| Berlin, Adele. “Parallelism.” In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary vol. 5, pp. 154–162, New York: Doubleday, 1992. | |
| |
PARALLELISM.
Parallelism is the most prominent rhetorical figure in ancient Near
Eastern poetry, and is also present, although less prominent, in
biblical
prose. It can be defined as the repetition of the same or related
semantic
content and/or grammatical structure in consecutive lines or verses.
For
example, in Ps 103:10 we find that both the sense and the structure of
the
first line are echoed, in different words, in the second: Not
according to our sins did he
deal with us; And
not according to our
transgressions did he requite us. But,
while the definition cited
here works well for the most part, and the example of Ps 103:10 would
be
universally accepted as a parallelism, there is no consensus on
precisely what
parallelism is or how it works, and therefore no absolute criterion for
identifying parallelisms. As we move farther away from identity or
similarity
between the two lines, more questions arise and there is more
disagreement
about the identification of a parallelism. For instance, some scholars
would
consider Ps 106:35 to be a parallelism while others would insist that
it is
not. They
intermingled with the
nations; They
learned their ways. What
does seem certain, though,
is that parallelism is a matter of relationships—between lines and/or
parts of
lines. The history of the study of biblical parallelism can be
understood as a
quest to determine the precise nature of the relationship between
groups of
words which give the strong impression of being related in at least one
of a
number of ways. A. The Study
of Parallelism, Past and Present B. Types and
Categories 1. Synonymous,
Antithetic, and Synthetic Parallelism 2. Additional
Types a. Chiastic
Parallelism b. Staircase
Parallelism c. Emblematic
Parallelism d. Janus
Parallelism 3. Parallel
Word Pairs 4. Linguistic
Models a. The
Grammatical Aspect b. The
Lexical Aspect c. The
Semantic Aspect d. The
Phonological Aspect A.
The Study of Parallelism, Past and Present Biblical
parallelism became the
focus of scholarly attention as the result of Bishop Robert Lowth’s
discussion of it in his De sacra poesi
Hebraeorum (Lectures
on the Sacred Poetry of the
Hebrews) in 1753 and his Isaiah: A
New Translation with a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes Critical,
Philological, and Explanatory in 1778. To be sure, Lowth
was not the first to notice the phenomenon of parallelism (for the pre-Lowthian history of the study of parallelism see
Kugel
1981: 96–286), but, due to the then-current trends in biblical studies
and his
own prominence in the field, it was his definition, articulated in the
introduction to Isaiah, that became
the classic definition of parallelism. The
correspondence of one Verse,
or Line, with another I call Parallelism. When a proposition is
delivered, and
a second is subjoined to it, or drawn under it, equivalent, or
contrasted with
it, in Sense; or similar to it in the form of Grammatical Construction;
these I
call Parallel Lines; and the words or phrases answering one to another
in the
corresponding Lines Parallel Terms. Lowth
spoke of the correspondence of
parallel lines and terms. This was generally understood as sameness or
identity
by most of Lowth’s successors; so the
emphasis was
put on the synonymity or redundancy in
parallelism to
the neglect of parallelism’s other dimension: variation and continuity.
Studies
of parallelism from the late 18th century until the 1980s reiterated,
with
ever-increasing refinements, the basic sameness of parallel lines. Not
until
the work of J. Kugel and R. Alter was the balance rectified. Kugel
rejected the
notion of the synonymity of parallel
lines, replacing
it with the notion of continuity: “A, what’s more, B.” In a similar
vein, Alter
spoke of the “consequentiality” of parallel lines. The views of Kugel
and Alter
place the emphasis on the difference
between parallel lines. Parallel lines could now be seen as adding new
information, containing an intensification
or a
progression, rather than just going over old material in new words.
This shift
in perception can be illustrated in Ps 18:9—Eng
18:8
(= 2 Sam 22:9). / V 5, p 156
Smoke went
up from his nostrils; From
his mouth came devouring
fire; Live
coals blazed forth from him. Most
biblical scholars would view
these lines as synonymous; Kugel and Alter would see in them an
intensification and/or a progression. Actually, it is not a
question of
either sameness of difference, either synonymity
or
continuity; both dimensions are equally present in parallelism, and it
is the
creative tension between them that makes this such a pleasing figure. Both
Kugel and Alter came to the
study of the Bible from literary criticism, and both brought their
finely honed
skills as readers to parallelistic texts.
But
literary criticism often eschews precise analysis in favor of more
diffuse
observations. So, while achieving a reorientation of the view of
parallelism,
Kugel and Alter achieve it only at a level of extreme generality. They
offer
only the vaguest definitions of parallelism and do not provide the
criteria for
deeper analysis of its workings. There
are at least two
potentially more “scientific” models for the analysis of parallelism:
the
mathematical and the linguistic. A mathematical approach, stressing the
symmetries between parallel lines, is espoused half-heartedly by W. G.
E.
