Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

of Moses, Paradise is not only in the third heaven (40:2), it is also on the earth (38:5).

Paradise is thus
obviously situated in different places according to early Jewish documents. It is on the earth either far to
the east (1 En. 32:23, 2 En. 42:34), to the northeast perhaps (1 En. 61:113), between the northeast and
the west (1 En. 70:34), to the north (1 En. 77:34), to the far west perhaps (Jos. JW 2.15556), but never
to the south (but see 1 En. 77:12). It can be readily seen, from this brief list, that the books collected
together as 1 Enoch are a repository of many diverse Jewish ideas.
Paradise is sometimes perceived as the (post resurrection) intermediate abode of the righteous (1 Enoch
3770), or as the hidden eschatological place of the righteous (2 Enoch 8). Other passages describe the
righteous enjoying life in Paradise or Eden, but provide no indication of their duration there (Apocalypse
of Abraham 21). It is also frequently portrayed as closed (4 Ezra 7), as one would expect from the Genesis
account of the expulsion; note 2 En. 42:3[J], And I ascended into the east, into the Paradise of Eden,
where rest is prepared for the righteous. And it is open as far as the third heaven; but it is closed from this
world. This passage seems to result from an attempt to resolve the tension arising from placing Paradise
on the earth and also in the third heaven. Jews did not think about diverse places, but only one and the
same Paradise. In 4 Ezra, Ezra is told, for you Paradise is opened, the tree of life is planted, the age to
come is prepared, plenty is provided, a city is built, rest is appointed (8:52; cf. Apocalypse of
Abraham 21). The Jewish apocalypses contain the conviction that the final (or second) age will be
characterized by the blessed state at creation of the first age, but without the possibility of disobedience,
disharmony, discomfort, and discontinuity. Only in this sense can it be said that the Paradise of the first
age reappears in the second (final) age. The Jewish myth of Paradise is so developed by the end of the 1st
century C.E. that the author of Joseph and Aseneth freely borrowed from it in describing the garden
beneath Aseneths tower.
Such creative ideas in early Jewish theology influenced Christians. According to Luke 23:43 Jesus tells
the repentant thief that he will be with him that day in Paradise. Paul reveals that he was taken up into the
third heaven, and thus probably into Paradise (2 Cor 12:3). The author of the Odes of Solomon describes
Paradise; as also in the Psalms of Solomon but in contrast to many other texts according to which the
righteous eat the fruit of the trees (see T. Levi 18:11; Rev 2:7), the righteous are portrayed as blooming
and fruit-bearing trees. The poet proclaims, Blessed, O Lord, are they who are planted in your Land,
and who have a place in your Paradise (Odes Sol. 11:18; cf. Gos. Thom. 19).
JAMES H. CHARLESWORTH

PARAH (PLACE) [Heb pr (]) . A settlement in the E half of Benjamin (Josh 18:23). The exact
location of the site is unknown. Z. Kallai (HGB, 401) has recently argued that the settlement is likely to
be situated near Bethel or Ophrah on grounds that the names in the list in which it appears are
geographically grouped. Long-standing scholarly opinion has, however, identified the site with the
modern Tell Fara some 6 mi (10 km) N of Jerusalem (M.R. 177137). It is possible that this latter site,
being located both by a substantial spring (it still provides Old Jerusalem with water) and in close
proximity to Anathoth, is also known by the name Parath, the river to which Jeremiah went to hide his
linen belt (Jeremiah 13).
ELMER H. DYCK
PARALEIPOMENA IEREMIOU. See BARUCH, BOOK OF 4.
PARALLELISM. Parallelism is the most prominent rhetorical figure in ancient Near Eastern poetry,
and is also present, although less prominent, in biblical prose. It can be defined as the repetition of the
same or related semantic content and/or grammatical structure in consecutive lines or verses. For
example, in Ps 103:10 we find that both the sense and the structure of the first line are echoed, in different
words, in the second:
Not according to our sins did he deal with us;
And not according to our transgressions did he requite us.

