Lectionary Calendar
Friday, April 19th, 2024
the Third Week after Easter
Attention!
We are taking food to Ukrainians still living near the front lines. You can help by getting your church involved.
Click to donate today!

Bible Dictionaries
Poetry

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Search for…
or
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z
Prev Entry
Pochereth-Hazzebaim
Next Entry
Pole (Sacred)
Resource Toolbox
Additional Links

POETRY . 1. The presence of poetry in the Bible is natural and fitting. As it is the form of composition which is easiest to memorize, whether in the earlier stages of a literature, or later in the expression of common religious experience, it is natural that poetry should be preserved, and should be the preserver of Hebrew thought. As the form of literature which is concrete in its pictures, it is to be expected that the Hebrew people, to whom abstract thought and terminology are almost unknown, would employ it very freely. As the literature of emotion and imagination, it is naturally used to express religious emotion and religious ideals. It does not suffice, however, to state the fitness of poetry to satisfy in a measure the purposes for which the Bible was written. Does it actually contain poetry? The answer is to be found only by examination of its contents, and only an affirmative answer is possible. Though the Psalms have not been written in poetical form for two thousand years, yet their poetry cannot be obscured. Scholars may differ as to the forms and laws of Hebrew poetry, yet they do not venture to say that none is to be found in the Bible.

The presence of poetry must he recognized if one would gain any adequate knowledge of the Scriptures. Otherwise correct interpretation is impossible. From failure in this respect in the past, our theology has suffered, the warfare between the Bible and science has been intensified if not caused, and Christians have lost immeasurably the comfort and spiritual help available from this kind of literature. Poetry must be interpreted as poetry. To apply to it the same principles of exegesis as are applied to prose is highly absurd; for in attempting to mark the differences between prose and poetry we must go below the form of language, and note that there is a distinctly poetic mode of thought and range of ideas. The facts of experience are so grouped and wrought upon by the imagination as to become a new creation. The singer is not bound to time or place; he speaks in figure without knowing that it is a figure; he speaks in hyperbole because he does not have the sense of proportion. The poetry of the thought affects also the vocahulary of the singer; it modifies his word meanings, and affects his grammar. It alters his literary style, and there arises a distinct study, that of literature as poetry a study in which the attempt is made to discover how poetical forms express the poetical thought of the writer.

2. In treating the poetry of the Bible we are concerned chiefly with the OT. The NT has a few poetical sections (see Hymn), but these are confessedly Hebrew in character, and do not call for independent treatment here. As compared with the OT, the NT contains very little poetry, for the obvious reason that Christianity, early and late, has largely found the Hebrew Psalter sufficient for its devotional purposes.

3. What are the characteristics of Hebrew poetry? They must be found from an inductive study of recognized poetical sections of the OT. A certain part of the Scriptures is clearly poetry; a certain other part is clearly prose. Between the two there is a great amount of literature, especially in the prophetical books, about which there is a difference of opinion. It is called poetry or prose according to the scholar’s definitions and his zeal in making emendations. There are prose poems, products of real poetical imagination, and artistic in form, but lacking in poetic rhythm. These doubtful passages should he left out of account until the essential principles of the poetry of the Hebrew people are determined, and then the test can be reasonably applied to them. Such has not always been the mode of procedure on the part of scholars. Sometimes their aim seems to have been to discover new examples, whether by direct study or by inexact methods. One cannot look very deeply into the subject without discovering the most extreme differences of opinion among scholars. There is abundant reason for this state of things. The very reasons which make the presence of poetry in the Bible natural and fitting, operate to make its definition difficult. The more natural the poetic expression of thought and feeling, the freer it will be from conventional regulation, and the less sharp will be the difference between the prose and the poetical literature of a people. And again, in Hebrew so many facts are lost upon which we are wont to place dependence in such a study, that until we get new light from without, any scheme of Hebrew metre must be merely a working hypothesis, and no complete system can be expected. There is not a commanding tradition of the pronunciation of the language, whether we think of vowels, syllables, or accent. We have no knowledge of Hebrew music of a character that would aid in determining the rhythm of the poems that were sung to its accompaniment. Even the consonantal text is corrupt, in many places confessedly so; and there is almost no place so certain that a new scholar does not feel himself free to arise and emend it, and so win his spurs. Under these circumstances wide differences of opinion are to be expected, and their existence must be endured patiently. If there is any ridicule justifiable, it should he expended, with extreme caution, upon those who, ignoring these many points of uncertainty which necessarily limit the value of their inductions, formulate an elaborate and microscopically minute system of metre, and then turn confidently round and use the system to emend the text so as to bring it to its original condition. Rhythmical considerations may to a certain extent enter into literary and textual criticism, but unsupported they cannot be convincing.