Watson (1984: 114–119), but for the most part Watson relies either on
grammatical
models or those preceding them. Linguistic models have been proposed by
S. A.
Geller, E. Greenstein, and A. Berlin. All three draw on modern
linguistics,
especially transformational grammar and the views of R. Jakobson
(see below). While
there are major differences
between 18th and 19th century studies and the most recent studies of
parallelism, they have some things in common. All attempt to analyze parallelistic texts with the most current
literary and
linguistic tools available; and all seek to define the relationships
that
pertain between parallel lines. In some sense, therefore, Lowth’s
definition remains classic, and his terms like “correspondence,”
“equivalent,”
and “contrasted,” if interpreted in their broadest sense, remain
relevant to the
study of parallelism. B.
Types and Categories The
preceding section presented a
simplified summary of the major approaches to the study of parallelism.
But
most scholars’ energy was spent in the detailed analysis of specific
types and
subtypes of parallelism. Here, too, Lowth’s
work
served as a guide to his own and later generations, for in his Isaiah he provided a framework for the
classification of types. 1.
Synonymous, Antithetic, and Synthetic
Parallelism.
Based on the semantic
relationship of the parallel lines, Lowth
reduced
parallelism to three sorts: synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic. In
synonymous parallelism the same sense is expressed in different but
equivalent
terms: “When a proposition is delivered; and is immediately repeated,
in whole
or in part, the expression being varied, but the sense entirely or
nearly the
same.” An example is Ps 112:1: Happy
is the man who fears the
Lord; Who
is greatly devoted to his commandments. Notice
that the meaning of both
lines need not be identical, only “nearly the same,” and that terms
found in
the first line may be lacking in the second (and vice versa). In fact,
there is
considerable latitude in all of Lowth’s
categories,
which later biblicists
sought to constrict. In
antithetic parallelism “two
lines correspond with one another by an opposition of terms and
sentiments.”
The antithesis may range from “exact contraposition of word to word” to
“a
general disparity.” Prov 10:1 illustrates: A
wise son makes glad his father; But a
foolish son is the grief of
his mother. In
synthetic parallelism (also called constructive or formal parallelism),
according to Lowth, the
parallelism consists only in the
similar form of construction; in which word does not answer to word,
and
sentence to sentence, as equivalent or opposite; but there is a
correspondence
and equality between different propositions, in respect of the shape
and turn
of the whole sentence, and of the constructive parts … Eccl
11:2 is an example: Give
a portion to seven, and also
to eight; For
you do not know what evil
shall be upon the earth. This
is the loosest of Lowth’s categories, and
the one that received the most criticism. Some viewed it as a catchall
of
miscellaneous, difficult-to-categorize cases, and others did not think
that it
was a legitimate form of parallelism at all. 2.
Additional Types. As
parallelism was studied more closely, its many
permutations became evident: word order might vary from line to line;
some
terms might be ellipsed and others added
(i.e., the
parallelism might be termed complete or incomplete; incomplete
parallelism
might or might not have compensation), and so forth. To some extent, Lowth had allowed for these permutations within
his three
types, but, given the scholarly penchant for categorizing and labeling,
it was
not long before the number of types grew. Many of the additional types
are not
of the same order as Lowth’s; that is, in
one sense
they can be considered subtypes and in another sense they cut across
the lines
of the original three types. The most well-known of these additional
types will
be presented here. a.
Chiastic Parallelism. The
order of the terms in the
first line is reversed in the second line, yielding an AB//BA pattern,
as in Jer 4:5a: Proclaim
in Judah; And
in Jerusalem announce. More
than two sets of terms may
be involved: ABC//CBA, etc. Chiastic patterning is not limited to
parallelism,
but it is often found in parallel lines. b.
Staircase Parallelism. A steplike pattern in
which some elements from the first line are repeated verbatim in the
second and
others are added to complete the thought. Judg
5:12
provides an illustration: / V 5, p 157
Awake,
awake, Deborah; Awake,
awake, chant a song. (Cf.
Greenstein 1974 and 1977; Loewenstamm
1975;
Watson 1984: 150–56). c.
Emblematic Parallelism. A
parallelism in which a simile or metaphor forms
one of the lines, as in Ps 42:2: As a
hind yearns for
watercourses; So my
soul yearns for you, God. d.
Janus Parallelism.
This type of parallelism hinges on the use of a
single word with two different meanings, one of which forms a parallel
with
what precedes and the other with what follows. Thus, by virtue of a
double
entendre, the parallelism faces in both directions. An example is Gen
49:26: The
blessings of your father Surpass
the blessings of my
ancestors/mountains [hwry] To
the utmost bounds of the eternal hills. (Cf.
Watson 1984: 159; Rendsburg 1980). 3.
Parallel Word Pairs.
