO recover a place for synonymy m parallelism. Considering the different types of parallelism possible (semantic, syntactic, phonetic, etc.), it is at times difficult to know whether scholars are really disagreeing or just using different terms.

structure to hold the idea of parallelism together. It is true that there is a continuum from "zero perceivable correspondence" to "near-zero perceivable differentiation," but this continuum, while it may be basic to biblical poetry, is not what constitutes parallelism.

T here is another continuum of structures of complete or partial repetition, from assonance to rhyme and rhythm, similar letters, synonyms, repeated ideas, words, phrases, parallel poetic lines, verses, refrains (at line and verse and stanza level), all the way to such things as inclusio and beyond. It is this continuum (fairly universal in the poetry of any time and place) which seems w many to be more to the point with regard to the definition of parallelism.

T his does not deny some of Kugel' s essential insights regarding the dynamic nature of biblical poetry-that it more often intensifies in various ways than repeats, for example, and that it is built on a two (sometimes three) line verse as a basic building block. He may even be right about biblical poetry being "A, and what's more B," at its very core. After all, that definition includes much more biblical poetry than the "structures of repetition" continuum in spite of the argument that repetition is more universal in character as a definition of poetry in general. The point here is merely that parallelism ought to mean something like what it seems to mean-that something

orth&dif6dtOl; '~rold P.})/ ~9fr.P_.-. .at.,'s ::.::'- I :::..:.:.,...,.. Jtf :: .. , . sc . ' :::::::::;:::::.

-;.;.;-;-:-:::::;::~::::

!f

lkrlfi!~ll!' . . -: .:...:.... :'{):?

T he argument against Kugels formula runs more or less as follows: Kugel is right that parallelism is not mere repetition-in fact, much of it is not repetitive at all, but intensificatory, etc. B~t he goes too far when he indicates that there is nothing more than the unity inherent in the two-line

::::-:::::::::::>:::::::::.:

:-::: ::::::::::::::::

M~?~r~~~HJ' /t:r :t Nv . .. ::::: :::::::.::.:-:-.

PA[f#.1.?h,e; NvAtno

:.;

.:Te1:212sa11400

:-.::1 ....: : .:...~ .:....: .. ..T~.:.. :. .:.:.... :.Y . ..:.... ... .: .. . .....i..:..:~.:... :;.:....'.'...:.:.'. .. - - - - : .. ... ' ?>'' : :-:-;-;.;.;-: :-:-:-:-.;-.: .-.-.-. -... .. :--.:--: :. . :.::.:.:..;.;.;.:-:-:-:-:-:-

 '.

;~

Page2

TIC TALK UBS Translation lnfonnation Clcainghouse Newsletter

No. 14, Wmter 1991

parallels (not just corresponds to)

something else. however imperfectly. J.A. Clines (..The Parallelism of Greater Precision'') tries to bring a greater degree of precision to Kugel's "A, and what's more B" paradigm of parallelism. Clines points out that the relationship is most often one of specification, so that the formula in the majority of cases should be "A, namely B." He admits at the same time that the possibilities for the relationship between the two lines are so varied that the general formula should perhaps be even more general than Kugel's--"A is related to B."

uite apart from the possibility Q of interacting systems and structures of repetition, tendencies toward condensation, and dynamics of intensification, many scholars (Grossberg, Fisch, et.al.) have noticed a tension between the expected and the unexpected in biblical poetry. The idea is that if you utilize any feature too much, you may bore your audience, but if

D

Z son, iony Zevit ("Roman Jacobpsycholinguistics, and biblical poetry'') has recently followed Adele Berlin's lead (The Dynamics ofbiblical poetry) in placing parallelism within the larger framework of repetition-both at the linguistic and poetic levels. He warns, however, that Kugel's "perceivable correspondence" may be at times finely tuned scholarly perception and even over-interpretation rather than the more obvious "apparent correspondence" of the parallelism in the ears of the original hearers. have exhibited contraS cholars dictory tendencies as well recently, denying for the most part the possibility of or even the utility of a new taxonomy of biblical parallelism while rarely resisting the temptation to make some sort of a list (e.g. Alonso Sch~kel). Most agree with Kugel that we may have one kind of parallelism, or a hundred, but not two or three (or five or ten). Still, most offer typologies and/or taxonomies of some kind, if only to present a favorite type and give it prominence.

Considering the different types of parallelism possible, ft Is at times difficult to know whether scholars are really disagreeing or just using different terms... you are constantly introducing new features, you may lose your audience altogether. Thus parallelism is broken (or used at one level and subverted at another), intensifi cation is interspersed with synonymy, and condensation coexists with embellishment The resulting tension both holds the text together and makes it interesting. These insights are of course not new to those interested in poetry in general, but in some cases are just now being applied seriously to biblical texts.

biblical texts as a diagnostic for poetty. In particular, the definite article h-, the marker of the definite direct object et, and the relative pronoun aier are used for his tests. On the basis of frequency counts in various texts, Freedman claims to be able to predict correctly whether a text is poetry or prose in a large majority of cases. If the particle count is below 5%, it is almost certainly poetry. If it is over 15%, it is almost certainly prose. In the 5-10% range we either have poetry or prophetic discourse, says Freedman, and in the 10-15% range we probably have prose with some poetic elements. If this kind of counting seems strange, it is well to remember that nearly everyone agrees that a significant component of poetry is terseness.

