ABINGDON PRESS. Nashville‘THE NEW INTERPRETER'$® DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE VOLUME Copyright © 2009 by Abingdon Press Alright reserved [No par of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec tronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitied by the 1976 Copyright Act o in writing ftom the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to ‘Abingdon Press, 201 Eighth Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37203, ‘This book is printed on recycled, acid free paper: Library of Congress Cataloging.in Publication Data ‘The New Interpreters Dictionary ofthe Bible, pcm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0:687-054273 alk. paper) 1. Bible-Dictionaries. 1. Abingdon Press. ‘BS440,N445 2006, 220.3-de22 2006025839 ISBN-13: 978-0:087-33375.2 Unless directly transiated by a contributor, biblical quotations are from the NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION OF THE BIBLE. Copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christin the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved, Pronunciations ae from THE HARPERCOLLINS BIBLE PRONUNCIATION GUIDE. William O. Walker, Jz, General editor. Copyright © 1989, 1994 by the Society of Biblical Literature. Published by HarperCollins Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. English language fonts are from the Weidemann family. Ancient language fonts were deve: ‘oped in the public domain for scholars who comprise the Society of Biblical Literature, including SPTiberian for Hebrew, SPlonic for Greek, and SPAUants for transiteration. PUBLICATION STAFE Project Director: John & Kutsko Project Manager: Marianne Blickenstaft Reference Editor: Heather R. McMurray Associate Editor: Tim West Publishing Consultant: Jack A. Keller Contracts Manager: Lori C, Patton Production & Design Manager: Ed Wynne ‘Typesetter: Kevin A, Wilson Print Procurement: Clara Vaughan Marketing Manager: Teese Alspaugh EXECUTIVE STAFF President and Publisher: Neil M. Alexander Editorin-Chief, Abingdon Press: Mary Catherine Dean 123456789 10-09 10 11 12 13 1415 10 17 18 [MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAPochereth-hazzebaim Literature, Religion and Philosophy, and in the New Testament Background (2007); Donald A. Russell arch, 284 Placarch. 2° ed. (2001). ays FRIEDRICH MUELLER POCHERETH-HAZZEBAIM pok ‘uh-rith-haz-uh-bay’im [O°2¥71 MB pokhereth hatsevayim]. Means “ga- zelle hunter” and is an example of a profession becom- ing a proper name. Pochereth-hazzebaim is among the cultic professionals returning from exile (Ezra 2:57; Neh 7:59; 1 Esd 5:34). He is one of ten heads of fam lies called “Solomon's servant's” who are associated with and probably similar to the “temple servants” who assisted the Levites (Ezra 2:43; see NETHINIM).. MILTON ENG POD [kepciriov keration}. The seed pod of an ever green in the Mediterranean called the carob tree. The pods, tasting similar to sweetened cocoa, are not usu ally a food source but can provide sustenance if needed Pods are mentioned as the pig food that the desperate PRODIGAL SON considers eating (Luke 15:16) KATHY R, MAXWELL POEM OF ERRA. See ERRA EPIC. POETRY IN THE NT. Poetry is less prominent in the NT than it is in the OT. As is the case with the OT, the boundaries between poetry and prose are blurry, which makes distinguishing between the two a difficult task. Strictly speaking, there is no Greek poetry in the NT following the meter, form, and rhythm that traditionally distinguished Greek Poetry from prose. However, there appear to be a handful of brief quotations of Greek classical poets in the NT. In Acts 17:28, Paul supports his argu- ‘ment to the Athenians with the statement “as even some of your own poets have said,” followed by the statement “For we too are his offspring.” The latter appears to be a quotation from Aratus (Phaen. 5], although a similar line appears in Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus. In addition, the phrase “In him we live and move and have our being,” which precedes the reference to poets in this verse, has also been identified as a quota- tion from the 6®cent. sce poet Epimenides (Cretica}, but this is less certain. In 1 Cor 15:33 Paul exhorts the Corinthians, saying, “Do not be deceived,” followed by the phrase “Bad company ruins good morals.” The latter was a widespread proverb detived from the comic poet Menander, And Titus 1:12 appears to be a quota: tion of a line from Callimachus (Hymn to Zeus 4). Another way to approach the issue is to examine the relationship between NT poetry and the typical poetic forms of the OT. Among the abundant quota tions of the OT in NT writings, there are a significant ‘number of quotations of or allusions to poetic passag: es, some marked and some unmarked. These include ‘Matt 4:6 (Ps 91:11:12}; Matt 7:23 (Ps 6:8 (Heb. 6:9));, 550 Poetry, Hebrew Matt 13:32 (Ps 104:12}; Matt 13:35 (Ps 78:2}; Matt 21:16 (Ps 8:2 (Heb. 8:3]); Mark 1:11 (Ps 2:7); Mark 11:0-10 (Ps 118:25-26); Rom 8:36 (Ps 44:22); and Rom 10:19-21 (Deut 32:21; Isa 65:1-2). There are also a number of passages that appear to be modeled on OT poetic parallelism. Luke 1-2 has several such passages, including the well-known praise of Mary, traditionally known as the MAGNIFICAT (Luke 1:46- 55), and Zechariah’s prophecy, traditionally called the BENEDICTUS (Luke 1:68:79). Scholats have pointed out the presence of hymndlike passages embedded in some of the letters in the NT and have suggested that they are remnants of the liturgy of eafly Christian groups (1 Cor 13:1-13; 15:35; Eph 1:3-13; Phil 2:6 115 Col 1:15:20; 1 Pet 1:3-5). Similarly, the throne- room ceremonies in the Apocalypse of John have over fifteen hymns (including Rev 4:8, 11; 5:9-10; 11:17- 18). While scholars debate whether these hymns were adapted from preexisting liturgical materials or were composed by the author, they clearly have a poetic character. See HYMNS, NT. Bibliography: Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds. The Psalms in the New Testament (2004). RUBEN R. DUPERTUIS POETRY, HEBREW. Roughly a third of the OT is verse (i.., set in lines). This poetic corpus includes the three books of Job, Proverbs, and Psalms, and the several festival songs embedded in prose texts (Exod 15; Deut 32; Judg 5; 2 Sam 22) for which the Masoretes pro- vided a distinct accentual system and/or special page Jayouts—the latter convention is now in evidence in (much earlier) manuscripts of most of these works from Qumran (Tov); Lamentations and Song of Songs; other poems or poetic fragments embedded within blocks of prose (e.g., Gen 4:23-24); and much of the Latter Prophets. Any reading of this material, however moti- vated (theologically, literarily, historically), will