Although 20th-century scholars continued to
refine the distinctions involving the relationships between parallel
lines as a
whole, the major efforts were placed on the analysis of certain sets of
parallel terms, or, as they came to be known, fixed word pairs. Lowth had mentioned parallel terms (“words or
phrases
answering one to another in corresponding lines”), but it was the
discovery and
decipherment of Ugaritic poetry, together with the ascendancy of the
Parry-Lord
theory of oral composition, that spurred the collection, from biblical
and Ugaritic
poetic texts, of sets of terms that recur frequently in parallelisms.
The
emphasis was on recurrence—those terms, like “day” and “night,”
“heaven” and
“earth,” which were found together frequently. It was thought that such
pairs
were the functional equivalents of the formulas in Greek and
Yugoslavian poetry
that enabled a poet to compose orally. Lists of these pairs grew long
(they
number over 1,000), as did the bibliography on word pairs (See
primarily Dahood Psalms
AB,
3.445–56; Dahood 1972, 1975, and 1981. See
also Avishur 1977; Berlin 1983, 1985:
64–80; Boling 1960;
Cassuto 1971; Craigie 1971, 1979a, 1979b; Culley
1967; Gevirtz 1963; Held 1953, 1962, 1965;
Kugel
1981: 27–39; Melamed 1961, 1964; O’Connor
1980:
96–109; Watson 1984: 128–43; Watters 1976; Whallon
1963, 1969; Yoder 1970, 1971.) Attention was paid to frequency, to the
order in
which the members of a pair occurred, and to their grammatical form.
Inevitably, there were attempts to categorize the semantic relationship
between
words in a pair: synonyms, antonyms, a whole and a part, abstract and
concrete,
common term and rare or archaic term, the breakup of stereotyped
phrases. In
the last, a conventional phrase is split, one part occurring in one
line and
the other in the next line (cf. Melamed
1961, 1964).
For instance, the phrase “horses and chariots,” a conventional
combination (cf.
Josh 11:4), is split in Zech 9:10: I
shall banish chariots from
Ephraim; And
horses from Jerusalem. Likewise
in Ps 20:8—Eng 20:7: These
(call) on chariots; And
those on horses. It
was also noticed that numbers obey a formula, x // x+1, when they
appear
in parallelism. Thus “three” parallels “four” (Amos 1:3); “six”
parallels
“seven” (Job 5:19). The principle may employ a factor of 10: “one
thousand”
parallels “ten thousand” (Ps 91:7). Many
scholars saw in word pairs
the essence of parallelism, the sine qua
non without which parallel lines could not exist. Furthermore, it
was
suggested, these pairs formed a kind of “poet’s dictionary”—a poetic
substratum
on which poets might draw in order to compose parallelisms. These
conclusions
reflect the fact that the impetus for the study of word pairs was
intimately
bound up with theories of oral composition, unproved and unprovable at
least
for biblical poetry. But even when these theories came under criticism,
the
collecting of word pairs did not cease, for word pairs had taken on a
life of
their own in biblical studies. As such, this enterprise represents one
of the
most extensive lexical studies of ancient texts. The preoccupation with
word
pairs focused attention on the similarities between Hebrew and Ugaritic
poetry,
and on certain of their lexical aspects, but it did so to the neglect
of the
rest of the parallelism and the pairing of other terms in it which did
not occur
with any notable frequency. Moreover, it threatened to perpetuate
certain
misunderstandings about the nature of parallelism and the nature of
word pairs. (Cf. Kugel 1981: 27–39; Berlin 1983,
1985:
64–80.) 4.
Linguistic Models. By
the 1970s the influence of modern linguistic
research, especially structural linguistics and transformational
grammar, began
to be felt in biblical studies. Interest in the grammatical analysis of
poetry
grew, and with it, the grammatical analysis of parallelism. A
number of scholars (Berlin, Collins, Geller, Greenstein, O’Connor, Pardee, Watson), working independently, offered
grammatical
treatments of parallelism. They varied somewhat in type and
level of
analysis (cf. Berlin 1985: 18–30), but they all signaled a return to
the
analysis of the line as a whole, rather than the concentration on word
pairs;
and they all showed that linguistics had something new and important to
contribute to the study of parallelism. No
modern linguist has had more
impact on the study of parallelism, both within and outside of the
Bible, than
Roman Jakobson. Jakobson’s
(1966: 423) most famous dictum on the subject was Pervasive
parallelism inevitably
activates all the levels of language—the distinctive features, inherent
and
prosodic, the morphological and syntactic categories and forms, the
lexical
units and their semantic classes in both their convergences and
divergences
acquire an autonomous poetic value. This
was taken by both Stephen
Geller (1979) and Adele Berlin (1979, 1985) as a programmatic guide for
the
analysis of biblical parallelism. Geller limited his treatment to the
grammatical aspect, as did Berlin 1979 (cf. also / V 5, p 158 Greenstein
1982), but Berlin’s 1985 work offered a more comprehensive
linguistic description, including areas and issues previously dealt
with in
word pair studies. Since this is the broadest and most recent study, a
detailed
summary of it will be presented here. Parallel
can be viewed as a
linguistic phenomenon involving linguistic equivalences and/or
contrasts that
may occur on the level of the word, the line, or larger areas of text.
