_____________________________________
Basics of Hebrew Poetry.
To properly inquire whether the creation account found in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is poetry or not, we must first understand what makes Hebrew poetry distinct from Hebrew prose. There are three elements in which Hebrew Poetry differs from Hebrew prose: the words used, the grammar employed, and structure in which it is written. The first two differences, the lexical and the grammatical, are not as obvious as the third difference, the structural, nor are the first two differences as integral to poetry as the third (although this has been critiqued, see below).
In addition to these elements, many scholars through the history of the study of Hebrew poetry have wrestled with the idea of metre.[1] Some scholars attempt to find a rhythmic structure in the lines of Hebrew poetry, and use this as another means to distinguish poetry from prose. In this endeavour, though, few scholars have agreed on the metre and how it works, and there is no consensus nor any theory that works “to an acceptable degree.”[2] In fact, it seems as if, regarding metre, each ‘poet’ would use something that worked best with what the message of the poem was without being tied down to a certain structured rhythm of stressed and unstressed syllables:
The thing that may be said with certainty is that the Hebrew writers, writing as
they did under a strong emotional impulse, expressed themselves in a rhythmic
fashion, perhaps without much thought of doing so and apparently not with the
intention of making these rhythmic waves conform to any set or stereotyped
pattern.[3]
Thus, for our purposes here, we will put aside the discussion of metre, and focus on the lexical, grammatical and structural aspects of Hebrew Poetry.
Lexical and Grammatical Distinctives:
I have placed these two categories together because they must be judged on a case-by-case basis, as there is no rule or structure which is always followed, but only general guides which seem to appear throughout what is classified as poetry in the Bible. In general, Hebrew poetry uses words, meanings that are not regularly used in Hebrew prose, and it has, in general, a looser grammar than one would find in more ‘prosaic’ Hebrew literature:
poetic language is in many ways distinguished from prose, not only by a rhythm
due to more strictly balanced (parallel) members and definite metres…, but also
by peculiar words and meanings, inflexions and syntactical constructions which
it uses in addition to those usual in prose.[4]
Thus the Hebrew writer who puts his hand to poetry will use what could be called ‘poetic language,’ he uses a relatively specialized vocabulary, plays around with the grammatical structures of the Hebrew language, and uses words in a way that is not usual.
Lexically, Hebrew poetry tends to use, for example, more archaisms than prose, but this is not always the case. There are, though, words used which are typically older words, used generally in poetic contexts:
there is a whole range of advantages for the composing poet who retainsIn addition to archaisms, there are, this quote has shown, word-pairs that have been created and used poetically, formulas which poets tend to use more often, and a ‘poetic’ vocabulary. We could also include here the notion of repetition, in which a poet will refer to something, and then refer to it again using different words, what we might call a redundancy. An example of this could be Gen. 1:26, in which God says “Let us make man בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ [in our image, in our likeness]”[6] where the terms ‘in our image, in our likeness’ seems redundant even in English.
archaisms. They are metrically useful and in any case traditional formulae,
word-pairs, rare vocabulary and the like forged by previous poets are too handy
to be easily abandoned, forming as they do the stock-in-trade of the
professional.[5]
As noted just previously, part of considering a work ‘poetry’ rather than prose is the use of word-pairs. These are pairs of words that are used often in poetic passages. When considering whether or not two terms used are a word pair, we must consider three things:
(1) each must belong to the same grammatical class (verb, noun, etc.);
(2) the components must occur in parallel lines [see below on Parallelism];
(3) such word-pairs must be relatively frequent.[7]
But even these considerations will not guarantee that two terms used are indeed a word-pair. To be certain of this, we would need to know much more about the way Hebrew authors thought and wrote. But if used frequently in this way, we can be reasonably sure that terms used are word-pairs.
In addition to word-pairs, authors will also use word-play, choosing words that sound similar to each other, words with the same root, onomatopoeic words, etc.[8] It is difficult, however, to systemize these uses so they are identified as they are seen in a particular passage.
Grammatically, the Hebrew poet will work the grammar of the sentences to his benefit, playing with word order and what could be considered usual sentence elements to emphasize his point or being attention to whatever element he wishes. For example, “A peculiar idiom, and one always confined to poetic language, is the not infrequent occurrence of two subjects in a verbal sentence, one of the person and the other of the thing.”[9] Also, where one would expect the writer to use the definite direct object marker אֶת (complying with the rules of Hebrew grammar),[10] it is “somewhat rare in poetry,”[11] with the explanation given that it reflects a more archaic stage of Hebrew in which the case endings had become extinct and some other method of indicating the direct object was needed.[12]
These distinctives of Hebrew poetry will come up as we turn later to the arguments for Genesis 1:1-2:3 being poetic. Before this, however, we must first turn to the structural aspect of Hebrew poetry, the most apparent aspect of is commonly called parallelism.