need to accommodate its poetic medium. The corpus as a ‘whole remains centrally a part of the scriptural heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and has been a foundational source for poetry throughout history and throughout the world, and especially for all later (post biblical) traditions of Hebrew verse (Carmi). ‘What follows is an account of biblical Hebrew poet: ry; ts basic components, operative prosody, and leading characteristics. There is no atheoretical or neutral way of describing verse of any kind. The view on biblical verse presented here is itself laden with contestable the- oretical assumptions at almost every step along the way and is but one way among many of accounting for this material. Its basic orientation is practical and pragmatic and chiefly descriptive, It is guided, on the one hand, by a strong conviction that biblical Hebrew verse is in most general respects just like any other verse tradition, especially regarding what we know of ancient poetic traditions, and thus biblical poems should be read andPoetry, Hebrew interpreted like other poems, with the same critical tools, with the same kinds of guiding assumptions in place, and, on the cther hand, by an equally firm belief that what distinguishes the verse of the Bible is its his- toricity and cultural specificity, those peculiar encrusta tions and encumbrances that typify all human artifacts. The literary and the historical, then, are always in view here. Special attention is given to various dimensions and strategies of close reading (a most practical kind of criticism) through a reading of Ps 125. ‘A. What Is Hebrew Poetry? 1. Line structure 2. Beyond the line 3. Concision or compression 4. Verbally inventive 5. Difference from prose 6. Parallelism B, Free Rhythms of Hebrew Verse C. Poetry in the Ancient Near East D. Nonnarrative Verse 1. Lytic 2. Gnomic 3. Lament 4. Prophetic E. Poetic Structure F Sound G. Poetic Collections H. Orality and Literacy 1, How to Read a Biblical Poem Bibiiography ‘A. What Is Hebrew Poetry? 1. Line structure To define Hebrew poetry requires some awareness of what distinguishes poetry more generally, a topic that remains much debated and depends heavily on the particular theoretical disposition assumed. Yet beyond theoretical commitments (which are always germane} What counts as poetry is ever a configuration of spe- cific historical, cultural, and ideological factors (Perloff). ‘Almost all premodern (prior to ca. 1850 ce} poetry was set as verse, i.e,, in lines—etymologically, the English term verse derives ultimately from Latin versus, lit, “turning,” which, focusing on the turn at the end of the line, designated a line of writing, and especially a line of poetry. In fact, with the notable exception of a few modern genres (such as the “prose poem”), the line is the single differentia of poetry on which almost all crit {es and poets agree. That biblical Hebrew poetry was arranged in lines {variously called cola, versets, halflines, stichs, or hemistichs}—though a not incontestable proposition— is inferable from a wide variety of considerations. Sev- eral manuscript traditions exhibit a variety of special formatting that graphically displays line structure for a substantial portion of the biblical poetic corpus; the existence of single lines and triplets, alongside the more 551 Poetry, Hebrew common couplet, shows that the line must be the basic, unit of lineation, Parallelism presumes the individual line as its basic unit, being matched or repeated and set apart (see §A6). Parallelism in biblical poetry func tions principally to mark line ends. The line also can be defined in terms of syntax and length. The acrostics in Pss 111 and 112 (as well as the “ALEF [’ 8] stanza [Ps 9:2:3] of the ACROSTIC poem in Pss 9-10) show the single line as a structural entity. Tropes, such as sound play (e.g, alliteration, see SF), appear frequently and precisely at the level of individual lines. In sum, there is a great deal of empirical warrant for positing, the existence of the line in Hebrew verse, and thus, for referting to these lines as poetic, as verse. Being nonmetrical, actual line lengths are never numerically consistent for long stretches. As a result, Hebrew poetic lines exhibit a general (though variable) symmetry in length that contrasts noticeably with the randomness of clause and sentence length in biblical Hebrew prose. Line boundaries normally converge with the end of discrete syntactic or phrasal units (even when sentences run on past line ends}, and lines tend to be grouped chiefly in twos and threes (Le, as couplets and triplets). Indeed, the characteristic closed and recursive shape of biblical Hebrew poetic rhythm is itself chiefly a product of end-stopping and parallelism, ‘A clausal or sentential whole (frame) is articulated and then reiterated once or twice over, producing a pulsing series of progressions—one step forward, relteration, and then another step forward, relteration again, and sometimes twice over (in the case of triplets), and so ‘on. The recursion of parallelism redoubles the syntactic, frame, and in the process reinforces the projection of ‘wholeness and the felt fullness of the stop at line end. 2. Beyond the line The line, without which there can be no verse, is by itself insufficient to identify a specific instance of dis- ccourse as poetic, biblical or otherwise. In antiquity, ¢.¢., lists of names, commodities, and the like, which are among the most mundane, nonpoetic forms of verbal, communication, were commonly written out in lines (e.g, Josh 12:9-24; CAT 4.93, 99, 100; TAD C4.3, 4), What makes a poem includes something more than being set in lines, though deciding on what this something more is will vary depending on the specific poetic corpus in view. Aside from lineation, there are no intrinsic markers or clear-cut boundaries between Poems and nonpoems, but only a cluster of intersecting, and always local variables that signal the presence of poetry. Three variables (other than the line) are here offered for initial consideration. 3. Concision or compression The first is concision or compression, which Is commonly associated with poetry more generally. Concision may be measured in several ways. The typi- cal poetic clause is shorter and less complex than itsPoetry, Hebrew prose counterpart. This relative brevity is achieved principally through various forms of ellipses, e.g., verb gapping, double-duty prepositions, reduced usage of the so-called prose particles (definite article, relative particle, etc.), the net effect of which is to bring seman- tically important words closer together, adding layers of meaning and imagery and the impression of increased density. Further, the lines themselves, normally consist: ing of from two to six words, are fairly concise. Here, ‘one might usefully compare some of the much longer written ftee-verse lines from modern Hebrew verse. The poems are also mostly shorter in terms of numbers of actual words used, and in relation to narrative poems from around the ANE (e.g, Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, Aqhat, Kirta). 