D avid Noel Freedman (..An-

other look at biblical Hebrew poetry''), addressing the problem of determining whether a passage is prose or poetry, looks at the occurrence of"prose" particles in

number of our UBS colleagues (Kassiihlke, Reyburn, Sterk, Stine, Wonderly) have also contributed articles on biblical poetry during this period, mostly of a practical sort meant to help translators, but also touching on theoretical or technical issues at times. Reyburn' s contribution serves as the essential background reading needed in order to fully appreciate this update. Stine's article summarizes features of poetry in general and applies them to biblical poetry, which lends some outside validity to the endeavor. He quotes Anthony Easthope, saying that poetry is recognized by "the special use the text makes of the signifier in patterns of repetition and condensation." A careful exegesis of that sentence reveals that it touches on virtually every important area of study within biblical poetry for the last half decade.

A

• BobBascom

No. 14, Winter 1991

TIC TALK - UBS Translation Information Clearinghouse Newsletter

Page3

Resources for Biblical Poetry 1985-1990 Alonso Schakel, Luis. 1988. A Manual of Hebrew poetics. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Alter, Robert. 1987. "The Characteristics of ancient Hebrew poetry." In The Literary guide to the Bible, R. Alter and F. Kennode, eds. (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press). Andersen, T. David.1986. "Problems in 11118lysing Hebrew poetry." East Asia Journal of Theology 4:68-94. Berlin, Adele. 1985. The Dynamics of biblical parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Christensen, Duane L. 1985. "Prose and poetry in the Bible: The narrative poetics of Deuteronomy 1:9-18." Zeitschrlft ftir die alttestamentUcbe Wlssenschaft 97: 179-189. Clines, DJ.A. 1987. "The Parallelism of greater precision." In Directions In biblical Hebrew poetry. Cloetc, W.T.W.1988. "Verse and prose: Does the distinction apply to the Old Testament?" Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 14:9-15. Cloetc, W .T.W.1989. Verslftcatlon and syntax In Jeremiah 2-25: Syntactical constraints In Hebrew colometry. Atlanta: Scholars PJcss. Directions ln biblical Hebrew poetry. 1987. Elaine R. Follis, ed. Sheffield: JSOTPress. Fisch, Harold. 1988. Poetry with a purpose: Blbllcal poetics and interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University PJcss. Freedman, David Noel. 1986. "Acrostic poems in the Hebrew Bible: Alphabetic and otherwise." Catholic Blbllcal Quarterly 48/3:408-431. Freedman, David Noel. 1987. "Another look at biblical Hebrew poetry." In Dlrec:tlons In biblical Hebrew poetry. Gammie, Jolm. 1989. "Alter vs Kugel: taking the heat in struggle over biblical poetry." Bible Review 5:2633. Greenfield, Jonas C. 1990. "The 'cluster' in biblical poetry." Maarav 5-6:159-168. Grossberg, Daniel. 1989. Centripetal and centrifugal structures In biblical poetry. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Hurvitz, Avi. 1985. "Originals and imitations in biblical poetry: A comparative examination of l Sam 2:1-10 and Ps 113:5-9." In Biblical and related studies presented to Samuel Jwry, A. Kort and S. Morschauser, eds. (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns). Kassiihlke, Rudolf. 1987. "Gedanken zur Obersetzung poetischer Bibeltexte."Meta 32:76-84. Korpel, Margo C.A., and Johannes C. de Moor. 1986. "Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew poetry." Ugarlt-Forschungen 18. Loretz, Oswald. 1986. "Kolomelrie ugaritischcr und hebriischcr Poesie: Grundlagen, infonnationsthooretische und litcraturwissenschaftliche Aspekte." Zeitschrlft ror die alttestamentllcbe Wlssenscbaft 98!1:249-266. Millet", Patrick D., Jr. 1985. "Current issues in Psalms studies." Word & World 5: 132-143. nische Analyse von Dtn 1:9-18." Zeltschrlft filr die alttestamentUcbe Wlsseoscbaft 98!1:271-275. Segert, Stanislav. 1985. "Hebrew poetic parallelism as reflected in the Septuagint." In La Septuaglnta en la lnvestlgacl6n contemporanea, N. Fernandez Marcos, ed. (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas). Sterle, Jan P. 1989. "Bible poetry in ttanslation."OPTAT3/1:36-49. Stine, Philip C. 1987. "Biblical poetry and translation." Meta 32:64-75. The Structural analysis of blbHcal and Canaanite poetry. 1988. W. van dcr Meer and J.C. de Moor, eds. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Tsumura, David T. 1986. "Literary insertion, AxB pattern, in Hebrew and Ugaritic-a problem of adjacency and dependency in poetic parallelism." Ugarlt-Fonchungen 18. Tsumura, David T. 1988. "'Inserted bic.olon', the AXYB pattern, in Amos 1:5 and Psalm 9:7." Vetus Testamentum 38:234-236. Watson, Wilfred. 1989. "Internal or half-line parallelism in classical Hebrew again."Vetus Testamentum 39:44-66. Willis, John T. 1987. "Alternating (ABA'B ')parallelism in the Old Testament psalms and prophetic literature." In Dlrec:tlons In biblical Hebrew poetry. Wonderly, William L. 1987. "Poetry in the Bible: Challenge to lranSlators." The Bible Translator 38:206-213. Zevit, Ziony. 1987. "Psalms at the poetic precipice." Hebrew Annual Review 10:351-366. Zevit, Ziony. 1990. "Roman Jakobson, psycholinguistics, and biblical poetry." Journal of Biblical Literature 109:385-401.

O'Connor, Michael Patrick. 1987. "The Pseudosoritcs: A type of paradox in the Hebrew verse." In Directions In biblical Hebrew poetry. Pardee, Dennis. 1990. "Structure and meaning in Hebrew poetry: The example of Psalm 23.'' Maarav 56:239-280. Reyburn, William D. 1988. "Poetic parallelism: Its structure, meaning and implication for translators." In Issues ln Bible translation, P.C. Stine, ~- (London; New York; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies), 81-112. Schnedl, Claus. 1986. "Prosa und Dichtung in der Bibel: Logotech-