(For the
most part, biblical parallelism operates at the level of the line.)
Equivalence
does not mean only identity, but a word or construction that,
linguistically
speaking, belongs to the same category or paradigm, or to the same
sequence or syntagm. One can discuss four
linguistic aspects which may
be activated in parallelism: the grammatical aspect, the lexical
aspect, the
semantic aspect, and the phonological aspect. a.
The Grammatical Aspect. In
grammatical parallelism the syntax of the
lines is equivalent; i.e., their deep structures (and perhaps their
surface
structures as well) are the same. For example, the surface structures
are the
same in both lines (in the Hebrew) of Ps 103:10: Not
according to our sins did he
deal with us; And
not according to our
transgressions did he requite us. Many
parallelisms, however,
employ lines of different surface structure which can be related back,
using
the methodology of transformational grammar, to the same underlying
deep
structure. A nominal clause may be paired with a verbal clause, as in
Mic 6:2b. For
the Lord has a quarrel with
his people; And
with Israel will he dispute. A
positive clause may be paired
with a negative clause, as in Prov 6:20: Guard,
my son, the commandment of
your father; And
do not forsake the teaching
of your mother. The
subject of one clause may
become the object in the next clause, as in Gen 27:29: Be a
lord over your brothers; Let
the sons of your mother bow
before you. There
may be contrast in
grammatical mood: an indicative may parallel an interrogative, an
imperative
may parallel a jussive, etc. In Ps 6:6—Eng
6:5 a
negative indicative is paired with an interrogative. For
in Death there is no mention
of you; In Sheol
who can acclaim you? The
seeds of grammatical analysis are present in Lowth’s
definition (“similar to it in the form of Grammatical Construction”),
but Lowth and his successors did not
develop it because their
understanding of grammar was quite different from that of modern
linguists and
they lacked the tools for this type of analysis. Parts
of lines are also subject
to grammatical, or morphological, analysis. Parallel terms may be of
different
word classes: e.g., noun // pronoun; noun, adjective, or participle //
verb,
etc. The first is illustrated in Ps 33:2: Praise
the Lord with a lyre; With
the ten-stringed harp sing
to him. The
second can be seen in Ps
145:18: The
Lord is near to all his callers; To
all who call him in truth. This
type of morphological
pairing is possible because the forms paired can be substituted for
each other
in a sentence. That is, they belong to the same paradigm and are,
therefore,
linguistically equivalent. When
parallel terms are from the
same word class (e.g., both nouns), there may be other morphological
contrasts
present: the tense or conjugation of verbs may be different; there may
be
contrast in the number, gender, or definiteness of nouns. In fact, to
quote P. Kiparsky (1973: 235): “the
linguistic sames
which are potentially relevant in poetry are just those which are
potentially
relevant in grammar.” One could easily substitute the word
“parallelism” for
“poetry” in this statement, for in parallelism any grammatically
equivalent
form (“linguistic same”) can be paired with another. Some examples
follow: (a). The tenses contrast (qtl // yqtl)
in Ps 26:4: I do
not [Heb:
did not] consort with scoundrels; And
with hypocrites I do not [Heb: will not]
associate. (b)
The conjugations contrast (qal
// niphʿal) in Ps 24:7: Lift
up, O gates, your heads; And
be lifted up, O eternal doors.par (c) A
singular parallels a plural in Prov 14:12
=
16:25: There
is a right path before man; But
its end is paths of death. Note
that the same word is used
in both forms. Often different words, one in each number, are used, as
in Deut 32:7 (“remember” [sing.] //
“consider” [pl.]) and Lam
5:17 (“this” // “these”). (d)
In Lam 3:47 the terms in the
first line lack the definite article while those in the second line
have it. Panic
and pitfall were ours; The
desolation and the destruction. There
are other types of grammatical equivalences and contrasts, and
numerous examples of each. The benefit of such a grammatical approach
to
parallelism is that it can account for the many permutations which
earlier
approaches were at a loss to explain, and it can relate, under
one rubric, in a holistic manner, many phenomena which were previously
considered disparate. b.
The Lexical Aspect.
Earlier approaches dealt with one facet of the
lexical aspect of parallelism—fixed word pairs. But actually, there is
no
reason to limit the discussion /
V 5, p 159 only
to fixed, or frequently recurring, pairs. All
parallelisms involve the pairing of terms, and all lexical pairings can
be
better understood through recourse to linguistics. The
process whereby terms are
paired in parallelism is similar to the process which generates
associations in
psycholinguistic word association games. That is, parallel word pairs
are the
product of normal linguistic association. Every word has a potential
mate, and
it does not require any special training or talent to produce one. Linguists
have discovered rules
that account for the kinds of associations that are made. They have
noted that
in word association games a word may elicit itself; and so in
parallelism, a
word may be paired with the same word, or with a word from the same
root (cf. 2
Sam 22:7; Job 6:15). They have also noted that a word may have a number
of
different associates, and that some are likely to be generated more
often than
others. The
rules for word association
are categorized as paradigmatic or syntagmatic. In paradigmatic
operations, a
word is chosen from the same category and may substitute for the given
word.