But, while the definition cited here works well for the most part, and the example of Ps 103:10 would be
universally accepted as a parallelism, there is no consensus on precisely what parallelism is or how it
works, and therefore no absolute criterion for identifying parallelisms. As we move farther away from
identity or similarity between the two lines, more questions arise and there is more disagreement about the
identification of a parallelism. For instance, some scholars would consider Ps 106:35 to be a parallelism
while others would insist that it is not.
They intermingled with the nations;
They learned their ways.
What does seem certain, though, is that parallelism is a matter of relationshipsbetween lines and/or
parts of lines. The history of the study of biblical parallelism can be understood as a quest to determine
the precise nature of the relationship between groups of words which give the strong impression of being
related in at least one of a number of ways.

A. The Study of Parallelism, Past and Present


B. Types and Categories
1. Synonymous, Antithetic, and Synthetic Parallelism
2. Additional Types
a. Chiastic Parallelism
b. Staircase Parallelism
c. Emblematic Parallelism
d. Janus Parallelism
3. Parallel Word Pairs
4. Linguistic Models
a. The Grammatical Aspect
b. The Lexical Aspect
c. The Semantic Aspect
d. The Phonological Aspect

A. The Study of Parallelism, Past and Present


Biblical parallelism became the focus of scholarly attention as the result of Bishop Robert Lowths
discussion of it in his De sacra poesi Hebraeorum (Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews) in
1753 and his Isaiah: A New Translation with a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes Critical, Philological,
and Explanatory in 1778. To be sure, Lowth was not the first to notice the phenomenon of parallelism
(for the pre-Lowthian history of the study of parallelism see Kugel 1981: 96286), but, due to the thencurrent trends in biblical studies and his own prominence in the field, it was his definition, articulated in
the introduction to Isaiah, that became the classic definition of parallelism.
The correspondence of one Verse, or Line, with another I call Parallelism. When a proposition is
delivered, and a second is subjoined to it, or drawn under it, equivalent, or contrasted with it, in Sense;
or similar to it in the form of Grammatical Construction; these I call Parallel Lines; and the words or
phrases answering one to another in the corresponding Lines Parallel Terms.
Lowth spoke of the correspondence of parallel lines and terms. This was generally understood as
sameness or identity by most of Lowths successors; so the emphasis was put on the synonymity or
redundancy in parallelism to the neglect of parallelisms other dimension: variation and continuity.
Studies of parallelism from the late 18th century until the 1980s reiterated, with ever-increasing
refinements, the basic sameness of parallel lines. Not until the work of J. Kugel and R. Alter was the
balance rectified. Kugel rejected the notion of the synonymity of parallel lines, replacing it with the notion
of continuity: A, whats more, B. In a similar vein, Alter spoke of the consequentiality of parallel
lines. The views of Kugel and Alter place the emphasis on the difference between parallel lines. Parallel
lines could now be seen as adding new information, containing an intensification or a progression, rather