4, Verbally inventive “Verbally inventive” is a characterization borrowed from T. Eagleton. Poetry is often characterized as language that draws attention to itself through intensi- fied language. The problem is that not all of what is routinely called poetry behaves in this manner. Hence, Eagleton's more modest phrasing and insistence that if poetry often uses language in “inventive” ways, it does not do so all the time. “Inventive” here is being used in a factual, not evaluative sense (Eagleton}. Hebrew verse is often verbally inventive in this more modest, sense. Its language routinely seems denser and more intense, with increased instances of wordplay and other tropes, ambiguity, allusion, etc. Sometimes a sense of verbal self-consciousness is detectable, as in the formal cconcett of the alphabetic acrostic or in the insistence in Ps 19 that Day and Night and all the Heavens proclaim the glory of God but without literal speech (19:2-4), And in some poets, like Job, one is never in doubt of the verbal artistry on display, the inventiveness of the poetic idiom. Yet there, too, are other runs in Hebrew poems (e.g., as in many psalms) that appear much less, linguistically self-conscious. 5. Difference from prose There is a sense of difference between biblical poetry and biblical prose (the common language of, {for instance, the historical books). Students of Hebrew literature to this day continue to find reading biblical poetry a more challenging exercise than reading prose. The act of reading poetry is more intense and labori- ous, typically requiring a slower pass through the text. It is not that this Hebrew is linguistically any different from the Hebrew of the prose texts—rare is the poetic, tradition, however radical, that is not predicated on the linguistic conventions of the everyday language. Rather, the experiential difference follows because the poetic language so routinely involves higher concentrations of ‘words and phrases with rare meanings or usages or simn- ply rare words and phrases themselves, bold ellipses, sudden transitions in subject matter and grammar, and other stylistic difficulties. 552 Poetry, Hebrew In recent years much has been made of a putative poetry-prose continuum in biblical Hebtew literature (compare Petersen and Richards), with some even questioning whether such a notion as biblical Hebrew poetry has any real sensibility (Kugel). Biblical Hebrew is the selfsame language, and there is nothing intrinsic to {most} rhetorical figures that proscribe their use as either poetry or prose. However, on the basis of the descriptions above {e.g., line, concision, verbal inven- tiveness, and a discernible poetic diction and texture), @ sensible notion of Hebrew poetty is plainly achievable. 6, Parallelism PARALLELISM is the repetition of patterns in adja cent phrases and has almost unexceptionally served as the defining formal feature of biblical Hebrew verse, But parallelism qua parallelism is unremarkable. In literature generally, written as well as oral, itis a com: mon stylistic trope and has no significance as such for defining Hebrew verse. In fact, as many scholars have noted (esp. Kugel), as a trope parallelism is also to be found throughout Hebrew narrative prose. Moreover, a substantial portion (perhaps as much as a third) of the biblical poetic corpus comprises nonparallelistic lines. ‘What is distinctive about parallelism in Hebrew verse is its prominent role in line fixing and in joining adjacent lines and the peculiar rhythm of recursion that it cre ates, neither of which applies to the use of parallelism in the prose portions of the Bible. The articulation of line structure in biblical verse is varied. Such phenomena as lineend pause, sentence logic, line length, anaphora, semantic emphasis, and formal figures such as the alphabetic acrostic are rou. tinely involved. Yet the main device used for fixing the line end in much of the biblical corpus is parallelism, Like the silence of a pause, parallelism marks the end of a line only belatedly, retrospectively. The unit most often iterated is the line, its shape emerging to match the adjacent lines that are set in equivalence. Isaiah 11:3 fs a typical example: and-notaccording.to-the-vision-ofhis-eyes will he judge and-not-according-to-the-hearing-othis-ears will he decide welo”lemar’eh ‘enaw yishpot welo”Jemishma‘ ’ozenaw yokhiakh pipe Nyy TNT TR mat viie pain 8 57 Conjunction ~ Negative ~ Participle ~ Verb Conjunction — Negative — Participle — Verb The matching syntactic frames here are most exact. The onset of the frame established in the initial line is repeated in the second line and throws the endingPoetry, Hebrew of that first line into relief. Recognition of the reiter: ated frame as a whole enhances the closural force that accompanies the end of the second line, which itself mimes the line ending of the first line. The full effectiveness of this kind of strategy for line marking depends to a large degree on familiarity with the techniques to be put into play. Appreciation of how parallelism signals line ends will not always be immedi: ately perceptible from individual examples. But as the device is repeated over the course of a poem, perception increases. Consider Isa 11:3 together with wy. 4-5: ‘And he shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear; but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his, mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked, ‘And righteousness shall be the belt around his waist, and faithfulness the belt around his loins. (NRSY, slightly modified) Here the listener is exposed four times in eight lines to the use of parallelism as a means for fixing local line ends Depending on the design of a given poem, other ad hoc features (e.g., logical or temporal connectors, thematic development, semantic emphasis), usually in combination with other considerations, may serve to underscore the beginnings and/or endings of lines. Notice in Isa 11:3-5 the use of the conjunctive WAW (w/1, meaning “and,” “or,” “but” in the NRSV) to head every line, serving as a kind of line-marking anaphora. But the conjunctive waws are especially important after the second lines of the four couplets, as they help to secure the integrity of those lines. Additionally, the symmetry of line length and the clausal nature of the