The most common type of paradigmatic choice is one with minimal
contrast, which
produces an “opposite,” as in good-bad,
man-woman. A related type of operation invokes the “Feature
Deletion and
Addition Rule.” The features of a word are listed hierarchically by
linguists;
for example, father = noun, singular,
animate, human, parent, male. When a feature is deleted it is usually
done from
the end of the list, so that father
will more likely generate mother
(changing male to female) or son
(changing parent to its reverse) rather than something involving a
change
higher on the list, like ram. The
preferred change is the change of a sign (plus or minus), i.e., +/−
male,
+/− parent. This yields minimal contrast. If a feature is deleted, the
result is a superordinate, as in father-man.
An added feature produces a subordinate, as in fruit-apple.
If another word is chosen with the same list of
features, we have a coordinate, as in cat-dog
(both are noun, singular, animate, mammal, domesticated, etc.). The
higher on
the list a feature is, the less likely that it will be changed. This
accounts,
first of all, for the tendency toward paradigmatic responses (i.e.,
associations involving the same class of words). It also explains why
certain
responses occur more frequently than others. Syntagmatic
responses involve the
choice of an associate from the same sequence rather than the same
class. Often
this is realized in the completion of idioms. In English the word cottage will often evoke cheese. This is
similar to the
phenomenon described by Melamed (1961;
1964) as the
breakup of stereotyped phrases. Conventional coordinates, like sws-rkb
(“horse-chariot/driver”), ḥsd-ʾmt
(“loyalty-truth”), may be paired in
parallel lines. Another type of syntagmatic pairing in the Bible
involves the
splitting up of the components of a personal or geographic name: Balak // king of
Moab (Num
23:7); Ephrathah
// Bethlehem (Ruth 4:11). There are
also other examples of syntagmatic pairings such as chair
// sit (Isa 16:5;
Lam 5:19) and write // book (Job
19:23). While
lexical parallelism, that is,
the pairing of associated words, generally accompanies grammatical
parallelism,
it can occur in lines which are not grammatically parallel (at least
paradigmatically). An example is Ps 111:6: The
power of his deeds he told to
his people (ʿmw) In
giving to them the inheritance of nations
(gwym). The
syntactic structure of the
lines is not equivalent, but the pair people-nation
is a known association. There are other cases in which the lexical
pairing
occurs in addition to semantic pairing; a creative tension between the
two may
be at play. Job 5:14 provides an illustration: By
day they encounter darkness; And
as in the night they grope at
noon. The
semantic and grammatical pair
is day-noon, but the common lexical associates day-night
gives an added dimension to the parallelism. c.
The Semantic Aspect. The
semantic aspect pertains to the relationship
between the meaning of the parallel lines.
It was this
relationship that Lowth categorized as
synonymous,
antithetic, or synthetic; and which Kugel described as “A, what’s more,
B” (see
above). From a linguistic perspective, the semantic relationships in
parallel
lines, like the lexical relationship between word pairs, can be viewed
as
either paradigmatic or syntagmatic. It is
not always so easy,
however, to categorize particular examples as one or the other.
Sometimes the
relationship is ambiguous and would be interpreted differently by
different
readers. Take, for example, Hab 3:3: His
glory covers heaven; And
the earth is full of his
praise It is
possible to analyze these
lines as paradigmatic—each conveying a similar meaning; on the other
hand, the
second line may be perceived as a result of the first, in which case
there
would be a semantic sequence, or syntagm. In
many cases both paradigmatic
and syntagmatic elements are present, as in Isa 40:9: Ascend
a high hill, herald (to)
Zion; Lift
your voice aloud, herald
(to) Jerusalem. The
actions of the herald are
sequential, but the vocatives (“herald to Zion/Jerusalem”) are
paradigmatic. It
appears to be in the nature of parallelism to combine these two forces,
so that
the expression advances even as the lines are bound firmly together. In
this
way the second line of a parallelism often disambiguates, or clarifies,
the
first; or on a more abstract level, parallelism may serve as a metaphor. A
thorn comes to the hand of a
drunkard; And a
proverb to the mouth of fools. (Prov 26:9) d.
The Phonological Aspect.
Sound equivalences may be activated in
parallelism just as grammatical and lexical equivalences are. Often
this takes
the form of sound pairs—the pairing of terms that are phonologically
equivalent
(i.e., they contain the same or linguistically related consonants). In
some
cases the sound pairs are also word pairs: šlwm // šlwh,
“peace // tranquility” in
Ps 122:7; bwrk
// bʾrk,
“your cistern // your well” in Prov 5:15; šwṭ // šbṭ, “whip / V 5, p 160 //
rod” in Prov 26:3. More
often, it seems, sound pairs are not
lexical or
semantic pairs; they may not even be from the same word class. He
made the moon for time-markers [mwʿdym]: The
sun knows its setting [ydʿ mbwʾw]. (Ps 104:19) I
will cut off your horses from your midst [mqrbk]; your
chariots [mrkbtyk].
