The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia on Logos software (pre-Pub)

https://www.logos.com/product/40778/the-ellen-g-white-encyclopedia

Overview

Noted historian George R. Knight calls The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia “the most important reference work produced by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in a half century.” This massive volume is the definitive resource on one of the most remarkable women of the nineteenth century. The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia collects hundreds of articles by over 160 contributors describing the people and events in Ellen White’s life, as well as her stand on numerous topics.
This comprehensive resource on Ellen White is divided into three sections exploring her writings, theology, interpretation, and her theological relationship to some of the pioneers of Protestantism, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. You’ll find a detailed chronology of her life and extensive articles on her ministry, theology, and statements in the light of advancing scientific knowledge. Whether you’re preparing a sermon, teaching a class, or finding answers to personal questions, this comprehensive resource has the answers you need.
With Logos Bible Software, this valuable volume is enhanced by cutting-edge research tools. Scripture citations link directly to English translations, and important terms link to dictionaries, encyclopedias, and a wealth of other resources in your digital library. Powerful searches help you find exactly what you’re looking for. Tablet and mobile apps let you take the discussion with you. With Logos Bible Software, the most efficient and comprehensive research tools are in one place, so you get the most out of your study.

Key Features

• Hundreds of articles by over 160 contributors
• The definitive resource about Ellen G. White’s life, ministry, and theology
• Over 1,400 pages of articles on the most influential woman in SDA church history

Contributors

• Denis Fortin
• Jerry Moon
• George R. Knight
• Michael Campbell
• Bill Knott
• Roy Adams
• Delbert Baker
• James Nix
• Jo Ann Davidson
• Richard M. Davidson
• Herbert Douglass
• Jacques B. Doukhan
• Michael Hasel
• Norman R. Gulley
• Miraslav Kis
• Roy E. Gane
• Ronald Knott
• Jud Lake
• Jon Paulien
• Ekkehart Mueller
• Alberto Timm
• And more

Product Details

• Title: The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia
• Editors: Denis Fortin and Jerry Moon
• Assistant Editor: Michael W. Campbell
• Consulting Editor: George R. Knight
• Publisher: Review & Herald
• Publication Date: 2013
• Pages: 1,465
•  

See the video advertisement here on youtube

see for example, the following article
http://www.andrews.edu/~fortind/EGWPlagiarism-Encyclopedia.htm

Nurturing children: Why “early learning” doesn’t help

Article found in http://www.imfcanada.org/issues/nurturing-children-why-early-learning-does-not-help (February 21, 2014)

Children should start attending school later, not earlier, Canadian development psychologist Dr. Gordon Neufeld reveals. “Early learning” programs for young children have no benefits for kids, he adds. So why are governments running down the opposite track?
 

August 30, 2012  |  by Andrea Mrozek, Manager of Research and Communications, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada

 

“I want to make sure that my son learns how to get along with others,” one parent will say. Another will add, “My daughter is shy. I want her to be with other children, to help her come out of her shell.” A third might enthusiastically report that her child loves all her friends at daycare: “She can’t wait to go and spend time with them!”

These are just some of the things parents say when it comes to the benefits they see in the social settings that pre-schools, daycares and all-day kindergarten provide. Parents are rightly concerned about whether their children get along well with others.

However, is it true that early interaction with peers improves socialization for young children? Canadian developmental psychologist Dr. Gordon Neufeld says this is not the case, particularly in sending young children into “social” environments before they are ready. [1]

Defining socialization

The word socialization can mean different things to different people.

With regards to small children, Dr. Neufeld clarifies one thing that socialization is not: “Probably the greatest myth that has evolved is this idea that socializing with one’s equals leads to socialization.”

Developmental psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner also clarifies what socialization is not: “It should be clear that being socialized is not necessarily the same as being civilized. Nazi youth were also products of a socialization process.” [2]

Socialization in childrearing means rendering children fit for society so that children can grow and mature into becoming contributing adults, who can respectfully interact with others in community, be it at work or home, with colleagues, family and friends.

Successful socialization is of particular interest where reports of bullying hit the media with some regularity. [3]

For Dr. Neufeld and his colleagues at The Neufeld Institute, socialization is more complex than simply being able to get along well with peers. [4] Socialization involves being able to get along with others while at the same time being true to oneself.

Getting there from here

Dr. Neufeld describes a teacher who is unable to express her views for fear of causing conflict. Picture a staff meeting, where this teacher chooses to stay silent rather than disagree. This may create the appearance that she is “really nice,” and able to get along well with others—something she may well tell her students to do as well. The reality is she may be unable to hold on to her own identity in face of conflict.

Constantly agreeing and being nice may, in fact, be immaturity in disguise. “You have to be separate enough so you can be with your equals without losing your distinctiveness,” says Dr. Neufeld.

He adds that someone who always “gets along” may not be able to handle diplomacy without a loss of integrity. If this form of mature self-expression can be hard for adults, how much more difficult is it for children?

“Premature socialization,” says Dr. Neufeld, “was always considered by developmentalists to be the greatest sin in raising children ….[w]hen you put children together prematurely before they can hold on to themselves, then they become like [the others] and it crushes the individuality rather than hones it.” [5]

A is for “attachment”

One of the issues with large numbers of little people in group care settings is the issue of peer orientation. This means having small children attach to their peers, rather than to adults.

The concept of attachment, developed primarily by psychologist John Bowlby, denotes the instinct that causes adults to care for children and children to receive that care. Successful early attachment is necessary for adult emotional development. In Bowlby’s words, attachment is the tendency “of human beings to make strong affectional bonds to particular others.” [6]

As humans, we are highly sociable creatures. But we identify some relationships as being higher priority, and are very particular about who takes that position. [7] It is through these connections that we develop a sense of self. [8]

And importantly, our high priority attachment figures (aka the people we see the most of and really love) are intended to be enduring. These are not people who should disappear from our lives, neither are strong attachments something small children should “grow out of.” [9]

This is one reason why daycare employees can never imitate the potent power of the parent: A job is a job, and employees change cities or jobs with some regularity.

Helen Ward is the president of a non-partisan, grassroots group called Kids First Parents Association. She highlights how attachment and socialization work together. “In order for children to grow up into the mature adults we desire them to be, they have to spend time with adults they are attached to, not their own likewise immature peers.” She goes on: “This means that if we take the attachment figure away—through death, illness, distractions, daycare, or any disruption in attachment relationships—and replace it with peer attachment  - puff - the kid will be a 'lord of the flies' type because the seemingly 'socialized' behaviour is simply copying, it is not 'inside' yet. It is developing, but can just as well ‘undevelop.’” [10]

If parents aren’t aware of this, they may interpret negative developments as positive. The three-year-old who can’t wait to be with his friends in daycare may in fact be on his way to becoming peer rather than parent attached, because being attached makes us want to be with those we are attached to.

The problem is that the more children are peer attached, the less attached they are to adults—and this can result in children becoming very hostile to being parented or taught.

Cultural flatlining

When small children spend too much time with their peers, they will imitate the features of those they see around them. Dr. Neufeld speaks of a “flatlining” of culture as a result. “We have a children’s culture of today. In Europe, there is a crisis, which is that youth are not integrating into mainstream society and people believe it is happening in North America as well.”

The question might also be whether they are integrating into a newly mainstream culture that is not altogether mature. “Children have become fit for a society that does not reproduce itself and does not contribute to the larger society as a whole,” says Dr. Neufeld. [11]

Supporting diversity

Diversity—creating it, respecting it and allowing it to flourish—is one of today’s most popular buzzwords, something to which we pay lip service. However, the early placement of children with as-of-yet undeveloped personalities in group daycare for long hours, when they aren’t able to “hold on to” their own special, unique personalities creates sameness, not individuality.

This is, in many instances, one of the reasons parents might choose to delay entry to school. In fact, for much of Canada’s history, children did not attend so-called “early learning programs;” school started at age six.

Ironically, some who advocate for homeschooling do so in order for proper socialization to occur. In Home Schooling and the Question of Socialization, author Richard G. Medlin highlights how healthy socialization does happen for homeschoolers, writing “home-schooled children are taking part in the daily routines of their communities. They are certainly not isolated; in fact, they associate with—and feel close to—all sorts of people.” [12]

Another researcher, Larry Edward Shyers, compared homeschooled children with those in traditional schooling for his PhD thesis at University of Florida. He found that with regards to self-esteem, there was no difference. [13]

The problem with children socializing at school, Ward says, is that children can be fickle in their friendships. “Kid’s 'friends' are not really 'friends' in any meaningful sense of the word. They are not mature people who can handle another's pain or difference of opinion. Peers want you to be the same as them,” says Ward.

The result is less individual expression and less personal growth, she concludes.

Crushing the spirit of childhood

Back in 1988, child psychologist David Elkind wrote The Hurried Child, saying, “we are going through one of those periods in history, such as the early decades of the Industrial Revolution, when children are the unwilling victims of societal upheaval and change….Today’s child has become the unwilling, unintended victim of overwhelming stress.” [14]

Elkind worried that children are increasingly being treated like mini adults. In childhood as a replica of adulthood, daycares and pre-schools put children under academic pressure. Child sports teams have pro uniforms and poor peewee players are sidelined. Children’s clothes have an adult look about them. If this was Elkind’s problem some twenty years ago, the situation today is not much changed.

More evidence that the smallest of children are being subjected to adult standards is the Early Development Instrument (EDI). [15] Under the auspices of improving child outcomes, the EDI asks teachers to answer a host of entirely subjective questions about a child’s proficiency physically, academically and emotionally and then chronicles how and where children are “behind.”

Activists use this flawed research to lobby for more early learning programs for younger ages. In Ontario, for example, a special advisor to Premier McGuinty desires to create schools as hubs, where children can be dropped off all day, possibly all year, to attain greater “school readiness.” [16]

When Francois Legault, of the Coalition for Quebec's Future recently proposed that secondary school should follow work schedules, running from 9 am to 5 pm, some found it provocative. [17] The reality is that many grade schoolers in before and after-school care already experience adult working days, and the same could be said of a toddler in daycare. Children’s lives are scheduled down to a T, with little free time to just be kids.

Why the anti-child direction?

The reasons for this are varied. However, a big one is the current trend in public policy which creates pressure for all parents to have full time jobs. As a result, labour force attachment trumps parent-child attachment. Canada’s below-replacement birthrate means we are constantly searching for more employees. Having both parents work full-time is entirely reliant on putting their children in some form of standardized care, hence the reation of subsidized daycares. [18]

This has little to do with child development. The problem is that once centre-based care is preferentially funded and the cost heavily tax-subsidized, it creates an incentive for parents to use it. At that point, parents no longer truly have a real choice. They can’t assess the unique needs of their own children because their lives have been set up around two parents at full time jobs.

When asked what are the gains from early learning for small children, Dr. Neufeld simply replies: “I don’t think there is anything to be gained except parental emancipation. And certainly not parental fulfillment. That’s a totally different issue.” [19]

What to do?

Dr. Neufeld emphasizes that who parents are to their children matters more than what they do. [20]

This research is not intended to panic parents whose young children are in all-day care. However, it is wise to understand why your children are there. Some parents put their children in care for the express purpose of socializing them; this is not a researched reason to do so.

For parents whose children must be in care, it would be wise to confirm that the “early learning” is limited exclusively to playing in an environment of adult attachment. [21] Sometimes it is parents themselves who put pressure on teachers to provide “educational content” to younger and younger ages. When the “report cards” come back and show poor grades, this creates further anxiety in parents who now believe their children are behind.

Parents should eschew the creation of any kind of one-size-fits-all system. This is the sort of system that governments try to create—to “help” each and every family. By definition, these environments are less personal and more distant from parents. Even the local primary school may not, in fact, be the closest thing to the home environment for small children, if for example, a neighbour next door wants to take in additional children on top of her own, and that neighbour is known to the parents and the child.

For far too long, this form of high quality care for kids has been labelled “unregulated,” by those who strive to create school-based daycares with unionized employees. Facing a lack of criticism in the press, “unregulated” has come to be known as “dangerous.” But Helen Ward points out that all parents are “unregulated,” and this alone is not cause for concern. Parents need to inspect all care from top to bottom—whether government-regulated or not.

There are some elements of public policy being discussed that would help undo the damage of current trends. Family income splitting allows parents to share their income and pay a lower tax burden. More money in parents’ pockets always means more choices. While the federal Conservatives made this a policy plank in the last election, they watered it down by saying they’d only institute family taxation when the books were balanced, possibly in 2015. Ending the preferential treatment of non-parental care by funding families themselves would make a dramatic difference.

For Dr. Neufeld, the capacity for healthy relationships is meant to unfold in the first six years of life. “It’s a very basic agenda,” he says. “By the fifth year of life if everything is continuous and safe then emotional intimacy begins. A child gives his heart to whomever he is attached to and that is an incredibly important part….The first issue is always to establish strong, deep emotional connections with those who are raising you. And that should be our emphasis in society. If we did this, we would send our children to school late, not early.” [22]

Download PDF: 

Nurturing children: Why “early learning” doesn’t help

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Endnotes: 

1. This article is based on an interview with Dr. Gordon Neufeld on May 18, 2012. Dr. Neufeld is a developmental psychologist and the co-author of the 2004 national bestseller Hold on to your kids: Why parents need to matter more than peers.
2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Two worlds of childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, p. 2.
3. For greater understanding of how to stem the bullying tide, see Simon, L. (2012, July 18). Empathy: An antidote to bullying. Ottawa: Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. Retrieved from http://www.imfcanada.org/issues/empathy-antidote-bullying
4. The Neufeld Institute can be found online here http://www.gordonneufeld.com/
5. Personal communication with Dr. Gordon Neufeld, May 18, 2012.
6. Green, M. and Scholes, M. (eds.) (2004). Attachment and human survival. London: Karnac, p. 7.
7. Ibid, p. 8.
8. Ibid, p. 37.
9. Ibid, p. 8.
10. Personal communication with Helen Ward, August 21, 2012.
11. Personal communication with Dr. Gordon Neufeld, May 18, 2012.
12. Medlin, R. G. (2000). The home education movement in context, practice, and theory. Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 75, No. 1/2, pp. 107-123.
13. Bunday, K.M. (2006). Socialization: A great reason not to go to school. Retrieved from http://learninfreedom.org/socialization.html
14. Elkind, D. (1988). The Hurried Child. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc, pp. xiv, 3.
15. The EDI questionnaire can be viewed online at http://earlylearning.ubc.ca/media/uploads/publications/edi_bc-yukon_2012.pdf
16. Pascal, C. (2009, June). With our best future in mind. Implementing early learning in Ontario. Report to the Premier, Government of Ontario.  Retrieved from http://www.ontario.ca/en/initiatives/early_learning/ONT06_018865
17. Quebec's Francois Legault wants schools open from 9 to 5. (2012, August 9). The Canadian Press. Retrieved from http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Quebecs+Francois+Legault+wants+kids+stay+school+until/7063972/story.html
18. For more on concept of schools as community hubs, see Pascal, C. (2009, June). With our best future in mind. Implementing early learning in Ontario.Report to the Premier, Government of Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.ontario.ca/en/initiatives/early_learning/ONT06_018865
19. Personal communication with Dr. Gordon Neufeld, May 18, 2012.
20. Denis Friske, D. (2012, January 16). Moments of connection with our children. The Neufeld Institute blog. Retrieved from http://www.neufeldinstitute.com/blog/2012/01/moments-of-connection-with-our-children/
21. Laucius, J. (2012, February 4). All work and no play is not good for the developing brain, says psychologist Dr. Gordon Neufeld. Ottawa Citizen, p. J3. (Helen Ward also points out that “child led” or “free play” can in fact mean even less interaction for children with adults, as staff will simply provide toys and ensure that no child is physically hurt.)
22. Personal communication with Dr. Gordon Neufeld, May 18, 2012.

Permission is granted to reprint or broadcast this information with appropriate attribution to the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.

1912-130 rue Albert Street Ottawa Ontario Canada K1P 5G4
t 613.565.3832 f/t 613.565.3803 1.866.373.4632
www.imfcanada.org

Olympics Take Aim at Russia's Smoking and Drinking Problem - AIIAS is proud!

Specialised articles written on poetry in the book of Daniel

Here follows some specialized analysis already done on poetry in the book of Daniel. The list is not exhaustive and classified in chronological order: 
-. W. Sibley Towner, “Poetic Passages of Daniel 1-6,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 317-326;  
-. Jonas C. Greenfield, “Early Aramaic Poetry,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 11 (1979) 45-51;  
-.  William H. Shea, “Poetic Relations of the Time Periods in Dan 9:25,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 18, no. 1 (Spring 1980): 59-63;
-. Alexander A. Di Lella, “Daniel 4:7-14: Poetic Analysis and Biblical Background,” in Mélanges Bibliques et Orientaux en l’Honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor, Alter orient und Altes Testament 212 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 247-258; 
-. Alexander A. Di Lella, “Strophic Structure and Poetic Analysis of Daniel 2:20-23, 3:31-33, and 6:26b-28,” in Studia Hierosolymitana III: Nell’ottavo centenario Francescano (1182-1982), ed. G. C. Bottini, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Collectio maior, no. 30 (Jerusalem, Israel: Franciscan Printing Press, 1982), 91-96; 
-. Daud Soesilo, “Translating the Poetic Sections of Daniel 1-6,” The Bible Translator 41, no. 1 (1990): 432-435; Accessed January 20, 2014, http://www.ubs-translations.org/tbt/1990/04/TBT199004.html?num=432&x=-365&y=-78&num1=;
-. James W. Watts, “Daniel's Praise (Daniel 2.20-23), ” Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative, JSOTSup 139 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 145-154;  
-. Gert Thomas Marthinus Prinsloo, “Two Poems in a Sea of Prose: The Content and Context of Daniel 2.20-23 and 6.27-28,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 59 (summer 1993): 93-108;  
-. Pieter M. Venter, “The Function of Poetic Speech in the Narrative in Daniel 2,” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 49, no. 4 (1993): 1009-1020; accessed January 20, 2014, http://www.hts.org.za/index.php/HTS/article/viewPDF Interstitial/2535/4348;
-. Stanislav Segert, “Poetic Structures in the Hebrew Sections of the Book of Daniel,” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 261-275; 
-. Stanislav Segert, “Aramaic Poetry in the Old Testament [in Dan 2-7],” Archív Orientální 70 (2002) 65-79; 
-. Géza G. Xeravits, “Poetic Passages in the Aramaic Part of the Book of Daniel,” Biblische Notizen 124 (2005): 29-40. 
-. John F. Hobbins, “Aramaic Poetry in the Book of Daniel,” (Mar 28, 2007); accessed on January 20, 2014, http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com%2Fancient_hebrew_poetry%2Ffiles%2Faramaic_poetry_in_the_book_of_daniel.pdf&ei=y5wFU9izHunliAevtoH4BQ&usg=AFQjCNGzaz1sDKU10REVpXbpADJJAvNCQw&sig2=2OFi3BOM8Hy1aq4vcRO9yg&bvm=bv.61725948,d.aGc&cad=rja

What C. S. Lewis thought of Biblical Critics...

"Whatever these men may be as Biblical Critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary judgment, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading ..."

"These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight."

C. S. Lewis, Fern-seed and Elephants (Glasgow: Collins, 1975), 106, 111.

Is Atheism Irrational? By GARY GUTTING

from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

This is the first in a series of interviews about religion that I will conduct for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Alvin Plantinga, an emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, a former president of both the Society of Christian Philosophers and the American Philosophical Association, and the author, most recently, of “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism.”
 

Gary Gutting: A recent survey by PhilPapers, the online philosophy index, says that 62 percent of philosophers are atheists (with another 11 percent “inclined” to the view). Do you think the philosophical literature provides critiques of theism strong enough to warrant their views? Or do you think philosophers’ atheism is due to factors other than rational analysis?

Alvin Plantinga: If 62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. (I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions.) Do philosophers know something here that these other academics don’t know? What could it be? Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.

Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.

In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence. 

G.G.: You say atheism requires evidence to support it. Many atheists deny this, saying that all they need to do is point out the lack of any good evidence for theism. You compare atheism to the denial that there are an even number of stars, which obviously would need evidence. But atheists say (using an example from Bertrand Russell) that you should rather compare atheism to the denial that there’s a teapot in orbit around the sun. Why prefer your comparison to Russell’s?

A.P.: Russell’s idea, I take it, is we don’t really have any evidence against teapotism, but we don’t need any; the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and is enough to support a-teapotism. We don’t need any positive evidence against it to be justified in a-teapotism; and perhaps the same is true of theism.

I disagree: Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism. So if, à la Russell, theism is like teapotism, the atheist, to be justified, would (like the a-teapotist) have to have powerful evidence against theism.

G.G.: But isn’t there also plenty of evidence against theism — above all, the amount of evil in a world allegedly made by an all-good, all-powerful God?

A.P.: The so-called “problem of evil” would presumably be the strongest (and maybe the only) evidence against theism. It does indeed have some strength; it makes sense to think that the probability of theism, given the existence of all the suffering and evil our world contains, is fairly low. But of course there are also arguments for theism. Indeed, there are at least a couple of dozen good theistic arguments. So the atheist would have to try to synthesize and balance the probabilities. This isn’t at all easy to do, but it’s pretty obvious that the result wouldn’t anywhere nearly support straight-out atheism as opposed to agnosticism.

G.G.: But when you say “good theistic arguments,” you don’t mean arguments that are decisive — for example, good enough to convince any rational person who understands them.

A.P.: I should make clear first that I don’t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past. Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in the sensus divinitatis, John Calvin’s term for an inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in a wide variety of circumstances.

Nevertheless, I think there are a large number — maybe a couple of dozen — of pretty good theistic arguments. None is conclusive, but each, or at any rate the whole bunch taken together, is about as strong as philosophical arguments ordinarily get.

G.G.: Could you give an example of such an argument?

AP: One presently rather popular argument: fine-tuning. Scientists tell us that there are many properties our universe displays such that if they were even slightly different from what they are in fact, life, or at least our kind of life, would not be possible. The universe seems to be fine-tuned for life. For example, if the force of the Big Bang had been different by one part in 10 to the 60th, life of our sort would not have been possible. The same goes for the ratio of the gravitational force to the force driving the expansion of the universe: If it had been even slightly different, our kind of life would not have been possible. In fact the universe seems to be fine-tuned, not just for life, but for intelligent life. This fine-tuning is vastly more likely given theism than given atheism.

G.G.: But even if this fine-tuning argument (or some similar argument) convinces someone that God exists, doesn’t it fall far short of what at least Christian theism asserts, namely the existence of an all-perfect God? Since the world isn’t perfect, why would we need a perfect being to explain the world or any feature of it?

A.P.: I suppose your thinking is that it is suffering and sin that make this world less than perfect. But then your question makes sense only if the best possible worlds contain no sin or suffering. And is that true? Maybe the best worlds contain free creatures some of whom sometimes do what is wrong. Indeed, maybe the best worlds contain a scenario very like the Christian story.

Think about it: The first being of the universe, perfect in goodness, power and knowledge, creates free creatures. These free creatures turn their backs on him, rebel against him and get involved in sin and evil. Rather than treat them as some ancient potentate might — e.g., having them boiled in oil — God responds by sending his son into the world to suffer and die so that human beings might once more be in a right relationship to God. God himself undergoes the enormous suffering involved in seeing his son mocked, ridiculed, beaten and crucified. And all this for the sake of these sinful creatures.

