No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
While the study of word pairs and word patterns in Hebrew reaches back even before Lowth's lectures on poetry in 1753, it has intensified considerably since the discovery of the Ugaritic texts and the recognition of both shared and distinctive word patterns in Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry. There is no need to rehearse here the history of this research. Avishur has summarized that with relatively full bibliography in his article in Semitics. The result of these investigations is to make the reader of biblical and extrabiblical texts more aware of both the traditional material and patterns available to the writers of prose and poetry as well as the creativity of the poet, especially in shaping a poem or lines of poetry in different ways as individuality and the traditional are blended together in the poetic composition.
1 Avishur, Y., “Pairs of Synonymous Words in the Construct State (And in Appositional Hendiadys) in Biblical Hebrew,” Semitics 2 (1971–1972) 17–81. To that should be added among other articles Avishur's studies in UF 7 (1975) 13–47; 8 (1976) 1–22.Google Scholar
2 For a different sort of study with the same goal in mind see the writer's “Poetic Ambiguity and Balance in Psalm xv,” VT 29 (1979) 416–24.Google Scholar
3 Cf., e.g., the discussions of Gevirtz, S., Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963) 38–40, 44.Google Scholar
4 The LXX of Jer 5:28 has cheras for MT ’ebyônîm; and the ‘wlm of Prov 23:10 in parallel to yetômîm is frequently emended to ’almānāh on the basis of the other examples of this pairing as well as the parallel to the verse in the Wisdom of Amenemope.
5 The reversal of order in placing gēr after the first two in Deut 10:18 may be because the word about the gēr is then elaborated in the following verse.
6 The two examples in Ugaritic texts (CTA 16.6.49–50 and 17.5.8) have the order ytm//almnt in the first case and almnt/fytm in the second case.
7 LXX and Syriac have yiṣhār represented in their translations. It is unclear whether the original text included it or it came in because of the frequency of the triad.
8 S. Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Isarel, 36–40.
9 lbid.
10 As As in the cases of gēr and yiṣhār discussed above, deber is the more fluid member of the trio. It is used less often, and its position is flexible.
11 This series is also used frequently in Ezekiel which shows somewhat more flexibility in order, though here also the normal order is ḥereb in the first position and rā꜂āb in second position, with deber as a variant in first or third position, except for 7:15 where it appears in the middle. This is probably because of the fact that the series appears twice in the same verse. Repetitive usage in 6:11–12 also accounts for the placing of deber in third position in v 11 and first position in v 12.
12 For other examples of the breakup of the construct ṣebā’ (haš)šamayim into (haš)šāmayim parallel to ṣbā’ām see Isa 45:12 and Ps 33:6. In Gen 2:1 the two words appear in collocation or conjunction, but hā’āres, which is an even more common parallel to haššamayim, is inserted between them. Thus: wayekullû haššāmayim wehā’ āreṣ wekol-ṣebā’ām. One should compare also Ps 148:1-
13 Boling, R., “Synonymous Parallelism in the Psalms,” JSS 5 (1960) 221–55.Google Scholar
14 Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel, 44.
15 For example, the use of hārôn ’ap and ’ebrāh in conjunction and in parallel in Isa 13:9 and 13 or the use of peša‘ and ḥṭ’ in Ps 25:7 and 18, on which see Boling, “Synonymous Parallelism,” 231.