TALBOT SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY TH.M. RESEARCH SEMINAR

SPRING 2011

INSTRUCTOR: JOANNE JUNG, PH.D.

MENTOR: THOMAS FINLEY, PH.D.

The Patterns of Poetic Structure

An Analysis of the Features of the Poetic Genre

in the OT

Zachary J. Schoening

12/6/2011

Abstract: This paper seeks to explore the basic factor involved in the measured pattern of

rhythm, called meter, involved in the poetry of the Hebrew Bible. Giving due acknowledgement

to the difficulty of this issue, a survey is provided of some of the major movements of thought in

this area, both historic and current. We also seek to study some of the features that are related to

meter, such as parallelism, rhythm, and the relationship of poetry to musical composition. It is

the premise of this paper that meter does exist in the poetic sections of the OT, and that this

meter is related to accentual features. However, this meter is fluid and flexible, corresponding to

the nature of Hebrew literature in general, and thus cannot be determined or critiqued according

to the classical Greco-Roman standards.

1

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to explore the patterning of poetic structure in the Hebrew

Bible, and what constitutes those patterns, whether they be related to parallelism, word-count, or

metrical rhythm. This paper acknowledges a distinct difference between poetic form and prose,

stemming from poetry’s dense language and highly structured organization. We will thus be

working with a concept of poetry which assumes that particular structural patterns exist which

set the poetic genre apart from the freer expression of its prosaic counterpart. It is in the direction

of these structural patterns that we will direct our study. This will be accomplished by surveying

some of the prevailing views related to the patterns of biblical Hebrew poetry and discussing

their strengths and weaknesses in the contribution to Hebrew poetic studies.

While even the distinct character of poetry as opposed to prose has been widely debated,1

there has been at least a tacit recognition of some regular pattern which was intended to be a

feature of the meaning of the passage. Weiss summarily states, “While biblical poetry may not

contain conclusive evidence of meter, it does display a certain degree of symmetry and sound

patterning.”2 Thus 2 Sam. 1:27 was intended to be recited with a certain cadence and thematic

development:

hm'(x'l.mi yleîK. Wdßb.aYOw: // ~yrIêABgI Wlåp.n" %ya How have the mighty fallen // and the weapons of war are lost.

1 See James Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins

University Press, 1998). See also Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 2011). See also

Michael P O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 66-67. 2 Andrea Weiss, “Poetry,” Encyclopedia Judaica 16:258.

2

Not only do the words themselves—within their context—affect the passage’s meaning, but also

their parallelism, syllabification, and terseness are intended to be a part of the poem’s impact.

In describing the units within a poem, we will adopt the term colon to refer to the

individual and complete lines that provide the form for the poem. This is contrasted with other

words used for the same component, such as verset,3 stich,4 half-line, or line.5 We will also adopt

the term poetry to describe that particular literary form that is characterized by a high degree of

structural specificity, including a certain association of symmetry and repetition. The term

History of Research

Patristic Period

Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254 CE.), influenced both by Rabbinic thought and

Hellenistic philosophy, believed that meter was the basis for Hebrew poetry. Eusebius of

Caesarea (c. 260-340 CE.) likewise believed that the psalms followed a regular metrical pattern.

John Chrysostom of Antioch (c. 347-407 CE.) and Jerome (c. 342-420 CE.) also viewed Hebrew

poetry as fitting into a regular metrical pattern.6

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-94 CE.), however, had a different view. He attributed the

inspiration of Hebrew poetry to a source other than that of Hellenistic verse, and thus it did not

abide by the same set of rules. Gregory believed that the inspired biblical writings were

qualitatively superior to that of the pagan writings, and thus its rhythm followed a free accentual

pattern rather than a mechanical structure.

3 See Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry.

4 See Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Dearborn, Michigan: Dove Booksellers, 2008).

5 See Michael P. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure.

6 See S. E. Gillingham, The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994), 52.

Augustine also affirmed the Bible’s literary value and contributed in the identification of tropes and figurative

language. See also Luis Alonso Schokel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico,

1988), 2.

3

These two contrasting views from the patristic age represent two distinctive

presuppositions. Gillingham summarizes this distinction in the minds of the early Fathers as

follows:

Either Hebrew poetry is very like that of cultures whose literature contemporary

scholarship holds in respect, in which case it is assumed that it has utilized some of these

conventions; or Hebrew poetry is sui generis, in which case it is free to follow its own

conventions, which need not include those of clear metrical arrangement.7

These principles are evident in modern theories as well, often stated with quite different

arguments.

Medieval Period

The rabbis minimize the use of parallelism as a literary device in the biblical corpus. The

reason for this is considered by some to be due to a doctrine of “omnisignificance,” an estimation

of Scripture as divinely inspired and infallible, and thus above all human literary methods. The

midrashic approach rather interpreted parallel texts according to a kind of “nuancing.” Kugel

writes:

For the basic assumption underlying all of rabbinic exegesis is that the slightest details of

the biblical text have a meaning that is both comprehensible and significant. Nothing in

the Bible, in other words, ought to be explained as the product of chance, or, for that

matter, as an emphatic or rhetorical form, or anything similar, nor ought its reasons to be

assigned to the realm of Divine unknowables. Every detail is put there to teach something

new and important, and it is capable of being discovered by careful analysis.8

The biblical text is inspired, and so it is special, and not subject to the same literary guidelines of

other literature.9

The rabbis minimized the literary methods of Scripture and ascribed to the biblical

literature a status which is elevated above “normal” literary devices. Instead of recognizing the

7 Gillingham, Poems and Psalms, 53.

8 Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 104.

9 This view may arguably be compared to a Dictation Theory of inspiration.

4

parallel structure for what it is, they rather elected to seek for hidden nuances and cryptic

allusions.

Yet it is also true that the Rabbis themselves used parallelism in their own prayers and

writings, showing at least an implicit awareness of this method, although they did not explicitly

discuss its use in Scripture. It is perhaps because this rhetorical impulse was so strongly

ingrained in the Hebrew language that one could read it without a conscious recognition of its

presence. Kugel refers to this as the rabbinic “forgetting” of parallelism.10

During the medieval period, biblical interpretation of poetry was largely relegated to the

area of allegory. This was promoted by Augustine’s sentiments in De Doctrina that the Bible’s

truest beauty lay in its “manner of allegorizing,” which also compensated for its relative lack of

elegance. Indeed, medieval theologians viewed theology and poetry as intricately related.

Nevertheless, a caution against literature was the prevailing attitude. The medieval writers also

recognized the literary value of the Bible due to the fact that God communicated in human

language, while texts that appeared as awkward were attributed a status above the normal literary

conventions because of its divine origin.11

The word shir (song), related to the Arabic term si’r (poetry), was adopted by Sephardic

Jews to speak of poetry. During the Middle Ages, musical compositions implied meter. So it was

natural to examine those passages labeled as shir in order to discover their poetic qualities. This

proved to be a difficult task. “The question they were left with—indeed, the one that confronted

medieval poets generally, as well as grammarians and other scholars—was: In what precisely

does the poetic quality of biblical shirim lie?”12

Some writers identified this “poetic quality” in

10

See Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 96-134. 11

See Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 205. 12

Kugel,The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 187.