I’d say a world in which this story is true would be a truly magnificent possible world. It would be so good that no world could be appreciably better. But then the best worlds contain sin and suffering.

G.G.: O.K., but in any case, isn’t the theist on thin ice in suggesting the need for God as an explanation of the universe? There’s always the possibility that we’ll find a scientific account that explains what we claimed only God could explain. After all, that’s what happened when Darwin developed his theory of evolution. In fact, isn’t a major support for atheism the very fact that we no longer need God to explain the world?

A.P.: Some atheists seem to think that a sufficient reason for atheism is the fact (as they say) that we no longer need God to explain natural phenomena — lightning and thunder for example. We now have science.

As a justification of atheism, this is pretty lame. We no longer need the moon to explain or account for lunacy; it hardly follows that belief in the nonexistence of the moon (a-moonism?) is justified. A-moonism on this ground would be sensible only if the sole ground for belief in the existence of the moon was its explanatory power with respect to lunacy. (And even so, the justified attitude would be agnosticism with respect to the moon, not a-moonism.) The same thing goes with belief in God: Atheism on this sort of basis would be justified only if the explanatory power of theism were the only reason for belief in God. And even then, agnosticism would be the justified attitude, not atheism.

G.G.: So, what are the further grounds for believing in God, the reasons that make atheism unjustified?

A.P.: The most important ground of belief is probably not philosophical argument but religious experience. Many people of very many different cultures have thought themselves in experiential touch with a being worthy of worship. They believe that there is such a person, but not because of the explanatory prowess of such belief. Or maybe there is something like Calvin’s sensus divinitatis. Indeed, if theism is true, then very likely there is something like the sensus divinitatis. So claiming that the only sensible ground for belief in God is the explanatory quality of such belief is substantially equivalent to assuming atheism.

G.G.: If, then, there isn’t evidence to support atheism, why do you think so many philosophers — presumably highly rational people — are atheists?

AP: I’m not a psychologist, so I don’t have any special knowledge here. Still, there are some possible explanations. Thomas Nagel, a terrific philosopher and an unusually perceptive atheist, says he simply doesn’t want there to be any such person as God. And it isn’t hard to see why. For one thing, there would be what some would think was an intolerable invasion of privacy: God would know my every thought long before I thought it. For another, my actions and even my thoughts would be a constant subject of judgment and evaluation.

Basically, these come down to the serious limitation of human autonomy posed by theism. This desire for autonomy can reach very substantial proportions, as with the German philosopher Heidegger, who, according to Richard Rorty, felt guilty for living in a universe he had not himself created. Now there’s a tender conscience! But even a less monumental desire for autonomy can perhaps also motivate atheism.

GG: Especially among today’s atheists, materialism seems to be a primary motive. They think there’s nothing beyond the material entities open to scientific inquiry, so there there’s no place for immaterial beings such as God.

AP: Well, if there are only material entities, then atheism certainly follows. But there is a really serious problem for materialism: It can’t be sensibly believed, at least if, like most materialists, you also believe that humans are the product of evolution.

GG: Why is that?

 AP: I can’t give a complete statement of the argument here — for that see Chapter 10 of “Where the Conflict Really Lies.” But, roughly, here’s why. First, if materialism is true, human beings, naturally enough, are material objects. Now what, from this point of view, would a belief be? My belief that Marcel Proust is more subtle that Louis L’Amour, for example? Presumably this belief would have to be a material structure in my brain, say a collection of neurons that sends electrical impulses to other such structures as well as to nerves and muscles, and receives electrical impulses from other structures.

But in addition to such neurophysiological properties, this structure, if it is a belief, would also have to have a content: It would have, say, to be the belief that Proust is more subtle than L’Amour.

GG: So is your suggestion that a neurophysiological structure can’t be a belief? That a belief has to be somehow immaterial?

AP: That may be, but it’s not my point here. I’m interested in the fact that beliefs cause (or at least partly cause) actions. For example, my belief that there is a beer in the fridge (together with my desire to have a beer) can cause me to heave myself out of my comfortable armchair and lumber over to the fridge.

But here’s the important point: It’s by virtue of its material, neurophysiological properties that a belief causes the action. It’s in virtue of those electrical signals sent via efferent nerves to the relevant muscles, that the belief about the beer in the fridge causes me to go to the fridge. It is not by virtue of the content (there is a beer in the fridge) the belief has.

GG: Why do you say that?

AP: Because if this belief — this structure — had a totally different content (even, say, if it was a belief that there is no beer in the fridge) but had the same neurophysiological properties, it would still have caused that same action of going to the fridge. This means that the content of the belief isn’t a cause of the behavior. As far as causing the behavior goes, the content of the belief doesn’t matter.

GG: That does seem to be a hard conclusion to accept. But won’t evolution get the materialist out of this difficulty? For our species to have survived, presumably many, if not most, of our beliefs must be true — otherwise, we wouldn’t be functional in a dangerous world.

 

AP: Evolution will have resulted in our having beliefs that are adaptive; that is, beliefs that cause adaptive actions. But as we’ve seen, if materialism is true, the belief does not cause the adaptive action by way of its content: It causes that action by way of its neurophysiological properties. Hence it doesn’t matter what the content of the belief is, and it doesn’t matter whether that content is true or false. All that’s required is that the belief have the right neurophysiological properties. If it’s also true, that’s fine; but if false, that’s equally fine.

Evolution will select for belief-producing processes that produce beliefs with adaptive neurophysiological properties, but not for belief-producing processes that produce true beliefs. Given materialism and evolution, any particular belief is as likely to be false as true.

 

GG: So your claim is that if materialism is true, evolution doesn’t lead to most of our beliefs being true.

AP: Right. In fact, given materialism and evolution, it follows that our belief-producing faculties are not reliable.

Here’s why. If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable.

But to believe that is to fall into a total skepticism, which leaves you with no reason to accept any of your beliefs (including your beliefs in materialism and evolution!). The only sensible course is to give up the claim leading to this conclusion: that both materialism and evolution are true. Maybe you can hold one or the other, but not both.

So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held.

This interview was conducted by email and edited.

---

Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. He is the author of, most recently, “Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960″ and writes regularly for The Stone.

Probably The Most Hilarious Ping Pong Match In History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS3O0OOn0a0

Conversation with… Dr. Robert Alter

Found in http://www.jewishledger.com/2013/07/conversation-with-dr-robert-alter/

Posted by JudieJacobson on July 3, 2013 in Feature Stories,

 

Hebrew language scholar reignites the beauty of the Bible
By Cindy Mindell

Award-winning author and scholar Dr. Robert Alter has been translating the Hebrew Bible since 1999. His latest work, Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets – Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, has unleashed a torrent of critical acclaim. Malcolm Jones wrote in Newsweek, “You think you know these texts, or you do until you read Alter, who reignites their beauty in bracing and unexpected ways.” And Cynthia Ozick wrote, “The poets will rejoice. Alter’s language ascends to a rare purity through a plainness that equals the plainness of the Hebrew.”

Alter will discuss his work in Greenwich on Thursday, July 11.

Robert Alter is a professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Berkeley, where he has taught since 1967. He has written widely on the European novel from the eighteenth century to the present, on contemporary American fiction, and on modern Hebrew literature. He has also written extensively on literary aspects of the Bible. His books include two prize-winning volumes on biblical narrative and poetry and award-winning translations of Genesis and of the Five Books of Moses. In 2009, he received the Robert Kirsch Award from the Los Angeles Times for lifetime contribution to American letters.

Alter has translated more than two-thirds of the Hebrew Bible since 1999, when he published The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (W.W. Norton), followed over the next decade by the publication (all by W.W. Norton) of the Five Books of Moses, the Book of Psalms, and the Wisdom Books (Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes). His translation of Genesis was illustrated by Robert Crumb in a 2010 publication.

Alter spoke with the Ledger about the tools and passion that fuel his translation work.

Q: How did you begin your translation work involving the Hebrew Bible, and how is a translator born?

A:  It was by accident. There’s somebody at W.W. Norton who then became my editor who suggested a certain project to me that might have involved the book of Genesis and supplemental material. I said that I could do the project but only if I did my own translation because there’s something wrong with all the translations that existed at the time. So I ended up becoming a translator of the Bible.

To do translation, you have to have an intimate relationship with each of the two languages, the language of the source and the language into which you’re translating, and you have to have a kind of love affair with both of them.  I really got a serious handle on Hebrew after my bar mitzvah. I grew up in Albany and by good luck, a small class was formed for a handful of boys post-bar mitzvah. The teachers began instructing us in a different way than they had, immersing us seriously in the language; the teacher spoke Hebrew to us and we learned Hebrew grammar. I went to Camp Ramah, which in those years was a totally Hebrew-speaking environment and I became quite fluent in speaking. When I was an undergraduate at Columbia, I took courses in the evening at Jewish Theological Seminary, not in the rabbinical school but in a kind of college of Jewish studies, and everything there was conducted in Hebrew – Talmud, Bible, literature, Jewish history. At that point, I developed this crazy idea to master Hebrew.

Q: You mentioned in a 2012 lecture at Rutgers,  “Anybody who translates a great work and thinks that he or she ‘has it’ is suffering from serious delusions. You have to accept that you’re only going to approximate; the question is, how good an approximation it is.” Why is that, and what tends to trip you up when you’re translating?

A:  Every great work of literature – and there’s much great writing in the biblical Hebrew – has a mastery of means in its own language. It’s not only the kind of perfect word choice and subtle shifts from one level of the language to another, but also the rhythms, the lengths of words, etc. When you’re translating, you can’t possibly get all of those, while all the different features come together in perfect harmony in the original language. In most cases, you decide what’s less important and you sacrifice something: maybe you don’t focus on the order of the words in order to achieve some other effect of the original that’s important; maybe I can get the rhythm of the language but not quite the English equivalents that have the exact same resonance as the original.

In translating poetry, for example, every once in a while you produce a line of poetry where you just manage to get a terrific equivalent in English, but that only happens once in a while. I often get stuck on the rhythm. Biblical Hebrew, and especially biblical poetry, is very compact. You can sort of make certain efforts to tamp down the English language and get it closer to the compactness, for example, if there are three words and six syllables in the Hebrew, you may end up with nine words and 10 and 11 syllables in English. Then there are words that have no exact equivalent in English so you have to come up with approximations and you know it’s not exactly the same.

Sometimes you cannot find a decent English equivalent. In the Book of Ruth, Boaz is described as “goel.” The direct translation is “redeemer,” but the Hebrew word refers particularly to a member of your family who has the legal obligation to pay a debt that you cannot pay. “Redeemer” sounds like Jesus Christ; if you use “kinsman,” you lose the “redeemer” part. So I would say “redeeming kin.”

There are other places where, simply by remaining faithful to what is going on in the Hebrew, you get the literary effects of the Hebrew. In Exodus chapter 2, in the beginning of the Moses story [after Moses has struck down an Egyptian taskmaster and tells two Hebrew men to stop brawling], Moses asks the Hebrew man who is in the wrong, “Why should you strike your fellow?” The man says, Mi samcha l’ish sar v’shofet aleinu, “Who set you as a man, prince, and judge over us?”

The Hebrew word ish, a very simple word that means “man,” occurs maybe half a dozen times in four verses and I’ve reproduced each of those repetitions. One way you can see that the writer is going out of his way to repeat it is in the phrase, “Who set you as a man, prince and judge over us?” That is, you don’t need to say “a man;” you can just say, “Who made you prince and judge?” But it was important to the writer to say ish because there’s something haunting about the way the word “man” is repeated. It leads us to ponder what is a man, what is a Hebrew man who’s one of Moses’s brothers, what is an Egyptian man, what is a man who is set up as a prince and a judge?

In the next few verses, when Moses flees and shows up in Midian, he is identified because of his clothing as ish mitzri, an Egyptian man, and that too has a sort of double meaning. In one sense, he is an Egyptian and in another sense he isn’t at all, and all that wonderful richness of ambiguity comes through the simple repetition of one of the most basic words in the Hebrew language.

Q: Why do Bible translators not transliterate biblical names exactly from the Hebrew, for example – “Yoel” is translated and pronounced as “Joel” in English versions.

A:  It’s a matter of the tradition of the European languages. For example, “Michael” is a Hebrew name, pronounced in Hebrew “Mi-kha-el.” All the translations into English, French, and German simply use the English form of the name rather than the transliteration of the Hebrew. Adoniahu, the son of David, comes out as “Adonija.”

There is one translator, Everett Fox, who represents all the Hebrew names in transliteration. The problem is that we have a certain tradition of reading the Bible in English that goes back to the sixteenth century, at least a century before the King James version. As a translator, I didn’t want to make the names sound too weird or to put readers off too much. If they’ve always been used to encountering “Solomon,” “Shlomo” will be weird to them.

Q: In a recent interview with the Forward, you spoke about the “tedious sections” in the Bible. While perhaps boring to a modern audience, what was their original purpose, and who was the ancient audience they were meant for?

A:  In the early part of Kings, when Solomon builds the Temple and his palace, you have about four long chapters in which there is an elaborate catalog of the furnishings of the Temple and the furnishings of the palace. A lot of that we only have a hazy idea of because the architectural and interior design drawings have been lost. This is not anything that would fascinate the modern reader, but it’s quite possible that if you go back to the 8th century BCE, an audience would have reveled in all these details as instances of the glory that was Solomon.

Literacy is a very early phenomenon in ancient Israel and the whole ancient Near East, so it’s reasonable to assume that only a learned elite would be literate. In any case, even if others were literate, it would have been very expensive to own a scroll; these are painstakingly labor-intensive hand-crafted products.

If somebody wanted to deliver the written form of the David story to an audience, he would have read it out to a group of people and the group probably was perfectly mixed – aristocrats, literate scribes, sheepherders and farmers and so forth.

In my own work, whenever I say, “This conveyed such and such a signal to the original audience,” I’m working by inference. If I see a recurring formal technique in the biblical narrative and it occurs again and again, I have to assume that this technique was not just built into this story for the amusement of the writer but was a signal that the writer wanted the audience to pick up. It’s akin to a device in our culture: when a storyteller says, “Once upon a time in a land far away,” the listener knows it’s a folktale.

Q: How do you decide what to translate? With your Bible work, have you gone in order?

A:  I have followed my own order. I translated Genesis as a kind of experiment to see whether my concept of translation is viable, and it turned out to be more viable than I’d thought. Then I jumped to David’s story in the Book of Samuel, my other favorite biblical narrative. Then I started getting a little more serious about doing more of the whole, so I went back to the Torah and did all of that. My next two choices, in terms of what I was drawn to do at that point and what would be meaningful to readers, was Psalms, which attracted a lot of interest, and then the three “Wisdom Books” – Job, Proverbs, and I particularly wanted to translate Kohelet (Eccesiastes).

I then went back to the order: the Former Prophets is a continuation of the five books, but now I won’t necessarily go in order. I’m almost through with a book of translated poems of [Israeli poet] Yehuda Amichai; I translated 100 poems, recruited some translations, and used some existing translations. My involvement in Hebrew literature began with the modern period, and I still teach it and have a great love for modern Hebrew literature. Yehuda Amichai is one of the great poets of the 20th century, for my money, in any language. He also happened to have been a dear friend of mine, so I have a sense of personal connection. I’d like, if possible, to get all the way through the whole Hebrew Bible, but I don’t consider that to be my only scholarly translator’s task.

Comments? email cindym@jewishledger.com.

Caption:
Dr. Robert Alter

The Scholars Hebrew Bible Project

The Oxford Hebrew Bible 

http://ohb.berkeley.edu/

The Scholars Hebrew Bible will be a new critical edition of the Hebrew Bible featuring a critical text and extensive text-critical introduction and commentary. Each book of the Hebrew Bible will be addressed in a separate volume, with a single volume each for the Minor Prophets, the Megillot, and Ezra-Nehemiah. This project represents a departure from the other major textual editions (the Biblia Hebraica Quinta and the Hebrew University Bible), which are diplomatic editions.   

The project has now changed its name to "The Scholars Hebrew Bible Project." According to Daniel O. McClellan: "many professors at Oxford express concerns with the name, given the fact that not a single professor from Oxford was involved and they broadly disapproved of an eclectic edition. It seems something has now been done about it."

 Some samples of the Scholars Hebrew Bible (in PDF format) can be found here (Genesis 1:1-13; Leviticus 22; Deut 32:1–9,  1 Kgs 11:1–8; 2 Kings 1:1-6; Jeremiah 27:1-10; Ezekiel 2:1-10; and Proverbs 9:1-18)

Ancient Hebrew Poetry Studies Annotated Bibliography by John F. Hobbins

see the full content in here: http://community.logos.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/66/1541.Ancient-Hebrew-Poetry-Studies--annotated-bibliography.docx.

Annotated Bibliography

John F. Hobbins jfhobbins@gmail.com 

Ancient Hebrew Poetry Studies

The list below, a work in progress, singles out authors and studies on which future research will undoubtedly draw. Studies published more than 50 years ago are under-represented. As time goes on, more entries of value for an understanding of the history of research will be added. The order is alphabetical according to author. Authors’ items are listed chronologically. Single author items appear first. Multi-author items follow. References to “Meter: A History of Research” are to “Meter in Ancient Hebrew Poetry: A History of Modern Research” at www.ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com. 

 Luis Alonso Schökel

In the fields of interpretation and translation of biblical literature Alonso Schökel ranks as one of the giants of all time. The leads he pioneered in his monograph on ancient Hebrew poetry published in 1963 remain largely unexplored.

Estética y estilística del ritmo poético (Colección Estría 7; Barcelona: Juan Flors, 1963 [1959]); Estudios de poética hebrea (Barcelona: Juan Flors, 1963; Ger. tr. Das Alte Testament als literarisches Kunstwerk [Köln: J. P. Bachem, 1971]); “Isaïe,” DBSup 7 (1971) cols. 2060-2079; “Poésie hébraïque,” DBSup 8 (1972) cols. 47-90; Treinta salmos: poesía y oracíon (EAT; Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1981; It. tr. Trenta salmi: poesia e preghiera [StBib 8; Bologna: Dehoniane, 1982]); Hermenéutica de la palabra. I. Hermenéutica biblica. II. Interpretación literaria de textos biblicos. III. Interpretación teológica de textos biblicos (ed. Eduardo Zurro; 3 vols.; AcCr 37-38; Madrid: Cristiandad, 1987; ET A Manual of Hebrew Poetics [adapt. of AcCr 38; tr. Adrian Graffy; SubBi 11; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1988]; ET The Literary Language of the Bible: The Collected Essays of Luis Alonso Schökel [excerpts from Hermenéutica de la palabra; tr. Harry Spencer; ed. Tawny Holm; BIBAL Collected Essays 3; North Richland Hills: BIBAL, 2000]); Manual de poética hebrea (AcCr 41; Madrid: Cristiandad, 1988; It tr. Manuale di poetica ebraica; [BBib 1; Brescia: Queriniana, 1989]); “Isaiah,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode; Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1987; Fr. tr. Encyclopédie littéraire de la Bible [tr. Pierre-Emmanuel Dauzat; Paris: Bayard, 2003]) 165-83; “Todo Adan es Abel: Salmo 39,” EstBib 46 (1988) 269-81; El Cantar de los Cantares o la dignidad del amor (Estella: Verbo Divino, 1990; It. tr. Il Cantico dei Cantici [Casale Monferrato: Piemme, 1990]); Antologia della poesía bíblica hebrea (Zaragoza: Delegación de Catequesis / Fundación Teresa de Jesús, 1992; It. tr.; Antologia della poesia biblica [Casale Monferrato: Piemme, 1995]); “Poesía, fantasía, hermenéutica,” Comp 41 (1996) 3141; Lezioni sulla Bibbia (Casale Monferrato: Piemme, 1996); “En la mano de Dios (Salmo 31),” EstBib 56 (1998) 405-15; “Contemplar y gustar (Sal 34,6.9),” EstBib 57 (1999) 11-21; Biblia del peregrino 1-3: Antiguo Testamento, prosa; Antiguo Testamento, poesia; Nuevo Testamento (3 vols.; Bilbao: Mensajero, ³2003 [199697]; Port. trans. Biblia do peregino [São Paulo: Paulus, 2002]); I Salmi della fiducia (Bologna: Dehoniana, 2006). 

Luis Alonso Schökel and Juan Mateos, La Biblia (Madrid: Cristiandad, 1996 [1976]); idem and Eduardo Zurro, La traducción bíblica: Lingüística y estilística (Colección biblia y lenguaje 3; Madrid: Cristiandad, 1977); idem and Cecilia Carniti, Salmos (2 vols.; Estella: Verbo Divino, 1992-93; It. tr. I salmi [tr. and ed. Antonio Nepi; 2 vols.; ComBib, Rome: Borla, 1991-93]; Port. tr. Salmos [tr. João Rezende Costa; 2 vols.; São Paulo: Paulus, 1996-1998]); idem and José Luis Sicre Diaz, Profetas. Introducción y comentarios (2 vols.; NBE, Madrid: Cristiandad, 1980; It. tr. I profeti [tr. Teodora Tosatti and Piero Brugnoli; ed. Gianfranco Ravasi; 3d ed.; ComBib, Rome: Borla 1996]; Port. trans. Profetas [tr. Anacleto Alvarez; 2d ed.; 2 vols.; São Paulo: Paulus, 1998]); idem and José Vilchez Lindez, Proverbios (NBE; Madrid: Cristiandad, 1984; It. tr. I proverbi [tr. Teodora Tosatti and Piero Brugnoli; ComBib, Rome: Borla, 1993]); idem and José Luis Sicre Diaz, Job. Comentario teológico y literario (NBE, Madrid: Cristiandad, 1984; It. tr. Giobbe: commento teologico e letterario [tr. and ed. Gianantonio Borgonovo; ComBib, Rome: Borla, 1985]); idem and José María Bravo Aragón, Appuntes de hermeneutica (Colección estructuras y procesos: Serie religión; Madrid: Trotta, 1994; It. tr., Appunti di ermeneutica [ColStBib 24; Bologna: Dehoniane, 1994]; ET A Manual of Hermeneutics [tr. Liliana M. Rosa; ed. Brook W. R. Pearson; The Biblical Seminar 54; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998]).

Robert Alter

Alter’s contribution to the study of ancient Hebrew poetry is without peer. His monograph published in 1985 is well known, but his contributions to The Literary Guide to the Bible and translations of biblical poems and commentary thereto are often overlooked (e.g., of Gen 4:23-24; 49:2-27; Exod 15:1-18; the seven meshalim of Balaam in Num 23-24; Deut 32:1-43; 33:2-29; 1 Sam 2:1-10: 2 Sam 22:2-51; 23:1-7). He is currently working on a translation and commentary on the book of Psalms.

The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985; Fr. trans. L'art de la poésie biblique [tr. Christine Leroy and Jean-Pierre Sonnet; Le livre et le rouleau; Bruxelles: Lessius, 2003]); “The Characteristics of Ancient Hebrew Poetry,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode; Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1987; Fr. trans. Encyclopédie littéraire de la Bible [tr. PierreEmmanuel Dauzat; Paris: Bayard, 2003]) 611-624; “Psalms,” in idem, 244-62; The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: Norton, 1999); The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York: Norton, 2004); Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: Norton, forthcoming).