lines themselves show that the line structure of Isa 11:35 is rather impressively indicated. The parallel frame coerces auditors into considering two images together and giving rise to a new percep- tion in the process. An example is provided by Gen 49:11 (“he washes his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes”), where “washing in wine,” an image of weal and superabundance (compare Deut 32:14), is perceived mote violently in the parallel image of washing “in the blood of grapes.” B, Free Rhythms of Hebrew Verse Until qulte recently, the search for Hebrew meter has been a constant preoccupation of scholars. However, the simple fact is that Hebrew verse is not metrical (having a pattem in rhythm that can be observed and hamed). Biblical Hebrew is a stresstimed language, and stress figures prominently in the rhythmic drive of the 553 Poetry, Hebrew language that naturally pulsates through its words and phrases. But the beat of the stresses in Hebrew poetry never finally exhibits a meter, a pattemed rhythm. This, {s not because meter is unachievable in Hebrew. To the contrary, a plenitude of metrical verse exists in the vari ‘ous traditions that comprise the post-biblical Hebrew poetic corpus (Carmi). Rather, biblical verse is non- metrical, Potentially, everything in the poem can con- tribute to the rhythm. The core of biblical poetry's “iree thythms” consists in configurations of its variable but constrained line, which is commonly grouped in twos and threes, and sometimes fours, with the language's strong word and word-group stress frequentiy_rein- forced through repetitions. Strict regularity of syllables is lacking, Nonetheless, stresses are made to fall within a limited range, with longer words having secondary stresses that may be separated by as many as two, three, and four syllables. These core constituencies, which give biblical verse its distinctive rhythmic signature, are enacted, often in combination with other aspects of the poem (e.g., lineation, syntactic pattems, tone, elements of meaning), in a myriad of ways to realize a specific poem's unique rhythm, That is, there is a certain, “organic” structure to nonmetrical or free verse—no two such poems are ever really rhythmically alike. Some sense of the kind of organic free rhythmic structures that typify biblical poems may be observed in Ps 19. The poem as a whole may be divided in two major sections, vv. 2-7 and wy. 8-15 {in the Heb.), each of which may be further halved (vy. 2-50, 5c-7; vv. 8-11, 12-15}—each of these subsections is headed by a fronted topic word (“the heavens,” “the sun,” “the Torah of Yahweh,” “your servant”). In the first half of the poem the lines are somewhat longer and relatively balanced within each couplet and triplet. Themati- cally, this part of Ps 19 focuses on creation and draws heavily on mythological imagery. The natural entities ate personified throughout. The first section (vv. 2-58) consists of four parallel couplets—though the paral lelism is staged differently in each—and features the metaphorical language of speech, words, and voice, The repetition of the parallelism echoes the antiphonal praises of nature. The second section (vv. 5c-7) con- centrates solely on the sun. It consists of two triplets with lines that run on, imitating something of the sun’s daily trajectory of work. In the third section (vv. 8:11) fan abrupt change in subject matter, tone, and feel is achieved. The relaxed ebb and flow of nature in the first sections gives way to the tightly controlled ritual of Torah study. The section consists of eight couplets, all parallel, and all roughly unbalanced—the first lines lon- ger than the second ones. The exactness of the first six couplets is near perfect. Torah is mentioned in its vatt ous guises and the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) is used six times over in the same line position each time. Each of the first lines in these couplets comprises three major stresses, and each of the second lines contains two. The tight focus stackens a bit in v. 11 and even furtherPoetry, Hebrew in the poem's final section (vv. 12-15). Now the topic of focus is the servant, the speaker of the poem. The lines remain shorter than in the initial sections, but are not so strictly controlled as in section three. There are four couplets and a concluding triplet—the final triplet, being an effective means of signaling closure (Smith). ‘The final triplet replays various aspects of the poem, notably the language of speech (though here no longer metaphorical), and has one last reference to Yahweh. The rhythmic profile realized in Ps 19 is typical of biblical poetry. Its backbone is the rhythmic move- ment of the syllables in biblical Hebrew (i.e, the loose alternation of stresses and slacks in words and phrases), materially no different from the spoken language ot the language of Hebrew prose, except in its organization into tighter (¢.g., Ps 19:8-10) and looser (e.g., Ps 19:2: 50) sequences. Hebrew verse is a kind of free verse, and its rhythms share strong family resemblance to other free-verse poems, such as Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass. ILis to free verse that students of biblical poetry should look first for models of reading, and not to the metrical traditions, C. Poetry in the Ancient Near East The portrait of biblical poetry so far painted—a nonmetrical form of discourse arranged as verse and characterized above all by terseness, verbal inventive: ness, and a discernible poetic diction and texture—is, one that in large and small ways resembles the other poetic traditions known from the ANE (e.g., Sumerian, Akkadian, Ugaritic). Though not at all surprising, net: ther is the fact of such broad similarities insignificant. Any construal of biblical verse must finally be squared with what we know about the various verse traditions from the surrounding ANE cultures. This is especially the case with respect to the Ugaritic poetic corpus, which provides biblical poetry with the sembiance of a prehistory (Parker), Indeed, most of the genres of verse in the Bible are found in these contemporary poetic traditions (e.g., hymns, laments, love songs, proverbs). ‘As a group, these verse traditions provide the earliest evidence for free verse (a poetic phenomenon other ‘wise mostly treated as a product of modernity). Though the historical rationale for privileging contemporary Near Eastern poetries for comparative purposes is, incontrovertible, there is no reason not to read in light of all other poetry as well. One other such tradition, in, particular, deserves highlighting: post-biblical Hebrew verse (Carmi). Often neglected by biblical scholars, this ‘manifold and rich tradition of verse in