than just going over old material in new words. This shift in perception can be illustrated in Ps 18:9
Eng18:8 (= 2 Sam 22:9).
Smoke went up from his nostrils;
From his mouth came devouring fire;
Live coals blazed forth from him.
Most biblical scholars would view these lines as synonymous; Kugel and Alter would see in them an
intensification and/or a progression. Actually, it is not a question of either sameness of difference, either
synonymity or continuity; both dimensions are equally present in parallelism, and it is the creative tension
between them that makes this such a pleasing figure.
Both Kugel and Alter came to the study of the Bible from literary criticism, and both brought their
finely honed skills as readers to parallelistic texts. But literary criticism often eschews precise analysis in
favor of more diffuse observations. So, while achieving a reorientation of the view of parallelism, Kugel
and Alter achieve it only at a level of extreme generality. They offer only the vaguest definitions of
parallelism and do not provide the criteria for deeper analysis of its workings.
There are at least two potentially more scientific models for the analysis of parallelism: the
mathematical and the linguistic. A mathematical approach, stressing the symmetries between parallel
lines, is espoused half-heartedly by W. G. E. Watson (1984: 114119), but for the most part Watson relies
either on grammatical models or those preceding them. Linguistic models have been proposed by S. A.
Geller, E. Greenstein, and A. Berlin. All three draw on modern linguistics, especially transformational
grammar and the views of R. Jakobson (see below).
While there are major differences between 18th and 19th century studies and the most recent studies of
parallelism, they have some things in common. All attempt to analyze parallelistic texts with the most
current literary and linguistic tools available; and all seek to define the relationships that pertain between
parallel lines. In some sense, therefore, Lowths definition remains classic, and his terms like
correspondence, equivalent, and contrasted, if interpreted in their broadest sense, remain relevant to
the study of parallelism.
B. Types and Categories
The preceding section presented a simplified summary of the major approaches to the study of
parallelism. But most scholars energy was spent in the detailed analysis of specific types and subtypes of
parallelism. Here, too, Lowths work served as a guide to his own and later generations, for in his Isaiah
he provided a framework for the classification of types.
1. Synonymous, Antithetic, and Synthetic Parallelism. Based on the semantic relationship of the
parallel lines, Lowth reduced parallelism to three sorts: synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic. In
synonymous parallelism the same sense is expressed in different but equivalent terms: When a
proposition is delivered; and is immediately repeated, in whole or in part, the expression being varied, but
the sense entirely or nearly the same. An example is Ps 112:1:
Happy is the man who fears the Lord;
Who is greatly devoted to his commandments.
Notice that the meaning of both lines need not be identical, only nearly the same, and that terms found
in the first line may be lacking in the second (and vice versa). In fact, there is considerable latitude in all
of Lowths categories, which later biblicists sought to constrict.
In antithetic parallelism two lines correspond with one another by an opposition of terms and
sentiments. The antithesis may range from exact contraposition of word to word to a general
disparity. Prov 10:1 illustrates:
A wise son makes glad his father;
But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.
In synthetic parallelism (also called constructive or formal parallelism), according to Lowth,
the parallelism consists only in the similar form of construction; in which word does not answer to
word, and sentence to sentence, as equivalent or opposite; but there is a correspondence and equality

between different propositions, in respect of the shape and turn of the whole sentence, and of the
constructive parts
Eccl 11:2 is an example:
Give a portion to seven, and also to eight;
For you do not know what evil shall be upon the earth.
This is the loosest of Lowths categories, and the one that received the most criticism. Some viewed it
as a catchall of miscellaneous, difficult-to-categorize cases, and others did not think that it was a
legitimate form of parallelism at all.
2. Additional Types. As parallelism was studied more closely, its many permutations became evident:
word order might vary from line to line; some terms might be ellipsed and others added (i.e., the
parallelism might be termed complete or incomplete; incomplete parallelism might or might not have
compensation), and so forth. To some extent, Lowth had allowed for these permutations within his three
types, but, given the scholarly penchant for categorizing and labeling, it was not long before the number
of types grew. Many of the additional types are not of the same order as Lowths; that is, in one sense
they can be considered subtypes and in another sense they cut across the lines of the original three types.
The most well-known of these additional types will be presented here.
a. Chiastic Parallelism. The order of the terms in the first line is reversed in the second line, yielding
an AB//BA pattern, as in Jer 4:5a:
Proclaim in Judah;
And in Jerusalem announce.
More than two sets of terms may be involved: ABC//CBA, etc. Chiastic patterning is not limited to
parallelism, but it is often found in parallel lines.
b. Staircase Parallelism. A steplike pattern in which some elements from the first line are repeated
verbatim in the second and others are added to complete the thought. Judg 5:12 provides an illustration:
Awake, awake, Deborah;
Awake, awake, chant a song.
(Cf. Greenstein 1974 and 1977; Loewenstamm 1975; Watson 1984: 15056).
c. Emblematic Parallelism. A parallelism in which a simile or metaphor forms one of the lines, as in
Ps 42:2:
As a hind yearns for watercourses;
So my soul yearns for you, God.
d. Janus Parallelism. This type of parallelism hinges on the use of a single word with two different
meanings, one of which forms a parallel with what precedes and the other with what follows. Thus, by
virtue of a double entendre, the parallelism faces in both directions. An example is Gen 49:26:
The blessings of your father
Surpass the blessings of my ancestors/mountains [hwry]
To the utmost bounds of the eternal hills.
(Cf. Watson 1984: 159; Rendsburg 1980).
3. Parallel Word Pairs. Although 20th-century scholars continued to refine the distinctions involving
the relationships between parallel lines as a whole, the major efforts were placed on the analysis of certain
sets of parallel terms, or, as they came to be known, fixed word pairs. Lowth had mentioned parallel terms
(words or phrases answering one to another in corresponding lines), but it was the discovery and
decipherment of Ugaritic poetry, together with the ascendancy of the Parry-Lord theory of oral
composition, that spurred the collection, from biblical and Ugaritic poetic texts, of sets of terms that recur
frequently in parallelisms. The emphasis was on recurrencethose terms, like day and night,
heaven and earth, which were found together frequently. It was thought that such pairs were the
functional equivalents of the formulas in Greek and Yugoslavian poetry that enabled a poet to compose
orally. Lists of these pairs grew long (they number over 1,000), as did the bibliography on word pairs (See
primarily Dahood Psalms AB, 3.44556; Dahood 1972, 1975, and 1981. See also Avishur 1977; Berlin
1983, 1985: 6480; Boling 1960; Cassuto 1971; Craigie 1971, 1979a, 1979b; Culley 1967; Gevirtz 1963;