Conrad Gottlob Anton

Anton was the first to propose that ancient Hebrew verse instantiates a strong-stress meter. 

Coniectura de metro Hebraeorum antiquo: psalmorum exemplis illustrata (diss.; Leipzig: Langenheim, 1770); Treue Uebersetzungen Lateinischer, Griechischer und Hebräischer Gedichte in den Versarten der Originale: Conrad Gottlob Antons Treue Übersetzungen Lateinischer, Griechischer und Hebräischer Gedichte in den Versarten der Originale. Nebst einer Abhandlung von der genausten Nachahmung des alten Sylbenmaasses deren unsre Sprache in treuen Übersetzungen fähig ist (Leipzig: Crusius, 1772); Poetische Uebersetzung des Hohen Liedes Salomonis in dem Sylbenmasse des Originals: nebst einer Einleitung von der wahrscheinlichsten Erklärung desselben (Leipzig: Langenheim, 1773); Editionis in qua psalmi ad metrum revocabuntur et recensebuntur varietate lectionis et perpetua annotatione illustrabuntur Specimen exhibet (Wittenberg: Dürr, 1780); Salomonis Carmen Melicum Quod Canticum Canticorum Dicitur Ad Metrum Priscum Et Modos Musicos Revocavit, Recensuit, In Vernaculam Transtulit, Notis Criticis Aliisque Illustravit Et Glossarium Addidit (Wittenberg: Selbstverlag, 1800); Carmen alphabeticum integrum ope rationis in hymnis decantandis vel apud Hebraeos usitatae psalmo IX. et X. conjuncto restituit (Wittenberg: Tzschiedrich, 1805); Vaticinium Jacobi genes. XLIX. historice, philologice, exegetice, critice consideratum (diss.; Wittenberg: Meinel, 1808).

 Pierre Auffret

Auffret’s voluminous output is characterized by an analytical approach akin to that of Meynet. The bulk of Auffret’s opus appears in collections of previously published articles (1981, 1982, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2006).

“Note sur la structure littéraire de Ps LI 3-19,” VT 26 (1976) 142-147; “Note sur la structure littéraire du Psaume LVII,” Sem 27 (1977) 59-73; “Note sur la structure littéraire du Psaume CXXXVI,” VT 27 (1977) 1-12; “Structure littéraire et interprétation du Psaume 151 de la Grotte 11 de Qumrân,” RevQ 9 (1977) 163-188; The Literary Structure of Psalm 2 (JSOTSup 3; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1977); “Essai sur la structure du Psaume 1,” BZ NF 22 (1978) 26-45; “‘Pivot pattern’: Nouveaux exemples (Jon II, 10 ; Ps XXXI, 13 ; Is XXIII, 7),” VT 28 (1978) 103110; “Structure littéraire et interprétation du Psaume 155 de la Grotte 11 de Qumrân,” RevQ 9 (1978) 323-356; “Notes conjointes sur la structure littéraire des Psaumes 114 et 29,” EstBib 37 (1978) 103-113 (Corrigenda in EstBib 38 [19791980] 153); “Structure littéraire et interprétation du Psaume 154 de la Grotte 11 de Qumrân,” RevQ 9 (1978) 513-545; “Note sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 3,” ZAW 91 (1979) 93-106; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume LXXXVI,” VT 29 ( 1979) 385-402; “La structure littéraire du Ps 104 et celle du grand Hymne à Aton d’El Amarna. Conséquences de leur confrontation quant au problème des influences égyptiennes sur le psaume biblique,” Annuaire de l’EPHE (V° section), 88 (1979-1980) 505-506; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 90,” Bib 61 (1980) 262-276; “Essai sur la structure littéraire des Psaumes CXI et CXII,” VT 30 (1980) 257-279; “Structure littéraire de l’Hymne à Sion de 11QPsa XXII, 1-15,” RevQ 10 (1980) 203-211; “Note sur la structure littéraire du Psaume XXI,” VT 30 (1980) 91-93; “Note sur la structure littéraire de Proverbes 22, 8-9 selon la restitution proposée par J. Carmignac,” FoOr 21 (1980) 43-46; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 137,” ZAW 92 (1980) 346-377; Hymnes d’Egypte et d’Israël – Études de structures littéraires (OBO 34; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1981); “Essai sur la structure littéraire de Psaume 11,” ZAW 93 (1981) 401-418; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume XV,” VT 31 (1981) 385-399; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 145,” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (ed. Andre Caquot and Mathias Delcor; AOAT 212; Kevelaer: Butzon und. Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener. Verlag, 1981) 15-31; La sagesse a bâti sa maison – Études de structures littéraires dans l’ Ancien Testament et spécialement dans les Psaumes (OBO 49, Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1982); “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 61,” JANES 14 (1982) 1-10; “Note sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 104 et ses incidences pour une comparaison avec l’Hymne à Aton et Genèse 1,” RevScRel 56 (1982) 73-82; “Note sur la structure littéraire du Psaume CX,” Sem 32 (1982) 83-88; “Essai sur la structure littéraire de Gn 12, 1-4a,” BZ NF 26 (1982) 243-248; “Très brève introduction à la méthode et étude de la structure littéraire du Psaume 61,” Sprawozdania z posiedzen komisji Naukowych 27 (1986) 72-76; “La structure littéraire du Psaume 116,” Sprawozdania z posiedzen komisji Naukowych  27 (1986) 77-80; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume LXXIV,” VT 33 (1983) 129-148; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 95,” BN 22 (1983) 47-69; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 100,” BN 20 (1983) 7-14; “Note sur la comparaison entre l’hymne à Aton et le Ps 104 à partir de leurs structures littéraires d’ensemble,” RevScRel 57 (1983) 64-65; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume VIII,” VT 34 (1984) 257-269; “‘Alors je jouerai sans fin pour ton nom.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 61,” ScEs 36 (1984) 169-177; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 94,” BN 24 (1984) 44-72; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 116,” BN 23 (1984) 32-47; “‘Je marcherai à la face de Yahvé.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 116,” NRT 106 (1984) 383-396; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 23,” EstBib 43 (1985) 57-88; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 133,” BN 27 (1985) 22-34; Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 105 (BNB 3; München: M. Görg, 1985,); “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume 103,” FoOr 23 (19851986) 197-225; “Compléments sur la structure littéraire du Ps 2 et son rapport au Ps 1,” BN 35 (1986) 7-13; “‘Qui nous fera voir le bonheur?’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 4,” NRT 108 (1986) 342-355; “‘Yahvé m’accueillera.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 27,” ScEs 38 (1986) 97-113; “‘Ils loueront Yahvé, ceux qui le cherchent.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 22,” NRT 109 (1987) 672-690, 840-855; “Notes complémentaires sur la structure littéraire des Psaumes 3 et 29,” ZAW 99 (1987) 9093; “‘Tu as entendu.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 31,” EgT 18 (1987) 147-181; “Les pensées de son coeur: Étude structurelle du Psaume 33,” ScEs 39 (1987) 4769; “‘Les oreilles, tu me les as ouvertes.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 40 (et du Ps 70 ),” NRT 109 (1987) 220-245; “‘Les ombres se lèvent-elles pour te louer?’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 88,” EstBib 45 (1987) 23-88; “‘Allez, fils, entendez-moi!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 34 et son rapport au Psaume 33,” EgT 19 (1988) 5-31; “Note complémentaire sur la structure littéraire du Ps 6,” BN 42 (1988) 7-13; “Essai sur la structure littéraire du Psaume XXXII,” VT 38 (1988) 257-285; “‘Yahvé, qu’elle nous est chère, ta loyauté!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 36,” ScEs 40 (1988) 57-73; “‘Il jubile, mon coeur.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 28,” EstBib 46 (1988) 187-216; “‘Toi, tu répondras!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 38,” ScEs 40 (1988) 295-314; “‘La voix de l’action de grace.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 26,” NRT 111 (1989) 217-227; “‘O bonheurs de l’homme attentif au faible!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 41,” BTFT 50 (1989) 2-23; “Note on the literary structure of psalm 134,” JSOT 45 (1989) 87-89; “‘Ma bouche s’adonnera à la louange.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 63,” EgT 20 (1989) 359-383 (with two Corrigenda in EgT 22 [1991] 31); “La ville de Dieu: Étude structurelle du Psaume 46,” ScEs 41 (1989) 323-341; “‘Rien du tout de nouveau sous le soleil.’ Étude structurelle de Qo 1, 411,” FoOr 26 (1989) 145-166; “‘Qui est ce roi de la gloire ?’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 24,” RT 90 (1990) 101-108; “‘Il exultera, mon coeur, dans ton salut.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 13,” BN 53 (1990) 7-13; “‘Dans ta force se réjouit le roi.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume XXI,” VT 40 (1990) 385-410; “‘Aie confiance en lui, et lui, il agira.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 37,” SJOT 4 (1990) 13-43; “Car toi, tu as agi: Étude structurelle du Psaume 39,” Bijdragen 51 (1990) 118-138; “‘Il est monté, Dieu.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 47,” ScEs 42 (1990) 61-75; “Dans la ville de notre Dieu: Étude structurelle du Psaume 48,” ScEs 42 (1990) 305-324; “‘Yahvé est juste.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 129,” SEL 7 (1990) 87-96; “‘Il règne, YHWH, pour toujours.’ Étude structurelle du Ps CXLVI,” RT 90 (1990) 623633; “‘YHWH règne.’ Étude structurelle du Ps 93,” ZAW 103 (1991) 101-109; “‘Dieu juge.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 82,” BN 58 (1991) 7-12; “‘En raison de ton nom, YHWH, tu pardonnes ma faute.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 25,” EgT 22 (1991) 5-31; “‘Qui donnera depuis Sion le salut d’Israël?’ Étude structurelle des Psaumes 14 et 53,” BZ 35 (1991) 217-230; “L’ensemble des trois psaumes 46, 47 et 48. Étude structurelle,” ScEs 43 (1991) 339-348; “‘Sacrifie à Dieu un sacrifice d’action de grace.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 50,” FoOr 28 (1991) 135-155; “‘Maintenant je me lève.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 12,” EgT 23 (1992) 159176; “La droite du Très-Haut: Étude structurelle du Psaume 77,” SJOT 6 (1992) 92122; Quatre psaumes et un cinquième. Étude structurelle des psaumes 7 à 10 et 35 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1992); “Hymne à l’incomparable: Étude structurelle du Psaume 113,” SEL 9 (1992) 35-52; “‘Pourquoi dors-tu, Seigneur?’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 44,” JANES 21 (1992) 13-33; “‘Qu’ils sachent que ton nom est YHWH!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 83,” ScEs 45 (1993) 41-59; Voyez de vos yeux – Étude structurelle de vingt psaumes, dont le psaume 119 (VTSup 48; Leiden: Brill, 1993; “‘Écoute mon peuple!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 81,” SJOT 7 (1993) 285-302; “‘Qu’il nous bénisse, Dieu!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 67,” BN 69 (1993) 5-8; “Splendeur et majesté devant lui: Étude structurelle du Psaume 96,” OTE 6 (1993) 150-162; “‘Qu’elles sont aimables, tes demeures!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 84,” BZ NF 38 (1994) 29-43; “‘Ma bouche publiera ta justice.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 71,” EgT 25 (1994) 5-35; “‘Afin que nous rendions grâce à ton nom.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 106,” SEL 11 (1994) 75-96; “‘Louez YHWH, toutes les nations!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 117,” BN 74 (1994) 5-9; “‘Je serai rassasié de ton image.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 17,” ZAW 106 (1994) 446-458; “C’est un peuple humilié que tu sauves”. Étude structurelle du Psaume 18, ScEs 46 (1994) 273-291; 47 (1995) 81-101; corrigenda: 219; “‘Ne crains pas, même si s’enrichit un homme!’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 49,” FoOr 30 (1994) 5-24; Merveilles à nos yeux. Étude structurelle de vingt psaumes dont celui de 1 Ch 16, 8-36 (BZAW 235; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995); “‘Conduis-moi dans ta justice!’ Étude structurelle du psaume 5,” JANES 23 (1995) 1-28; “‘Et moi sans cesse avec toi.’ Étude structurelle du psaume 73,” SJOT 9 (1995) 241-276; “Et d’un trône de gloire il les fait hériter: Étude structurelle du cantique d’Anne,” OTE 8 (1995) 223-240; “C’est pourquoi se réjouit mon coeur. Étude structurelle du psaume 16,” BZ NF 40 (1996) 73-83; “‘Dieu sauvera Sion.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume LXIX,” VT 46 (1996) 1-29; “L’Étude structurelle des Psaumes – Réponses et compléments I (Pss 51, 57, 63, 64, 65, 86, 90, 91, 95),” ScEs 48 (1996) 45-60; “‘Avec sagesse tu les fis.’ Étude structurelle du psaume 104 – Réponses et complements,” EgT 27 (1996) 5-19; “‘Toutes les nations le diront bienheureux.’ Étude structurelle du psaume 72,” SEL 13 (1996) 41-58; “Quand Dieu se lève pour le jugement: Étude structurelle du psaume 76,” BN 84 (1996) 5-10; “Comment sont tombés les héros? Étude structurelle de 2 S 1, 19-27,” JANES 24 (1996) 1-8; “‘O Dieu, connais mon coeur!’ Étude structurelle du psaume CXXXIX,” VT 47 (1997) 1-22; “L’Étude structurelle des Psaumes. Réponses et compléments II (Pss. 61, 77, 82, 100, 138, 147),” ScEs 49 (1997) 39-61; “Au milieu de ma maison. Étude structurelle du psaume 101,” SJOT 11 (1997) 124-137; “L’Étude structurelle des Psaumes. Réponses et compléments III (Méthodologie et Pss. 13, 26 et 27),” ScEs 49 (1997) 149-174; “C’est Dieu qui juge: Étude structurelle du psaume 75,” ZAW 109 (1997) 385-394; “Souviens-toi, YHWH! Étude structurelle du psaume 137. Réponses et complements,” BZ NF 41 (1997) 250-252; “Rendez grâce au Seigneur! Étude structurelle du Ps 136,” BN 86 (1997) 7-13; “Grandes sont les oeuvres de YHWH: Étude structurelle du Psaume 111,” JNES 56 (1997) 183-196; “Souvienstoi de ton assemblée! Étude structurelle du Psaume 74,” FoOr 33 (1997) 21-31; “‘Je marcherai à la face de YHWH’: Étude structurelle du psaume 116 (suite),” OTE 10 (1997) 161-177; “En mémoire éternelle sera le juste: Étude structurelle du psaume 112,” VT 48 (1998) 2-14; “Qu’ils disent la gloire de ton règne! Étude structurelle du psaume 145,” ScEs 50 (1998) 57-78; “Qu’ils louent le nom de YHWH! Étude structurelle du psaume 148 ,” EgT 29 (1998) 221-234; “Tu m’as répondu: Étude structurelle du psaume 22,” SJOT 12 (1998) 103-130; “Qui se lèvera pour moi? Étude structurelle du psaume 94,” RivB 46 (1998) 129-156; “Sur ton peuple ta bénédiction! Étude structurelle du psaume 3,” ScEs 50 (1998) 315-334; Là montent les tribus. Étude structurelle de la collection des Psaumes des Montées, d’Ex 15, 118, et des rapports entre eux (BZAW 289; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999); “Comme un olivier verdoyant. Étude structurelle du psaume 52,” SEL 16 (1999) 63-71; “De l’oeuvre de ses mains au murmure de mon coeur: Étude structurelle du psaume 19,” ZAW 112 (2000) 24-42; “YHWH, qui séjournera en ta tente? Étude structurelle du psaume 15,” VT 50 (2000) 143-151; “Qu’il te réponde, YHWH, au jour de détresse ! Étude structurelle du psaume 20,” BN 101 (2000) 5-9; “‘Een die daar is geboren.’ Structuuranalyse van Psalm 87,” ACEBT 18 (2000) 61-70; “De cris joyeux de libération tu m’entoures. Étude structurelle du psaume 32,” RivB 48 (2000) 257280; “Dieu juste! Étude structurelle du Psaume 7,” JANES 27 (2000) 1-14; “Comme un arbre… Étude structurelle du Psaume 1,” BZ NF 45 (2001) 256-264; “Ta justice dans la terre de l’oubli: Étude structurelle du Psaume 88,” FoOr 37 (2001) 5-18; “Étude structurelle du Psaume 2,” EstBib 49 (2001) 307-323; “J’ai proclamé la justice – Étude structurelle du Ps 40 (et du Ps 70),” RivBib 49 (2001) 385-416; “Par le tambour et la danse. Étude structurelle du Psaume 150,” ETR 77 (2002) 257-261, 308; “En ce jour-là Debora et Baraq chantèrent: Étude structurelle de Jg 5, 2-21,” SJOT 16 (2002) 113-150; “Qu’est-ce que l’homme, que tu t’en souviennes? Étude structurelle du psaume 8,” ScEs 54 (2002) 25-35; “Voix de YHWH dans la splendeur ! Étude structurelle du Psaume 29,” BN 112 (2002) 5-11; “Et tu m’as fait remonter de la fosse – Étude structurelle de Jon 2, 3-10,” FoOr 38 (2002) 5-18; “‘Mon Seigneur, c’est toi.’ Étude structurelle du Psaume 16,” OTE 15 (2002) 310319; “Dans la colonne de nuée il leur parlait – Étude structurelle du Psaume 99,” BN 114/115 (2002) 5-10; “Mais YHWH m’accueillera – Étude structurelle du Psaume 27,” EstBib 60 (2002) 479-492; “Quand il fera revenir… son peuple – Étude structurelle des psaumes 14 et 53,” BeO 45 (2003) 1-14; “Que se rassure votre coeur! Étude structurelle du Psaume 31,” SEL 19 (2002) 59-76; “Béni soit YHWH car il a entendu – Étude structurelle du Psaume 28,” Tfm 34 (2003) 209222; Que seulement de tes yeux tu regardes… Étude structurelle de treize psaumes (BZAW 330; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003); “Pour toujours je te rendrai grâce – Étude structurelle du psaume 30 », ScEs 55 (2003) 185-196; “Voyez les oeuvres de Dieu! Étude structurelle du Psaume 66,” VT 53 (2003) 431-444; “De mes détresses faismoi sortir! Étude structurelle du Psaume 25,” RivBib 51 (2003) 257-279; Corrigenda in RivBib 52 (2004) 151; “Dieu ma justice – Étude structurelle du Psaume 4,” BN 108 (2003) 5-12; “Certes il y a un Dieu jugeant sur la terre! Étude structurelle du Psaume 58,” JANES 29 (2002) 1-15; “Sacrifie à Dieu un sacrifice d’action de grâce – Nouvelle Étude structurelle du psaume 50,” OTE 16 (2003) 175194; “Seigneur, devant toi tout mon désir – Étude structurelle du psaume 38,” BeO 46 (2004) 47-63; “YHWH entendant – Étude structurelle du psaume 34,” ZAW 116 (2005) 348-363; “Que te rendent grâce les peuples, eux tous! Nouvelle Étude structurelle du psaume 67,” ETR 79 (2004) 575-582, 603: “YHWH aimant les justes: Étude structurelle du psaume 146,” ScEs 57 (2005) 49-57; “En ceci j’ai su que tu m’as aimé: Étude structurelle du psaume 41,” Tfm 35 (2004) 267-278; “Il est Seigneur sur les nations: Étude structurelle du psaume 110,” BN NF 123 (2004) 6573; “Tu me feras vivre: Étude structurelle du psaume 138,” OTE 18 (2005) 472481; Mais tu élargiras mon coeur. Nouvelle étude structurelle du psaume 119 (BZAW 359; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006); “Toi le Dieu faisant merveille: Étude structurelle du Psaume 77,” BeO,47 (2005) 37-43; “Ma coupe est comble: Étude structurelle du psaume 23,” BN 126 (2005) 37-43; “Vers la montagne de son lieu saint: Étude structurelle du psaume 42-43,” SEL 22 (2005) 19-33; “Ton nom pour toujours: Nouvelle étude structurelle du psaume 135,” ScEs 57 (2005) 229-241; “Étude structurelle du Psaume 51,” RivBib 54 (2006) 5-28; “À l’ombre de tes ailes je crie de joie. Nouvelle étude structurelle du psaume 63,” BZ NF 50 (2006) 90-98; “Un père envers des fil: Nouvelle étude structurelle du psaume 103,” Tfm 37 (2006) 25-43: “Qui est sage? Qu’il regarde cela! Nouvelle étude structurelle du psaume 107,” BN NF 129 (2006) 25-52; Qu’elle soit vue chez tes serviteurs ton oeuvre! Nouvelle étude structurelle de dix-sept psaumes (Profac 90; Lyon: Profac, 2006).

 Joachim Begrich

Begrich taught alongside Albrecht Alt and Gerhard von Rad in Leipzig in the 1930s, and wrote a piece against anti-Semitism in that period. He was sent to the Italian front and died there just before the fighting came to an end (in 1945). He was 44 years old. His monograph on Isa 38:10-20, his review of previous studies on metrics, and his essay on rhythm remain helpful to this day.

Der Psalm des Hiskia: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis von Jesaja 38:10-20 (FRLANT NF 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1926); “Zur hebräische Metrik,” TRu NF 4 (1932) 67-89; “Der Satzstil im Fünfer,” ZS 9 (1933-34) 169209; repr. idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (ed. Walther Zimmerli; TB 21; Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1964) 132-67.

Adele Berlin

Berlin’s work on poetics is characterized by methodological rigor and her exegesis by literary and theological sensitivity. Her commentary on Zephaniah pays scant attention to the poetics of the text, her commentary on Lamentations, relatively more. In her monograph on parallelism and in several essays, she pioneers approaches that deserve wider application.

“Isaiah 40:4 – Etymological and Poetic Considerations,” HAR 3 (1979) 1-6; “Grammatical Aspects of Biblical Parallelism,” HUCA 50 (1979) 17-43; “Motif and Creativity in Biblical Poetry,” Proof 3 (1983) 231-41; The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1985); “The Rhetoric of Psalm 145,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel S. Iwry (ed. Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 17-22; Biblical Poetry through Medieval Jewish Eyes (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1991); “On the Interpretation of Psalm 133,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (ed. Elaine R. Follis; JSOTSup 40; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987); “Lexical Cohesion and Biblical Interpretation,” HS 30 (1989) 29-40; “Parallelism” in ABD 5 (1992) 155-62; Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25A; New York: Doubleday, 1994); “Introduction to Hebrew Poetry,” in NIB 4 (1996) 300-315; “On Reading Biblical Poetry: The Role of Metaphor,” in Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995 (ed. John A. Emerton; VTSup 66; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 25-36; Lamentations: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press, 2002); “Reading Biblical Poetry,” in The Jewish Study Bible (ed. Adele Berlin and Mark Zvi Brettler; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004) 2097-2104; “Psalms and the Literature of the Exile: Psalms 137, 44, 69, and 78,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; VTSup 99; FIOTL 4; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 65-86; “Poetry and Theology in Lamentations 3:43-44 and 5:7,” in 'An Experienced Scribe who Neglects Nothing': Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein (ed. Yitschak Sefati et al.; Bethesda: CDL Press, 2005) 670-77.

Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, “Psalms: Introduction and Annotations,” in The Jewish Study Bible (ed. Adele Berlin and Mark Zvi Brettler; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004) 1280-446.

 Sebastian Brock

Brock’s comparative study of “paragraph” divisions (poetry and prose) in Syriac, Greek, and Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah points to the existence of a tradition of macrounit delimitation whose origins date back before the current era. The pioneering researcher in the field, Josef M. Oesch, noted an 80% agreement between 1QIsa^a and MT in this respect (Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen su einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments (OBO 27; Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1979). For more studies on the topic of unit delimitation markers in ancient manuscripts, see the listings under Korpel, Revell, and Tov.

“Text Divisions in the Syriac Translations of Isaiah,” in Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (ed. Ada RapoportAlbert and Gillian Greenberg; JSOTSup 333, The Hebrew Bible and its Versions 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 200-221.

David J. A. Clines

Clines argues that the meaning of a “parallelistic couplet” in biblical poetry does not reside in A nor in B, but in the whole couplet of A and B in which A is affected by its juxtaposition with B, and B by its juxtaposition with A: “In the case of Isa. 40.3, for instance, the couplet does not mean B, even if B is more precise than A. It means (i) prepare Yahweh’s way in the sense of making straight a highway, and it means (ii) make straight the highway as an act of preparing a way for Yahweh, and it means both of these things concurrently.” Like two eyes, A and B provide a right and left perspective. When used in tandem, they produce a stereometric or three dimensional image. 

“The Parallelism of Greater Precision: Notes from Isaiah 40 for a Theory of Hebrew Poetry,” in New Directions in Hebrew Poetry (ed. Elaine R. Follis; JSOTSup 40; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 77-100; repr. in David J. A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1988. Volume 1 (JSOTSup 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 314-36; available online at www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/Articles.html.

 Walter Theophilus Woldemar Cloete

Cloete’s studies of versification are remarkable for the author’s ability to integrate insights from older and newer scholarship.

“Verse and Prose: Does the Distinction Apply to the Old Testament?” JNSL 14 (1988) 9–15; Versification and Syntax in Jeremiah 2-25: Syntactical Constraints in Hebrew Colometry (SBLDS 117; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); “The Colometry of Hebrew Verse,” JNSL 15 (1989) 15-29; “The Concept of Metre in Old Testament Studies,” JSem 1 (1989) 39-53; “A Guide to the Techniques of Hebrew Verse,” JNSL 16 (1990) 223-228; “Some Recent Research on Old Testament Verse: Progress, Problems and Possibilities,” JNSL 17 (1991) 189–204; “Distinguishing Prose and Verse in 2 Ki. 19:14-19,” in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (ed. Johannes C de Moor and Wilfred G. E. Watson; AOAT 42; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993) 31-40.

 Terence Collins

 

Collins’ classification of line-forms based on grammatical criteria opens up a new field of study. The original research program deserves refinement and completion.

Line-forms in Hebrew Poetry: A Grammatical Approach to the Stylistic Study of the Hebrew Prophets (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 7; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978); “Line-forms In Hebrew Poetry,” JSS 23 (1978) 228-44.

 Frank Moore Cross, Jr.

Cross tackles questions of diachronic development with acumen. He brings an epigrapher’s attention to details of language, text, and typology to the study of examples of ancient Hebrew poetry and cognate poetries in other NWS languages.

“The Divine Warrior in Israel’s Early Cult,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (ed. Alexander Altmann; Studies and Texts (Philip W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies) 3; Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1966) 1130; “The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth,” JTC 5 (1968) 1-25; “The Cave Inscriptions from Ḥirbat Bayt Layy [Khirbet Beit Lei],” in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck (ed. James A. Sanders; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970) 299-306; repr. idem, Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy [ed. John Huehnergard and Jo Ann Hackett; HSS 51; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003] 166-170); “Notes on the Ammonite Inscription from Tell Sīrān,” BASOR 212 (1973) 12-15; repr. idem, Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook, 100-102; Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1973) 121-144 (Exod 15); 101, 157 (Deut 33:2-3, 26-29); 100 (Judg 5:4-5); 122 (Judg 5:8); 122123 (1 Sam 1:19-28; 158-59 (2 Sam 22:8-16 = Ps 18:8-16); 234-37 (2 Sam 23:1-5); 102-103, 140 (Hab 3:3-6); 91-99 (Ps 24:7-14); 151-56 (Ps 29); 102 (Ps 68:18); 136 (Ps 77:17-20); 258-60 (Ps 89:20-37); 162 (Ps 97:1-6); 138-40 (Ps 114); 94-97, 23234 (Ps 132); “Leaves from an Epigraphist’s Notebook [esp. “A Second Incantation from Arslan Tash”],” CBQ 36 (1974) 486-94 (“A Second Incantation from Arslan Tash” repr. in idem, Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook, 270-72); “Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of Lamentations 1:1-22,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Myers and Michael P. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1982) 129-55; “Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of the Song of Jonah,” in The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Essays in Honor of George E. Mendenhall (ed. Herbert. H. Huffmon, Frank A. Spina, and Alberto R. W. Green; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 149-167; “The Prosody of Lamentations 1 and the Psalm of Jonah,” From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998) 99134 [revision of earlier articles]; “Toward a History of Hebrew Prosody,” in Fortunate The Eyes That See: Essays Presented to David Noel Freedman on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. Astrid B. Beck et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 298-309; repr. idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998]) 135-47; “Notes on Psalm 93: A Fragment of a Liturgical Poem affirming Yahweh’s Kingship,” in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in honor of Patrick D. Miller (ed. Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003) 73-77.

Frank Moore Cross and Richard J. Saley, “Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the Seventh Century B. C. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria,” BASOR 197 (1970) 42-49; repr. idem, Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook, 265-69; idem and David Noel Freedman (Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry [joint Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1950; SBLDS; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975; 2d ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); idem and David Noel Freedman, “Some Observations on Early Hebrew,” Bib 53 (1972) 413-20; repr. in David Noel Freedman, Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman. Volume Two: Poetry and Orthography (ed. John R. Huddleston; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 61-69.

Vincent DeCaen

The search for timing units in biblical poetry below the word level in the context of modern linguistic research is pioneered by DeCaen.

“Head-Dependent Asymmetry and Generative Metrics for Biblical Hebrew: Tetrameter, Pentameter, Hexameter, Heptameter,” www.chass.utoronto.ca/~ decaen/papers/BH_Generative _Metrics_draft6.doc; “On the Heptameter in Lamentations 3: A Generative Metrical Programme for Biblical Hebrew Meter,” www.chass.utoronto.ca/~decaen/papers/2005_BIBLICAL_POETRY_paper_draft1. doc; “Theme and Variation in Psalm 111: Generative Metrics and Biblical Hebrew Metre" (2006).

 Frederick W. Dobbs-Allsopp

Dobbs-Allsopp’s studies of enjambment break new ground. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, enjambment occurs frequently in ancient Hebrew verse. One third of the lines in the corpus studied by him, O’Connor remarks (Hebrew Verse Structure, 409), exhibit enjambment. More than two thirds of the lines in Lamentations 1-5 are enjambed, according to Dobbs-Allsopp.

“The Enjambing Line in Lamentations: A Taxonomy (Part 1),” ZAW 113 (2001) 219-39; “The Effects of Enjambment in Lamentations (Part 2),” ZAW 113 (2001) 370-95.

 Jan P. Fokkelman

Fokkelman’s monograph series and Reading Biblical Poetry are packed with sharp observations. His counting of syllables is carried out with great care, but begs many questions. Other aspects of his work, including the decision to use a text model as a point of departure in poetic analysis, are more compelling. For helpful reviews, see Chris Franke, RBL 12 (2002), www.bookreviews.org; Rolf A. Jacobson, ThTo (2004), www.findarticles. com; Gerald H. Wilson, RBL 15 (2005), Walter Brueggemann, JHS (20042005), http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/review135.htm. 

Fokkelman emphasizes the “numerical perfection” of a vast number of examples of ancient Hebrew poetry. He does not discuss, from a point of view independent of his own theory, the degree to which particular totals on which his claims of perfection rely may be artifacts of analysis as much as, or more than, a statement of fact. The matter requires further investigation.

“Stylistic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1-11,” OTS 21 (1981) 68-90; Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2). II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-31 & II Sam. 10. III. Throne and City (II Sam. 2-8 & 21-24). IV. Vow and Desire (I Sam. 1-12) (4 vols.; SSN 17, 20, 23, 27; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981-1993); The Structure of Psalm 68,” in In Quest of the Past: Studies in Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism (ed. Adam S. van der Woude; OTS 26; Leiden: Brill, 1990) 72-83; “The Song of Deborah and Barak: Its Prosodic Levels and Structure,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz; Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1995) 595-628; “The Cyrus Oracle (Isaiah 44,24-45,7) from the Perspectives of Syntax, Versification and Structure,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah. Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (ed. Jacques van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1997) 303-323; Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis. I. Ex. 15, Deut. 32, and Job 3. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis. II. 85 Psalms and Job 4-14. III. The Remaining 65 Psalms. IV. Job 15-42 (4 vols.; SSN 37, 41, 43, 47; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998-2004); Dichtkunst in de bijbel: Een handleiding bij literair lezen (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2000); ET Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introductory Guide (tr. Ineke Smit; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001); The Psalms in Form: The Hebrew Psalter in its Poetic Shape (Tools for Biblical Studies 4; Leiden: Deo, 2002); “The Structural and Numerical Perfection of Job 31,” in Hamlet on a Hill. Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Martin F. J. Baasten and Willem Th. van Peursen; OLA 118; Leuven: Peeters, 2003) 215-232, online at www.janfokkelman.nl/Job_31.pdf; “Psalm 103: Design, Boundaries, and Mergers,” in Psalms and Prayers (ed. Bob Becking; OTS; Leiden: Brill) forthcoming.

Jan Fokkelman and Wim Werens, ed., De Bijbel Literair: Opbouw en gedachtegang van de bijbelse geschriften en hun onderlinge relaties ([by Fokkelman: “General Introduction, Introduction to Biblical Poetry, Psalms, and Song of Songs]; 2d ed.; Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005).

 David Noel Freedman

Freedman’s close readings, attention to symmetries, and respect for the received text are exemplary. He favors the counting of syllables for the purpose of measuring the repeated proportions which characterize ancient Hebrew poetry. A number of his students follow his methodological lead: Andrew H. Bartelt, Chris A. Franke, David M. Howard, Jr., and Paul R. Raabe. For a list of their chief contributions, see “Meter: A History of Research.”

“Archaic Forms in Early Hebrew Poetry,” ZAW 72 (1960) 101-7; “The Structure of Job 3,” Bib 49 (1968) 503-08; “The Structure of Psalm 137,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1971) 131-41; “Notes and Observations : The Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job,” HTR 61 (1968) 51-59; “Critical Notes: II Samuel 23:4,” JBL 90 (1971) 329-30; “The Broken Construct Chain,” Bib 53 (1972) 543-46; “Prolegomenon” to George Buchanan Gray, The Forms of Hebrew Poetry: Considered with Special Reference to the Criticism and Interpretation of the Old Testament (Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1972) vii-lvi; “The Refrain in David’s Lament over Saul and Jonathan,” in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren Oblata (ed. Claas J. Bleeker et al.; SHR 21; Leiden: Brill, 1972) 115-26; “Acrostics and Metrics in Hebrew Poetry,” HTR 65 (1972) 367-92; “Isa 42,13,” CBQ 35 (1973) 225-26; “God Almighty in Psalm 78:59,” Bib 54 (1973) 268; “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15,” in A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers (ed. Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore; Gettysburg Theological Studies 4; Pittsburgh: Temple University Press, 1974) 163-203; “Early Israelite History in the Liight of Early Israelite Poetry,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East (ed. Hans Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1975) 3-35; “Psalm 113 and the Song of Hannah,” ErIs 14 (1975) 56-70; “The Aaronic Benediction (Numbers 6: 24-26),” in No Famine in the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie (ed. James W. Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod Robinson; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975) 35-48; “Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright (ed. Frank Moore Cross, Werner Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976) 55-107; “The Twenty-Third Psalm,” in Michigan Oriental Studies in Honor of George G. Cameron (ed. Louis L. Orlin et al.; Ann Arbor: Department of Near Eastern Studies, Univ. of Michigan, 1976) 139-66; “Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: An Essay on Biblical Poetry,” JBL 96 (1977) 5-26; “Early Israelite History and Historical Reconstructions,” in Symposia Celebrating the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900-1975) (ed. Frank Moore Cross; Cambridge: ASOR, 1979) 85-96; the preceding eighteen articles are repr. in Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy. Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980); “The Poetic Structure of the Framework of Deuteronomy 33,” in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon (ed. Gary Rendsburg et al.; New York: Ktav, 1980) 25-46; “Prose Practices in the Poetry of the Primary History,” in Biblical and Related Studies presented to Samuel Iwry (ed. Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 49-62; “Acrostic Poems in the Hebrew Bible: Alphabetic and Otherwise,” CBQ 48 (1986) 408-31; “Deliberate Deviation from an Established Pattern of Repetition in Hebrew Poetry as a Rhetorical Device,” in Ninth Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ. Press, 1986) 45-52; “Another Look at Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (ed. Elaine R. Follis; JSOTSup 40; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987) 11-28; “The Structure of Isaiah 40:1-11,” in Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays in Honor of Francis I. Andersen on His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Edgar W. Conrad and Edward G. Newing; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987) 167-93; “On the Death of Abiner,” in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (ed. John H. Marks and Robert M. Good; Guildford: Four Quarters, 1987) 125-27; “Patterns in Psalms 24 and 34,” in Priests, Prophets, and Scribes: A Festschrift in Honor of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. Eugene Ulrich et al.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 125-138; the preceding eight articles repr. in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman. Volume Two: Poetry and Orthography (ed. John R. Huddleston; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); “The Structure of Psalm 119: Part I,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 725-56; repr. in Psalm 119: The Exaltation of Torah (BJSUCSD 6; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 25-55; “The Structure of Psalm 119: Part II,” in Biblical and Other Studies in Honor of Reuben Ahroni in Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Theodore J. Lewis) HAR 14 (1994) 55-87; repr. in Psalm 119: The Exaltation of Torah (BJSUCSD 6; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 57-81.

Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman (Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry [joint Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1950; SBLDS; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975; 2d ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “Some Observations on Early Hebrew,” Bib 53 (1972) 413-20; repr. Divine Commitment and Human Obligation. Volume Two, 61-69; David Noel Freedman and Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, “Alphabetic Acrostic Psalms,” in David Noel Freedman, Psalm 119: The Exaltation of Torah (BJSUCSD 6, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 1-23; David Noel Freedman and Andrew Welch, “Conclusion: The Theology of Psalm 119,” in ibid., 87-94; David Noel Freedman and Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, “Quantitative Measurement in Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (ed. Robert Chazan, William W. Hallo, and Lawrence H. Schiffman; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 229-49; David Noel Freedman and David Miano, “Non-Acrostic Alphabetic Psalms,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; VTSup 99; FIOTL 4; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 87-96.

 W. Randall Garr

Garr’s essay on qinah meter advances the discussion.

“The Qinah: A Study of Poetic Meter, Syntax, and Style,” ZAW 95 (1983) 54-75.

 Stephen A. Geller

Geller’s methodological reflections, analysis of syntax, and close readings of poetic texts always repay consideration.

Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry (HSM 20; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979); “The Dynamics of Parallel Verse: A Poetic Analysis of Deut 32:6-12,” HTR 75 (1982) 35-56; “Theory and Method in the Study of Biblical Poetry,” JQR 73 (1982) 65-77; “Were the Prophets Poets? [Isaiah 40:6-8]” Proof 3 (1983) 211-21 (repr. in “The Place is too Small for Us: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship [ed. Robert P. Gordon; Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 5; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995] 154-65); “Through Windows and Mirrors into the Bible: History, Literature and Language in the Study of Text,” in A Sense of Text: The Art of Language in the Study of Biblical Literature. Papers from a Symposium at The Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning, May 11, 1982 (ed. Leon Nemoy et al.; Jewish Quarterly Review 1982 Supplement; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns 1983) 3-40; “A Poetic Analysis of Isaiah 40:1-2,” HTR 77 (1984) 41320; “Where is Wisdom? A Literary Study of Job 28 in Its Settings,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. Jacob Neusner et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 155-88; “The Language of Imagery in Psalm 114,” in Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran (ed. Tzi Abusch, John Huehnergard, and Piotr Steinkeller; HSS 37; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 179-94; Sacred Enigmas: Literary Religion in the Hebrew Bible (London: Routledge, 1996).

 Yehoshua Gitay

Gitay’s contribution to ancient Hebrew poetry studies is indirect. His attention to the problem of identifying rhetorical units in prophetic literature has led to the discovery of larger units than are usually thought to exist. This in turns leads to the discovery of poetic units that are more ample than assumed by many to obtain.

“A Study of Amos’s Art of Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1-15,” CBQ 42 (1980) 293-309; “Deutero-Isaiah: Oral or Written?” JBL 99 (1980) 185-97; Prophecy and Persuasion: A Study of Isaiah 40-48 (Forum Theologiae Linguisticae 14; Bonn: Linguistica Biblica, 1981); “Reflections on the Study of Prophetic Discourse: The Question of Isaiah I 2-20,” VT 33 (1983) 207-21; “Oratorical Rhetoric: The Question of Prophetic Language with special attention to Isaiah,” ACEBT 10 (1989) 72-83; Isaiah and His Audience: The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 1-12 (SSN 30; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1991); “Rhetorical Criticism and the Prophetic Discourse [Jer 14:2-15:9],” in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in honor of George A. Kennedy (ed. Duane F. Watson; JSNTSup 50; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 13-24; “Rhetorical Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application (ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 135-49; “The Realm of Prophetic Rhetoric,” in Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht; JSNTSup 131; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996) 218-29; “Back to Historical Isaiah: Reflections on the Act of Reading,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (ed. Jacques Van Ruiten and Marc Vervenne; BETL 132; Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1997) 63-74; “The Projection of the Prophet: A Rhetorical Presentation of the Prophet Jeremiah (according to Jer 1:1-19),” in Prophecy and Prophets: The Diversity of Contemporary Issues in Scholarship (ed. Yehoshua Gitay; SemeiaSt; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 41-55; “Why Metaphors? A Study of the Texture of Isaiah,” in Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition (ed. Craig C. Boyles and Craig A. Evans; 2 vols.; VTSup 70; FIOTL 1; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 1:57-65; “Reflections on the Study of Prophetic Discourse,” in Prophecy of the Hebrew Bible (ed. David E. Orton; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 173-87; “Prophetic Criticism – ‘What are they Doing?’: The Case of Isaiah – A Methodological Assessment,” JSOT 96 (2001) 101-27; “The Art of (Hebrew) Biblical Argumentation,” JSR 15 (2002) 85-98; “Isaiah and Micah: Two Modes of Prophetic Presentation,” in Relating to the Text: Interdisciplinary and Form-critical Insights on the Bible (ed. Timothy J. Sandoval and Carleen Mandolfo; JSOTSup 384; London: T&T Clark, 2003) 131-40.

 George Buchanan Gray

Gray’s Forms of Hebrew Poetry is a careful attempt at resolving a number of questions in the study of ancient Hebrew poetry debated in his day. His review of the work of others is magisterial.

The Forms of Hebrew Poetry: Considered with Special Reference to the Criticism and Interpretation of the Old Testament [revised and expanded versions of previously published articles] (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915; repr. with “Prolegomenon” by David Noel Freedman [Library of Biblical Studies; New York: Ktav, 1972]; repr. of 1915 ed., Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002); Isaiah I-XXXIX [only chs. 1-27 are covered] [ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912].

Samuel R. Driver and George B. Gray, Job [Gray is responsible for the discussion of rhythms in the introduction and pertinent notes] [ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921]). 

Harm van Grol

Van Grol’s analysis of verse structure marks an advance over earlier attempts and is a model of clarity. He excels at close reading. 

“Paired Tricola in the Psalms, Isaiah and Jeremiah,” JSOT 25 (1983) 55-73; De versbouw in het klassieke hebreeuws: Fundamentele verkenningen, Deel 1: Metriek (diss., Catholic Theological Univ. of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1986); “Classical Hebrew Metrics and Zephaniah 2-3,” in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (ed. Willem van der Meer and Johannes De Moor; JSOTSup 74; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988) 186-206; “Clause, Sentence and Versification: A Theoretical and Practical Exploration of the Role of Syntax in Versification, with Isaiah 5:1-7 as Example,” in Prophet on the Screen: Computerized Description and Literary Interpretation of Isaianic Texts (ed. Eep Talstra and Archibald L. H. M. van Wieringen; Applicatio 9; Amsterdam: VU Univ. Press, 1992) 70-117; “Psalm 27:1-6: A Literary Stylistic Analysis,” in Give Ear to my Words: Psalms and other Poetry in and around the Bible: Essays in honour of Professor N. A. van Uchelen (ed. Janet Dyk; Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1996) 23-38; “An Analysis of the Verse Structure of Isaiah 2427,” in Studies in Isaiah 24-27: The Isaiah Workshop (ed. Hendrik Jan Bosman and Harm van Grol; OTS 43; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 51-80; “De Strofische Dynamiek van Psalm 26: Een Visie op Versbouw,” in Psalmen (ed. Janet W. Dyk; ACEBT 18; Maastricht: Shaker, 2000) 19-31; “The Torah as a Work of YHWH: A Reading of Psalm 111,” in Unless Someone Guide Me - : Festschrift for Karel A. Deurloo (ed. Janet W. Dyk et al.; ACEBT.S 2; Maastricht: Shaker) 229-36; “Psalm 146: Versbouw, Genre en Motieven” (unpublished ms.; Utrecht, 2001); “Psalm, Psalter and Prayer,” in Prayer from Tobit to Qumran. Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg, Austria, 5-9 July 2003 (ed. Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004) 41-70.

Harm van Grol and Hendrik Jan Bosman, “Annotated Translation of Isaiah 2427,” in Studies in Isaiah 24-27: The Isaiah Workshop (ed. Hendrik Jan Bosman and Harm van Grol; OTS 43; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 3-12.

 Benjamin Harshav [Hrushovski]

 

Harshav’s scintillating scholarship takes in Hebrew poetry of all periods. Some of his essays of more general interest are listed in the next section.

“On Free Rhythms in Modern Poetry,” in Style in Language (ed. Thomas A. Sebeok; Cambridge: Technology Press of MIT, 1960) 173-90; “Do Sounds Have Meaning? The Problem of Expressiveness of Sound Patterns in Poetry (Hebr.),” Hasifrut 1 (1968) 412-20; “The Major Systems of Hebrew Rhyme: From the Piyyut to the Present Day (500 A.D. – 1970): An Essay on Basic Concepts (Hebr., with Eng. Summary),” Hasifrut 2 (1969) 721-49. “The Meaning of Sound Patterns in Poetry: An Interaction Theory,” Poetics Today 2 (1980) 39-56; “Prosody, Hebrew,” EncJud 13 (1971) cols. 1195-1240; 1200-1202; “Note on the Systems of Hebrew Versification,” in The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (ed. T. Carmi; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981) 57-72; 58-60; “Prophecy” (unpubl. ms.; Berlin, 1983); republished or published for the first time, the last two essays are expected to appear in a volume authored by the present writer and entitled Regularities in Ancient Hebrew Verse.