Hebrew, through comparison and contrast, potentially can illuminate our understanding of biblical Hebrew verse on any number of topics (e.g,, prosody, imagery, diction}. D. Nonnarrative Verse AS a practical matter, R. Alter notices that biblical verse is used for all manner of things except telling stories, which invariably in the OT are rendered in 554 Poetry, Hebrew prose. Epic narrative verse is well known from the period and region (e.g., Gilgamesh, Kirta), so biblical writers could well have chosen to tell their stories in verse, had they so desired. To be sure, there are individual poems that incorporate narrative runs and sometimes even develop characters, but for the most part these forms are restricted in scale (e.g., Exod 15; Prov 7). Alter has also identified varieties of nar- rativity in certain Hebrew poems (e.g., 2 Sam 22}. S. R. Driver, who much earlier also recognized the Bible's lack of epic verse, divided the nonnarrative poetry of the Bible into two broad types, lyric and gnomic. Though surely reductive, leaving many verse forms in the Bible unaccounted for, the two types are indeed pervasive. 1. Lyric The term [yri, in its broadest sense, distinguishes the various nondramatic types of poetry. That is, one of its central identifying traits is the frequent absence of features and practices (plot, character, etc.) that are otherwise found in narrative. Since lyric poetry makes no recoutse to plot or character, it must depend on lan- ‘guage itself, e.g,, the sound of words, rhyme, rhythm, imagery, and meter (Langer). The lyric also tends to be small in scale, features voice(s) instead of character(s), and is often highly fragmentary or nonsequential in structure. A core of lyric verse in the Bible (e.g,, Psalms, Song of Songs) suggests rootedness in a tradition of song and music, 2, Gnomic By “gnomic” Driver means didactic or wisdom poetry (e.g,, Job, Proverbs, and Sirach), He defines this kind of verse broadly as consisting of observations on Ife and the conduct and character of human beings and societies. In many respects the basic medium of such verse is not unlike that of the lyric just described. Beyond thematic and performative differences (most wisdom literature would not have been sung), differ ent life settings (e.g., teaching), and a preference for other kinds of genres (e.g., proverbs), the major modal difference is a higher incidence of discursive logic (see WISDOM IN THE OT). 3. Lament Other subgroups of the biblical poetic corpus may also be isolated. For example, the LAMENT, in its vari ous guises (individual and communal laments, funeral dirges, laments for destroyed cities), was an especially common. ancient poetic genre. It shares much with lyric and didactic verse and may be distinguished, broadly, by its chief thematic concems (suffering and loss}, its typically dark and somber mood, and often {especially in funeral dirges) a fondness for unbalanced couplets. Like gnomic or didactic verse, laments were not necessarily sung,Poetry, Hebrew 4. Prophetic Prophetic verse is broadly continuous with the other nonnarrative verse of the Bible. As in wisdom poetry, discursive logic is more freely on display, and the prophets tend to take up forms and genres from elsewhere, playing with and even warping them, and generally using them for their own ends. One might also highlight the oracular and visionary aspects that feature In many prophetic poems and that have had a strong influence on the Western literary poetic imagination (see ORACLE). Siill other kinds of bibl: cal poems abound (e.g., love songs, work songs, vic tory celebrations), and some even figure as insets for heightening and other purposes in prose narratives. E, Poetic Structure To ask about the principles, formal and thematic, by which @ poem is generated is to emphasize the temporal and dynamic qualities of poetry (Smith). The formal structure is the repetition of certain physi: cal features of the poem—sound, words, lines—or a relationship among such features. Thematic struc- ture, on the other hand, results from the organiza- tion or deployment of those elements of a poem that arise from the symbolism contained in the words— semantics, tone, etc. The two—form and theme— can only be attificially disentangled for the purpose of analysis, and as often as not overlap and bleed into each other and work together. Form has generally been underappreciated in biblical Hebrew poetry, despite Gunkel’s highly influential brand of form criti cism (see FORM CRITICISM, OT). The organic and nonsystematic realization of formal structure in most biblical poems is the likely cause, since the patterns of repetition never become very regular and often vary from one section of a poem to the next, as evidenced, eg, in the varied manipulation of line and line ‘groupings in Ps 19. The alphabetic actostic (e.g., Pss 111; 112) is the best example of a given form in the Bible, and it is an explicitly graphic conceit, modeled after scribal school texts known as “abecedaries” and featuring the traditional sequence of {twenty-two} letter forms in the Hebrew ALPHABET. The psalmic “forms” isolated by form critics, on the other hand, exhibit mostly thematic structure. For example, the distinguishing features of the individual lament, such as address, complaint, petition, motivations, and expression of confidence, are all thematic in nature. They may be habitually associated with some for mal feature (¢.g,, petitions are often rendered with imperative or jussive forms) and other formal features may figure in realizing an individual poem’s larger structure—though these will vary from poem to Poem; but in no way is there a constancy to the form as form that these psalms habitually take, i.e., they are nothing like the sonnet or sestina of the metrical tradition, The thematic elements in the individual lament, in fact, are a kind of discourse in which no 555 Poetry, Hebrew sequential logic prevails and individual elements can. be omitted, added, or exchanged without destroying, the coherence or effect of the poem (Smith). F Sound Sound in biblical poetry is also frequently under appreciated, since the actual sounds of the spoken ‘words and sung melodies are only imperfectly and belatedly known, if known at all, and, even when known with some confidence, are invariably lost in translation. Yet even in an age when poetry is written as much for the eye as for the ear (Hollander), poets still inevitably underscore the importance of sound to their craft. Sound patterns and repetitions abound in biblical Hebrew poetic art, mostly nonsystematically and often without strong or obvious semantic implica: tions. Alliteration (e.g., the TSADE (ts 8 in Lam 3:52, tsodh tsadhiwuni katsippor [EXD “2T¥ THN), the “AYINs [° | and alefs in Isa 5:5 (we'attah qiweyithi la‘asoth ‘anavim O°} Mivy> "myp Amy), as ‘well as assonance and consonance (Ps 1:1) are all com: monpiace, routinely occurring locally, prominently as line-level tropes. Rhymes and chimes of various kinds can be heard, not infrequently, as well. The linguistic peculiarities of Hebrew phonology, morphology, and root structure are often exploited to good sonic effect. The same root may be repeated in syntactically war- ranted and sonically pleasing ways (e.g., the Hebrew lit. says, “on our watchtowers we watch,” Lam 4:17) or different roots may be positioned so as to rhyme (e.g., lit., “moaning and groaning,” Lam 2:5). G. Poetic Collections Poems, as singular acts of speech, always demand being read on their own, for their own sakes. Not insignificantly, however, ancient poems, and ancient biblical poems in particular, have been preserved mostly as parts of larger wholes. For biblical poems, this means they are typically either embedded in swaths of narrative prose (e.g., Exod 15; Judg 5; 2 Sam 1) or in collections of poems (e.g., Psalms, Song, of Songs, Proverbs). Both contexts require the recog- nition of the embedded poems as the singular textual entities that they are (ie., as poems) and call for read. ing strategies commensurate to the nature and sensi bilities of the larger wholes of which they are a part. That Is, these poems potentially may always “mean -wice,” once on their own and once in light of the fic- tion of the larger whole, Within narrative frameworks, the embedded poems are usually positioned to serve larger narrative functions, such as effecting closure (Exod 15; Judg 5) or realizing the didactic tradition of “last words” (Deut 32). But collections—iyric, prophetic, wisdom—often require different, nonnar ative strategies of reading, where fragmentation and the accommodation of fragmentation are often central aspects of the fiction enacted.Poetry, Hebrew 556 H. Orality and Literacy Any reading of biblical poetry must hold together literacy and orality. On the one hand, communication in ancient Israel and Judah (and also Persian-period Yehud), like other traditional societies of the ANE, ‘was overwhelmingly and fundamentally an oral affair (Niditch), And the roots of biblical verse as an art form ‘were undoubtedly oral in nature as well—all written literature presently known was preceded by oral litera- ture (Foley). In fact, biblical scholars have long assumed an originary phase of oral composition and transmission uunderiying most of the literature now found in the OT (e.g., Gunkel}. However originally composed and trans: mitted, most (though not all) biblical Hebrew poetry was intended for oral performance, whether a more ot less formal recitation or simply vocalized while reading to oneself. No doubt, also, there was a great deal of oral verse that was never recorded and thus lost. On the other hand, at least from the middle of the 4" mil: lennium, when writing emerged in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, orality was always enacted within (and thus is shaped by) a context of literacy. And thus at no time in the history of the late-arriving Israelites and Judahites (ca, 1200 sce) would writing not have been known and used in some capacity (e.g., among the royal and reli gious elites}. These were not cultures with no knowl: edge of writing. In fact, however scant, extra-biblical Hebrew inscriptions do exist from as early as the 10" cent. (e.g, Gezer Calendar}. And though specifics are not currently within our grasp, internal biblical representations and comparative evidence both sup: port the likelihood that poetry was written down early on (maybe even early bookrolls, such as the “Book of Jashar” mentioned in Josh 10:13 and 2 Sam 1:18). How early is hard to say—the 8 and 7" cent. witness a considerable rise in the use of writing (to judge by the comparably large numbers of extent Hebrew epigraphs from these periods|—and only educated guesses may be made about its form and shape (e.g., written on. papyrus, using word dividers but probably no visual indications of lineation; see WRITING AND WRITING, MATERIALS). There are poems in the Bible, such as the several alphabetic acrostics (e.g., Pss 111; 112; 119; Prov 31:10-31; Lam 1~4; Nah 1:2-9), that clearly were intended for the eye (Le. to be read), and many others that show an awareness of literacy, use literate tropes, ot are effected in a literate mode (Niditch). All of the poetry in the OT, like all other poetry preserved from antiquity, has come down to us in written form. 1, How to Read a Biblical Poem Poetry is an event, an act of reading or hearing (Attridge). It is an embodied event. A poem occurs when it is enacted (Smith), when it is spoken. Poetry, and here biblical poetry in particular, is ultimately all about reading. Readings (always in the plural) are the stuff out of which all construals of prosody and poetics are necessarily made and at the same time are what Poetry, Hebrew complete these construals (i.e., a prosody is only as ood as the reading it helps to generate). Readings of poems are the ultimate justification of poetry, they are the gift of poetry. And readings of biblical poems (espe cially close, deep, lusciously savored, highly imagina: tive readings) are still rare and desperately needed. ‘There is no one right way of reading, no tidy, preset template or calculus guaranteed to generate meaning- ful, sure, and compelling readings. Reading is messy and full of risk. It is a practice, with many modes and fan inestimable number of competing aims and out: comes. Proficiency (however measured} comes, much as it does in many other endeavors, through practice, as does the peculiar and pleasurable satisfactions that it brings. ‘A reading of the short Ps 125 is here offered, by ‘way of conclusion, as but one example of what is possible. The psalm’s title, “A Song of Ascents,” explic- itly announces the poet’s lyric intent and embeds it within the larger sequence of “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 120-34)—whatever more the title may imply, it helps to build in a sense of coherence into this sequence of fifteen poems, and clearly sets this apart as an inte: grated sequence within the psalms. That is, in true lyric fashion, the poem will mean doubly, on its own and also as a part of a larger whole. As with many of the psalms in this sequence, itis short, does not abide closely by any of the well-known psalmic given forms, and shows a stylistic affection for repetition in various forms (Grossberg). The poem's larger identity emerges processually, and the meanings evolve, Emblematic is the poem’s use of repetition. Excepting the fourfold repetition of