Structural Distinctives:
This, according to many commentators, is where the difference between poetry and prose in the Hebrew Bible is the most clear. The most used structural aspect of poetry is parallelism. Bishop Lowth, who first explained this structure of Hebrew poetry writes that “The sententious [parallelistic] style … I define to be the primary characteristic of the Hebrew poetry, as being the most conspicuous and comprehensive of all.”[13] What this style does, in his estimation, is form the core of the Hebrew poetry, preventing it from being simple prose:[14]
In Hebrew, the frequent, or rather perpetual, splendour of the sentences, and
the accurate recurrence of the clauses, seem absolutely necessary to distinguish
the verse: so that what in any other language would appear a superfluous and
tiresome repetition, in this cannot be omitted without injury to the poetry.[15]
Thus Hebrew poetry has the structure of parallel sentences or lines which relate to one another in a certain way (or combination of ways). While this system has been critiqued,[16] it is still the way in which many scholars speak of Hebrew poetry, and as we shall see below it is one of the reasons why some scholars believe Genesis 1:1-2:3 to be poetry rather than prose.
In parallelism, a line or sentence of the poem is split into two elements (stichs) which relate to one another “grammatically, lexically and semantically, and phonologically,”[17] in either one of these ways or in a combination of them. Grammatical parallels concern “the elements of grammar (tense, mood, case, number, etc.) that appear in each line of a parallel pair,”[18] lexical-semantic parallels focus “on the relationship between the specific words in each parallel line,”[19] and phonological parallels use “words of similar sounds.”[20] These three foundations of parallelism are used in different ways to produce different results, giving three basic methods of parallelism, which can be further subdivided.[21]
'A'='B' Parallelism:
In this type of parallelism, the two stichs are in some way interchangeable in that the first is either echoed or contrasted by the second.[22] When echoing, the second stich will repeat what is said in the first, usually in a slightly different way but sometimes by simple repetition. When contrasting, the second stich will repeat the meaning of the first by phrasing it negatively (if the first was positive) or positively (if the first was negative). Thus the essence of the first stich is emphasized by being phrased in a different way.
An example of echoing can be seen in Psalm 104:33, in which the author expresses his desire to praise the Lord:
אָשִׁ֣ירָה לַיהוָ֣ה בְּחַיָּ֑י /אֲזַמְּרָ֖ה לֵאלֹהַ֣י בְּעוֹדִֽי׃
I will sing to Yahweh in my life / I will praise my God as long as I [live].
Here we see both an echoing in meaning and in grammar. The second stich repeats the intention of the first using different words, and it also repeats the grammar of the first: verbàobjectà duration, using the Qal cohortative in the first position and the same prefixes.
For an example of contrasting, we can look at Psalm 20:9 (MT), where the author contrasts the wicked and the righteous:
הֵ֭מָּה כָּרְע֣וּ וְנָפָ֑לוּ/ וַאֲנַ֥חְנוּ קַּ֝֗מְנוּ וַנִּתְעוֹדָֽד׃
They fall to their knees and collapse / But we stand and help one
another up.
Here the difference between the wicked and the righteous, those who trust in their own strength and their horses and those who trust in the Lord (20:8 (MT)) is emphasized by phrasing the two stichs to contrast each other. The grammar is repeated, but the meaning is quite obviously designed to show the great difference between trust in the self and trust in the Lord.
'A'>'B' Parallelism:
In this type of parallelism, the main idea of the first stich is qualified in the second, “more fully bringing the thought of A to completion.”[23] The second stich is therefore subordinate to the first, and provides extra information regarding means, reason or time. Thus what is expressed in the first stich can be further explained in the second as to how it is so, why it is so, and when it was or will be so.
An example of this type of parallelism can be seen in Ps. 104:27
כֻּ֭לָּם אֵלֶ֣יךָ יְשַׂבֵּר֑וּן /לָתֵ֖ת אָכְלָ֣ם בְּעִתּֽוֹ׃
They all hope in you / for you give them food in its time.
In this parallelism, the first stich states that the creatures mentioned in the preceding verses all look to the Lord, they wait for him hope in him. This is explained in the second stich, as the creatures wait for the Lord because their food comes from his hand. Thus the thought of the first stich is brought to completion in the second.
'A'<'B'
This type of parallelism is similar to the 'A'>'B' parallelism in that the second stich completes or continues the thought of the first. But instead of the first stich being qualified by the second, here the first serves as an introduction which the second brings to completion. This type can be further subdivided into four ways in which the first stich is completed by the second: continuation, comparison, specification (further divided into spatial, explanation, dramatic effect and purpose) and intensification.
We can look to Ps. 104:30 for an example of this type of parallelism (specifically of the explanatory specification):
תְּשַׁלַּ֣ח ר֭וּחֲךָ /יִבָּרֵא֑וּן /וּ֝תְחַדֵּ֗שׁ פְּנֵ֣י אֲדָמָֽה׃
When you send your Spirit / they are created / and you make new the face of the
earth.