Raymond de Hoop

De Hoop develops a theory according to which Masoretic accentuation and delimitation markers in the ancient versions instantiate a poetic reading of biblical verse. He researches the question from a number of angles. Paul Sanders and Thomas Renz have similar approaches. For another view, consonant with my own, see Revell. De Hoop identifies a style of literature he refers to as “narrative poetry.” But as he also notes, the question of how to distinguish poetry and prose in ancient Hebrew literature has not yet been settled. 

“The Book of Jonah as Poetry: An Analysis of Jonah 1:1-16,” in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (ed. Willem van der Meer and Johannes C. de Moor; JSOTSup 74, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988); Kamper School en Masoretische Accenten: Evaluatie en Perspectief (unpubl. ms., Kampen, 1993); Genesis 49 in its Literary and Historical Context (OTS 39; Leiden: Brill, 1999); “The Testament of David: A Response to W. T. Koopmans,” VT 45 (1995) 270-79; “The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of a Recent Approach, Part I,” JNSL 26/1 (2000) 47-73; “The Colometry of Hebrew Verse and the Masoretic Accents: Evaluation of a Recent Approach, Part II,” JNSL 26/2 (2000) 65-100; “Lamentations: The Qinah-Metre Questioned,” in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch; Pericope 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000) 80-104; “Genesis 49 Revisited: The Poetic Structure of Jacob’s Testament and the Ancient Versions,” in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature (ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch; Pericope 4; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003) 1-32; “‘Trichotomy’ in Masoretic Accentuation in Comparison with the Delimitation of Units in the Versions: With Special Attention to the Introduction to Direct Speech,” in idem, 33-47; “De prolog van het boek Job: proza of poëzie? Job 1:1-5 als testcase” (forthcoming).

 Marjo C. A. Korpel

Korpel’s structural analyses of biblical texts are insightful and clear. In her commentary on Isa 40-55 (coauthor Johannes De Moor), she demonstrates that delimitation markers in ancient manuscripts are a helpful but not a failsafe resource in the analysis of poetic structure. She is founder of the Pericope project and has set about putting the field of delimitation criticism on surer foundations (www.pericope.net). On the face of it, her work on the book of Ruth and Lev 26:3-45 undermines the validity of the dichotomization of ancient Hebrew literature into poetry and prose. In my view, her analyses are hampered by adherence to details of the “Kampen school” text model for biblical and Ugaritic poetry. The Kampen text model is so broadly gauged that the elevated prose of Ruth or Genesis must also be understood as poetry. The Kampen model might benefit from revision in the direction of the text models of Fokkelman, van Grol, Harshav, and the present writer.

“The Literary Genre of the Song of the Vineyard (Isa. 5:1-7),” in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (ed. Willem van der Meer and Johannes C. de Moor; JSOTSup 74, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988) 119-55; “The Epilogue to the Holiness Code,” in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (ed. Johannes C. de Moor and Wilfrid G. E. Watson; AOAT 42; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993) 123-150; “Structural Analysis as a Took for Redaction Criticism: The Example of Isaiah 5 and 10.1-6,” JSOT 69 (1996) 53-71; “Introduction to the Series Pericope,” in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch; Pericope 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000) 1-50; “Unit Division in the Book of Ruth: With Examples from Ruth 3,” in ibid., 130-148; The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pericope 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001); “The Priestly Blessing Revisited (Num. 6:22-27),” in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature (ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch; Pericope 4; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003) 61-88.

Marjo C. A. Korpel and Johannes C. de Moor, “Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry,” UF 18 (1986) 173-212 (repr. in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry [ed. Willem van der Meer and Johannes C. de Moor; JSOTSup 74; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988] 1-61); idem, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40-55 (OTS 41; Leiden: Brill, 1998).

James L. Kugel

Kugel takes aim at unrefined notions of parallelism and poetry in the study of ancient Hebrew literature. His polemics have not led to an abandonment of the categories of prose and poetry in the field – he himself went on to make use of the distinction.

The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1981; repr. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1998); “Some Thoughts on Future Research into Biblical Style: Addenda to The Idea of Biblical Poetry,” JSOT 28 (1984) 107-117; The Great Poems of the Bible: A Reader’s Companion with New Translations (New York: Free Press, 1999).

 Francis Landy

Landy’s insights into biblical poems are piercing and erratic. The uniqueness of the perch from which he chooses to read the text makes him a challenging read.

“The Song of Songs and the Garden of Eden,” JBL 98 (1979) 513-528; “Beauty and the Enigma: An Inquiry into Some Interrelated Episodes of the Song of Songs,” JSOT (1980) 55-106; “Irony and Catharsis in Biblical Poetry: David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan,” European Judaism 15 (1981) 3-13; “Structure and Mythology in the Song of Songs,” Prospice 11 (1981) 97-117; “Two Versions of Paradise: The Metaphor of the Garden in the Song of Songs and the Garden of Eden,” Harvest 28 (1982) 112-129; “The Case of Kugel: Do We Find Ourselves When We Lose Ourselves in the Text?” Comparative Criticism 5 (1983) 305-316; “Eros and Hieros in the Song of Songs,” Heythrop Journal 24 (1983) 301-307; Paradoxes of Paradise: Identity and Difference in the Song of Songs (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983); “Two Versions of Paradise,” in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs (ed. Athalya Brenner; The Feminist Companion to the Bible 1: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1983/1993) 129-142; “Poetics and Parallelism: Some Comments on James Kugel's The Idea of Biblical Poetry,” JSOT (1984) 61-87; “Recent Developments in Biblical Poetics,” Prooftexts 7 (1987) 163-178; “The Song of Songs” and “Lamentations,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987) 305-319 and 329334; “Vision and Poetic Speech in Amos,” HAR 11 (1987) 223-246; “Humour as a Tool for Biblical Exegesis,” in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible (ed. Yehuda T. Radday; JSOTSup 92 = Bible and Literature Series 23; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990) 99-115; “Jouissance and Poetics,” USQR 45 (1991) 51-64; “In Defense of Jakobson,” JBL 111 (1992) 105-113; “The Construction of the Subject and the Symbolic Order: A Reading of the Last Three Suffering Servant Songs,” in Among the Prophets. Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings (ed. Philip R. Davies and David J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 144; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 60-71; “Tracing the Voice of the Other: Isaiah 28 and the Covenant with Death,” in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (ed. J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 143; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 140-162; “On Metaphor, Play, and Nonsense,” Semeia 61 (1993) 219-237; “In the Wilderness of Speech: Problems of Metaphor in Hosea,” BibInt 3 (1995) 35-59; “Fantasy and the Displacement of Pleasure: Hosea 2, 4-17,” in A Feminist Companion to The Latter Prophets (ed. Athalya Brenner; The Feminist Companion to the Bible 8; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 146-160; Hosea (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995); “Strategies of Concentration and Diffusion in Isaiah 6,” BibInt 7 (1999) 58-86; “Seraphim and Poetic Process,” in The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation, and Biblical Interpretation. Essays in Honour of Robert C. Culley at the Time of His Retirement (ed. Fiona C. Black, Roland Boer, and Erin Runions; SBL Semeia studies 36; Atlanta: SBL, 1999, 15-34; “The Covenant with Death,” in Strange Fire. Reading the Bible after the Holocaust (ed. Tod Linafelt; The Biblical Seminar 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 220-232; “Vision and Voice in Isaiah,” JSOT 88 (2000) 19-36; Beauty and the Enigma and Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 312; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001 [introduction to and collection of previous essays]); “Ghostwriting Isaiah,” in First Person. Essays in Biblical Autobiography (ed. Philip R. Davies; The Biblical Seminar 81; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 93-114; “Prophetic Intercourse,” in Sense and Sensitivity. Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll (ed. Alisdair G. Hunter and Philip R. Davies; JSOTSup 348; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 2002) 261-279; “Torah and Anti-Torah: Isaiah 2:2-4 and 1:10-26,” BibInt 11 (2003) 317- 334; “From David to David: Psalm 24 and David Clines,” in Reading from Right to Left. Essays on the Hebrew Bible in honour of David J. A. Clines (ed. Cheryl J. Exum and Hugh G. M. Williamson, JSOTSup 373; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003) 275-289; “The Ghostly Prelude to Deutero-Isaiah,” BibInt 14 (2006) 332-363; “Writing, Depression, and the Parable of the Vineyard,” in The Future of Biblical Interpretation (ed. Alan Hauser; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming).

 Joel M. LeMon

Following the lead of Pardee, LeMon examines the phenomenon of parallelism from a variety of angles in an example of Ugaritic poetry. He might repeat the exercise with profit on an example of ancient Hebrew poetry. 

“The Power of Parallelism in KTU² 1.119: Another ‘Trial Cut,’” UF 37 (2005) forthcoming.

 Julius Ley

Ley pioneered the analysis of ancient Hebrew verse in terms of strong stresses. The miminal counting unit in Ley’s work is what linguists today call the prosodic word. Ley conceived of the bipartite line as the fundamental building block of ancient Hebrew poetry, and identified the tripartite line (‘dreigliedrige Langverse’) as a rare variation thereof.

Die metrischen Formen der hebräischen Poesie (Leipzig: Teubner, 1866); “Über den Rhythmus in der hebräischen Poesie,” NJahrbPP 41 (1871) 65- ; 257- ; “Über den Rhythmus, Vers- und Strophenbau in der hebräischen Poesie,” NJahrbPP 42 (1872) 209- ; Grundzüge des Rhythmus, des Vers- und Strophenbaues in der hebräischen Poesie: Nebst Analyse einer Auswahl von Psalmen und anderen strophischen Dichtungen der verschiedenen Vers- und Strophenarten mit vorangehendem Abriss der Metrik der hebräischen Poesie (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1875); “Emendationen zu den Psalmen mit Hilfe der Metrik,” TSK 50 (1877) 501- ; Leitfaden der Metrik der hebräischen Poesie nebst dem ersten Buche der Psalmen nach rhythmischer Vers- und Strophenabteilung mit metrischer Analyse (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1887); “Beiträge zur hebräischen Grammatik und Metrik,” NJahrbPP 61 (1891) 341- ; 408- ; “Origenes über hebräische Metrik,” ZAW (1892) 212- ; “Beiträge zum Rhythmus und zur Metrik der hebräischen Poesie,” NJahrbPP 63 (1893) 607- ; “Die metrische Beschaffenheit des Buches Hiob,” TSK 68 (1895) 635-92; “Die metrische Beschaffenheit des Buches Hiob,” TSK 70 (1897) 7-42; Die Bedeutung des Ebed Yahwe im 2 Teil des Jesaja,” TSK 72 (1899) 163- ; 187- ; last published essay: “Metrische Analyse von Jesaja Kapitel I,” ZAW 22 (1902) 229-237; Das buch Hiob: nach seinem Inhalt, seiner Kunstgestaltung und religiösen Bedeutung: mit einem Vorwort von E. Kautzsch (Halle: Buchhandlung Waisenhauses, 1903).

 Robert Lowth

Lowth’s seminal works remain essential reading. A selection of literature on Lowth is also listed.

De sacra poesi Hebraeorum: praelectiones academicae Oxonii habitae, subjicitur Metricae Harianae brevis confutatio et oratio Crewiana (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1753; 1763, 1775; repr. with introd. by David Reibel; Robert Lowth [1710-1787]: The Major Works; London: Routledge/Thoemmes Press, 1995); ed. Johannes David Michaelis, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum . . .  notas et epimetra adjecit Ioannes David Michaelis (Göttingen: Pockwiz u. Barmeier, 175861; Göttingen: Ioan. Christ. Dieterich, 1770); Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews: From the Latin of the late Robert Lowth, by G. Gregory; to which are added the principal notes of Professor Michaelis and notes by the translator and others (London: J. Johnson, 1787; repr. with introd. by Vincent Freimarck and bibliogr. note by Bernhard Fabian, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969; repr. with introd. by David Reibel; Robert Lowth [1710-1787]: The Major Works; London: Routledge / Thoemmes Press, 1995; repr. of the 4th Eng. ed. [London: T. Tegg, 1839]; Whitefish MT: Kessinger, 2004); Isaiah: A New Translation with a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes (London: J. Dodsley for J. Nichols, 1778; repr. with introd. by David Reibel; Robert Lowth [1710-1787]: The Major Works; London: Routledge / Thoemmes Press, 1995; 10th ed.; London: T. Tegg, 1833).

For the history of reception of De sacra poesi Hebraeorum and Isaiah, see the introductions in the reprint editions; Aelred Baker, “Parallelism: England’s Contribution to Biblical Studies,” CBQ 35 (1973) 429-40; Christoph Bultmann, Die biblische Urgeschichte in der Aufkärung. Johann Gottfried Herders Interpretation der Genesis als Antwort auf die Religionskritik David Humes (BHT 110; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 75-85; Gary Stansell, “Lowth’s Isaiah Commentary and Romanticism,” in Society of Biblical Literature 2000 Seminar Papers (SBLSP Series 39; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000) 148-82; Patricia K. Tull, “What’s New in Lowth? Synchronic Reading in the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Centuries,” in Society of Biblical Literature 2000 Seminar Papers, 183-217; Robert P. Gordon, “The Legacy of Lowth: Robert Lowth and the Book of Isaiah in Particular,” in Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (ed. Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg; JSOTSup 333; The Hebrew Bible and its Versions 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 57-76; Rudolf Smend, “Der Entdecker des Parallelismus: Robert Lowth (1710-1787).” in Prophetie und Psalmen. Festschrift für Klaus Seybold zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Beat Huwyler, Hans-Peter Mathys, and Beat Weber; AOAT 280; Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2001) 185-99; Gary Stansell, “The Poet’s Prophet: Bishop Robert Lowth’s Eighteenth-Century Commentary on Isaiah,” in “As Those Who Are Taught”: The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL (ed. Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull; SBL Symposium Series 27; Atlanta: SBL, 2006) 223-242.

 Pieter van der Lugt

Van der Lugt’s analysis of strophic structures is based on semantic considerations, whereas one might expect strophe boundaries to be determined first and foremost by a conventional hierarchy of forms. His structural analyses are of heuristic value for a close reading of the text. His eye for long-distance parallelisms captures details of semantic organization that have been overlooked by others. For a review of van der Lugt 2006, see Josef M. Oesch, RBL 02/2007, www.bookreviews.org.

In his latest monograph, following the lead of Casper J. Labuschagne, van der Lugt sees all manner of numerological patterns instantiated by ancient Hebrew poetry. For a critical review of Labuschagne’s approach, see Richard A. Taylor, “[On] Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible Codes,” JETS 44 (2001) 727-729, online at www.findarticles.com. 

Strofische structuren in de bijbels-hebreeuwse poëzie. De geschiednis van het onderzoek en een bijdrage tot de theorievorming omtrent de strofenbouw van de Psalmen (Kampen: Kok, 1980); Rhetorical Criticism and the Poetry of the Book of Job (OTS 32; Leiden: Brill, 1995); Cantos and Strophes in Biblical Hebrew Poetry with Special Reference to the First Book of the Psalter (OTS 53; Leiden: Brill, 2006).

Roland Meynet

Meynet has founded a school of biblical interpretation that seeks to uncover structure and figures of composition in delimitable textual units. Not all of the texts treated by Meynet are examples of verse, but many certainly are. For an overview, see www.unigre.it/rhetorica%20biblica/. The method of analysis involves the search for parallelisms across macro and micro units and their classification in terms of chiastic (a¹b¹:b²a²), concentric (a¹b¹c¹d¹e¹: x:e²d²c²b²a²), and simplex parallel (a¹b¹c¹d¹e¹:a²b²c²d²e²) structures.

The tradition of analysis Meynet develops has roots, as he shows, in the work of Christian Schoettgen, Johann Albrecht Bengel, Robert Lowth, John Jebb, Thomas Boys, John Forbes, and Nils Wilhelm Lund. Before them, unbeknownst to Meynet, came John Smith, The mystery of rhetorick unveil'd: Wherein above 130 of the tropes and figures are severally derived from the Greek into English; together with lively definitions, and a variety of Latin, English, scriptural examples, pertinent to each of them apart. Eminently delightful and profitable for young scholars, and other of all sorts, enabling them to discern and imitate the elegancy in any author they read  (London: George Eversden, 1683; repr. with the title Mystery of Rhetoric Unveiled (1657) (English linguistics 1500-1800: a collection of facsimile reprints 205; Menston: Scolar Press, 1969). 

For an introduction to Meynet’s method in English, see Rhetorical Analysis. An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric (1998). The formatting of the volume does not follow standard editorial procedure. It is sometimes difficult to know when the author is speaking as opposed to quoting another. For a more adequate introduction, see Traité de rhétorique biblique (2007).

In Bernard Witek’s Bibliography of Rhetorical Analysis, the figures of composition identified by Meynet are listed along with the contributions in which they are discussed. For this bibliography and a complete Meynet bibliography, go here.

L’Analyse rhétorique. Une nouvelle méthode pour comprendre la Bible. Textes fondateurs et exposé systématique (Initiations; Paris: Cerf, 1989; rev. ed. Un manuel, 1992, www.unigre.it; It. trans. L’analisi retorica [BiBi(B) 8; Brescia: Queriniana, 1992]; rev. ed. Un manuale, 1994, www.unigre.it; ET Rhetorical Analysis. An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric [rev. and augmented ed. of French original; JSOTSup 256; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998]; newly revised and augmented ed.; Traité de rhétorique biblique [RhSem 4; Paris: Lethielleux, 2007]); “A Análise retórica. Um novo método para compreender a Bíblia,” Broteria 137 (1993) 391-408; = “Un nuovo metodo per comprendere la Bibbia: l’analisi retorica,” CivCatt (1994) 121-134; = Un articolo, www.unigre.it; = “L’analyse rhétorique, une nouvelle méthode pour comprendre la Bible,” NRTh 116 (1994) 641-657; = Un article, www.unigre.it; “‘Le lion a rugi. Qui ne craindrait?’ La peur dans le livre d’Amos,” Lumen Vitae 49 (1994) 157-165; “‘Pour comprendre proverbes et énigmes:’ analyse rhétorique de Pr 1,1-7 ; 10,1-5 ; 26,1-12,” in Ouvrir les Écritures: Mélanges offerts à Paul Beauchamp à l'occasion de ses soixante-dix ans (ed. Pietro Bovati and Roland Meynet; LD 162; Paris: Cerf, 1995); 97-119; Lire la Bible (Dominos 92; Paris: Flammarion, 1996; It. trans. Leggere la Bibbia [Due punti 57; Milano: Il Saggiatore – Flammarion, 1998]; Port. trans. Ler a Bíblia, [Biblioteca básica de ciência e cultura 102; Lisbona: Istituto Piaget, 2004]; Span. trans. Leer la Biblia [Mosaicos; México – Buenos Aires: Siglo veintiuno, 2003]; “I frutti dell’analisi retorica per l’esegesi biblica,” Greg 77 (1996) 403-436; Fr. trans., red./ ed., “Les fruits de l’analyse rhétorique pour l’exégèse biblique,” StRh 14, 2005 [2004], www.unigre.it; “E ora, scrivete per voi questo cantico.” Introduzione pratica all’analisi retorica, 1. Detti e proverbi (ReBib 3; Rome: Dehoniane, 1996; = “Et maintenant, écrivez pour vous ce cantique.” Exercices pratiques d’analyse rhétorique. 1. Dictons et proverbes, online ed., Exercices, 2004, www.unigre.it; “Le psaume 145,” Annales du Département des lettres arabes (Institut de lettres orientales) [Fs Maurice Fyet] 6 (1991-92) 213-225; rev. ed., StRh 1, 2004 [2002], www.unigre.it; “Analyse rhétorique du Psaume 51. Hommage critique à Marc Girard,” RivBib 45 (1997) 187-226; “Le Psaume 67. ‘Je ferai de toi la lumière des nations,’’’ NRTh 120 (1998) 3-17; “Le quatrième chant du Serviteur (Is 52,13– 53,12),” Greg 81 (1999) 407-440; “La salvezza per mezzo della conoscenza. Il quarto canto del Servo (Is 52,13–53,12),” StRh 5, 2004 [2002], www.unigre.it; “El cuarto canto del Siervo (Is 52,13–53,12),” StRh 6, 2004 [2002], www.unigre.it; Wprowadzenie do hebrajskiej retoryki biblijnej (Études de rhétorique biblique), (Myśl Teologiczna 30; Kraków: WAM, 2001); “The Question at the Centre: A Specific Device of Rhetorical Argumentation in Scripture,” in Rhetorical Argumentation in Biblical Texts. Essays from the Lund 2000 Conference (ed. Anders Eriksson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and Walter Überlacker; Emory Studies in Early Christianity 8; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2002) 200-214; Lire la Bible (Champs 537; Paris: Flammarion, 2003; It. trans. Leggere la Bibbia. Un’introduzione all’esegesi, (Collana biblica; Bologna: EDB, 2004; La Bible (Idées reçues 94; Paris: Le Cavalier bleu, 2005; “La citation au centre,” MUSJ 58 (2005) 29-65; Traité de rhétorique biblique (RhSem 4; Paris: Lethielleux, 2007; see above, under Meynet 1989, for earlier versions).

Naïla Farouki, Roland Meynet, Louis Pouzet, and Ahyaf Sinno, Tar īqat al-tahl īl al-balāġī wa-l-tafsīr. Tahlīlāt nusūs min al-kit āb al-muqaddas wa min al-Hadīt alnabawī (Beyrouth: Dar el-Machreq, 1993; Fr. trans. Rhétorique sémitique. Textes de la Bible et de la Tradition musulmane [Patrimoines. Religions du Livre; Paris: Cerf, 1998]); Roland Meynet and Pietro Bovati, Le Livre du prophète Amos (RhBib 2; Paris: Cerf, 1994; It. trans. Il libro del profeta Amos [ReBib 2; Rome: Dehoniane, 1995]); idem, La Fin d’Israël. Paroles d’Amos (LiBi 101; Paris: Cerf, 1994).

 Cynthia L. Miller

Miller’s research on ellipsis in Biblical Hebrew places our understanding of the phenomenon on firm linguistic foundations. 

“A Linguistic Approach to Ellipsis in Biblical Poetry: (Or, What to Do When Exegesis of What is There Depends on What Isn’t),” BBR 13 (2003) 251-70; “Ellipsis Involving Negation in Biblical Poetry,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays offered to honor of Michael V. Fox on the occasion of his sixtyfifth birthday (ed. Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 37-52; “Constraints on Ellipsis in Biblical Hebrew,” in Papers on Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics in Honor of Gene B. Gragg (SAOC; Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the Univ. of Chicago, forthcoming); Elliptical Structures in Biblical Hebrew (forthcoming).

Karl Möller

Möller’s contribution to ancient Hebrew poetry studies, like that of Gitay, is chiefly indirect. Möller’s attention to the question of rhetorical strategies in prophetic literature has led to the identification of rhetorical units of greater length than have usually been thought to exist. The rhetorical units coincide with poetic units of equal coherence and length.