the Tetragrammaton (Ps 125:1, 2, 4, 5), reiteration in this poem never spills over stanza bound: aties. As a consequence, the specific sets of repetitions help articulate the contours of the individual stanzas, while the prominence of the trope itself adds a sense of stylistic unity to the whole. Such is the basic dynamic informing the poem. By contrast, repetition in many of the other poems in the Songs of Ascents is more global and serves as a unifying device (Grossberg) The fitst stanza (vv. 1-2) is the most fragmented of the three, Meaning in the stanza is manufactured chiefly out of metaphor, explicitly, “like Mount Zion,” and implicitly, “(just as) Jerusalem is surrounded by ‘mountains/(so too) Yahweh surrounds his people.” The ‘whole is shaped as a statement about “those who trust in Yahweh.” But as with all good lyric poetry the import lies as much in the saying as in the said. The imagery and diction of the stanza echo that of the old Zion tradi tion. But what has been mostly missed is the subtlety and creativity with which the poem does this. It is not simply a matter of revalorizing the Zion tradition. As Grossberg observes, the originality of the psalms emerg- es despite the mainly conservative compositional pal ette made up of familiar tropes and conventional imag: ery. The psalm likely dates from the postexilic period, by which time the Babylonian destruction of JerusalemPoetry, Hebrew (586 pce) is a well-known fact. Thus, if the psalmist is to tap into the images associated with the Zion tradi- tion, she will need to do so creatively in a way that does not depend on the inviolability of Jerusalem itself, and so she does. Instead of speaking about Jerusalem's beat tiful walls and butldings, which at one time provided the visible token of Yahweh's beneficence, a visual testimony to the great king's invincibility, sovereignty, and reliability (compare Ps 48:6, 9, 13-14), and which are now demolished, the psalmist praises the mountain- ‘ous nature of the site, which has persisted even amid violent destruction. The metaphors engaged here build on the substantiveness of mountains in general (ie., they are normally perceived as unmovable, seeming to abide forever) and the fact that Jerusalem itself is sur rounded by many hills. The shift in focus is subtle but alkimportant. In Ps 46:1-3, e.g., itis the assurance of Yahweh's ever-present help that bolsters the psalmist’s confidence, even amid earthquakes and the toppling of mountains into the heart of the seas (compare Ps 46:6}. In Ps 125 the mountains become “unshakeable” and they “endure” forever, not Yahweh enthroned on his temple mount (compare Exod 15:17; Num 23:21; Pss 46:5; 48:3; [sa 6:1), in Jerusalem, his chosen dwell- ing place (Pss 76:2; 78:68; 87:1-2; 132:13). Indeed, Yahweh in this psalm no longer functions as the main warrant motivating the psalmist’s actions, but rather it {s the psalmist’s own agency (and those for whom he sings) upon which all is dependent, an agency that gets mediated liturgically (explicitly in vv. 4-5). Here, then, the mythic traditions of Zion provide the poet with his Janguage and imagery, but they are herein refashioned so as to rehabilitate the core of the Zion tradition, its interest in Jerusalem (pethaps for pilgrims making their way to the holy city). Furthermore, note that this reframing of the Zion tradition takes place out of the poet's choice of language and imagery. The stanza’s main line of discourse is framed, semantically and syntactically, as a statement about those who trust in Yahweh. At this level note how the similes in the opening stanza are both predi- cated on verbless clauses. The lack of action inherent in verbless clause connote stability and surety, a fact that is nicely pointed up in the second line by the explicit negation of an active vetb—“(which} does not totter” (NRSY, “which cannot be moved”). In other words, syntax underscores semantics. The only other verbless clause comes in the poem's closing line, “Peace (be) upon Israel!” The poem's opening and closing syntax mimes the stability and tranquility that the poem seeks to register. The second stanza (v. 3) shifts gears formally and thematically. Formally, the stanza comprises two cou- plets of similar lengths. In both, the syntax continues on past line ends and the second is explicitly subor dinated to the first. (Thus, the parataxis of the first stanza is tightened through syntax in the second—the whole (of v. 3) may be read as one complex sentence. 557 Poetry, Hebrew ‘As In the first stanza (“it is not shaken”), actions are framed negatively for a positive effect (“the scepter of wickedness shall not rest upon ... the righteous,” “the righteous might not stretch out their hands to wrong- doing”). This contrasts with the third stanza in which there are no negatively framed statements. The ultimate sense of the stanza is vague, perhaps intentionally so—note the highly figured use of terms such as “to rest,” “scepter of wickedness,” “lot,” “to stretch out their hands to do wrong.” Most would gloss the whole as either a veiled reference to the tyranny of foreign rule or as a rendition of the sapiential common: place opposing the “Just” and the “wicked.” Both lines of interpretation are consistent with the larger poem. In the first type of reading “lot” refers to the “land” of Israel losh 15:1; Judg 1:3; Mic 2:5}, which was ally assigned {Num 26:55; Josh 14:2) by the cast: ing of actual “lots.” The “scepter of wickedness” may be taken as a metaphor for wicked rulers (compare Ps 45:6; Isa 14:5). In the Ugaritic myths Mot is enthroned with a “staff of bereavement” in one hand and a “staff of widowhood” in the other (CTU 1.23.8-9); this is ‘opposed to the more rightful “staff of rulership” (CTU 1.2.IIL.18; 1.6.V1.29), And the promise of “rest” in the land is a well-known political trope. Even “wrongdo- ing” frequently has political connotations in the OT (e.g,, 2 Sam 7:10//1 Chr 17:9; Ps 89:23; Mic 3:10; Hab 2:12). The sapiential construal is activated mostly retrospectively as auditors move into the third stanza, and especially after the chiastic turn in v. 5 where “those inclined to their crookedness” are explicitly contrasted with “those upright in their hearts.” On this reading “lot” refers more generally to “one's fot in life” (Ps 16:5; Wis 2:0}, the “scepter of wickedness” points to general lawiessness (compare Ezek 7:11), and the sapiential associations of “wrongdoing” are elicited (c.g, Job 5:16; 6:29-30; 11:14; Ps 119:3; Prov 22:8). The twofold reference to “the righteous” draws on ter. minology that is encountered in psalms with a wisdom, slant (e.g., Pss 1:5, 6; 33:15 34:15; 37:12; 112:4, 6). In the final stanza (vv, 4-5) attention shifts from “those who