5

the fairly regular binary nature of biblical songs. Those who rejected the presence of meter cited

the lack of equivalence between lines, syllables, and accents of verses. 13

Renaissance Period

During the Renaissance, however, a bold new appreciation of biblical poetry—and

literature in general—captivated scholars. There arose a more vigorous literary approach

whereby poetry was considered “divine” simply because it arose from man’s natural creative

expression and primitive yearning to praise God. Thus the distinction between the inspired text

and secular poetry was largely collapsed as all literature was represented as proceeding from

divine inspiration. Writers such as Petrarch, Boccaccio, and A. S. Minturno expressed the

revolutionary idea of the divine origin of poetry which first became manifest through the Hebrew

Scriptures. These writers also recognized the literary quality of the Scriptures, in contrast with

the medieval conception which largely ignored this quality because the inspired text was viewed

as above human categories. Schokel writes, “In their polemics against Scholasticism the

humanists promoted the Bible to justify their poetic activity and to exalt the value of poetry as

against speculation.”14

Throughout this period, new renditions of the Psalter and other devotional material were

composed in an effort to extend the spiritual benefits of Scripture and to promote spiritual

edification through a broad repertoire of materials. In Kugel’s words:

13 See Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 190-101, who notes four “families” of answers related to the quality of

biblical meter during the medieval period: 1.) “Poetry” means figurative, indirect, or mysterious expressions; 2.) The

original meter is lost; 3.) “Song” may refer to a passage’s musical quality without necessarily implying meter; 4.)

Biblical poetry does contain meter. Yehuda ha-Levi argued that melodies need not necessarily utilize metrical

structure, thus eliminating the “necessity of finding any structure in Hebrew songs.” Ha-Levi’s proposal was carried

on through later commentators, including his student, Solomon b. Abraham ibn Parhon. 14

Schokel, Hebrew Poetics, 2.

6

But men can speak to God at any moment, and if no Cicero could rival David’s words,

there was certainly no harm in a Christian poet trying, or at least giving expression, in the

most exalted language and style of his day, to the deepest longings of his own soul.

Herein lies the whole calling of Renaissance religious poetry.15

Since the yearning for spiritual communion with God is universal, anyone could express this

yearning as truly as the biblical poet, although the biblical literature was recognized as

exemplary.

This movement evolved into a conflict of views between those who promoted the

composition of fresh renditions of the Psalter vs. those who opposed the rise of such literature.

The former included Petrarch and many English composers. The latter could do little to deny the

essential poetic quality of the Bible; they merely argued that biblical poetry was of a higher

nature than the secular works because of its divine origin.

The overall effect of post-thirteenth century thinking was that “The gulf between the

Bible and human works was shrinking.”16

Both the sacred and the secular texts were viewed as

employing similar devices, such as allegorizing and figurative language. This perspective

reflected the typical Renaissance “humanistic” sentiment that the Hebrew Bible is the product of

inspired men who wrote according to the common literary dictates of ancient Near Eastern

society.

The recognition of the poetic quality of the Hebrew Bible is also noticed in the

translations following the sixteenth century. For example, the Latin Bible, produced by

Emmanuel Tremellius and Francis Junius in 1575-79, offsets Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Song of

15

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 220. 16

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 218.

7

Songs, and Ecclesiastes into poetic text, and also distinguishes the literary quality of “elegant

canticles” throughout other books which largely contain prose.17

Sometime in the midst of this era, it was proposed that Hebrew poetry more closely

resembled the “loose” poetry of the European languages than that of Latin or Greek. George

Wyther, who translated the Psalms into verse-form, suggested that Hebrew poetry shared more in

common with English than with classical literature. The term rhythmus was used to refer to

poetic arrangement which is not strictly metrical according to the Greco-Latin model. Hebraisists

such as Samuel ibn Tibbon and Moses ibn Habib proposed that Hebrew, in general, is a simpler

system than Greek or Latin.

The trend toward identifying a non-metrical system in biblical verse continued as careful

scholars recognized the disparity between Hebrew and Greco-Latin style.18

Thus scholars

recognized a fundamental distinction between the patterns of Hebrew—the language of the Old

Testament—and that of Koine Greek—the language of the New Testament.

On the Jewish front, a fresh approach emerged out of the traditional midrashic concept,

which largely ignored difficult texts. This new approach initiated a willingness to deal with

parallelism for what it was as a way to understand the text. So Kugel states:

Thus it was that the problem of biblical “meters” led ibn Tibbon, ibn Habib, and others to

set down what perhaps many others grasped without consciously formulating their ideas:

that biblical verses often divide into rough halves, and that this structure can work in a

way comparable to meter—it can shape the utterance and give it a regularity, line after

line.19

17

See Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 223-24, footnotes 50 and 51. The common practice of congregational

singing of the Psalms in Geneva and England also attests to the recognition of the metrical structure of the Psalms. 18

Jean Le Clerc argues that “it is not in the nature of Semitic languages to create a truly metrical poetry (in the

Bedean sense), because they are ill suited to distinguishing between long and short syllables. Moreover, Hebrew,

because word order is fixed by such features as noun constructs, does not have the flexibility necessary for metrical

compositions. Therefore, there is no sense in looking for a Greco-Latin-style metrical system.” (Jean Le Clerc, La

Bibliotheque universelle, 1688 [Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 247-48]) 19

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 199-200.

8

However, the concept of repetition still ran counter to their traditional intuition, which led them

to hold firmly to the text’s perfection, and the idea of repetition seemed to be a defect in the

text’s style. For this reason, the commentators used the terms, “doubling” and “repetition” only

when referring to literal repetition, or when a thought is unmistakably restated. Also, other

phrases were used in dealing with repetition, such as “elegant style,” “the manner of prophesies,”

and “the habit of Hebrew.” Kugel writes:

The increasing willingness of biblical commentators to countenance repetition and

restatement as such, and to view them as essentially emphatic forms of expressions, was

an important step; the attention focused by various writers on the basically binary nature

of biblical songs, and their acceptance of this binariness as all the regularity there is, was

certainly another.20

Thus this period in Jewish exegesis was marked by a shedding of Talmudic dogmatic forms, and

the emergence of revolutionary insights into Hebrew poetry. The groundbreaking work of these

medieval Jewish scholars led the way (albeit unintentional on their part) to seeing beyond the

midrashic view, although these scholars apparently were uncomfortable with their findings.

The Modern Era

The past few centuries have been characterized by a more complex formulation of

Hebrew poetry. Foremost among scholars working in the area of biblical poetics is Robert Lowth

(1710-1787), whose shadow has been cast over all subsequent studies. The impact of Lowth’s

work on biblical poetry can hardly be overstated. In De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, he argues for a

metrical system in Hebrew, although he acknowledges the controversy surrounding this subject.

He writes:

20

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 203. See also Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 179-181. This hesitancy to

identify repetition in the biblical text is viewed especially in Moses ibn Ezra, who cautions Hebrew poets against

using the repetitive form of the Bible, and who also qualifies the repetition of the Bible as contributing “a significant

nuance.”