The OT is not quite destitute of evidence that the Hebrews themselves were conscious of a difference between their prose and their poetry. They had special names for ‘proverb’ and ‘song’; they provided the Psalms with headings, some of which must have been musical directions; they made alphabetical poems, the several lines or stanzas of which begin with the letters of the alphabet in regular order. These lines and stanzas are of equal length and similar rhythm. Some of the poems inserted in the prose books are written and printed line by line, as Exodus 15:1-27 , Deuteronomy 32:1-52 , Judges 5:1-31 , 2 Samuel 22:1-51; and for the three poetical books of the canon the Massoretes of later times provided a special system of pointing, thereby recognizing a distinction that must have had its basis in tradition, although the special pointing was not to preserve the poetic value.

Passing over, with the brief allusion already made, the peculiarities of thought, of vocabulary, and of grammar which poetry reveals, the features that one expects to find in OT poetry concern the line, and the stanza or strophe. (1) The line is so constructed that when it is read aloud it sounds agreeable to the ear by virtue of a distinct rhythm; this rhythm is repeated with little or no variation from line to line; the end of the line coincides with a break in the sense. The line is properly regarded as the unit of poetical expression. It is commonly of a length to be uttered with a single breath, and, if sung, a brief strain of music suffices to accompany it. The fundamental importance of the line makes it desirable to determine, if possible, what are the rules for its length, and what is the nature of the measurement that secures the rhythmical effect so universally recognizable. The history of the search for a satisfactory system of metre cannot be given here. Classical models, with quantity as a basis, were long ago abandoned; one group of scholars discard the Massoretic accents, and attempt an explanation on the basis of Syriac metre, counting syllables, and accenting alternate ones; but the predominant theories are accentual. Of these some have reckoned only the rises (accented syllables), and others count the falls also, permitting only a certain number of them to intervene between rises. This number is made to depend on the metrical value of the syllables, which, according to some scholars, is determined by the number of morœ , or time units, which they contain.

It should be remembered that we are dealing with an early form of an ancient literature, and that this literature is an Oriental one. This creates a very strong presumption against an elaborate and minute system of metre. The Hebrew language was indeed dominated by tradition, which made it difficult to alter established practice; but in case the tradition was one of freedom on the part of the writer to construct his poem as he chose, it naturally operated to keep him free from the complicated rules which spring up in the later periods of the life of a language.

Until the contrary is shown on other grounds, it must be assumed that the Hebrew accent system, differing traditionally from Arabic and Syriac, differed from them actually; and as the traditional grammatical forms depend largely upon the accent, the natural Inference is that it is an important feature of the language. If so, it may he supposed that it is important also in poetry. The view that seems best to suit the facts as they exist, that makes the smallest demands in the way of departure from ordinary prose style, and that yields at the same time results reasonably satisfying to the poetic feeling, is this: the line was composed of a definite number of accents, or, as ordinarily each word had one accent, of a definite number of words. This view does not fit all the lines of every poem; but the possibility of exceptions at the will of the writer is a part of the theory. Moreover, the percentage of exceptions is very likely not greater than that of probable corruptions in the text. It is not to be counted as an exception when, in order to secure the regular number of accents, two short words must be pronounced as one, as is so often done for other reasons with the insertion of a maqqeph ( Ö¾ ), or when a word exceptionally long and heavy must be pronounced with two accents for the same purpose. (2) The next higher unit is the group of lines taken together. The name strophe might be applied to all such groups, but it is usually reserved for the larger groups. The smallest group the couplet or distich exhibits the most characteristic feature of the poetry of the language, namely Parallelism , a name given by Lowth in 1753. The lines are so related to each other that there is a correspondence of parts, both in form and in sense. It is not confined exclusively to poetry, for it is nothing but the development of the idea of balance and euphony of parts which is found in elevated prose style, especially such as is uttered orally. The mind more easily grasps the thought of a second clause, if fashioned like an earlier one. It is less occupied with the form, for that is already familiar. It is also, and doubtless for that very reason, more agreeable to the ear. What is desirable in prose, and often used there, becomes the rule in poetry, as one may easily understand when one considers the necessity of a uniform line for the sake of easy utterance with musical accompaniment. It is by its persistence and uniformity that parallelism certifies to the poetical nature of a passage. This parallelism is of the utmost importance in determining the meaning of a verse. While its adoption as a poetical form has a logical basis, once let it become the rule for such composition, and it cannot fail to operate to modify the thought as well as the form. What would otherwise appear to be a careful choice of synonyms, for example, perhaps to secure climacteric effect, may be simply the operation of this principle. So the unusual position of a word in a clause may be traceable to this rather than to a desire to secure special emphasis. Several distinct forms of parallelism have been observed.