trust” and “the righteous” to the “the good.” Another development that emerges from the poem's logic is the perception of a progressive stepping. up of the poem's rhetoric, moving from declarative statement (wy. 1-2) to emphatic assertion (v. 3) to sup- plication (vv, 4-5), with the imperative (“do good”) and jussive (‘let them be made to walk”) grammatically distinguishing the third stanza, The lines of the final stanza are also the most obviously figured of the poem, above all shaped chiastically: Do good, O Yahweh, to the good, and to the upright of heart. But those inclined to crookedness, let Yahweh make them walk with the evil doers. C Peace upon Israel! (authors trans.) Rew>Poetry, Hebrew Here, too, the willing eye can find a patterned argument to the poem's line play, 2 movement from chaos (vv. 1-2) through syntax (v. 3} to the order and fine shaping of chiasm (vv. 4-5). And thus, there are a host of nonsemantic features that conspire to effect a sense of naturalness in the ending, as if the poem has achieved the very thing it set out to do. That is, there is no reason that the poem should close with entreaty to Yahweh. But it does, and it does so fittingly Ultimately, the several small and often subtle ripples of rituality that reverberate through the poem color our construal of the poem's semantics, how it means. The entreaty to Yahweh to do good to the good and to ensure that the not-good get their comeuppance becomes a most manifest realization of the “trust” that was a topic at the outset. And the concluding “benediction” (“Peace upon Israelt”] rescues the poem from ending on a negative note while gesturing one last, time to the larger sequence of poems where similarly benedictory exclamations abound: “Yahweh protects . now and forever!” (Ps 121:8); “I will seek your good” (Ps 122:9); “Those who go out weeping ... ” (Ps 126:6}; shall come home with shouts of joy “Peace be upon Israel!” (Ps 12 the name of the Logo!” (Ps 129:8); “O Israel, hope in the Lorn!” (Ps 131:3); and “May the Loap bless you!" (Ps 134:3). And yet for all the sense of satisfaction the poet does not end at a logical stopping place. Rather, the ending is another rendition of the poemn’s poetics of extravagance, a final apostrophe by which the poem both enacts and exposes its lyricism, its aspiration to make a happening out of words. Bibliography: R. Alter. The Art of Biblical Poetry (1985); D. Attridge. Poetic Rhythm: An Introduction (1995); D. Attridge. The Singularity of Literature. (2004); A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallet- ism (1985); T. Carmi, The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (1981); F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp. “The Enjamb- ing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part 1)” and “The Effects of Enjambment in Lamentations (Part 2)." ZAW 113 (2001) 219-39, 370-85; F. W. Dobts-Allsopp. Lamentations. Interpretation. (2002); EW. Dobbs-Allsopp. “Psalms and Lyric Verse.” The Evolution of Rationality: Interdisciplinary Essays in Honor of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen. L. Shults, ed. (2006) 346-79; S. R. Driver. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament {1897}; ; T. Eagleton. How to Read a Poem (2006); J. M. Foley. How to Read an Oral Poem (2002); S. Geller. Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry (1979); E. Gerstenberger. Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations. FOTL (2001); E. Greenstein, “How Does Parallelism Mean?” A Sense of the Text (1982] 40-71; E. Greenstein. “Aspects of, Biblical Poetry.” Jewish Book Annual 44 (1986-87) 33-42; E. Greenstein, “On the Genesis of Biblical Prose Narrative.” Prooftexts 8 (1988) 347-54; D. Grossberg. Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures in 558 Poison Biblical Poetry (1989); H. Gunkel. The Legends of Genesis (1966); J. Hollander. Vision and Resonance: Two Senses of Poetic Form (1975); J. Kugel. Idea of Biblical Poetry (1981); S. Langer. Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art (1953); R. Lowth. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews (1787); S. Niditch. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Litera ture (1996}; M. O'Connor. Hebrew Verse Structure (1980); W. Ong. Orality and Literacy: The Technol- ony of the Word (1982); D. Pardee. Ugaritic and Hebrew Parallelism (1988); S. Parker. The Pre-Biblical Narrative Tradition (1989); M. Perloff. “Lucent and Inescapable Rhythms: Metrical ‘Choice’ and Historical Formation.” The Line in Postmodern Poetry. R. Frank and H. Sayre, eds. (1988) 13-40; D. Petersen and K. Richards. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry (1992); R. Pin- sky. The Sounds of Poetry: A Brief Guide (1998); W. Schiedewind. How the Bible Became a Book (2004); B. Hermstein Smith. Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End (1968); R. Thomas. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (1992); E. Tov. “Special Layout of Poetical Units in the Texts from the Judean Desert.” Give Ear to My Words, J. Dyk, ed. (1996) 115-28; W. G. E, Watson. Classical Hebrew Poetry (1984); S. Weitzman. Song and Story in Biblical Narrative (1997); Walt Whitman. Leaves of Grass (1895). FRED W. DOBBS-ALLSOPP POISON [7V2f] khemah, UNA r0’sh; KaKds kakos} A poison is @ substance that injures or kills through chemical interaction within the body. Natural poisons occur in both animals and plants. Ingesting a poison is oftentimes fatal (2 Macc 10:13}, except that in mild doses certain poisons may act as healing stimulants, Many kinds of snakes produce a fatal venom that kills humans and animals that are bitten (Num 21: Deut 8:15; 32:33; Job 20:16; see ADDER; ASP; SERPENT; VIPER). While the Israelites were crossing the wildemess, the Lord sent poisonous serpents to punish them for speaking against God and Moses (see FIERY SERPENT OR POISONOUS SNAKE}. God told ‘Moses to make a serpent of bronze on a pole; when a person was bitten, he or she looked at the serpent on the pole and did not die (Num 21:6-9; see SERPENT, BRONZE). Certain plants and fungi have poisonous proper ties. Sometimes the entire plant Is poisonous while in other cases the poison is localized in parts such as root, leaves, or seeds. When one of Elisha’s disciples collected gourds of the colocynth (Citrullus colocyn this) growing wild in the desert near Jericho during a famine, he expected them to be edible and cut them Up into a stew, But the men eating the stew detected poison and said, “There is death in the pot” (2 Kgs 4:39-41}, The man had gathered an extremely bitter purge that can be fatal. Less certain is the “poisonous weed” of Hos 10:4, which could be hemlock (Conium ‘maculatum), a common weed of waste places. It grows