9

But since it appears essential to every species of poetry, that it be confined to numbers,

and consist of some kind of verse…, in treating of the poetry of the Hebrews, it appears

absolutely necessary to demonstrate, that those parts at least of the Hebrew writings

which we term poetic, are in a metrical form, and to inquire whether anything be

certainly known concerning the nature and principles of this versification or not.21

Lowth goes on to explain how this “metrical form” is manifested as the poets even adjusted their

phrases to fit into this scheme by either adding or subtracting syllables from words “for the sake

of adapting them to their immediate purpose.”22

Lowth’s concept was that the biblical style needs to be critiqued and interpreted

according to the standards of the ancient Oriental world, rather than the world of classical Greek

and Latin literature. Of Lowth, it is said that he is the one “who inaugurates the systematic study

of biblical poetry,”23

as he sensitively picked up on many of the distinctive poetic techniques of

Hebrew poetry, such as parallelism. He laments that the true pronunciation—and thus the

rhythmical principles—of biblical Hebrew are altogether lost to modern interpreters due to the

fact that the language is no longer spoken:

As to the real quantity, the rhythm, or modulation, these from the present state of the

language seem to be altogether unknown, and even to admit of no investigation by human

art or industry…The truth is, it was neither possible for them to recal the true

pronunciation of a language long since obsolete, and to institute afresh the rules of

orthoepy; nor can any person in the present age so much as hope to effect any thing to the

purpose by the aid of conjecture, in a matter so remote from our senses, and so involved

in obscurity.24

He writes further, regarding the utter impossibility at arriving at a specific formulation of

Hebrew verse:

Thus, not so much as the number of syllable, of which each word consisted, could with

any certainty be defined, much less the length or quantity of the syllables: and since the

regulation of the metre of any language must depend upon two particulars, I mean the

number and the length of the syllables, the knowledge of which is utterly unattainable in

21

Robert Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum (trans. G. Gregory; Boston: Joseph T. Buckingham, 1815), 38. 22

Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, 40. 23

Schokel, Hebrew Poetics, 3. 24

Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, 44.

10

the Hebrew, he who attempts to restore the true and genuine Hebrew versification, effects

an edifice without a foundation.25

For Lowth, the guidelines for poetic patterning existed in the mind of the poet during

composition, although they are unrecoverable in modern exegesis.

Lowth writes of “a certain conformation of the sentences,” which means that they are

divided into roughly equal lengths and form parallel statements in order to treat a single subject

in different ways. This he saw not as strict law of poetry, but rather as a general principle which

was generally characteristic of biblical poetry which produces in the poetry “an exquisite degree

of beauty and grace.”26

While earlier Christian commentators accepted Job, Psalms, and Proverbs as belonging to

the poetic genre, it was Lowth who extended this category to include the prophetic books as well.

The earlier view subjected Hebrew poetry to the same critique of Greek literature. Lowth was

critical of this view:

Christian exegetes also veered off, but in the Greco-Roman direction seen: following

Philo-Josephus, they accepted as (metrical) poetry those songs, psalms, and the like in the

Bible, which, had they been written in Greek, would naturally, by reason of subject and

genre, have been poetry.27

So Lowth’s insight proved revolutionary in his ability to see beyond the classical forms and to

recognize the Hebrew system according to its own standards.

Buchanan Gray noted the importance of tonal features. He found that parallelism alone

was insufficient as a complete explanation for the character of poetry, as some kind of rhythm is

found in couplets that are “completely parallel,” “incompletely parallel,” and “non-parallel.” To

be sure, parallelism does produce a rhythmic quality, but parallelism is not all that produces

rhythm. This evidence leads Gray to seek for another factor—an “independent rhythmic

25

Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, 45. 26

Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum, 46. 27

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 171.

11

principle”—which would account for the cadence in poetry. Thus he finds that the pattern of

stressed and unstressed syllables provides the best explanation for the rhythmic character of

poetry, albeit he acknowledges certain difficulties in reaching ultimate conclusions within this

system because of the limitations placed upon modern readers of an ancient text. He writes:

We are thus driven back behind parallelism in search of an independent rhythmical

principle in Hebrew poetry which will account for the presence of balance, or other

rhythmical relation, as between two lines in which the parallelism is not such as

necessarily to involve this balance or other rhythmical relation.28

To be sure, Gray affirms the occurrence of parallelism in poetry, but there is more at work here

as poetry commonly involves a rhythm that cannot be accounted for purely by parallelism.29

Mowinckel viewed the metrical structure of Hebrew poetry as basically iambic, although

the three-syllable anapest may also be found. However, he relies heavily upon Masoretic

vocalization and consonantal tradition.30

Mowinckel also asserted the idea of a “rhythm of

meaning,” or a “sense rhythm,” which is present in any semantically coherent text. He identifies

this as the basis for rhythm in any language, and writes:

In the earliest poetry of a people the fundamental and original rhythm will generally be

that of meaning. And, more or less, it will assert itself again in a reaction against the strict

artificial rhythms.31

Mowinckel goes on to define this sense rhythm as “spontaneous,” and implies that it is natural to

any language.

During this era, scholars increasingly recognized a vast dichotomy between the rhythmic

pattern of biblical Hebrew and the strict metrics of Greco-Roman literature, along with its

European descendants. Unlike the European system, which utilizes the interplay between long

28

Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry, 123-24. 29 Buchanan. Gray The Forms of Hebrew Poetry (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915), 123-54. 30

Sigmund Mowinkel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Thomas; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 159-

75. 31

Mowinkel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 160.

12

and short syllables, classical Hebrew was acknowledged to contain no such formulation based on

syllable-length.

Moreover, the twentieth century has seen the disappearance of the widespread belief that

Hebrew verse depended upon a metrical system of precise regularity. In Fokkelman’s words, this

belief is akin to an intellectual tower which “is tottering, and has probably fallen already.”32

Fokkelman may by overly dramatic in his statement, yet the overwhelming difficulty of finding

the kind of regular correspondence between accented and unaccented syllables, so evident in

Graeco-Roman poetry, seems to leave modern scholars with little option but to abandon the

pursuit for a decisive conclusion in the area of metrics.

David Noel Freedman has argued for the basis of biblical poetry through an analysis of

syllable-counting. Freedman believed that this method provided the most adequate description

for the patterning of poetry in the OT.33

J. P. Fokkelman likewise argues for a regularly observed count of syllables in the poem’s

composition. In Fokkelman’s view, the poet attempted to devise a poem that manifested an even,

or near-even, use of syllables in corresponding cola.34

James Kugel observes a lack of regularity in the metrical structure of Hebrew poetry. He

doubts that the sort of symmetry actually found in Hebrew verse corresponds to the kind of

regularity typically demanded in metrical theories:

All metrical theories suffer from the same syndrome. It starts with the observation that

‘lines’, or sentences, units of thought, major pauses, ‘periods’ or whatever, are roughly

equal in length in a given passage of poetry…the approximate regularity of biblical songs

does not correspond to any metrical system.35

32

J. P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible (The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1998), 23. 33

David N. Freedman, “Acrostics and Metrics in Hebrew Poetry,” Harvard Theological Review, 65 (1972), 367-92. 34

J. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide (Louiseville, Kentucky: John Knox Press,

2001), 21-27. 35

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 197-98. See also Gillingham, Poems and Psalms, 57.

13

For Kugel, the “roughly equal” character of lines in Hebrew verse is not sufficient to claim a

metrical system. He rather locates the symmetry between the lines through a balance of ideas,

thus creating a system of regularity along with flexibility.

Wilfred Watson advocates for an irregular pattern. He notes regarding the apparent

dichotomy between “actual” and “regular” meter:

Confusion arises because scholars fail to distinguish between metre as actually present in

verse, and regular metre. There is metre, yes, but not regular metre, since metrical

patterns are never maintained for more than a few verses at a stretch, if even that.36

Watson is not convinced that Hebrew poetry follows a consistent metrical pattern, but he is not

willing to abandon the concept of meter altogether. Rather, he proposes that a metrical system

need not necessarily imply a complete uniform pattern throughout the poetic composition.

The works of Collins and O’Connor, relying on a syntactic description, have been

influential contributions to the study of Hebrew poetry. Their influence may be limited, however,

by their very newness, unfamiliar terms, and unconventional analyses.37

Further study in this

area will no doubt incorporate these works, either validating or critiquing their insights.