“Rehabilitation eines Propheten. Die Botschaft des Amos aus rhetorischer Perspektive unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Am. 9,7-15,” EuroJTh 6 (1997) 41-55; “"Hear This Word Against You": A Fresh Look at the Arrangement and the Rhetorical Strategy of the Book of Amos,” VT 50 (2000) 499-518; “Renewing Historical Criticism,” in Renewing Biblical Interpretation (ed. Craig Bartholomew, Colin Greene, and Karl Möller; Scripture and Hermeneutics Series; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000) 145-171; A Prophet in Debate. The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos (JSOTSup 372; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003); “Reconstructing and Interpreting Amos's Literary Prehistory: A Dialogue with Redaction Criticism,” in "Behind" the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (ed. Craig Bartholomew, C. Stephen Evans, Mary Healy, and Rae Murray; Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 4; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003) 397-441.

 Michael Patrick O’Connor

O’Connor’s magnum opus reopens old questions and poses new ones. He pays attention to rarely noticed features beyond parallelism that characterize ancient Hebrew verse. Examples include patterns of syntactic dependency, patterns of construct and adjectival combinations, and the out workings of Panini’s law.

Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980; reissued 1997 with “The Contours of Biblical Hebrew Verse, An Afterword to Hebrew Verse Structure” [pp. 631-61]); “Unanswerable the Knack of Tongues: The Linguistic Study of Verse,” in Exceptional Language and Linguistics (ed. Loraine K. Obler and Lise Menn; New York: Academic Press, 1982) 143-68; “The Pseudosorites: A Type of Paradox in Hebrew Verse,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (ed. Elaine R. Follis; JSOTSup40; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 161-72; “The Pseudosorites in Hebrew Verse,” in Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Anderson’s Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Edgar W. Conrad and Edward G. Newing; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987) 239-53; “Parallelism,” in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (gen. ed. Alex Preminger and Terry V. F. Brogan; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 877-79; “Parataxis and Hypotaxis,” in idem, 879-80.

 Dennis Pardee

Pardee’s painstaking analyses of parallelism and comments on the work of Collins, Geller, and O’Connor advance the discussion. See LeMon for a recent review and application of Pardee’s method.

Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic and Hebrew Metrics” in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic (ed. Gordon Douglas Young; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 113-30; review of M. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1980), JNES 42 (1983) 298-301; “The Semantic Parallelism of Psalm 89,” in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström (ed. W. Boyd Barick and John R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984) 121-37; “The Poetic Structure of Psalm 93,” in Cananea Selecta: Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zum 60 Geburtstag (SELVOA 5; Verona: Essedue, 1988) 163-70; Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetic Parallelism: A Trial Cut (‛nt I and Proverbs 2) (VTSup 39; Leiden: Brill, 1988); overview in “Appendix I: Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry: Parallelism” and “Appendix II: Types and Distributions in Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry,” 168-192, 193-201; “Structure and Meaning in Hebrew Poetry: The Example of Psalm 23,” Maarav 5-6 (1990) 239-80; “Acrostics and Parallelism: The Parallelistic Structure of Psalm 111,” Maarav 8 (1992) 117-38; “On Psalm 29: Structure and Meaning,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; VTSup 99; FIOTL 4; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 153-83.

 Ernest John Revell

Revell’s studies of pausal forms, spacing patterns, and accent systems in ancient manuscripts suggest that a syntactic parse of biblical texts was stabilized in the reading tradition as early as the Second Temple Period. He also points out that the accents are not meant to represent poetic structure. The degree to which the accents delimit versets and lines is “an accidental side-effect of the close relation between linguistic units (semantic or syntactic) and poetical cola” (“Five Theses on the Masoretic Accents Formulated by Paul Sanders for a Planned Discussion at the SBL Groningen Meeting 2004: A Response,” 2). His emphasis on the importance of prosodic phrases in the conditioning of vowel and stress patterns should not be overlooked.

“The Oldest Evidence for the Hebrew Accent System,” BJRL 54 (1971-72) 21422; “Biblical Punctuation and Chant in the Second Temple Period,” JSJ 7 (1976) 181-98; “Pausal Forms in Biblical Hebrew: Their Function, Origin, and Significance,” JSS 25 (1980) 165-79; “Pausal Forms and the Structure of Biblical Poetry,” VT 31 (1981) 186-99; Nesiga in Tiberian Hebrew (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 39; Madrid: CSIC, 1987); “Stress and the Waw ‘Consecutive’ in Biblical Hebrew,” JAOS 104 (1984) 437-444; “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew,” HAR 9 (1985) 277-300, 299; “Stress Position in Verb Forms with Vocalic Affix,” JSS 32 (1987) 249-271, 259; “Five Theses on the Masoretic Accents Formulated by Paul Sanders for a Planned Discussion at the SBL Groningen Meeting 2004: A Response,” online at www.pericope.net.

Paul Sanders

Sanders pays careful attention to a wide range of delimitation markers in ancient textual traditions. He opens up new avenues of research. See Revell for a critique of some of Sanders’ conclusions.

The Provenance of Deuteronomy (OTS 37; Leiden: Brill, 1996); “Ancient Colon Delimitations: 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18,” in Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch; Pericope 1: Assen: van Gorcum, 2000) 277-311; idem, “The Colometric Layout of Psalms 1 to 14 in the Aleppo Codex,” in Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch; Pericope 3: Assen: van Gorcum, 2002) 226-257; idem, “Pausal Forms and the Delimitation of Cola in Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” in Unit Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature (ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Josef M. Oesch; Pericope 4: Assen: van Gorcum, 2003) 264-278.

Stanislav Segert

Segert’s love of poetry led him to turn to questions of prosody and meter in ancient Hebrew literature and beyond. The phenomenon of parallelism was another focus of his research. Segert’s call for an appropriation of the work of Jiří Levý and other Prague structuralists by students of ancient Hebrew verse has, unfortunately, gone unheeded. 

The range of Segert’s studies is exemplary. As Segert understood, there is no reason to doubt that Hebrew verse conformed to first one and then another prosodic system over the course of a history stretching back more than three millennia. But Segert’s understanding of the history of poetic prosody in the first millennium of extant Hebrew verse is not closely argued, and has failed so far to find a sympathetic readership.

“Vorarbeiten zur hebräischen Metrik I-II,” ArOr 21 (1953) 481-542; idem, “Die Versform des Hohenliedes,” in Charisteria Orientalia praecipue ad Persiam pertinentia [Jan Rypka FS] (ed. Felix Tauer, Vera Kubícková, and Ivan Hrbek; Praha: Nakladatelství Ceskoslovenské Akademie Ved, 1956) 285-99; idem, “Die Methoden der althebräischen Metrik,” CV 1 (1958) 233-41; idem, “Problems of Hebrew Prosody,” in Congress Volume, Oxford 1959 (VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1959) 283-91; “Versbau und Sprachbau in der althebraischen Poesie,” MIO 15 (1969) 312-21; “Ugaritic Poetry and Poetics: Some Preliminary Observations,” UF 11 (1979) 729-738; “Parallelism in Ugaritic Poetry,” JAOS 103 (1983) 295-306; “Prague Structuralism in American Biblical Scholarship: Performance and Potential,” The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and Michael P. O’Connor; ASOR Special Volume Series 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 697-708; “Ethiopic and Hebrew Prosody: Some Preliminary Observations,” in Ethiopic Studies Dedicated to Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (ed. Stanislav Segert and András J. E. Bodrigligeti; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983) 337-350; “Semitic Poetic Structures in the New Testament,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II/25 (1984) 1433-1462; “Hebrew Poetic Parallelism as Reflected in the Septuagint,” in La Septuaginta en la investigacíon contemporanea. V Congreso de la IOSCS (ed. Natalio Fernandez Marcos; Textos y estudios “Cardinal Cisneros” 34; Madrid: Instituto “Arias Montano,” 1985) 133-148; “Symmetric and Asymmetric Verses in Hebrew Biblical Poetry,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985. Division A: The Period of the Bible (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 33-37; “Rendering of Parallelistic Structures in the Targum Neofiti: The Song of Moses (Deut. 32:1-43),” in Salvación en la palabra; Targum, Derash, Berith, en memoria del profesor Alejandro Díez Macho (ed. Domingo Muñoz León; Madrid: Cristiandad, 1986) 515-532; “Preliminary Notes on the Structure of the Aramaic Poems in the Papyrus Amherst 63,” UF 18 (1986) 271300; “‘Live coals heaped on the head’” [Proverbs 25:21-22] in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East; Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (ed. John H. Marks and Robert M. Good; Guilford: Four Quarters, 1987) 159-164; “Phonological and Syntactic Structuring Principles in Northwest Semitic Verse Systems,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Hamito-Semitic Congress, Marburg, 20-22 September, 1983 (ed. Hermann Jungraithmayr and Walter W. Müller; Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 44; Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1987) 543-557; “Observations on Poetic Structures in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” Revue de Qumran 13 (1988) 215-223; “Parallelism in the Qolasta,” in חכמות בנתה ביתה: Studia semitica, necnon iranica: Rudolpho Macuch septuagenario ab amicis et discipulis dedicata (ed. Maria Macuch, Christa Müller-Kessler, and Bert G. Fragner; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989) 283–301; “History and Poetry: Poetic Patterns in Nehemiah 9:5-37,” in Storia e tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin (ed. Daniele Garrone and Felice Israel; Brescia: Paideia, 1991) 255265; “Assonance and Rhyme in Hebrew Poetry,” Maarav 8 (1992) 171-179; “Parallelistic Structures in the Aramaic Enoch Fragments,” in Intertestamental Essays in Honour of Józef Tadeusz Milik (ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera; Qumranica Mogilanensia 6; Kraków: The Enigma Press 1992) 187-203; “Assonance and Rhyme in Hebrew Poetry,” Maarav 8 (1993) 171-179; “Poetic Structures in the Hebrew Sections of the Book of Daniel [in Dan 8-12],” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots; Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield (ed. Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff: Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 261-275; “Parallelism in the Alphabetic Apostrophe to Zion,” Archív Orientální 64 (1996) 269-277; “Song of Moses and Ugaritic Poetry. Some Parallelistic Observations,” in "Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf"; Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient; Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres (ed. Manfried Dietrich and ingo Kottsieper: AOAT 250: Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998) 701-711; “Poetry and Arithmetic: Psalms 29 and 137,” in Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt; Festschrift für Hans-Peter Müller zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld; BZAW 278; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999) 165181; “Aramaic Poetry in the Old Testament [in Dan 2-7],” Archív Orientální 70 (2002) 65-79.

 Klaus Seybold

Seybold attends to many aspects of ancient Hebrew poetry which escape the notice of others. His wide ranging scholarship concentrates on the literary and theological dimensions of the texts he examines. StPs stands for Studien zur Psalmenauslegung (1998); StPr for Die Sprache der Propheten. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte der Prophetie (1999). 

Seybold’s Poetik der Psalmen (²2005) is a tour de force. Seybold argues at length for the appropriateness of the concept of meter relative to ancient Hebrew verse (102-159). He offers a critique of the approaches of O’Connor and Fokkelman. Seybold makes primary stress counts and a study of accentual rhythms standard features of his analysis, but also counts syllables and consonants (in the case of consonants, following Loretz and Kottsieper). He views syllables and consonants as complementary indices of the measured out nature of ancient Hebrew verse, but also notes the difficulties and limitations of the syllable, consonant, and mora (Christenson) counting methods (125-126).

Perhaps he bites off more than he can chew, but in the process, Seybold sketches a research program others will do well to occupy themselves with.

“Das Herrscherbild des Bileamorakels Num 24,15-19,” TZ 29 (1973) 1-19 (= StPr 35-51); Das Gebet des Kranken im Alten Testament. Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung und Zuordnung der Krankheits- und Heilungspsalmen (BWANT 99; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973); “Reverenz und Gebet. Erwägungen zu der Wendung hillâ panîm,” ZAW 88 (1976) 2-16 (= StPs 244-259); Der aaronitische Segen. Studien zu Num 6,22-27 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977); “Thesen zur Entstehung der Gottesknechtslieder,” BN 3 (1977) 33-34; “Die anthropologischen Beiträge aus Jesaja 2,” ZTK 74 (1977) 401-415 (= StPr 97-110); “Psalm 29. Redaktion und Rezeption,” (1978) (= StPs 85-111); Die Wallfahrtspsalmen. Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte von Ps 120-134 (BThSt 3; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978); “Die Redaktion der Wallfahrtspsalmen,” ZAW 91 (1979) 247-268 (= StPs 208-230); “Psalm LVIII. Ein Lösungsversuch,” VT 30 (1980) 53-66 (= StPs 112-124). “Zur Geschichte des 29. Psalms,” TZ 36 (1980) 208-219; “Beiträge zur Psalmenforschung,” TRu 46 (1981) 1-18 (= StPs 9-26); “Psalm 104 im Spiegel seiner Unterschrift,” TZ 40 (1984) 1-11 (= StPs 161-172); “Der Weg des Lebens. Eine Studie zu Psalm 16,” TZ 40 (1984) 121-129 (= StPs 75-84); “Text und Textauslegung in Zef 2,1-3,” BN 25 (1984) 4954 (= StPr 137-142); Satirische Prophetie. Studien zum Buch Zefanja (SBS 120, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1985); Die Psalmen. Eine Einführung (UrbanTaschenbuch 382; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986; ²1991; Eng. trans. Introducing the Psalms [tr. R. Graeme Dunphy; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990; Kor. trans. [tr. Kun Ho Lee; Seoul: The Christian Literature Society, 1995]); “Der ‘Löwe’ von Jeremia XII 8,” VT 36 (1986) 93-104 (= StPr 164-174); “Das ‘Rebhuhn’ von Jeremia 17,11,” Bibl 68 (1987) 57-73 (= StPr 175-188); “Der Schutzpanzer des Propheten. Restaurationsarbeiten an Jer 15,11f.,” BZ 32 (1988) 265-273 (= StPr 189-199); “Bemerkungen zur mündlichen Überlieferung im alten Israel,” in Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung (ed. J. von Ungern-Sternberg and H. Reinau; Colloquium Rauricum 1; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1988, 141-148); “Vormasoretische Randnotizen in Nahum 1,” ZAW 101 (1989) 71-85 (= StPr 123-136); Profane Prophetie. Studien zum Buch Nahum (SBS 135: Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989; Nahum - Habakuk - Zephanja. (ZBK 24/2; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991); “Habakuk 2,4b und sein Kontext,” in Zur Aktualität des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Georg Sauer (ed. Siegfried Kreuzer and Kurt Lüthi; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1992, 99-107 (= StPs 189-198); “Asyl? Psalm 62 - Zeugnis eines Verfolgten,” ZMiss 18 (1992) 2-5 (= StPs 125-129); “Zur Vorgeschichte der liturgischen Formel ‘Amen,’” in Das universale Gebet. Festschrift für Jan Milic Lochman = TZ 48 (1992) 109117 (= StPs 260-269); “Psalm 141. Ein neuer Anlauf,” in Biblische Welten. Festschrift für Martin Metzger (ed. Wolfgang Zwickel; OBO 123; Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 199-214 (= StPs 173-188); Der Prophet Jeremia. Leben und Werk (Urban-Taschenbuch 416; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993); “Psalmen-Kommentare 1972-1994,” TRu 60 (1995) 113-130 (= StPs 27-45); “Das ‘Wir’ in den Asaph-Psalmen. Spezifische Probleme einer Psalmgruppe,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Festschrift für Walter Beyerlin (ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger; HBS 1, Freiburg: Herder, 1994, 1995) 143-155 (= StPs 231-243); “Poesie I,” TRE 26 (1996) 743-48; “Jerusalem in the View of the Psalms,” in The Centrality of Jerusalem. Historical Perspectives (ed. Marcel Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 7-14; “Beiträge zur neueren Psalmenforschung,” TRu 61 (1996) 247-274 (= StPs 46-74); Die Psalmen (HAT I/15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996); “Psalmen/Psalmenbuch,” TRE 27 (1997) 610-24; “Zu den Zeitvorstellungen in Psalm 90,” in Veritas hebraica. Festschrift für Ernst Jenni = TZ 53 (1997) 97-108 (= StPs 147-160); Studien zur Psalmenauslegung [StPs; collection of previous essays] (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998); “Akrostichie bei Deuterojesaja?” in Vielseitigkeit des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Georg Sauer (ed. James Alfred Loader and Hans Volker Kieweler; Wiener Alttestamentliche Studien 1; Frankfurt:  1999) 79-90 (= StPr 200210); “Der Name Deuterojesajas,” (= StPr 211-215); “Zur Sprache des Hohenliedes,” in Zur Phänomenologie des Glaubens. Festschrift für Heinrich Ott = TZ 55 (1999) 112-120; Die Sprache der Propheten. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte der Prophetie [StPr; collection of previous essays] (Zürich: Pano Verlag, 1999); “Formen der Textrezeption in Psalm 144,” in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift, Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck (ed. Reinhard G. Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid; BZAW 300; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000) 281-290; “Feindbild und Menschenwürde. Das Zeugnis der Psalmen,” in Menschenbild und Menschenwürde (ed. Eilert Herms; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2001) 307-319; “David als Psalmsänger der Bibel. Entstehung einer Symbolfigur,” in König David - biblische Schlüsselfigur und europäische Leitgestalt (ed. Walter Dietrich and Hubert Herkommer; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003) 145-164; “Akrostichie im Psalter,” in Alttestamentliche Forschung in der Schweiz, Festheft IOSOT 2001 = TZ 57 (2001) 172-183; “‘...und mein Schlaf war mir süß gewesen.’ Jer 31,26 und sein Kontext,” in Der Freund des Menschen. Festschrift für Georg Christian Macholz (ed. Arndt Meinhold and Agelika Berlejung; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003) 48-56; Poetik der Psalmen (Poetologische Studien zum Alten Testament I; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003, ²2005); Der Segen und andere liturgische Worte aus der hebräischen Bibel, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004, ²2005); “Zur Geschichte des vierten Davidpsalters (Pss 138-145),” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; SupVT 99; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 368-390; “Geschichte in der Krise. Geschichtstheologische Aspekte im Moselied Dt 32,” in Das Alte Testament – ein Geschichtsbuch?! Festschrift für Joachim Conrad (ed. Uwe Becker and Jürgen van Oorschot; Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 17; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005).

Klaus Seybold and Helga und Manfred Weippert, Beiträge zur prophetischen Bildsprache in Israel und Assyrien (OBO 64; Fribourg/Göttingen:

Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985).

 Eduard Sievers

Sievers’ expertise in prosody and phonology was immense. We might not wish to follow him in detail, but his fundamental approach to ancient Hebrew prosody, the approach pioneered by Ley, retains validity. 

Sievers adds a second primary stress to “long” words and deletes stress on “short” words in accordance with assumptions about the number of unstressed syllables that intervene between stressed syllables. But Sievers’ stress rules have little foundation in the received tradition. They unduly curtail the variety of shapes and sizes of the “foot” in ancient Hebrew verse. The foot in ancient Hebrew belongs to the dimension of rhythm, not meter (for this distinction, see the Glossary at www.ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad. com). To be sure, “ultra-long” words like בְּשָׁבֻעֵֹ֖תֵיכֶ֑ם and מִמַּחְשְׁבֵֹֽיכֶֽֽם may have received two stress maxima in ancient Hebrew. Zero to two nonmonomoraic syllables between stress maxima is indeed the norm. In a loose sense, ancient Hebrew possesses an iambic-anapestic rhythm, but said rhythm characterizes both poetry and prose. 

Sievers parsed the fluent prose of Genesis, Samuel, Jonah, and the narrative frame of the book of Job into prosodic phrases of roughly equal dimensions. One is reminded of the efforts of another great prosodist, George Saintsbury, whose A History of English Prose Rhythm (London: MacMillan, 1912) describes the measured rhythms of a swath of great English prose. A part of ancient Hebrew prose lends itself to this kind of analysis, even if said prose also differs in decisive ways from verse as found in, e.g., Isaiah, Amos, Zephaniah, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Lamentations, and Song of Songs.

Metrische Studien I: Studien zur hebräischen Metrik. Untersuchungen. Textproben (ASGW 21/1-2; Leipzig: Teubner, 1901); Metrische Studien II: Die hebräische Genesis. Texte. Zur Quellenscheidung und Textkritik (ASGW 23/1-2; Leipzig: Teubner, 1904-1905); “Alttestamentliche Miscellen” (1-10) [1: Isa 24-27; 2: Jonah; 3: Deutero-Zechariah; 4: Malachi; 5: Hosea; 6: Joel; 7: Obadiah; 8: Zephaniah; 9: Haggai; 10: Micah], in Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologischhistorische Klasse 56/4-59/1 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1905-1907); Amos. Metrisch bearbeitet (with Hermann Guthe; ASGW 23/3; Leipzig: Teubner, 1907); Metrische Studien III: Samuel. Metrisch herausgegeben. Text (ASGW 23/4; Leipzig: Teubner, 1907).

 Emanuel Tov

 

Tov’s discussion of the subdivision of poetical units into versets and/or lines in manuscripts from the Judean Desert and elsewhere is a necessary point of departure.

“Special Layout of Poetical Units in the Texts from the Judean Desert,” in Give Ear to my Words: Psalms and other Poetry in and around the Bible: Essays in honour of Professor N. A. van Uchelen (ed. Janet Dyk; Amsterdam: Societas Hebraica Amstelodamensis, 1996) 115-28. 

 Wilfred G. E. Watson

Watson’s major monographs on techniques in ancient Hebrew poetry are standard reference works. They include many examples from Ugaritic and Akkadian literature. It is hard to make use of them without wishing for a revision in light of more recent research.

Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (2d ed.; JSOTSup 26, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995 [1st ed. 1984]; corr. repr. with suppl. bibliog.; London: T & T Clark, 2005); Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (JSOTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994 [contains corrections and additions to previously published articles and supersedes them]); “Parallel Word Pairs in the Song of Songs,” in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf.” Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70 Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT 250; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998) 785-808; “Hebrew Poetry,” in Text in Context. Essays by Members of the Society of Old Testament Study (ed. Andrew David Hastings Mayes; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000) 253-85.

 Beat Weber

In his “Entwurf” published in 2006, Weber views the poetry of the Psalms from a wide range of theoretical perspectives. He draws on the insights of Karl Bühler, Roman Jacobson, Juri Lotman, and Harold Fisch, but rightly emphasizes the dialogical and relational profile of the poetry of the Psalms over against the presumed tendency of poetry to be, by definition as it were, auto-referential and subjective in nature. 

Weber organizes his description of sample psalms (3, 13, and 130) under the overarching concept of “recurrences.” Everything from word pairs to macrostructural patterns are brought under this term. Here he acknowledges his debt to an essay by Philipp Nel. Morphological and syntactic recurrences are considered first; lexical and semantic recurrences next, and phonological and word-level prosodic recurrences last. He notes that as a rule two to three Verszeilen (versets) make up a Vers (line), and two to three Versen make up a Strophe. He does not provide a definition of his Verzeile in terms of immediate constituents. Weber’s division of Pss 3, 13, and 130 into Verszeilen, Versen, and Strophen coincides with that of Fokkelman in all cases.

Weber discusses examples of concatenatio, responsio, and inclusio much as members of the Kampen school do. A set of terms for macrostructural patterns is introduced. Linear (ABC, AA'BB'), alternating (ABA'B'), chiastic (ABCB'A'), and ring (ABCC'B'A') structures are distinguished. The same patterns are observable at the line and strophe levels of the prosodic hierarchy. It might be wise to plot the typology of occurrences of the patterns at these levels first, given the higher degree of confidence with which the psalms are divisible into lines and strophes as opposed to stanzas and sections.