Here the introductory phrase, “when you send your Spirit” is completed by the second (and in this case, third) stichs as they specify what is then done: ‘they (the creatures) are created, and the face of the earth is made new.’[24]
Other Types of Parallelism:
In addition to these major types of parallelism, some other parallelistic expressions can be seen. Scholars have identified ‘stair-step parallelism’ in which the thought of the first stich is developed in steps. The stichs which follow the first provide additional elements “not found in the opening couplet, frequently with the use of ellipsis.”[25] There is also ‘pivot-point’ parallelism, in which an element of the first stich is used in the second, but left out (called ‘gapping’).[26] The second stich cannot be properly understood unless the pivot of the first stich is inserted. There is also the ‘terrace’ parallelism, where “the last part of a line is repeated as the beginning of the next line.”[27] On top of parallelism, poetic authors also employ other techniques, which could be considered ‘bigger picture’ techniques.
Additional Structural Distinctives:
Frequently in Biblical passages there is a structure called chiasm, “in which the word order of a parallel line is the reverse of its predecessor”[28] on the small scale, and in which entire passages can be built around a central element on a larger scale.[29] There is also merismus, where the extremes of a category are mentioned so that the totality of the category is to be understood.[30] Frequently, even outside of what is considered poetry, Biblical authors used inclusio to tie their argument or point together. This is a “technique in which the author at the end of a discussion returns to the point he made at the beginning,”[31] and is also called an envelope figure.[32] A poetic example of inclusio can be seen in Ps. 104, where the Psalm begins with the words בָּרֲכִ֥י נַפְשִׁ֗י אֶת־יְה֫וָ֥ה (Praise Yahweh O my soul) in v. 1, and ends with the words בָּרֲכִ֣י נַ֭פְשִׁי אֶת־יְהוָ֗ה הַֽלְלוּ־יָֽהּ׃ (Praise Yahweh O my soul, praise Yah). The Psalm begins and ends with an imperative issued to the psalmist’s own soul to praise the Lord, and the body of the Psalm supplies ample reason to follow this command.
While this is not the totality of what can be found in Hebrew literature classified as poetry, these categories are the major elements which commentators look into when attempting to define a passage’s genre. It is to these categories that those who argue that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is poetry look in their arguments.
Notes:
[1] James L. Kugel. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. p. 71.
[2] Kugel. Biblical Poetry. p. 75.
[3] Sanford Calvin Yoder. Poetry of the Old Testament. Scottdale, Penn.: Herald Press, 1948. p. 12.
[4] Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1985. p. 13.
[5] Wilfred G. E. Watson. Classical Hebrew Poetry: a Guide to its Techniques. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. p. 35.
[6] Definitions for Hebrew terms are taken, if not otherwise noted, from William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.
[7] Watson. Hebrew Poetry. p. 128. Watson lists 11 types of word-pairs, pp. 130-135.
[8] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation., Revised and Updated ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993. p. 282ff. This work will be referred to as KBH, Interpretation.
[9] Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. p. 461.
[10] A. B. Davidson and John Mauchline, An Introductory Hebrew Grammar: With Progressive Exercises in Reading, Writing, and Pointing., Twenty-Sixth ed. New York: T. & T. Clark, 1966; reprint, Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003. p. 41.
[11] Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. p. 363.
[12] Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. p. 363.
[13] Robert Lowth. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. 4th Ed. Transl. G. Gregory. London: Thomas Tegg, 1839. p. 48.
[14] Lowth. Sacred Poetry. p. 49.
[15] Lowth. Sacred Poetry. p. 49.
[16] See, for instance Kugel, Biblical Poetry, pp. 204-286 (esp. 275-286). Kugel seems to argue that parallelism is characteristic of Hebrew thinking, (pp. 59-95) and not just poetry, which is simply “a complex of heightening effects used in combinations and intensities that very widely from composition to composition even within a single ‘genre.’” (p. 94).
[17] KBH. Interpretation. p. 288.
[18] KBH. Interpretation. p. 289.
[19] KBH. Interpretation. p. 289.
[20] KBH. Interpretation. p. 289.
[21] KBH. Interpretation. p. 297.
[22] KBH. Interpretation. p. 290.
[23] KBH. Interpretation. p. 290
[24] For further examples of these types of parallelism, see KBH. Interpretation. pp. 289-297, and also Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1991, pp. 176-180. I have chosen KBH’s explanation and division of parallelism over Osborne’s as Osborne attempts to have a number of specific categories all equal to each other, whereas KBH has three major categories, which can then be sub-divided based on the purpose of the parallelism. In my estimation, this works much better than having a larger number of categories into which we try to plug the parallelism, since these systems “tend to be impressionistic rather than precise” (Watson. Hebrew Poetry. p. 119).
[25] KBH. Interpretation. p. 297-298.
[26] Watson. Hebrew Poetry. p. 214.
[27] Watson. Classical Hebrew Poetry. p. 208.
[28] KBH. Interpretation. p. 298.
[29] KBH. Interpretation. p. 299.
[30] KBH. Interpretation. p. 302.
[31] Osborne. Hermeneutical Spiral. p. 39.
[32] Watson. Classical Hebrew Poetry. p. 282.
No comments:
Post a Comment