Features of Poetic Patterning

Parallelism

Without fear of overstatement, it can be asserted that the Old Testament corpus is

saturated with parallelistic verses. According to some, parallelism is the defining feature of

Hebrew poetry itself. Kugel adopts this perspective:

Study of the Old Testament, 1984) 92. 37

William L. Holladay, “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” Journal of Biblical

Literature, 118, no. 1 (1999), 20.

14

Rather, the basic feature of biblical songs—and, for that matter, of most of the sayings,

proverbs, laws, laments, blessings, curses, prayers, and speeches found in the Bible—is

the recurrent use of a relatively short sentence-form that consists of two brief clauses.38

And one cannot enter into a study of Hebrew poetry without finding herself immersed in a

system of parallel structuring, for poetry and parallelism are inextricably linked in the OT.

There are, however, various forms, or categories, of parallelism. In grammatical

parallelism the structure of the cola are similar with different vocabulary, while in semantic

parallelism the meanings of the cola correspond. Zogbo and Wendland also identify “stairstep”

parallelism, in which “one element from the first line is repeated in the second, which serves to

focus on some significant added information.39

There may also be significant overlap between

the categories, as when a verse contains parallelism in both grammatical and semantic forms.40

So Ps. 9:8 involves a parallel structure, with identical syntactic ordering, as well as a parallelism

in meaning in each colon:

qd<c,_B. lbeîTe-jPo)v.yI aWhªw> ~yrI¥v'ymeB ~yMiªaul.÷ !ydIîy" He judges the world with righteousness;

He judges the peoples with equity.

In addition, phonological parallelism may also play a role, as when the sounds of the cola match,

as witnessed in Is. 44:8b:

Is there a god except me [bal’aday]?

And there is no rock, I know not one [bal-yada’ty].

This appears to resemble the feature of rhyme so common in Western poetry.

Thus the relationship between grammatical and semantic parallelism may be viewed as

complementary, each one contributing toward a system of symmetry and association, and filling

38

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 1. 39

Lynell Zogbo and Ernst R. Wendland, Hebrew Poetry in the Bible: A Guide for Understanding and for

Translating (New York: United Bible Societies, 2000), 82. 40

See Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 18-63. Berlin further divides grammatical parallelism into the

subcategories of morphological and syntactic parallelism, and finds a difference between parallelism and repetition.

15

out the complete picture. In Berlin’s words, “If the grammatical aspect provides the skeleton of

the parallelism then the lexical and semantic aspects are its flesh and blood.”41

In order for lines to be truly parallel semantically, there must be a perceived equivalence

of meaning according to the standards of competency in that language. This is parallelism in a

coherent sense, for the connectedness is apparent to any competent speaker, with or without the

use of a conjunction or other connective particle. Berlin emphasizes the “connectedness” evident

in semantic parallelism:

Moreover, parallelism itself serves as a rhetorical connective, in addition to the semantic

connectedness of coherent discourse. Therefore, parallel lines are doubly connected; once

by virtue of their role in a coherent discourse (with or without connective particles), and

again by the linguistic equivalences which constitute parallelism. In the semantic aspect

of parallelism, the normal semantic connectedness between sentences is enhanced by

other linguistic equivalences so that semantic equivalence is promoted.42

Berlin elsewhere uses the term “inherent” to refer to the sense of semantic connectedness latent

in a coherent discourse, so the lines are perceived as connected by nature of their equivalent

meaning as well as by their proximity and other linguistic devices.43

Gen. 4:23 manifests semantic and grammatical parallelism, with every component in the

first line mirrored in the second with extraordinary regularity:

yliêAq ![;m;äv. ‘hL'ciw> hd yti_r"m.ai hN"zEßa.h; %m,l,ê yveän

41

Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Dearborn, Michigan: Dove Booksellers, 2008), 64. See also

Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 23. Citing psycholinguistic evidence, Berlin alludes to the theory of

Greenstein that “a similarity in structure leads to a perception of some correlation in meaning.” Berlin concludes

that, far from a similarity in structure necessarily leading to an equivalence in meaning, the natural cooccurance of

grammatical and semantic parallelism “simply underscore the tendency for grammatical and semantic parallelism to

co-occur, because both are part of the same associative process.” Berlin furthers her point by stating that “just

because similarity in structure promotes a semantic relationship does not mean that difference in structure prevents

it.” 42

Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 92. 43 See Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 92-93. Berlin also draws upon the findings of generative grammar,

which posits a deeper, “underlying semantic entity” which may take on a number of different surface-structure

forms)

16

Ada and Zilla // wives of Lamech;

hear // give ear;

my voice // my speech.

In this instance, the semantic parallelism is matched by a nearly perfect syntactic parallelism in

which the word order of the cola correspond to one another.44

Semantic parallelism is evident in patterns in which the corresponding cola present

similar ideas, or expound on a particular theme in slightly different ways. This pattern often

involves thematic development, as one thought leads to another. Semantically, then, the pattern

of poetry follows a stream of thought in which a theme is commented on in various ways and

through an elevating progression.

James Kugel offers a unique contribution to the study of biblical parallelism, arguing that

the parallelism of the Bible is not static. He defines parallel clauses as that in which there is

continuation and development, correspondence and movement, for there is always an element

which both cola have in common and yet the separate clauses do not say exactly the same thing.

The second clause picks up on the notion of the first, yet it carries it a step further to a more

intense or specific form. This is properly categorized in terms of A’s relationship to B: “A, so

what’s more, B,” with the understanding that A refers to the first colon and B to the second. Thus

B becomes a way to reinforce, confirm, emphasize, or strengthen A.45

This is true for B being a

negative complement of A as well, for in such a case B is also strengthening the force of A,

albeit through a negative statement:

The LORD redeems the soul of His servants;

And none of those who take refuge in Him will be condemned. (Ps. 34:23)

44

Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, revised (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 6. 45

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 8.

17

In this way, B presents both retrospective and prospective features. It harks back to A,

usually completing or complementing it, and it offers a n46

ew perspective on A, reaching to a

new level of intensity or specificity. A and B are connected largely through grammatical and

semantic elements, and are distinguished primarily through syntactical features. Thus even as B

normally complements or completes A, it is disjoined from the following clauses and so it

naturally possesses a kind of “closural quality that allows it to break discourse into fairly short

units, organizing the flow of clauses into twos and threes.”47

Here is not restatement, but a

reassertion which strengthens. For this reason the reader is not only conscious that an expression

has been repeated, but also that some additional force has been contributed. And the ancient

reader would likely have recognized this relationship due to the form of the stiche.

This means that the function of even apparently contrary phrases are complementing or

completing. The differentiation itself leads to the unity of the sentence. This differentiation may

be witnessed through subordination, morphological factors, such as numbering or tense markers,

or lexical choices, such as a variation in roots. The differentiation seems indicative of the very

“afterwardness” of B’s relationship to A, so that the cola are set in coordination to one another,

the one complementing the other, even completing the other, precisely through the use of a

different structure. Through diversity, unity obtains.

Alter likewise counters the assertion that biblical parallelism is primarily static. Rather,

he argues for “dynamic movement” within the parallelistic discourse, from one colon to the next.

He refers to the “semantic modifications” that take place in which the next colon, more than

merely restating the original idea, actually develops or intensifies it. Citing evidence from

literature of other languages, he states that “literary expression abhors complete parallelism,” and

46

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 10. 47

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 55. See also Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 39. also notes how that the

same operation is often evident even in Ugaritic poetic texts.

18

that “no language has entirely true synonyms” and thus the common references to “synonymous

parallelism” are misconceived.48

Ps. 88:12-13 presents an example in which at first glance synonymous parallelism seems

to be taking place, when in fact the poem rather intensifies the anxiety of the psalmist.