Weber discusses the speakers and addressees in the sample psalms in the context of the psalms’ classification according to standard form-critical categories. He concludes with a discussion of the intertextual and contextual dimensions of the sample psalms, that is, what sense they come to have in light of their superscriptions, their location in the Psalter, and their embedment within a larger body of literature (the entire Hebrew Bible). Weber seeks to be comprehensive and shies away from idiosyncratic analyses.

“Ps 62,12–13: Kolometrie, Zahlenspruch und Gotteswort,” BN 65 (1992) 44-46; “Psalm LXI – Versuch einer hiskianischen Situierung,” VT 43 (1993) 265–268); “Psalm LXVII: Anmerkungen zum Text selbst und zur Studie von W. Beyerlin,” VT 43 (1993) 559–566; “‘Fest ist mein Herz, o Gott!’ Zu Ps 57,8–9,” ZAW 107 (1995) 294–295; Psalm 77 und sein Umfeld. Eine poetologische Studie (BBB 103; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995); “Psalm 100,”BN 91 (1998) 90–97; “‘In Salem wurde sein Versteck…’ Psalm 76 im Lichte literarischer und historischer Kontexte neu gelesen,” BN 97 (1999) 85–103; “Lob und Klage in den Psalmen des Alten Testaments als Anfrage und Herausforderung an unsere Gebets- und Gottesdienstpraxis”, JETh 13 (1999) 33–47; “Transitorische Ambiguität in Threni III,”VT 50 (2000) 111–120; “Psalm 78: Geschichte mit Geschichte deuten,” TZ 56 (2000) 193–214; “Psalm 83 als Einzelpsalm und als Abschluss der AsaphPsalmen”, BN 103 (2000) 64–84; “Zur Datierung der Asaph-Psalmen 74 und 79,” Bibl 81 (2000) 521–532; “Der Asaph-Psalter – eine Skizze,” in Prophetie und Psalmen. Festschrift für Klaus Seybold zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Beat Huwyler, Hans-Peter Mathys, and Beat Weber; AOAT 280; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001) 117–141; “‘Wenn du Vergehen aufbewahrtest…’. Linguistische, poetologische und theologische Notizen zu Psalm 130”, BN 107/108 (2001) 146–160; “Formgeschichtliche und sprachliche Beobachtungen zu Psalm 57,” SJOT 15 (2001) 295–305; Werkbuch Psalmen I. Die Psalmen 1 bis 72 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001); “Die Psalmen als Wort zu Gott und als Wort von Gott: Über den Sondercharakter des Psalmenbuchs innerhalb der Heiligen Schrift,” JETh 16 (2002) 7–11; “Eine Einführung in die Poesie des Alten Testaments im Umfeld des Alten Vorderen Orients,” in Zur Umwelt des Alten Testaments (ed. Helmuth Pelke; Edition C Bibelkommentar AT. Ergänzungsband 1; Holzgerlingen: Hänssler, 2002) 386–426; “Akrostichische Muster in den Asaph-Psalmen,” BN 113 (2002) 79–94; “Prophetische Predigt im Asaph-Psalm 81,” JETh 17 (2003) 35–44; “Le caractère poétique des Psaumes et son incidence sur leur interprétation. Quelques considérations sur une approche littéraire des Psaumes,” RevScRel 77 (2003) 481– 496; “Zu Kolometrie und strophischer Struktur von Psalm 111 – mit einem Seitenblick auf Psalm 112,” BN 118 (2003) 62–67; Werkbuch Psalmen II. Die Psalmen 73 bis 150  (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003); “Zum sogenannten ‘Stimmungsumschwung’ in Psalm 13,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller; SupVT 99; FIOTL 4; Leiden: Brill (2005) 116–138; “Klagen ist nicht das Letzte. Das Gespräch mit Gott als Prozess der Leidbewältigung. Gedanken zu Psalm13,” Brennpunkt Seelsorge 141 (2005) 46–51; “Psalm 1 und seine Funktion der Einweisung,” in Der Erneuerung von Kirche und Theologie verpflichtet. Freundesgabe für Prof. Dr. Johannes Heinrich Schmid (ed. Philipp Nanz; Riehen: arteMedia, 2005) 175–212; “Notizen zu Form, Pragmatik und Struktur von Psalm 16,” BN 125 (2005) 25–38; “Verbum, Theologia et Ecclesia. Some Hermeneutical Reflections and Methodological Considerations Towards an Integrated Interpretation of the Bible,” Verbum et Ecclesia 26 (2005) 593–613; “Einige poetologischen Überlegungen zur Psalmeninterpretation verbunden mit einer exemplarischen Anwendung an Psalm 130,” OTE 18 (2005) 891–906; “Psalm 1 and Its Function as a Directive into the Psalter and towards a Biblical Theology,” OTE 19 (2006) 237–260; “‘Es sahen dich die Wasser – sie bebten…’ (Ps 77:17b). Die Funktion mytho-poetischer Sprache in Psalm 77,” OTE 19 (2006) 261–280; “Der Beitrag von Psalm 1 zu einer ‘Theologie der Schrift,’” JETh 20 (2006) 83–113; “Entwurf einer Poetologie der Psalmen,” in Lesarten der Bibel. Untersuchungen zu einer Theorie der Exegese des Alten Testaments (ed. Helmut Utzschneider and Erhard Blum; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006) 127–154; “‘HERR, wie viele sind geworden meine Bedränger…’ (Ps 3,2a). Psalm 1–3 als Ouvertüre des Psalters unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Psalm 3 und seinem Präskript,” in Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung. Beispielexegesen und Methodenreflexionen (ed. Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, forthcoming); “‘Dann wird er sein wie ein Baum…’ (Ps 1,3). Zu den Sprachbildern von Psalm 1,” in Metaphor in the Psalms (ed. Pierre Van Hecke and Antje Labahn; BETL; Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming); “Psalm 1 als Tor zur Tora JHWHs. Wie Psalm 1 (und Psalm 2) den Psalter an den Pentateuch anschliesst,” SJOT 21 (forthcoming); “‘They Saw You, the Waters – They Trembled…’ (Ps 77:17b). The Function of Mytho-Poetic Language in the Context of Psalm 77’” in Psalms and Mythology (ed. D. Human; Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies; London; T & T Clark, forthcoming); “Psalm 30 als Paradigma für einen heutigen ‘Kasus der Wiederherstellung’. Überlegungen zu einer Schnittstelle zwischen Altem Testament und kirchlichem Handeln im Blick auf eine Theologie und Praxis der Dankbarkeit”, JETh 21 (2007) forthcoming.

Beat Weber and Phil J. Botha: “‘Killing Them Strongly with this Song…’ Psalm 3 and Its Davidic and Psalmic Context,” JBL 126 (2007) planned. 

 Ziony Zevit

Zevit has written insightfully on several aspects of ancient Hebrew poetry. 

“Nondistinctive Stress, Syllabic Constraints, and Wortmetrik in Ugaritic Poetry.” UF 15 (1983) 291-298; “Psalms at the Poetic Precipice,” HAR 10 (1986) 351–66; “Cognitive Theory and the Memorability of Biblical Poetry,” Maarav 8 (1992) 199-212.

 Metrics, Prosody, and Poetics

Intense debates are going on elsewhere in the fields of metrics, prosody, and poetics. The study of ancient Hebrew poetry stands much to gain from an appropriation of the diverse insights of researchers in cognate fields.

 Derek Attridge

 Attridge’s Poetic Rhythm is replete with keen observations. 

 Poetic Rhythm: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).

 Richard D. Cureton

Cureton’s Rhythmic Phrasing in English Verse contains a wide-ranging overview and application of prosodic theories. A promised synthesis of his life work is eagerly awaited.

Cureton, Richard D. “e.e. Cummings: A Study of the Poetic Use of Deviant Morphology” Poetics Today 1.1-2 (1979) 213-44; The Aesthetic Use of Syntax: Studies on the Syntax of the Poetry of e.e. Cummings (diss.; University of Illinois, 1980); “Poetic Syntax and Aesthetic Form,” Style 14 (1981) 182-215; “e.e. Cummings: A Case Study of Iconic Syntax," Language and Style 14 (1981) 182215; “Poetry, Grammar, and Epistemology: The Order of Prenominal Modifers in the Poetry of e.e. Cummings,” Language and Style 18 (1985) 64-91; “Rhythm: A Multilevel Analysis,” Style 19 (1985) 64-91; “Traditional Scansion: Myths and Muddles,” Journal of Literary Semantics 15 (1986) 171-208; “Visual Form in e.e. Cummings' No Thanks,” Word & Image 2 (1986) 171-208; “A Definition of Rhythm,” Eidos 3.2 (1986) 7-10; Rhythmic Phrasing in English Verse (English Language Series 18; Essex: Longman, 1992); “The Auditory Imagination and the Music of Poetry,” in Literary Stylistic Studies of Modern Poetry (ed. Peter Verdonk; London: Routledge, 1993) 68-86; “Aspects of Verse Study: Linguistic Prosody, Versification, Rhythm, Verse Experience,” Style 4 (1993) 521-29; “Rhythmic Cognition and Linguistic Rhythm,” Journal of Literary Semantics 23 (1994) 22032; “Rhythm and Verse Study,” Language and Literature 3 (1994) 105-24; “A Response to Derek Attridge: 'Beyond Metrics: Richard Cureton"s Rhythmic Phrasing in English Verse',” Poetics Today (1996) 29-50; “Poetry, Language, and Literary Study: The Unfinished Tasks of Stylistics,” Language and Literature 21 (1996) 95-112; “Linguistics, Stylistics, and Poetics,” Language and Literature 22 (1997) 1-43; “A Disciplinary Map for Verse Study,” Versification 1.1 (1997); “Toward a Temporal Theory of Language,” Journal of English Linguistics 25 (1997) 293-303; “Helen Vendler and the Music of Poetry,” Versification 1.1 (1997); “Jakobson Revisited: Poetics, Subjectivity, and Temporality,” Journal of English Linguistics 28 (2000) 354-392; “Schizophrenic Poetics: A Proposed Cure,” Journal of English Linguistics 30 (2002) 91-110; “Temporal Poetics: Rhythmic Process as Truth,” Antioch Review 62 (2004) A Temporal Theory of Poetic Rhythm (forthcoming).

 Bezalel Elan Dresher

The accents of the Tiberian Masoretic text have been intensively studied by Dresher as a system of prosodic representation. In my view, the neumic system of MT does not preserve an understanding of the constraints that governed ancient Hebrew verse, but the prosodic information it conveys is nonetheless of great interest.

“Accentuation and Metrical Structure in Tiberian Hebrew,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 3 (1981) 180-208; “Metrical Structure and Secondary Stress in Tiberian Hebrew,” Brown University Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (1981) 2437; “Accentuation and Metrical Structure in Tiberian Hebrew,” North Eastern Linguistic Society 12 (1981) 75-85; “Postlexical Phonology in Tiberian Hebrew,” Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2 (1983) 67-78; “The Prosodic Basis of the Tiberian Hebrew System of Accents,” Language 70 (1994) 1-52; “The Word in Tiberian Hebrew,” in The Nature of the Word: Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky (ed. Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas; Cambridge: MIT Press, in press); online: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~dresher/tibhebword.pdf; “Between Music and Speech: The Relationship Between Gregorian and Hebrew Chant” to appear in the Jack Chambers Festschrift; Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, forthcoming.

Bezalel Elan Dresher and Harry van der Hulst, “Head-dependent Asymmetries in Phonology: Complexity and Visibility,” Phonology 15 (1995) 317-352.

 Nigel Fabb

Fabb makes the point that lineation is not an inherent quality of a text, but is implied. The question then becomes: Implied by what? In my view, prosodic, semantic, syntactic, and sonic features cue lineation redundantly if not always harmonically. For Fabb, the distinction between fully regular vs. tendential aspects of metricality is fundamental. Many prefer to rely instead on the conceptual tools of optimality or similar theories. Be that as it may, Fabb covers the same ground in clear and insightful ways.

Linguistics and Literature: Language in the Verbal Arts of the World (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997); “Weak Monosyllables in Iambic Verse and the Communication of Metrical Form,” Lingua 111 (2001) 771-790; “The Metres of Dover Beach,” Language and Literature 11 (2002) 99-117; Language and literary structure: the linguistic analysis of form in verse and narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); “Metrical Rules and the Notion of ‘Maximum’,” Language and Literature 12 (2003) 73-80; “Generated Metrical Form and Implied Metrical Form,” Formal Approaches to Poetry: Recent Developments in Metrics (ed. B. Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg; Phonology and Phonetics 11; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006) 77-91.

Nigel Fabb and Morris Halle, “Metrical Complexity in Christina Rossetti’s Verse,” College Literature 32 (2006) 91-114; idem, “Telling the Numbers: A Unified Account of Syllabo-tonic English and Syllabic Polish and French Verse,” Research in Language 4 (2006) 5-30; idem, The Metre of a Poem, forthcoming.

 Annie Finch

Finch, like Gioia and Nims, identifies a variety of meters in the teeth of those who would deny their existence.

“Metrical Diversity: A Defense of the Non-Iambic Meters,” in Meter in English: A Critical Engagement (ed. David Baker; Fayetteville: Univ. of Arkansas Press, 1996) 59-74; “Limping Prosody,” [review of Alan Loader, Rethinking Meter: A New Approach to the Verse Line (Lewisburg: Bucknell Univ. Press, 1995)]; online at http://depts.washington.edu/versif/backissues /vol2/reviews/finch.html.

 Dana Gioia

Gioia, like Finch and Nims, identifies a variety of meters in the teeth of those who would deny their existence.

“Meter-Making Arguments,” in Meter in English: A Critical Engagement (ed. David Baker; Fayetteville: Univ. of Arkansas Press, 1996) 75-96. 

 Michael Getty

Getty’s constraint-based approach to the meter of Beowulf is as important for the issues it restates and leaves unresolved as for its proposed solutions.

The Metre of Beowulf: A Constraint-based Approach (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002). See the review by Tomas Riad, Language 80 (2004) 852-55.

 Benjamin Harshav [formerly Hrushovski]

Harshav’s Explorations in Poetics collects his earlier studies on a variety of topics. Some of the more important are listed below. 

Harshav’s interaction theory relative to sound and meaning, his understander’s theory of meaning in context, and his approach to metaphor via text-internal and text-external frames of reference have much to offer the field of biblical studies. 

“The Structure of Semiotic Objects: A Three-Dimensional Model,” Poetics Today 1 (1979) 363-76; “The Meaning of Sound Patterns in Poetry: An Interaction Theory,” Poetics Today 2 (1980) 39-56; “An Outline of Integrational Semantics: An Understander’s Theory of Meaning in Context,” Poetics Today 3 (1982) 59-88; “Poetic Metaphor and Frames of Reference,” Poetics Today 5 (1985) 5-43; “Fictionality and Fields of Reference: Remarks on a Theoretical Framework,” Poetics Today 5 (1984) 227-51; “Theory of the Literary Text and the Structure of Non-Narrative Fiction: In the First Episode of War and Peace,” Poetics Today 9 (1988) 635-66; Explorations in Poetics (Berkeley: Stanford University Press, 2007).

 Bruce Hayes

 

Hayes and collaborators MacEachern and Kaun’s studies of verse form and phonological phrasing in English folksongs have much to teach students of ancient Hebrew poetry.

Bruce Hayes, “The Prosodic Hierarchy in Meter,” in Rhythm and Meter (ed. Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans; Phonetics and Phonology 1; San Diego: Academic Press, 1989) 201-260; Bruce Hayes and Margaret MacEachern, “Are there lines in folk poetry?” UCLA Working Papers in Phonology 1 (1996) 125-42; Bruce Hayes and Abigail Kaun, “The role of phonological phrasing in sung and chanted verse,” The Linguistic Review 13 (1996) 243-303; Bruce Hayes and Margaret MacEachern, “Quatrain form in English folk verse,” Language 74 (1998) 473-507; appendices online at http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/linguistics/ people/hayes/metrics.htm; Bruce Hayes, “Faithfulness and Componentiality in Metrics,” to appear in The Nature of the Word: Essays in Honor of Paul Kiparsky (ed. Kristin Hanson and Sharon Inkelas; Cambridge MA: MIT Press), available online at http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/linguistics/ people/hayes.

 Roman Osipovich Jakobson

Jakobson’s studies on parallelism broke new ground. The work of other Russians such as Andrej Belyj, Osip Maksimovich Brik, Viktor Shklovsky, Boris Tomashevsky, Yury Tynjanov, Viktor Maksimovich Zhirmunskij, and more recently, Mikhail L. Gasparov, also deserves consideration. For an overview of the Russian “Formalist” school, see Boris Eichenbaum, “The Theory of the ‘Formal Method,’ in Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays (tr. and introd. Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis; Regents Critics Series; Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1965) 99-139. 

Roman Jakobson, The Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry (ed. Stephen Rudy; Selected Writings 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981), esp. Roman Jakobson and Jurij Tynjanov, “Problems in the Study of Language and Literature,” 3-6 [1928]; Roman Jakobson, “The Dominant,” 751-56 [1935]; “Linguistics and Poetics,” 1851 [1960]; “Grammatical Parallelism and its Russian Facet,” 98-135 [1966]; “Subliminal Verbal Patterning in Poetry,” 136-47 [1970].

Discussion in Adele Berlin, “Parallelism and Poetry in Linguistic Studies,” in The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1985) 717; 7-10; Ziony Zevit, “Roman Jakobson, Psycholinguistics, and Biblical Poetry,” JBL 109 (1990) 385-401; Francis Landy, “In Defense of Jakobson,” JBL 111 (1992) 105-13; Piotr Michalowski, “Ancient Poetics,” in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian (ed. Marianne E. Vogelzang and Herman L. J. Vanstiphout; Cuneiform Monographs 6; Proceedings of the Groningen Group for the Study of Mesopotamian Literature 2; Groningen: Styx Publications, 1996) 141-53; 142-43; Eric D. Reymond, Innovations in Hebrew Poetry: Parallelism and the Poems of Sirach (Studies in Biblical Literature 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004) 17-19. 

Bibliography: Stephen Rudy, Roman Jakobson: A Complete Bibliography of his Writings (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990).

 Paul Kiparsky

Kiparsky’s studies of stress, meter, and rhythmic structures are without peer.

Paul Kiparsky, “Metrics and Morphophonemics in the Kalevala” in Studies Presented to Roman Jakobson by his Students (ed. Charles Gribble; Cambridge MA: Slavica, 1967) 137-148; “The Role of Linguistics in a Theory of Poetry,” Daedalus 102 (1973) 231-44; “Stress, Syntax, and Meter,” Language 71 (1975) 576-616; “Metrics and Morphophonemics in the Rigveda” in Contributions to Generative Phonology (ed. M. Brame; Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1972) 171200; “The Rhythmic Structure of English Verse,” Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1977) 189247; “Sprung Rhythm,” in Meter and Rhythm (ed. Paul Kiparsky and Gilbert Youmans; Phonetics and Phonology 1; San Diego: Academic Press, 1989) 305-340; Paul Kiparsky and Kristin Hanson, “A Theory of Metrical Choice,” Language 72 (1996) 287-335; Paul Kiparsky and Kristin Hanson, “The Nature of Verse and its Consequences for the Mixed Form” in Prosimetrum (ed. J. Harris and T. Ziolkowski; Cambridge: Brewer, 1997); “A Modular Metrics for Folk Verse,” in Formal Approaches to Poetry: Recent Developments in Metrics (ed. B. Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg; Phonology and Phonetics 11; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006) 7-49; online at www.stanford. edu/~kiparsky/Papers/hayes.pdf.

 John Frederick Nims

Nims, like Gioia and Finch, identifies a variety of meters in the teeth of those who would deny their existence.

“Our Many Meters: Strength in Diversity,” in Meter in English: A Critical Engagement (ed. David Baker; Fayetteville: Univ. of Arkansas Press, 1996) 169-96.

 Elisabeth O. Selkirk

Selkirk develops an analysis of language in terms of prosodic constituents organized within a strictly layered hierarchy. Her approach and results have broad implications for the study of poetic prosody. 

“On Prosodic Structure and Its Relation to Syntactic Structure,” in Nordic Prosody II: Papers from a Symposium (ed. Thorstein Fretheim; Trondheim: TAPIR, 1981) 11-40; “Prosodic Domains in Phonology: Sanskrit Revisited,” in Juncture: A Collection of Original Papers (ed. Mark Aronoff and Mary-Louise Kean; Studia linguistica et philologica 7; Saratoga: Anma Libri, 1980) 107-129; “The Role of Prosodic Categories in English Word Stress,” Linguistic Inquiry 11 (1980) 563-605; Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure (Current Studies in Linguistics 10; Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986); “On Derived Domains in Sentence Phonology,” Phonology Yearbook 3 (1986) 371-405; “The Prosodic Structure of Function Words,” in Papers in Optimality Theory (ed. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk; Amherst: GLSA Publications, 1995) 439-470; repr. in Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition (ed. James L. Morgan and Katherine Demuth; Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996) 187-214; “Sentence Prosody: Intonation, Stress, and Phrasing,” in The Handbook of Phonological Theory (ed. John A. Goldsmith; Oxford: Blackwell, 1995) 550-569; “The Interaction of Constraints on Prosodic Phrasing,” in Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Studies Presented to Gösta Bruce (ed. Merle Horne; Text, Speech, and Language Technology 14; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000) 231-62; “The Syntax-phonology Interface,” in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (ed. Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes; Oxford: Pergamon, 2001) 15407-15412; “Contrastive FOCUS vs. Presentational Focus: Prosodic Evidence from Right Node Raising in English,” in Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody (ed. Bernard Bel and Isabel Marlien; Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage) 643-646; “Sentence Phonology,” in The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2d ed.; ed. William Frawley and William Bright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 4:41-42; “Bengali Intonation Revisited: An Optimality Theoretic Analysis in which FOCUS Stress Prominence drives FOCUS Phrasing,” in Topic and Focus: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (ed. Chung-Min Lee, Matthew Gordon and Daniel Büring; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004) 217-246; “Comments on Intonational Phrasing in English,” in Prosodies: With Special Reference to Iberian Languages (ed. Sónia Frota, Marina Vigário, and Maria João Freitas; Phonetics and Phonology Series 9; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005). 

Elisabeth Selkirk and Koichi Tateishi, “Constraints on Minor Phrase Formation in Japanese,” Chicago Linguistics Society 24 (1988) 316-339; Elisabeth Selkirk and Tong Shen, “Prosodic Domains in Shanghai Chinese,” in The Phonology-Syntax Connection (ed. Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990) 313-337; Elisabeth Selkirk and Koichi Tateishi, “Syntax and Downstep in Japanese,” in Interdisciplinary Studies of Language: Studies in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda (ed. Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara; Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991) 519-543.

Marina G. Tarlinskaja

Building on a distinction made by Victor Zhirmunsky (see “Glossary”), Tarlinskaja is attentive to both meter and rhythm in English, German, and Russian verse. The same distinction is useful in the study of ancient Hebrew poetry. 

