In The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, American biblical scholar Adele Berlin seeks to thoroughly analyze the form and function of parallelism in the Hebrew Scriptures and to better articulate its relationship to Hebrew poetry. For over thirty years, Berlin has written and taught extensively on Jewish and Hebrew studies at the University of Maryland. Her efforts have earned her the accolades and fellowships of several biblical societies and academic institutions, including the Israeli Ministry of Education, the Society of Biblical Literature and the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. In Dynamics, she demonstrates her deep acquaintance with Biblical Hebrew as well as her careful, exhaustive approach toward its study. In doing so, she provides her readers with an immensely helpful tool when encountering Hebrew parallelism in all its varieties.
The book begins by summarizing the historical attempts to define Hebrew parallelism. In the late 18th century, Robert Lowth famously defined parallelism as the principal feature of Hebrew Poetry, in which there is a generally semantic “correspondence of one verse, or line, with another.” (1) Though others have adapted these theories over time, Berlin argues that each has favored simplicity over accuracy, resulting in theories which don’t account for the myriad of linguistic permutations of parallelism that can be observed, be they by nature grammatical, lexical, semantic, phonological, or any combination thereof. Thus, Berlin sets out to demonstrate that parallelism is more than just semantic. Indeed, “a morphologic parallelism is just as parallel as a semantic one, although it is of a different nature.” (52) Furthermore, she aims to distinguish parallelism as a complex phenomenon distinct from poetry, and in doing so seeks not to expound upon the hermeneutics of parallelism, but rather to “present an overarching, integrated, and linguistically based description of [it].” (29)
To properly evaluate an incidence of parallelism, Berlin asserts that one must first examine it according to level and aspect. The aspect is the linguistic category to which the incidence may be ascribed, of which she gives three: grammatical, lexical-semantic, and phonological. The level refers then to the point at which the parallelism is apparent, the two options being at the word or at the line (clause). Consequently, for each of the three aspects there are two observable types, or levels.
First, parallelisms of the grammatical aspect may be observed at the level of the word, in which equivalences or contrasts are observed in morphology, or they may be observed at the level of the line, where the parallelism is observable in the syntax of the clause. Berlin generally describes the word level as part of the surface structure of parallelism. This is in part because the occurrence may be more perceptible to a reader since it involves congruities in the forms (morphemes) of words or phrases. In contrast, grammatical parallelisms at the line level may not be as easily perceptible since they occur in the syntactical or “deep” structure of a sentence. In other words, to properly understand a parallelism of syntax, one must diagram the components (subject, verb, object, etc.) of any supposedly associated sentences to see if there exists any equivalence or contrast between them.
Second, the lexical-semantic aspect can also be subdivided into word (lexical) and line (semantic) relationships. Again, the lexical level is generally more perceptible to the reader due to the employment of familiar word pairings. These pairings may be equivalent or contrastive in nature, and really “are nothing more or less than the products of normal word associations that are made by all competent speakers.” (67) However, it is important to note that parallelism activates word pairs, not the other way around. (79) The mere presence of word pairs does not imply a semantic relationship in the deep structure, or meaning, of any two parallel lines. Rather, a parallelism may serve as a cue to the reader that a semantic relationship is present, and it is therefore the task of the reader to carefully determine in each case if such a correspondence exists.
Third, the phonological aspect consists of simple sound pairs at the surface level, and linear phonological equivalence in the deep structure. Here Berlin’s audience must trust that the various examples she presents may constitute phonological relationships, especially considering that the Masoretic vowel markings are excluded. Generally speaking, however, these relationships may be analogous to rhyme in English, where words with similar sounds serve to unite lines of a poem. The actual method and meter employed are quite different in Hebrew, and true phonological equivalence in the deep structure is quite rare. (121) Nevertheless, the purpose of sound pairings is similar to those of the aforementioned aspects, in that they “enhance the perception of correspondence between the lines.” (111)
What makes Hebrew parallelism so complex, and perhaps equally as beautiful, are the ways in which parallel aspects can be combined to induce varied effects upon the reader. Indeed, like the petite pools of color in a painter’s palette, each may be combined in an infinite number of ways to produce varying poetic effects. One such charming example is that of paranomasia, in which a parallel in phonology unites words which are dissimilar in sense, thus creating a unique, contrastive highlight. While the meaning of such blends remains the object of hermeneutics, an undeniable effect is that of enhanced textual memorability.
Although Hebrew parallelism is remarkably varied in form and function, Berlin contends that understanding it is necessary for the hermeneutical process. She compares it to a set of binoculars which, “like human vision…superimposes two slightly different views of the same object and from their convergence…produces a sense of depth.” (99) Such a metaphor may prove inspiring for the Hebrew aficionado struggling in how to associate textual features with spiritual truths. The ultimate goal for any reader, however, is to understand the text. With poetry, such a feat may prove more difficult than other more prosaic literary genres due to its idiosyncratic usage of everyday speech. “Poets, after all, use the same language and the same linguistic rules as their audience, but it is the way in which they use these that makes them poets.” (80) If great English poets like Shakespeare were able to use language to such dramatic effect, certainly also were the magnificent kings and prophets who transcribed the very poetry of God for His eternal glory and our unending glee.