Will Thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave,

Thy faithfulness in perdition?

Will Thy wonders be made known in the darkness?

And Thy righteousness in the land of oblivion?

The progression is as follows: the grave—perdition // darkness—the land of oblivion.

Often this “dynamic movement” involves the matching of a common noun in the first

colon with either an “explanatory epithet” or a “metaphorical substitution” in the second, in

which a literal phrase in the first colon is matched by a more descriptive phrase in the second. A

poignant example of this occurs in Jer. 48:11, in which Moab, in her complacency, is compared

to a vessel of wine which has been left to settle in her lees.

Moab has been at ease since his youth;

He has also been undisturbed on his lees;

Neither has he been emptied from vessel to vessel;

Nor has he gone into exile.

Therefore he retains his flavor,

And his aroma has not changed.

The ironic outcome for Moab is a stagnancy that is condemned.

The notion of Hebrew verse as consisting of paired, synonymous lines is inadequate in

that it fails to account for the progression of thought that takes place in poetry. Alter writes:

Prevalent notions of the second verset of a line as an ‘echoing’ or ‘variant’ of the first

verset involve several difficulties, one of which is a failure to explain how the poet in his

series of allegedly synonymous, end-stopped utterances develops the momentum to move

from line to line—how, in other words, the poem has a structure that is more than a jerky

progression from one repetition to the next.49

48

Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 10, 13. 49

Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 31.

19

Alter contends that if one sees the semantic development of the system as moving toward a

clearer focusing, a heightening of emotion, the concretization of thought, or a further

development of meaning, it becomes easier to recognize the genuine flow of thought within the

poem, not only from line to line, but also from one colon to the next. Thus the cola, rather than

being disjointed items, actually fit into a scheme, each succeeding one contributing its own part

in the advancement toward the final climactic conclusion.

Alter also indicates that the progression toward an increasing level of intensity was an

intuitive process rather than recognized as an intentional device. “The orientation toward a

stepping-up of meaning was…built into the poetic system.”50

In cases in which particularly

ambiguous or controversial themes were portrayed, a poet may choose to “interarticulate” two or

more instances of intensifying patterns. The prophetical writings, for example, because of their

retributive character, are especially fraught with this intensifying force, often focusing, or

“zooming-in,” from the statement of punishment on wickedness to the human objects upon

which this punishment will inevitably fall.

Poetry in general involves “a linear development of meaning, which means that in one

respect it is a linear form of thinking or imagining.”51

That is, poems are designed as one image,

idea, or sound pattern suggests a cognate but more advanced or consequent nuance of the same

image, idea, or sound pattern. Such a progression of thought is consistent with the highly

structured pattern of poetry in any language in which an initial general thought evokes more

specific articulations of meaning.

50

Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 88. 51

Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, 102.

20

Thus, while the grammatical aspect concerns the syntax of a pair of cola, the semantic

relates to the “relationship between the meaning of one line and its parallel line.”52

This

relationship may take a number of forms, such as Lowth’s categories (synonymous, antithetic, or

synthetic), Kugel’s “A, what’s more, B,” or Berlin’s model (paradigmatic or syntagmatic). Yet

the important point is that the relationship leads to correspondence in meaning.

Syllable-Count

Hebrew poetry has been noted to frequently contain a particular quantity of syllables.

This model was proposed by G. Bickell and has been developed by modern authors such as

Freedman and Fokkelman. Freedman summarizes this view in terms of quantity:

The main point I wish to make here is that there really is quantity in Hebrew poetry, and

that we can prove it, and that it cannot therefore be ignored in any overall estimate of the

nature, quality or character of Hebrew poetry.53

Freedman also equates syllable counting with counting words since both syllables and words

reflect the “same correlations.” It essentially counts the syllables in a line without consideration

of vowel-length or whether syllables are open or closed.

Freedman’s method, as applied to the book of Lamentations, seeks to show that certain

relationships and differences exist which cannot be explained through chance, thus showing that

the poets intended to follow a particular pattern in the crafting of their poems.54

A model is

proposed whereby specific “quotas” are expected. “We can fairly assume that the writer kept his

counts stanza by stanza in order to balance the poem as a whole within its predetermined

52

Berlin, Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 90. 53

Freedman, “Another Look at Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 18. 54

Freedman and vonFange, “Metrics in Hebrew Poetry,” 280, 282.

21

structure.”55

Here Freedman and Fange seem to assume that the poets did indeed possess a

certain consciousness regarding their literary guidelines.

Freedman cites the differences which often appear among the stanzas in vocalization and

syllable counting, rather than betraying a lack of intentional patterning, as depicting a consistent

pattern expressed through slightly varying lengths. In this sense, Freedman minimizes the

apparent imbalance while emphasizing the congruency as he suggests a range into which cola

and stanzas of similar lengths (with a variable of 1-3 syllables). He writes regarding the

similarity of the stanzas:

The differences among the poems as a whole are practically nil.

We conclude that the

poet was free to choose from a variety of stanza lengths, clustering around 39 syllables.

At the same time, he was guided or limited by factors governing overall length, and the

need to achieve an effective balance between longer and shorter stanzas.56

Freedman concludes that while a poem may have an average length of syllables per stanza, yet a

variable difference of up to three syllables per stanza is regarded as “essentially equivalent.”

Fokkelman also suggests that syllable counting may provide the most adequate

explanation for the structure of poetry. For example, Ps. 44:7 contains 15 syllables, divided

evenly as 7 + 8. Many verses are divided perfectly as 3 + 3 or 2 +2 for bicola, or even 2 + 2 + 2

for tricola.57

Fokkelman claims that the entire OT corpus reflects this regularity. According to one

estimate, 65 percent of the cola of Psalms contain seven, eight, or nine syllables.58

This

55

Freedman and vonFange, “Metrics in Hebrew Poetry,” 283. 56

Freedman, “Acrostics and Metrics in Hebrew Poetry,” 374. 57 See Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry, 23-24. The German label for this sort of line is Doppeldreier. 58

See Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry, 24.

22

numerical precision reflects an explicit structuring in which the poets intended to craft their

works on the basis of syllable-count.59

A major problem with this view is that such uniform symmetry is not always the case in

Hebrew poetry. This has led some to resort to the counting of words or even letters in parallel

lines. Such a method becomes terribly complex when one tries to decipher exactly what

constitutes a word. The syllable-counting method is also limited in that it relies on the

reconstruction of vowels and it ignores the stress of syllables. It is effectively only “a mechanical

reckoning of the number of vowels per colon.”60

Syntactic Structure

Two recent studies of significant influence are worthy of attention. The first is Terence

Collins’ Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry, and the other is a reworked dissertation by Michael

O’Connor entitled Hebrew Verse Structure. Both of these works relate particularly to the

structure of Hebrew verse and locate the basis for verse as syntactic rather than rhythmic or

metric.61

Both will be briefly explored below.

Terence Collins proposes an analysis based upon line-forms. This method involves

analyzing the elements of the line and categorizing them according to certain “line-forms.” This,

he claims, combines the features of semantic as well as syntactic analysis, and thus accounts for

both the meaning as well as the form of the poem by attempting to synthesize the efforts of both

linguists and literary critics. Collins’ approach utilizes the practice of “close criticism,” which

59 A reference to Ugaritic poetry has been used in explaining this method of counting the syllables rather than the

accents. In Ugaritic poetry, the ideal is an equal number of syllables in each line. See Gillingham, Poems and

Psalms, 55-56. 60

Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 104 61

William L. Holladay, “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” Journal of Biblical

Literature 118 (1999): 20.