(Mic 5:9) (In
this last verse the lexical
pairs are horses // chariots.) Several
sound pairs may occur in
a parallelism and they may be patterned in different ways: AABB, ABAB, ABBA. The effect of sound pairs is to reinforce
the bond
created by the other forms of equivalence between the parts of the
parallelism.
Sound pairs provide an added dimension, an additional type of
linguistic
equivalence. The more equivalences there
are in a
parallelism, the stronger is the sense of correspondence between one
line and
the next. This, in turn, promotes the perception of semantic unity. The
various
linguistic equivalences may act in concert, or they may produce an
artistic
tension, creating an interplay that adds to the interest of the
parallelism. Because
there are infinite
possibilities for activating linguistic equivalences, there are
infinite
possibilities for constructing parallelisms. No parallelism is “better”
or
“more complete” than any other. Each is constructed for its own purpose
and
context. The device of parallelism is extraordinarily flexible, and its
expressive capabilities and appeal are enormous, as the poets of the
ANE
discovered long ago. Bibliography Alonso-Schökel,
L. 1963. Estudios de Poetica Hebrea. Barcelona. Alter, R. 1983a. The Dynamics of
Parallelism. Hebrew University
Studies in Literature and the Arts 11.1: 71–101. ———. 1983b. From Line to Story
in Biblical Verse. Poetics
Today 4: 615–37. ———. 1985. The
Art
of Biblical Poetry. New York. Avishur, Y. 1972. Addenda
to the Expanded Colon in Ugaritic and Biblical Verse. UF 4: 1–10. ———. 1974. Stylistic
Common Elements Between
Ugaritic Literature and Song of Songs. Beth Mikra 59: 508–25 (in Hebrew). ———. 1975. Word Pairs
Common to Phoenician and Biblical
Hebrew. UF 7: 13–47. ———. 1976. Studies of
Stylistic Features Common to the
Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible. UF
8: 1–12. ———. 1977. The
Construct State of Synonyms in Biblical Rhetoric. Jerusalem
(in Hebrew). Baker,
A. 1973. Parallelism:
England’s
Contribution to Biblical Studies. CBQ
35: 429–40. Berlin,
A. 1979. Grammatical
Aspects of Biblical Parallelism. HUCA
50: 17–43. ———. 1983. Parallel
Word Pairs: A Linguistic Explanation. UF 15: 7–16. ———. 1985. The
Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington, IN. Boling, R. 1960. “Synonymous”
Parallelism in the Psalms. JSS
5: 221–55. Bostrom, G. 1928. Paronomasi i den aldre hebreiska Maschallitteraturen
med sarskild
hansyn till
Proverbia. Lund. Bronznick,
n. 1979. “Metathetic
Parallelism”—An Unrecognized Subtype of
Synonymous
Parallelism. HAR 3: 25–39. Cassuto, U. 1971. The Goddess Anath.
Jerusalem. ———. 1973–75. Biblical
and Oriental Studies. 2 vols. Jerusalem. Ceresko,
A. 1975. The A:B::B:A
Word Pattern in Hebrew and Northwest Semitic with Special Reference to
the Book
of Job. UF 7: 73–88. ———. 1976. The
Chiastic Word Pattern in Hebrew. CBQ 38: 303–11. ———. 1978. The
Function of Chiasmus in Hebrew Poetry. CBQ 40: 1–10. Clark, H. H. 1970. Word Associations
and Linguistic Theory. Pp. 271–86 in New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. J.
Lyons. Baltimore. Collins, T. 1978. Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry. Rome. Craigie, P. C. 1971. A Note on “Fixed
Pairs” in Ugaritic and Early Hebrew Poetry. JTS
22: 140–43. ———. 1979a. Parallel
Word Pairs in Ugaritic and Early
Hebrew Poetry. JTS 22: 140–43. ———. 1979b. The
Problem of Parallel Word Pairs in
Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry. Semitics
5: 48–58. Culley, R. C. 1967. Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical
Psalms. Toronto. Dahood, M. 1972. Ugaritic-Hebrew
Parallel Pairs. Pp. 71–382 in Ras Shamra Parallels I, ed. L.
Fisher. AnOr 49. Rome. ———. 1975. Pp. 1–39 in Ras Shamra Parallels
II, ed. L. Fisher. AnOr 50. Rome. ———. 1981. Pp. 1–206
in Ras Shamra Parallels III, ed. S. Rummel. AnOr 51.
Rome. Di Marco, A.