( a ) Synonymous parallelism . The thought of the two lines is synonymous, and so are the several terms by which the thought is expressed.

How shall I curse whom God hath not cursed?

And how shall I defy whom Jahweh hath not defied? (Numbers 23:8 ).

( b ) Antithetic parallelism . The second line expresses the same real truth as the first, but it does it antithetically. The form is truly parallel, and one member of the lines is synonymous, the other two contrasted. This is especially common in proverbs.

A wise son maketh a glad father,

But a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother. (Proverbs 10:1 ).

( c ) Stair-like or ascending rhythm . The thought of the first line is repeated in part, or, if entirely, more briefly, so that the second line can add a further item of thought, thus rising above the parallel line.

Till thy people pass over, Jahweh,

Till thy people pass over, which thou hast purchased. (Exodus 15:6 ).

( d ) Synthetic parallelism . The thought of the second line is entirely different or supplementary, none of the first being repeated. The distich remains in parallelism, for the two lines correspond in form.

Answer not a fool according to his folly,

Lest thou also be like unto him. (Proverbs 26:4 ).

Other varieties are often singled out for discussion, and it will not be supposed that a typical form is always to be discovered. The variations and combinations are very numerous, and the study of them is full of interest and novelty.

The two-line group, or distich, has been considered above, as the simplest in which parallelism can be observed. It is also by far the commonest. Three lines grouped in a similar way are not uncommon. In this case the first and second may be synonymous, and the third synthetic to them; or other combinations may be found. Moreover, distiches may be arranged in pairs, with the same parallelism as between single lines of the distich. It often occurs that several lines are grouped together so regularly that a stanza or strophe is recognizable. It may be marked off by a line repeated as a refrain, or by a special initial letter, in alphabetical poems; but such indications are not of common occurrence. Absolute regularity in length is not often found, and scholars often attempt to secure it by assuming the loss or insertion of a couplet or two. There is also no specific principle distinct from the parallelism above mentioned, to form the basis of a strophical division. It seems likely, then, that strophes are not to be regarded as an essential feature of Hebrew poetry, like the stanzas of a hymn that is to be sung; but that the grouping is entirely optional and ordinarily logical a literary feature. Rhyme and assonance are known in the language, but are not used persistently throughout a poem, and cannot be anticipated or reduced to rule when present.

3 . By far the greater part of the OT poetry is of course religious and ethical, as the Psalms, Proverbs , and Job (see artt.). Outside of these books, however, is an interesting and by no means small amount of poetry which the Bible student may profitably study for its literary and historical value.

In family and social life, poetry evidently had a large place. Marriage occasions furnished the very best opportunity for the composition of songs, and for their execution to the accompaniment of music. Such are the songs in the Book of Canticles. The wedding song evidently furnished the model of the passage Isaiah 5:1 ff. Lamentation for the dead is also an evidence. The finest example is that of David over Saul and Jonathan ( 2 Samuel 1:17 ff.). A part of a lament by him over Abner is found in 2 Samuel 3:33 f. The tenderness and fitness of these utterances are very different from the stereotyped dirges of which there is notice in Jeremiah 9:16 (17). The character of these may be seen from the Book of Lamentations, where the poet laments over the city as over a person. The first four of the five poems of this book are alphabetical, a strong mark of artificiality, which is further emphasized by the choice of a peculiar rhythm, known as the elegiac rhythm. There is a long line, commonly broken by a cæsura. The first half contains three beats or rises, the ordinary length of the Hebrew line. The second half has hut two. In ordinary rhythm it would have three, and would form a second line in parallelism with the first. The same rhythm is detected in a few passages of similar import in the prophets. There are allusions, too numerous to cite, to the use of songs at feasts of various kinds, and at the drunken revels against which the prophets protest. Numbers 21:17 f. is claimed to he an example of the songs often sung to celebrate the discovery of a spring or the successful digging of a well. The religious use of poetry is scarcely to be distinguished from its national use. For when Jahweh could be addressed as the God of the hosts of Israel, poems composed to incite or reward bravery could not fail to make use of religious as well as of patriotic emotions to secure their end. See, for example, Judges 5:1-31 .

O. H. Gates.

Bibliography Information
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Poetry'. Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. https://www.studylight.org/​dictionaries/​eng/​hdb/​p/poetry.html. 1909.
adsFree icon
Ads FreeProfile