23

views a poem according to the rudiments of various layers of patterns: rhythm, vowels,

consonants, syntax, word order, imagery, and semantics. As Collins engages in a thorough

description of the syntactical forms of Hebrew poetry, he identifies the syntax as the key to a

poem’s unity and meaning. He writes:

A poet’s syntax is the most fundamental aspect of his effort to produce the ordered unity

of words which is his poem. In many ways it is the basic layer, and a proper study of the

poetry of the prophets cannot afford to neglect it.62

In Collins’ view, the meaning and structure of the poem are indivisible.

Collins’ method has been well received because of the attention paid to grammatical

features along with his sensitivity to semantic matters, as well as his criticism of what he labels

the “Standard Description” of Hebrew poetry (i.e. meter/parallelism).63

He views poetry as

“verbal art,” and thus subject to linguistic tools, even while he warns against “too mechanical an

application” in the use for poetic forms.64

Syntax defines poetry in that the poetic forms follow a

carefully trimmed pattern “according to a limited number of basic traditional patterns and their

variations.” He elaborates:

Thus, one of the main results of this study will be to show that in Hebrew poetry syntax is

“poetic” in the strictest sense of the word, since it contributes to the aesthetic pleasure of

appreciating a well formed line which satisfies instinctive expectations already set up

through familiarity with the same pattern in other known lines. Conversely, any break in

the pattern and non-fulfillment of expectation can be important in a given context as a

stylistic feature.65

Collins’ work thus conjoins the aspects of poetic structure and meaning in the Bible.

O’Connor is quite exhaustive in terms of his treatment of the syntactic structure of verse.

He describes the cola as operating according to certain “constraints,” imposed upon the text by

recognized rules of patterning. He summarizes his views as follows:

62

Terence Collins, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 11. 63

Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 315-16. 64

Collins, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry, 14. 65

Collins, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry, 16.

24

What we wish to propose is that just as most poetic systems are shaped in part by a series

of phonological requirements, i.e., by a system of metrical constraints, so there are poetic

systems shaped in part by a series of syntactic requirements, i.e., by a system of syntactic

constraints. Among them is Canaanite verse.66

He thus identifies the unique nature of the verse of Hebrew in comparison with other languages.

Referring to the structural pattern of Hebrew poetry, O’Connor prefers to use the term

“constraint” for the components of the system, and to the system as a whole as a “constriction.”

While O’Connor acknowledges the tentative nature of the discussion, he still advocates for a

regularity in syntactic patterning that can be demonstrated. He writes, “We assume such

regularities bespeak an order that can be described and we assume that a set of wrong or weak

rules, rules that need further consideration, is better than none at all.” 67

Thus the patterning

assumes that rules exist, and the purpose of analysis is to search for the rules.

Metrical Patterning

A well-recognized aspect of poetic structure is a sense of balance created by a pattern of

stress. This pattern tends to create a distinctive rhythm and symmetry between cola consist of a

regular series of alternating stressed and unstressed syllables. An example of this sort of pattern,

taken from Ps. 44:7, looks as follows (the “u” represents an unstressed syllable, while the “s”

represents a stressed syllable):

I do not trust in my bow // it is not my sword that gives me victory

Kee lo bekashtee ebtakh // wekharbee lo toshee-eini

u s u u s u s u u s s u u s u

Some scholars argue that the structure of Hebrew poetry operated primarily according to

accentual features.68

Schokel notes how that Hebrew poetry is “marked by regular tonic

66

O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 65. 67

O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 67. 68

Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry, 137.

25

accents.”69

This tonic accent is viewed as the “constitutive factor” of the verse as it is distributed

among the syllables of the verse and between its pauses and caesuras. Various formulas are used

to describe the tonic pattern of cola, the most common being 3 + 3. Other patterns are certainly

evident, however, including 2 + 2, 4 + 4, as well as asymmetrical 3 + 4 (Deut. 32:7a; Job 17:12)

and 4 + 3 (Job 3:20; 17:14). A common form found frequently in laments, known as qinah

meter, is identified as 3 + 2:

!qeêz"w> r[;n:å // ‘tAcWx #r<a'Ûl' Wb’k.v' (Lam. 2:21)

Many Western European languages, including English, use a very tight metrical system.

Hebrew, however, follows a different pattern which Zogbo and Wendland refer to as “free (or,

variable) meter.” Such a pattern does not involve a perfect ordering of stress, but rather “the

number of stresses may change from line to line without forming a regular or predictable

pattern.”70

.

It needs, therefore, to be stressed that the Hebrew model does not follow the same strict

pattern that we see in Greek verse, which has transferred into the Western mindset. Thus the

Western predisposition needs to be constantly recognized and adjusted so that patterns which

were foreign to the Hebrew poets are not artificially imposed on the text. Thus Gillingham writes

regarding the contrast between the poetry of the East and the West:

Furthermore, the West has inherited the Greek way of thinking about music and poetry to

a far greater extent than it has imbibed Jewish creativity; it is therefore no surprise that

we impose on to Hebrew poetry categories which are foreign to it.71

So the Hebrew poets had a pattern in mind as they crafted their poems, but the pattern was not of

the same quality as Greek works.

69

Schokel, A Manuel of Hebrew Poetics, 36. 70

Zogbo and Wendland, Hebrew Poetry in the Bible, 36. 71

Gillingham, Poems and Psalms, 51.

26

That having been stated, it should also be noted that the form of the poetry was designed

to follow a specific structure. This structure may be viewed as a set of restrictions, a sort of

rubric which the poet was obliged to follow in order to craft an effective piece. Freedman and

Fange comment on how this rigorous order, far from hampering artistic creativity, actually

enhanced it in a remarkable way:

The Book of Lamentations includes poetic structure with tight, disciplined boundaries,

such as the rigid demands of the acrostic or the lines of equal length regardless of the

thought expressed. Yet such tightly disciplined structures are found in all the arts, and the

artistic genius revels in expression within such voluntary bounds. No one has ever argued

that the Haiku or the fugue suffers artistically from its rigid structure. Its beauty, on the

contrary, is marvelously enhanced. There is good reason to believe that the poet knew

exactly where he was in syllable-counts at the end of each stanza of each poem.72

Freedman and Fange also compare the Hebrew literature with the works of classical European

artists, such as Shakespeare’s use of the sonnet, or Chopin’s tempo rubato. In this way, the artists

are viewed as abiding according to the accepted forms, but not in a slavish way. Rather, they

exploit the structure to highlight their themes. “The poet is not a mason laying down uniform

cinder blocks all in a neat row. He is juggling phrasing, varying, contrasting, intertwining ideas,

climaxing, to convey his poetic message.”73

The creative expression exists, but it operates within

the boundaries of the formal structure expected by readers and maintained by the poetic guild.

Meter operates according to the principle of rhythm, which is defined by Zogbo and

Wendland as “a certain flow in lines which is based on an ordered and repeated alternation of

strong and weak beats.”74

The relationship of meter to rhythm, then, is that meter is the

“measured use” of such markings, grouping the segments according to their markings. Thus

poetry is based “not only on similarity in meaning and grammatical form, but on sound patterns

72

David N. Freedman and Erich A. von Fange, “Metrics in Hebrew Poetry: The Book of Lamentations Revisited,”

Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (1996), 283. 73

Freedman and vonFange, “Metrics in Hebrew Poetry,” 285. The authors claim that the text of Lam. 1 “cries out to

be sung rather than spoken.” 74

Zogbo, Hebrew Poetry in the Bible, 36.