1976. Der Chiasmus in der Bibel. LB
36: 21–79; 37: 49–68. Driver,
G. R. 1953. Hebrew
Poetic
Diction. VTSup
1: 26–39. Fox, J. 1977. Roman Jakobson
and the Comparative Study of Parallelism. Pp. 59–60 in Roman Jakobson:
Echoes of His Scholarship, ed. D. Armstrong and C. van Schooneveld. Lisse. Freedman,
D. n. 1980. Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy. Collected Essays on
Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake, IN. Geller, S. 1979. Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry.
Missoula, MT. ———. 1982a. The
Dynamics of Parallel Verse. A Poetic
Analysis of Deut 32:6–12. HTR
75: 35–56. ———. 1982b. Theory and Method in the
Study of Biblical Poetry. JQR
73: 65–77. Gevirtz, S. 1963. Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel.
Chicago. ———. 1973. On Canaanite
Rhetoric: The Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Tyre.
Or 42: 162–77. Gluck, J. 1970. Paronomasia in Biblical
Literature. Semitics 1: 50–78. ———. 1971. Assonance
in Ancient Hebrew Poetry: Sound
Patterns as a Literary Device. Pp. 69–84 in De Fructu Oris
Sui, Essays in Honor of Adrianus
van Selms, ed. I. H. Eybers,
F. C. Fensham, and C. J. Labuschagne.
Leiden. Gordis, R. 1971. The
Structure of Biblical Poetry. Pp. 61–94 in Poets, Prophets, and Sages.
Bloomington, IN. Gray, G. B. 1915. The Forms of Hebrew Poetry. New
York. Repr. 1972. Greenstein,
E. 1974. Two
Variations
of Grammatical Parallelism in Canaanite Poetry and Their
Psycholinguistic
Background. JANES 6: 87–105. ———. 1977. One More
Step on the Staircase. UF 9: 77–86. ———. 1982. How Does
Parallelism Mean? A
Sense of Text. JQRSup pp. 41–70. Held,
M. 1953. Additional
Pairs of Words in Synonymous Parallelism in Biblical Hebrew and in
Ugaritic. Leš 18:
144–60. ———. 1962. The
YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical
Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and in Ugaritic. Pp. 281–90 in / V 5, p 161 Studies and
Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman, ed. M. Ben-Horin
et al. Leiden. ———. 1965. The
Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence
of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic. JANES
6: 87–105. Holenstein,
E. 1976. Roman Jakobson’s Approach to Language:
Phenomenological Structuralism. Bloomington, IN. Holladay, W. L. 1970.
Form and Word-Play in David’s Lament over
Saul and Jonathan. VT 20: 153–89. Jakobson, R. 1960. Linguistics
and Poetics. Pp. 350–77 in Style
in Language, ed. T. Sebeck.
Cambridge, MA. ———. 1966. Grammatical
Parallelism and its Russian Facet. Language 42:
399–429. ———. 1971. Two Aspects
of Language and Two Types of
Aphasic Disturbances. Pp. 239–59 in Selected
Writings. Vol. 2. The
Hague. ———. 1972. Verbal
Communication. Scientific American 227.3: 73–80. ———. 1980a. On Poetic Intentions
and Linguistic Devices in Poetry. A Discussion
with
Professors and Students at the University of Cologne. Poetics Today 2: 87–96. ———. 1980b. A Postscript to the
Discussion on Grammar of Poetry. Diacritics
10.1: 22–35. ———. 1980c. Subliminal Verbal
Patterning in Poetry. Poetics
Today 2: 127–36. Kaddari, M. Z. 1968. On
Semantic Parallelism in Biblical Hebrew. Leš 32: 37–45 (in Hebrew). ———. 1973. A Semantic
Approach to Biblical Parallelism. JJS 24: 167–75. Kiparsky, P. 1973. The
Role of Linguistics in a Theory of Poetry. Daedalus
102.3: 231–44. Kselman, J. S. 1977. Semantic-Sonant
Chiasmus in Biblical Poetry. Bib
58: 219–23. Kugel, J. 1981. The Idea of Biblical Poetry, Parallelism and
Its History.
New Haven. ———. 1984. Some
Thoughts on Future Research into Biblical
Style: Addenda to the Idea of Biblical Poetry. JSOT
28: 107–17. Landy,
F. 1984. Poetics and
Parallelism: Some
Comments on James Kugel’s The Idea of
Biblical Poetry. JSOT 28: 61–87. Levin, S. 1962. Linguistic Structures in Poetry.
The Hague. Loewenstamm, S. E. 1975. The
Expanded Colon
Reconstructed. UF 7: 261–64. Lowth, R. 1753. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews.
London. Repr. 1835. ———. 1778. Isaiah.
A New Translation With a Preliminary
Dissertation and
Notes. London. Repr. 1848. Lundbom, J. R. 1975. Jeremiah. A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. SBLDS
18.
Missoula, MT. McNeill, D. 1966. A Study in Word
Association. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior 5: 548–57. Malkiel, Y. 1968. Studies
in Irreversible Binomials. Pp. 311–55 in Essay on Linguistic Themes.