English Verse: Theory and History (The Hague: Mouton, 1976); “Rhythmmorphology-syntax-rhythm,” Style 18 (1984) 1-26; “Rhythm and Meaning: Rhythmical Figures in English Iambic Pentameter, their Grammar, and their Links with Semantics,” Style 21 (1987) 1-35; Shakespeare’s Verse: Iambic Pentameter and the Poet’s Idiosyncrasies (New York: Peter Lang, 1987); “Formulas in English Literary Verse,” Language and Style 22 (1989) 115-130; Strict Stress-Meter in English Poetry Compared with German and Russian (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1993); “What is ‘metricality’? English Iambic Pentameter,” in Formal Approaches to Poetry: Recent Developments in Metrics (ed. B. Elan Dresher and Nila Friedberg; Phonology and Phonetics 11; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006) 53-74.

Marina G. Tarlinskaja and L. M. Teterina, “Verse-prose-metre,” Linguistics 129 (1974) 63-86.

 George T. Wright

Wright’s critique of the arguments of those who reject meter as a useful method of description, or reject long-recognized forms of metrical variation, is a delight to read.

Shakespeare’s Metrical Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988); “Poetic Rhythm: An Introduction,” [review of works by Derek Attridge, Brennan O’Donnell, Alan Holder, Burton Raffel, and Delbert Spain] Style 31 (1997) 148-94; online at http://www.findarticles.com; Hearing the Measures: Shakespearean and Other Inflections. Selected Essays by George T. Wright (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001).

 The Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Ancient Hebrew

The study of ancient Hebrew poetry cannot ignore advances in our understanding of the history of the Hebrew language. The varieties of ancient Hebrew in which poetry has come down to us – early Biblical Hebrew, classical Biblical Hebrew, late Biblical Hebrew, the Hebrew of Ben Sira, the Hebrew of the Qumran Hodayot, and so on – differ among themselves and with Tiberian Biblical Hebrew in matters of phonology, stress, morphology, syntax, and lexicon. So much is clear, even if our knowledge of ancient Hebrew is fragmentary.

Francis Ian Andersen

Andersen’s studies in orthography build on the work of Cross and Freedman.

“Archaic, Standard, and Late Spelling,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography (ed. David Noel Freedman, A. Dean Forbes, and Francis I. Andersen; BJSUCSD 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 73-78.

Francis I. Andersen and A. Dean Forbes, Spelling in the Hebrew Bible (BibOr 41; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986); Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, “Another Look at 4QSam^b,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography (ed. David Noel Freedman, A. Dean Forbes, and Francis I. Andersen; BJSUCSD 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 189-210; Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, “Final Comment,” ibid., 249-251; “Orthography in Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions,” ANES 36 (1999) 5-35.

-

Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim

Ben-Ḥayyim’s magnum opus summarizes knowledge of an oft-neglected variety of ancient Hebrew.

Ze’ev Ben-Ḥayyim and Abraham Tal, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew: Based on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and other Jewish Traditions (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2000).

 Joshua Blau

Blau’s essays and grammar are essential points of departure.

A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2d ed.; PLO: Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993); Studies in Hebrew Linguistics (Hebr.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1996); Topics in Hebrew and Semitic Linguistics (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998); all three vols. contain additions and corrections to previously published material, and entirely supersede them; “A Conservative View of the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 20-25; Biblical Hebrew Morphology (LSAWS 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).

 Edward M. Cook

Cook’s conclusions about the orthography of final unstressed long vowels in ancient Aramaic are unassailable in my view and have generally unrecognized implications for ancient Hebrew orthography.

“The Orthography of Final Unstressed Long Vowels in Old and Imperial Aramaic,” in Sopher Mahir: Northwest Semitic Studies Presented to Stanislav Segert (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990 [= Maarav 5-6 (1990)] 53-67.

Frank Moore Cross, Jr.

Cross and Freedman’s studies on ancient Hebrew orthography remain fundamental. Their views evolved over time with the appearance of more data. Cross’s essays on the script, orthography, and linguistic features of newly discovered texts have recently been collected.

“The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” JBL 74 (1955) 147-72; “The Contribution of the Discoveries at Qumran to the Study of the Biblical Text,” IEJ 16 (1966) 81-95; “Some Notes on a Generation of Qumran Studies,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, 1991 (ed. L. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 1-14; Leaves from an Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy ([lightly revised]; ed. John Huehnergard and Jo Ann Hackett; HSS 51; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003). “Some Problems in Old Hebrew Orthography with Special Attention to the Third Person Masculine Singular Suffix on Plural Nouns [-âw],” ErIs 27 (2003) 18*-24*.

Frank Moore Cross, Jr., and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography (joint Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1950; AOS 36; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952, repr. 1981); “Archaic Orthography in Ancient Hebrew Poetry,” in Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (joint Ph.D. diss.; Johns Hopkins Univ., 1950; SBLDS; Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1975; 2d ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1997) 21-25; “Some Observations on Early Hebrew,” Bib 53 (1972) 413-20; “Postscriptum,” in Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 125-130 [1975].

 James R. Davila

Davila provides a brief introduction to the synchronic and diachronic study of ancient Hebrew.

“Dialectology in Biblical Hebrew: A North Israelite Dialect? Synchronic and Diachronic Considerations,” (1994), at: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/ hebrew_dialectology_94.htm.

Mats Eskhult

Eskhult’s careful studies break new ground.

Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose (Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 12; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1990); “Verbal Syntax in Late Biblical Hebrew,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka, John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 84-93; “The Importance of Loan Words for Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; JSOTSup 369; London: T & T Clark, 2003) 8-23; “Markers of Text Type in Biblical Hebrew from a Diachronic Perspective,” in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. Martin F. J. Baasten and Wido Th. Van Peursen; OLA 118; Leuven: Peeters, 2003) 153-64; “Traces of Linguistic Development in Classical Hebrew,” HS 45 (2005) 353-70.

 Margaretha L. Folmer

Folmer’s monograph makes excellent background reading for the study of ancient Hebrew orthography.

The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation (OLA 68; Leuven: Peeters, 1995).

 David Noel Freedman

Cross and Freedman’s studies on ancient Hebrew orthography remain fundamental. Their views evolved over time with the appearance of more data.

“The Massoretic Texts and the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in Orthography,” Textus 2 (1962) 87-102 (repr. in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text [ed. Frank Moore Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon; Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1975] 196-211); “The Orthography of the Arad Ostraca,” IEJ 19 (1969) 52-56; “Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job,” ErIs 9 [FS William Foxwell Albright] (1969) 35-44; “The Spelling of the Name ‘David’ in the Hebrew Bible,” HAR 11 (1983) 89-104 [the preceding four items are repr. in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman. Volume Two: Poetry and Orthography (ed. John R. Huddleston; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997]; “The Evolution of Hebrew Orthography,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography (ed. David Noel Freedman, A. Dean Forbes, and Francis I. Andersen; BJSUCSD 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 3-15.

Frank Moore Cross, Jr. and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography (joint Ph.D. diss.; Johns Hopkins University, 1950; AOS 36; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1952, repr. 1981); idem, “Archaic Orthography in Ancient Hebrew Poetry,” in Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry [joint Ph.D. diss.; Johns Hopkins University, 1950; SBLDS; Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1975; 2d ed.; Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 21-25 [1997 ed.]; idem, “Some Observations on Early Hebrew,” Bib 53 (1972) 413-20; David Noel Freedman and Kenneth A. Matthews, “Orthography,” in The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11QpaleoLev) (ed. Kenneth A. Matthews and David Noel Freedman; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 51-95; [the preceding two items are reprinted in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman. Volume Two: Poetry and Orthography (ed. John R. Huddleston; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1997]; Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, “Another Look at 4QSam^b,” in Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Orthography (ed. David Noel Freedman, A. Dean Forbes, and Francis I. Andersen; BJSUCSD 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 189-210; Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, “Final Comment,” ibid., 249-251.

W. Randall Garr

Garr’s Dialect Geography is the standard reference work on the topic. His linguistic studies are models of rigor and clarity. 

Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1985); “Pretonic Vowels in Hebrew,” VT 37 (1987) 129-53; “The Seghol and Segholation in Hebrew,” JNES 48 (1989) 109-16; “On Vowel Dissimilation in Hebrew,” Bib 66 (1985) 572-79; “Interpreting Orthography,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. William Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Noel Freedman; BJSUCSD 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 53-80; “The Linguistic Study of Morphology,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 49-64.

 Sandra Landis Gogel

Gogel’s Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew includes careful discussions of many controversial subjects.

A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBLRBS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998).

 Ronald S. Hendel

Hendel’s essays on the subject of historical linguistics are models of clarity and precision. 

“The Date of the Siloam Inscription: A Rejoinder to Rogerson and Davies,” BA 59 (1996) 233–237; “‘Begetting’ and ‘Being Born’ in the Pentateuch: Notes on Historical Linguistics and Source Criticism,” VT 50 (2000) 38-46; “Appendix: Linguistic Notes on the Age of Biblical Literature,” in idem, Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005) 109-117, 158-164.

 John Huehnergard

Huehnergard’s essays on historical phonology are exemplary from the point of view of rigor and methodology.

“Historical Phonology and the Hebrew Piel,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 209-29; “Hebrew *qatil Forms,” forthcoming.

 Avi Hurvitz

Hurvitz is the premier historical linguist of Biblical Hebrew.

“The Chronological Significance of ‘Aramaisms’ in Biblical Hebrew,” IEJ 18 (1968) 234-41; The Transition Period in Biblical Hebrew: A Study in Post-Exilic Hebrew and Its Implications for the Dating of the Psalms (Hebr.) (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972); A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel (CahRB 20; Paris: Gabalda, 1982); “Originals and Imitations in Biblical Poetry: A Comparative Examination of 1 Samuel 2:1-10 and Ps 113:5-9,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel S. Iwry (ed. Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 115-21; “Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew: A Century After Wellhausen,” in Lebendige Forschung im Alten Testament (ed. Otto Kaiser; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988) 88-100; “Continuity and Innovation in Biblical Hebrew: The Case of ‘Semantic Change’ in Post-exilic Writings,” in Studies in Ancient Hebrew Semantics (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka; Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 4; Leuven: Peeters, 1995) 1-10; “The Historical Quest for ‘Ancient Israel’ and the Linguistic Evidence of the Hebrew Bible: Some Methodological Considerations,” VT 47 (1997) 301-15; “The Linguistic Status of Ben Sira as a link between Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew: Lexicographical Aspects,” in The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of a Symposium held at Leiden University, 11-14 December 1995 (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 26; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 72-86; “Further Comments on the Linguistic Profile of Ben Sira: Syntactic Affinities with Late Biblical Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 132-45; “Was QH a ‛Spoken’ Language? On Some Recent Views and Positions: Comments,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 110-14; “Can Biblical Texts be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives on the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew,” in Congress Volume: Oslo 1998 (ed. André Lemaire and Magne Sæbø; VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 143-60; “Once Again: The Linguistic Profile of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch and its Historical Age. A Response to J. Blenkinsopp,” ZAW 112 (2000) 180-91; “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of ‘Aramaisms’ in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; JSOTSup 369; London: T & T Clark, 2003) 24-37; “ראש דבר and סוף דבר: Reflexes of Two Scribal Terms Imported into Biblical Hebrew from the Imperial Aramaic Formulary,” in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. Martin F. J. Baasten and Willem Th. van Peursen; OLA 118; Leuven: Peeters, 2003) 281-86; “Continuity and Change in Biblical Hebrew: The Linguistic History of a Formulaic Idiom from the Realm of the Royal Court,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz; Publication of the Institute for Advanced Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006) 127-33. 

 Jan Joosten

Joosten’s comparative studies of Hebrew as found in a variety of sources are important points of departure. Full bibliography here. 

“Pseudo-Classicisms in Late Biblical Hebrew, in Ben Sira, and in Qumran Hebrew,” in Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Mishnah (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John. F. Elwolde; STDJ 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 146-59; “The Knowledge and Use of Hebrew in the Hellenistic Period: Qumran and the Septuagint,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 115-30; “Hiddushe lashon bai'ivrit shel hatequphah hahelenistit: 'edut megillot Qumran letsad 'edut targum hashiv'im [Linguistic Innovations in Hebrew of the Hellenistic Period: The Witness of the Qumran Scrolls alongside that of the Septuagint],” Meghillot 2 (2004) 151-155; “Classical and Late Biblical Hebrew as Reflected in Syntax,” HS 45 (2005) 327-40; “A Remarkable Development in the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System: The Disappearance of Iterative WEQATAL,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz; Publication of the Institute for Advanced Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006) 135-47.

 Stephen A. Kaufman

Kaufman’s historical linguistic studies are characterized by rigor and acumen.

The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (AS 19; Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974) 146-51; “The History of Aramaic Vowel Reduction,” in Arameans, Aramaic and the Aramaic Literary Tradition (ed. Michael Sokoloff; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 1983) 47-55; “On Vowel Reduction in Aramaic,” JAOS 104 (1984) 8795; “The Classification of the North West Semitic Dialects of the Biblical Period and Some Implications Thereof,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 4-12, 1985: Panel Sessions. Hebrew and Aramaic Languages (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988) 41-57; “Recent Contributions of Aramaic Studies to Biblical Hebrew Philology and the Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible,” in Congress Volume Basel 2001 (ed. André Lemaire; VTSup 92; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 43-54.

Charles R. Krahmalkov

Krahmalkov has written the standard grammar of Phoenician and Punic.

A Phoenician-Punic Grammar (Leiden: Brill, 2001).

Edward Yechezchel Kutscher

Kutscher’s essays and monographs are essential points of departure.

“The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon” ScrHier 4 (1957) 1-36; The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a) (Leiden: Brill, 1974); Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (ed. Ze’ev Ben-Hayyim, Aharon Dotan, and ̣ Gad B. Sarfatti; Hebr., Engl., and Ger.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977); The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a): Indices and Corrections (ed. Elisha Qimron; Leiden: Brill, 1979); Studies in Hebrew and Semitic Languages (ed. Gad B. Sarfatti; Engl. and Hebr.; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 1980); A History of the Hebrew Language (ed. Raphael Kutscher; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982). 

 Shelomo Morag

Morag’s studies are packed with sharp observations.

“Qumran Hebrew: Some Typological Observations,” VT 38 (1988) 148-64; Studies on Biblical Hebrew (Hebr.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995); “Some Notes (Following Elisha Qimron's Paper, ‘The Biblical Lexicon in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls’),” DSD 3 (1996) 152-56.

 Michael Patrick O’Connor

O’Connor provides a linguistic analysis of the use of vowel letters in Iron Age Northwest Semitic orthography.

 “Writing Systems, Native Speaker Analyses, and the Earliest Stages of Northwest Semitic Orthography,’ in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and Michael P. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 439-465.

Frank H. Polak

The analysis of rhythm in ancient Hebrew poetry needs to be carried out alongside an analysis of rhythm in prose. Polak breaks new ground in the stylistic analysis of ancient Hebrew narrative even as he builds on the earlier observations of Umberto Cassuto and Samuel Loewenstamm. His identification of two styles in narrative, the rhythmic-verbal and complexnominal, is helpful.

“The Lāqaḥ-Nātan Formula: Some Additional Comments [Hebr. with Engl. summary],” Shnaton 7-8 (1984) 179-86; “Epic Formulas in Biblical Narrative: Frequency and Distribution,” in Actes du second Colloque international Bible et informatique: Méthodes, outils, résultats: Jérusalem, 9-13 juin 1988 (ed. R.Ferdinand Poswick; Travaux de linguistique quantitative; Geneva: Slatkine, 1989) 435-488; “וישתחו: A Group Formula in Biblical Prose and Poetry [Hebr. with Engl. summary],” in Sha‘arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. Michael Fishbane et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992) *81-*91; “Epic Formulae in Biblical Narrative and the Fountainheads of Ancient Hebrew Narrative [Hebr. with Engl. summary],” Te‘udah 7 (1992) 9-53; “Some Aspects of Literary Design in the Ancient Near Eastern Epic,” in kinattūtu ša dārâti. Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume (ed. Anson F. Rainey; Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications 1; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1993) 135146; “The Daniel Tales in their Aramaic Literary Milieu,” in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (ed. Adam S. van der Woude; BETL 106; Leuven: Peeters, 1993) 249-265; “New Means . . . New Ends: Scholarship and Computer Data,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Colloquium Bible and Computer: Desk and Discipline (Amsterdam, 15-18 August 1994) (ed. R.-Ferdinand Poswick; Geneva: Slatkine, 1995) 282-312; “On Prose and Poetry in the Book of Job”, JANES 24 (1996) 61-97; “Development and Periodization of Biblical Prose Narrative [Hebr. with Engl. summary],” Beit Mikra 43 (1997-98) 30-52, 142-160; “The Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical Prose,” JANES 26 (1998) 59-105; “The Style of Dialogue in Biblical Prose Narrative,” JANES 28 (2001) 53-95; “Parameters for Stylistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew Prose Texts,” in Bible and Computer: The Stellenbosch Ai Bi-6 Conference. Proceedings of the Association Internationale Bible et Informatique “From Alpha to Byte” University of Stellenbosch 17-21 July, 2000 (ed. Johann Cook; Leiden: Deo, 2002) 259-81; “Poetic Style and Parallelism in the Creation Account (Genesis 1.1-2.3),” in Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (ed. Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman; JSOTSup 319; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002) 2-31; “Style is More than the Person: Sociolinguistics, Literary Culture and the Distinction between Written and Oral Narrative,” in Biblical Hebrew: Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian M. Young; JSOTSup 369; London: T & T Clark, 2003) 38-103; “Linguistic and Stylistic Aspects of Epic Formulae in Ancient Semitic Poetry and Biblical Narrative,” in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. Steven E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz; Publication of the Institute for Advanced Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006) 285-304.

 Elisha Qimron

Qimron has written the standard grammar of the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

“The Dating of the Book of Jonah,” Beth Mikra 81 (1980) 181-82 (Hebr.); “Observations on the History of Early Hebrew (1000 B.C.E.-200 B.C.E.),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. Devorah Dimant and Uriel Rappaport; STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 349-61; The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HSM 29, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); “The Biblical Lexicon in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 2 (1995) 295-329; “The Nature of DSS Hebrew and Its Relation to BH and MH,” in Diggers at the Well: Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (ed. Takamitsu Muraoka and John F. Elwolde; STDJ 36; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 232-44; פרקים בתולדות הלשון העברית 2: העברית של ימי בית שני (Tel Aviv: Open University, 2004).

 Chaim Rabin

Rabin’s essays remain important points of departure.

Qumran Studies (SJ 2; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1957); “Historical Background of Qumran Hebrew,” ScrHier 4 (1958) 144-61; A Short History of the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Haomanim Press, 1974); “The Emergence of Classical Hebrew,” in The Age of the Monarchies: Culture and Society (ed. Avraham Malamat; World History of the Jewish People 4/2; Jerusalem: Masada, 1979) 71-78, 293-95; Die Entwicklung der Hebräischen Sprache (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert, 1988); Semitic Languages: An Introduction (Hebr., BEL 5; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1991) Linguisitic Studies: Collected Papers in Hebrew and Semitic Languages (Hebr.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1999); The Development of the Syntax of Post-Biblical Hebrew (SSLL 29; Leiden: Brill, 2000). 

Anson F. Rainey

Rainey has written the standard grammar of Canaanite as attested in the Amarna tablets.

Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect used by Scribes from Canaan (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Near and Middle East 25; Leiden: Brill, 1996).

Gary Alan Rendsburg

Diglossia of one kind or another and a northern dialect during various stages of ancient Hebrew were undoubtedly realities, even if Rendsburg’s arguments and examples are not always convincing.

“Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew as Revealed through Compound Verbs,” in Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns (ed. Yoël L. Arbeitman and Alan R. Bomhard; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1981) 665-77; “The Northern Origin of 'The Last Words of David' (2 Sam 23:1-7),” Bib 69 (1988) 113-21; “Additional Notes on ‘The Last Words of David’ (2 Sam 23, 17),” Bib 70 (1989) 403-408; Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms Psalms (SBLMS 43; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990); Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew (AOS 72; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1990); "Parallel Developments in Mishnaic Hebrew, Colloquial Arabic, and Other Varieties of Spoken Semitic," Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of his Eighty-fifth Birthday (ed. Alan S. Kaye; 2 vols.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991) 2:1265-77; “The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9,” Bib 72 (1991) 348-66; “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992) 65-88; “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign’ Factor in the Hebrew Bible,” IOS 15 (1996) 177-90; “Notes on Israelian Hebrew (I),” in Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer (ed. Yitzhak Avishur and Robert Deutsch; Tel-Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications, 1999) 255-58; “Notes on Israelian Hebrew (II),” JNWSL 26/1 (2000) 33-45; Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings (Occasional Publications of the Department of Near Eastern Studies and the Program of Jewish Studies, Cornell University, Number 5; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2002); “A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and Lexicon,” Orient 38 (2003) 5-35.

 Ian M. Young

Young has established himself as a leading historical linguist of ancient Hebrew. 

“The Language of the Judicial Plea from Mesad Hashavyahu,” PEQ 122 (1990) 5658; “The Style of the Gezer Calendar and Some ‘Archaic Biblical Hebrew’ Passages,” VT 42 (1992) 362-375; Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (FAT 5; Tübingen: Mohr, 1993); “The ‘Northernisms’ of the Israelite Narratives in Kings,” ZAH 8 (1995) 63-70; “Existence of Diversity in Pre-Exilic Judahite Hebrew,” HS 38 (1997) 7-20; “The ‘Archaic’ Poetry of the Pentateuch in the MT, Samaritan Pentateuch, ,and 4QExod^c,” AbrN 35 (1998) 74-83; “‘Am Construed as Singular and Plural in Hebrew Biblical Texts: Diachronic and Textual Perspectives,” ZAH 12 (1999) 29-63; “Notes on the Language of 4QCant^b,” JJS 52 (2001) 122-31; “Introduction; The Origin of the Problem,” “Late Biblical Hebrew and Hebrew Inscriptions,” and “Concluding Reflections,” in Biblical Hebrew: Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; JSOTSup 369; London: T & T Clark, 2003) 1-6, 276-311, 312-17; review of The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (ed. Adrian Schenker; SBLSC 52, Atlanta: SBL, 2003) in RBL 02/2005; online at www.bookreviews.org; “Biblical Texts Cannot Be Dated Linguistically,” HS 45 (2005) 341-52; Textual Stability in Gilgamesh and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies (forthcoming); “Late Biblical Hebrew and the Qumran Pesher Habakkuk” (forthcoming).

Ian M. Young and Robert Rezetko. Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Introduction to Approaches and Problems (Bible World; London: Equinox, forthcoming 2007).

 Ziony Zevit

Zevit’s wide ranging scholarship includes the field of historical linguistics.

“Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P,” ZAW 94 (1982) 481511; Review of Sandra Landis Gogel, A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (SBLRBS 23; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) in RBL 10/1999; online www.bookreviews.org; review of Biblical Hebrew: Chronology and Typology (ed. Ian Young; JSOTSup 369; London: T & T Clark, 2003) in RBL 6 (2004) 1-15; “Dating Ruth: Legal, Linguistic and Historical Observations,” ZAW 117 (2005) 574-600; “Introductory Remarks: Historical Linguistics and the Dating of Hebrew Texts ca. 1000-300 BCE,” HS 45 (2005) 321-26.