27

as well.”75

This pattern can be formed through word stresses, the most common pattern of which

is 3 + 3, as seen in Ps. 92:1:

Tov le-hodoth la-Yahweh // ule-zammer le-shimka ‘elyon

Good to-praise to-LORD // and-to-play to-name-your Elyon

This rhythmic cadence creates a pleasing feel for the reader and/or listener as it appeals to our

musical instincts. “Poetic rhythm is always a question of sound and listening…One either hears

it or one does not.”76

Like a musical composition, its value cannot be appreciated through

mathematical formulation or a visual graphing device alone; rather, it is truly effective only as it

is heard. Consider Ecclesiastes 3:1-8:

75

Zogbo, Hebrew Poetry in the Bible, 35. 76

Schokel, Hebrew Poetics, 35.

28

There is an appointed time for everything.

And there is a time for every event under heaven—

A time to give birth, and a time to die;

A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted.

A time to kill, and a time to heal;

A time to tear down, and a time to build up.

A time to weep, and a time to laugh;

A time to mourn, and a time to dance.

Even a reading of this passage in English reveals its rhythmic character which causes the reader

to feel the balanced flow of the passage. Proverbs also abounds with this sort of regular cadence.

A foot represents a rhythmic unit, defined by Watson as “a basic unit in measuring

metre,”77

including its accented and unaccented syllables. Each poetic line contains a certain

quantity of feet, each foot being theoretically isochronous (of equal duration), but in practice the

duration varies among feet. The relation of the accented to unaccented syllables determines the

type of foot. The most common feet found in Hebrew literature are the iambic and anapaestic,

oo’ and ooo’, respectively. Other forms include the trochaic and dactylic, o’o and o’oo,

respectively. The use or combination of certain feet will produce particular effects: iambic feet

generally convey a sense of urgency; anapaestic feet communicate space.78

Rhythm is based upon an “underlying regularity,” although it is manifest through

“expressive irregularity,” as Schokel terms it.79

The ear attuned to the rhythmic flow will not

miss the movement of the foot, although it may not involve a perfectly uniform pattern. Just as

the metronome sets a consistent beat, which the song follows even through an occasional

ritardando, accelerando, or rubato, so the poem will convey a consistent pattern although its

accents vary somewhat throughout its development.

77

Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 89. 78

Schokel, Hebrew Poetics, 38. 79

Schokel, Hebrew Poetics, 41.

29

So while Hebrew poetry does indeed manifest rhythm, it is not of the kind of regularity

found in Greek structure or English sonnets. Rather, Hebrew poetry reflects what Zogbo and

Wendland refer to as “free” or “variable” meter.80

So the number of stresses between lines need

not necessarily be identical or even form a predictable pattern.81

The term “meter,” while appropriate to a Greco-Roman poetic system, consisting of

“carefully regulated sequences of vowel quantities,” does not necessarily fit with the Hebrew

model. Alter denies the appropriateness of applying the term “meter” to biblical verse. He writes,

“The term ‘meter,’ because of its associations with a Greco-Roman system of carefully regulated

sequences of vowel quantities, may not be the best one to apply to our text.”82

To be sure, there have been vigorous discussions regarding the existence of metrics in

Hebrew poetry, despite its clear rhythmic character. These relate to the correct division of l ines,

what constitutes accent, and proper scansion. However, even scholars who deny strict metrics

will admit the presence of a clear rhythmic pattern. In the words of Fokkelman,

Even though meter has gone, there is still a powerful rhythm, which is even stronger in

Hebrew and is not denied even by scholars who have no time for metrics. The rhythm

The metrical pattern can vary from poem to poem, and even throughout a single poem. 83

The rhythmic pattern cannot be ignored, although it is difficult to assert with certainty the reality

of meter, at least in the sense of Western literature.

Conclusion: The Patterning of OT Poetry

80

Zogbo and Wendland, Hebrew Poetry in the Bible, 36. 81 Sigmund Mowinkel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962),

162. Mowinkel distinguishes between “popular poetry” and “professional poetry.” To the former belongs the

“improvised prophetic speech,” and in the latter category he includes the Psalter and wisdom poetry, for which he

claims a “regular rhythm.” 82

Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, revised. (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 5. 83

Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Poetry, 23-24.

30

This paper has explored the various features related to the patterning of the poetry of the

Hebrew Bible. To some extent, each of these features may help to clarify the structure of OT

poetry—a genre that is distinguished from prose primarily through its dense language and highly

structured organization.

We have examined parallelism, the feature of poetry whereby contiguous cola represent

parallel thoughts in a developing progression. That is, the cola are not static, but move in a

development toward increased specificity and heightened emotion. We have observed that this

parallelism may be either of a semantic or of a grammatical nature.

We have considered the idea of syllable-count, which essentially quantifies the

syllabification of cola and argues that contiguous cola ought to be symmetrical in terms of the

number of syllables. We have noted the difficulties with this view due to the complexities of

determining the syllables themselves and of frequent inequalities.

We have considered the idea of syntactic line-forms, in which the sequences of

grammatical units are assigned as particular line-forms. Such an analysis is noteworthy, although

the existence of other features in the patterning of poetry, such as parallelism and meter, must not

be ignored.

Finally, we have examined the feature of metrical patterning—a sequence of a regular

accentual pattern which casts a poem into a certain rhythmical mold. The metrical pattern

operates according to the principle of rhythm, which creates an aesthetically appealing cadence.

This feature is often noted in the poems of the OT, although its consistent use is debated in that

many poems seem to reflect an irregular pattern in which meter cannot be definitely

demonstrated. The pattern may reflect a cadence of some sort, but there is enough of a variation

31

among the poems—and within the poems themselves—that one must be leery before claiming a

definite metrical pattern existing throughout the poetry of the OT.

Thus this paper has attempted to synthesize some of the more prominent views on the

patterning of Hebrew poetry into a cohesive framework by which to describe the structural

processes at work in the formation of this particular genre. The literary pieces which we behold

today as the poetic passages of the OT were likely designed by their original authors to reflect

certain structural patterns, such as parallel thought-development and grammatical structures, a

similar quantity of syllables per colon, a symmetrical sequence of syntactic forms, and a

balanced rhythmic expression. Some of these views on patterning are deficient in one or more

ways. Yet they each contribute toward a description of the structure of the unique patterning of

OT poetic literature. Gillingham writes:

Thus the definition of Hebrew poetry is not about rhythm on its own, let alone the more

rigid form of rhythm, namely metre; nor is it about balance of ideas on its own, least of

all a prescribed system of this, namely parallelism. It is about both working together, and

yet about much more as well, for the essence of Hebrew poetry which we have

discovered through seeing its interpretation through music is as much in its freedom and

flexibility as in tight conventions and ordered systems.84

In the past, a focus on parallelism and meter have been the predominant views related to poetic

structure, yet the models of syllable-count and syntactic line-forms may also prove helpful in the

continuing study of Hebrew poetry. In addition, future scholarship will also benefit from further

analyses concerning parallelistic and metrical patterning.

Appendix I: Translating Biblical Poetry

A short word will be offered concerning the particular issues related to translating

Hebrew meter. When a translation is undertaken, it is important not only to understand the nature

84

Gillingham, Poems and Psalms, 50-51.

32

of the linguistic and literary form of the source language, but also to keep in mind the particular

features of the receptor language as well, remembering that not all languages approach poetry in

the same way. That being said, however, it is not uncommon to find in other languages the sort

of rhythm found in Hebrew literature, called by Zogbo and Wendland “point-counterpoint

rhythm,” which “results from the repetitious pattern of sets of parallel lines.”85

For example, the

Moore language from Burkino Faso uses rhythmic patterns as a primary feature in its poetry and

proverbial literature. In such languages, a translation into a regular metrical form may be

appropriate and may accurately convey the biblical message into the receptor language.