Berkeley. Melamed, E. Z. 1961. Break-up
of Stereotype Phrases. ScrHier
8: 115–53. ———. 1964. Break-up of
Stereotype Phrases as an Artistic
Device in Biblical Poetry. Pp. 188–219 in Sefer Segal. Studies in the
Bible Presented to Professor M. H. Segal, ed. Y. Grintz. Jerusalem (in
Hebrew). Miller, P. J. 1980a. Studies in Hebrew
Word Patterns. HTR 73: 79–89. ———. 1980b. Synonymous-Sequential
Parallelism in the Psalms. Bib
61: 256–60. ———. 1984. Meter,
Parallelism, and Tropes: The Search for
Poetic Style. JSOT 28: 99–106. Moor, J. C. de 1978a. The Art of
Versification in Ugarit and Israel. Pp. 119–39 in Studies
in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm, ed. Y. Avishur
and
J. Blau. Jerusalem. ———. 1987b. The Art of
Versification in Ugarit and Israel II: The Formal Structure. UF 10: 187–217. ———. 1980. The Art of
Versification in Ugarit and Israel
III: Further Illustrations of the Principle of Expansion. UF
12: 311–15. Muilenburg, J. 1953. A Study in
Hebrew
Rhetoric: Repetition and Style. VTSup
1: 97–111. Newman, L. 1918. Studies
in Old Testament Parallelism, I: Parallelism in Amos. Berkeley. O’Connor, M. 1980. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, IN. Pardee, D. 1980. Ugaritic
and Hebrew
Poetry: Parallelism. Paper read at the First International Symposium on
the
Antiquities of Palestine. Aleppo. ———. 1982. Types and
Distributions of Parallelism in
Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry. Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the
Society of
Biblical Literature. New York. ———. 1984. The
Semantic Parallelism of Psalm 89. Pp. 121–37 in In the Shelter
of Elyon, ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R.
Spenser. JSOTSup
31. Sheffield. Parker, S. 1974. Parallelism and
Prosody in Ugaritic Narrative Verse. UF
6: 283–94. Popper, W. 1918–23. Studies
in Biblical Parallelism, Part II: Parallelism in Isaiah. UCPNES.
Berkeley. Rendsburg, G. 1980. Janus
Parallelism in
Gen 49:26. JBL 99: 291–93. Ridderbos,
n. H. 1963. The Psalms:
Style-Figures and
Structure. OTS 13: 43–76. Robinson, T. H. 1953.
Hebrew Poetic Form: The English
Tradition. VTSup
1: 128–49. Sayce, R. A. 1971. The
Style of
Montaigne: Word-Pairs and Word-Groups. Pp. 383–405 in Literary
Style: A Symposium, ed. S. Chatman. London. Saydon, P. P. 1955. Assonance
in Hebrew as a Means of Expressing Emphasis. Bib
36: 36–50, 287–304. Schramm, G. M. 1976. Poetic Patterning
in Biblical Hebrew. Pp. 167–91 in Michigan Oriental Studies in Honor of George G. Cameron,
ed. L. Orlin. Ann Arbor. Segert, S. 1960. Problems
of Hebrew Prosody. VTSup
7: 283–91. ———. 1979. Ugaritic
Poetry and Poetics: Some Preliminary
Observations. UF 11: 729–38. ———. 1983a. Parallelism in Ugaritic
Poetry. JAOS 103: 295–306. ———. 1983b. Prague
Structuralism in American Biblical
Scholarship: Performance and Potential. Pp.
697–708 in WLSGF. Shapiro, M. 1976. Asymmetry. An Inquiry into the Linguistic Structure of Poetry. Amsterdam. Steinitz,
W. 1934. Der
Parallelismus in der
finnisch-karelischen Volksdichtung. Folklore
Fellows Communication 115.
Helsinki. Watson, W. G. 1984. Classical
Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. JSOTSup 26. Sheffield. Watters,
W. R. 1976. Formula Criticism and the Poetry of the Old
Testament. Berlin. Waugh, L. 1980. The Poetic Function and
the Nature of Language. Poetics Today
2.1a: 57–82. Werth, P. 1976. Roman Jakobson’s
Verbal Analysis of Poetry. Journal of
Linguistics 12: 21–73. / V 5, p 162
Whallon, W. 1963. Formulaic Poetry in the Old
Testament. Comparative Literature
15: 1–14. ———. 1969. Formula,
Character, and Context: Studies in Homeric, Old English and Old
Testament
Poetry. Cambridge, MA. Whitley, C. F. 1975. Some Aspects of
Hebrew Poetic Diction. UF 7:
493–502. Willis, J. T. 1979. The Juxtaposition
of Synonymous and Chiastic Parallelism in Tricola
in
Old Testament Hebrew Psalm Poetry. VT
29: 465–80. Yoder, P. 1970. Fixed Word Pairs and the Composition of
Hebrew Poetry. Ph.D.
Diss. University of Pennsylvania. ———. 1971. A-B pairs
and Oral Composition in Hebrew
Poetry. VT 21: 470–89. Adele
Berlin |