It is also important to recognize that poetic form is arguably used in every language in the

world. Furthermore, some of the most memorable literary pieces among the languages of the

world have been works of poetry, and have been translated into other languages, enriching the

receptor language’s culture greatly. So there should seem to be no valid reason to prevent a

poetic form from being effectively translated into another language, as long as the pattern and

meaning of the original poem are recognized and accounted for in the translation process.86

As one approaches the question of whether or not to translate Hebrew poetry into the

verse-form of the receptor language, the most issue to address is how this form may be received

in the receptor language’s community. How is poetry perceived in the receptor language? Are

different meters used for different purposes (e.g., laments vs. military victory celebrations, or

funeral dirges vs. work songs)? The translator must understand the roles and functions of poetry

in both the biblical text as well as in the receptor language’s culture, and whether or not there is a

correlation between the languages. If no such correlation exists, or if the meaning of the text

would be skewed in the receptor language, then the translator should consider using an

85

Zogbo and Wendland, Hebrew Poetry in the Bible, 86. 86

Zogbo and Wendland, Hebrew Poetry in the Bible, 1-8.

33

alternative form in order to properly convey the message and emotive force of the passage. “In

speech communities that appreciate this type of balanced, rhythmic line, in may be possible to

capture the rhythm inherent in the source text of the time poem in Ecclesiastes, for example.”87

One of the particular challenges which a translator will face is how exactly to deal with

the parallelism that is so foundational to Hebrew poetry. Parallelism is not an unusual structure

among many other languages, with some variation among them. However, many languages

might view the parallelism as needless repetition and therefore redundant. This is evident in the

variation even among English translations. More literal translations, such as RSV, NJB, and

NASB, often carry the parallelism over directly. Thus the NRSV of Ps. 85:3 reads,

You withdrew all your wrath;

You turned from your hot anger.

But there is a trend among the freer versions to alter the parallelism, even collapsing it into one

line. So the NIV of the same passage reads,

You set aside all your wrath and turned from your fierce anger.

The NLT, however, recognizes the parallel structure and maintains two separate clauses:

You held back your fury.

You kept back your blazing anger.

Thus the more dynamic translations often recognize the unique character of biblical meter and

capitalize on this feature. So the NLT translates Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 with a new sentence for every

pair of cola, although this rendition may reduce fluency and border on redundancy.

Every translation endeavor must operate according to clearly defined principles which

govern the rendering into the receptor language. A carefully designed translation will recognize

both the features distinctive of the Hebrew poetry and how poetry, including metrical patterns, is

87

Zogbo and Wendland, Hebrew Poetry in the Bible, 86.

34

used in the receptor language. In this way, the message of the biblical poetry can be properly

appreciated and understood in a way akin to the original intention of the poet

Appendix II: Relationship of Poetry and Musical Composition

The highly structured form of Hebrew verse has naturally led to a use in musical

compositions. There is evidence that some psalms were actually designed for the purpose of

musical accompaniment or antiphonal singing. The musical use adds a pleasing feature to the

passage, and it highlights the rhythmic pattern. Furthermore, the music compensated for any

irregularity in stanza length or syllable count in the written text. Referring specifically to

Lamentations 1, Freedman and Fange write, “If the text is sung, there are simple devices to

equalize the length of the text for each stanza in order to fit the music.”88

While the arrangement, or “spacing” of poetic texts, referred to as stichography, typically

arranged passages according to their semantic value, there are instances of stichographic

arrangements according to other criteria. These instances may be arbitrary arrangements of

words and clauses, ensuring a more aesthetic design, marking a passage as poetic, but not

necessarily following the parallelistic flow. There are also appearances of other “non-

traditional” spacing within both traditionally sung, but also in unsung, texts, particularly among

the Qumran documents.89

It should be noted, however, that the melodies that accompanied the poems are

irrecoverable. Since the basic units of poetry in Hebrew are the couplet and the triplet, it may be

assumed that the tunes to which the poems were composed were of couplet and triplet length.

88

Freedman and vonFange, “Metrics in Hebrew Poetry,” 285. 89 Thus 2 Q18 contains a stichographic formulation of the wisdom of Ben Sira, a late collection of Wisdom sayings

which could have hardly been intended to be sung. See Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 120-21.

35

Certain accentual markings called te’amim seem to indicate the musical quality of poetry.

These could have originally served to mark the pauses of the text, creating a pattern to enhance

the reading. But it is believed by some scholars that the te’amim came to be used as musical

notation.90

This is illustrated in the way they are used in a different way in Job, Psalms, and

Proverbs, as opposed to their use in the prosaic sections of the Bible.

The musicality itself of Hebrew poetry is evidence of some regular pattern, albeit fluid

and flexible. A musical score needs some sort of pattern in order to be aesthetically and

stylistically effective. Thus, the use of verse in musical compositions throughout Jewish and

Christian history “shows that we have to account for some regular tonic accent or rhythmic stress

in Hebrew poetry in many instances,”91

and that a rhythmic character was part and parcel of

Hebrew verse and has been intuitively sensed by interpreters throughout the years.

90

Gillingham, Poems and Psalms, 46-47. 91

Gillingham, Poems and Psalms, 58.

36

Bibliography

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry, revised. New York: Basic Books, 2011.

Andersen, Francis I. “The Poetic Properties of Prophetic Discourse in the Book of Micah.” Pages

520-38 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Edited by Robert D. Bergen.

Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Dearborn, Michigan: Dove Booksellers,

2008.

Bickell, Gustav. Outlines of Hebrew Grammar. 1877. Digital Archives Viewer.

Collins, Terence. Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

Fokkelman, J. P. Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide. Louiseville, Kentucky: John

Knox Press, 2001.

Fokkelman, J. P. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible. The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1998.

Freedman, David N. “Another Look at Biblical Hebrew Poetry.” Pages 11-28 in Directions in

Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Edited by Elaine R. Follis. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press,

1987.

Freedman, David N. “Acrostics and Metrics in Hebrew Poetry.” Harvard Theological Review 65

(1972): 367-92.

37

Freedman, David N. and Erich A. von Fange. “Metrics in Hebrew Poetry: The Book of

Lamentations Revisited.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (1996): 279-305.

Gillingham. S. E. The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1994.

Gray, Buchanan. The Forms of Hebrew Poetry. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915.

Holladay, William L. “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” Journal of

Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 19-32.

Kugel, James. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. Baltimore, Maryland:

John Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Lowth, Robert, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. Translated by G. Gregory.

Boston: Joseph T. Buckingham, 1815.

Mowinkel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D. R. Thomas. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell, 1962.

O’Connor, Michael P. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1980.

Robinson, Theodore H. Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel. London: Gerald

Duckworth & Co., 1957.

Schokel, Luis Alonso. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico,

1988.

Stuart, Douglas K. Studies in Early Hebrew Meter. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976.

Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. Sheffield, England:

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1984.

Weiss, Andrea L. “Poetry.” Pages 254-62 in vol. 16 of Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Fred

Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. 22 vols.

Wendland, Ernst R., ed. Discourse Perspectives on Hebrew Poetry in the Scriptures.. New York:

United Bible Societies, 1994.

Zogbo, Lynell and Ernst R. Wendland. Hebrew Poetry in the Bible: A Guide for Understanding

and for Translating. New York: United Bible Societies, 2000.