Held 1953, 1962, 1965; Kugel 1981: 2739; Melamed 1961, 1964; OConnor 1980: 96109; Watson
1984: 12843; Watters 1976; Whallon 1963, 1969; Yoder 1970, 1971.) Attention was paid to frequency,
to the order in which the members of a pair occurred, and to their grammatical form. Inevitably, there
were attempts to categorize the semantic relationship between words in a pair: synonyms, antonyms, a
whole and a part, abstract and concrete, common term and rare or archaic term, the breakup of stereotyped
phrases. In the last, a conventional phrase is split, one part occurring in one line and the other in the next
line (cf. Melamed 1961, 1964). For instance, the phrase horses and chariots, a conventional
combination (cf. Josh 11:4), is split in Zech 9:10:
I shall banish chariots from Ephraim;
And horses from Jerusalem.
Likewise in Ps 20:8Eng 20:7:
These (call) on chariots;
And those on horses.
It was also noticed that numbers obey a formula, x // x+1, when they appear in parallelism. Thus three
parallels four (Amos 1:3); six parallels seven (Job 5:19). The principle may employ a factor of 10:
one thousand parallels ten thousand (Ps 91:7).
Many scholars saw in word pairs the essence of parallelism, the sine qua non without which parallel
lines could not exist. Furthermore, it was suggested, these pairs formed a kind of poets dictionarya
poetic substratum on which poets might draw in order to compose parallelisms. These conclusions reflect
the fact that the impetus for the study of word pairs was intimately bound up with theories of oral
composition, unproved and unprovable at least for biblical poetry. But even when these theories came
under criticism, the collecting of word pairs did not cease, for word pairs had taken on a life of their own
in biblical studies. As such, this enterprise represents one of the most extensive lexical studies of ancient
texts. The preoccupation with word pairs focused attention on the similarities between Hebrew and
Ugaritic poetry, and on certain of their lexical aspects, but it did so to the neglect of the rest of the
parallelism and the pairing of other terms in it which did not occur with any notable frequency. Moreover,
it threatened to perpetuate certain misunderstandings about the nature of parallelism and the nature of
word pairs. (Cf. Kugel 1981: 2739; Berlin 1983, 1985: 6480.)
4. Linguistic Models. By the 1970s the influence of modern linguistic research, especially structural
linguistics and transformational grammar, began to be felt in biblical studies. Interest in the grammatical
analysis of poetry grew, and with it, the grammatical analysis of parallelism. A number of scholars
(Berlin, Collins, Geller, Greenstein, OConnor, Pardee, Watson), working independently, offered
grammatical treatments of parallelism. They varied somewhat in type and level of analysis (cf. Berlin
1985: 1830), but they all signaled a return to the analysis of the line as a whole, rather than the
concentration on word pairs; and they all showed that linguistics had something new and important to
contribute to the study of parallelism.
No modern linguist has had more impact on the study of parallelism, both within and outside of the
Bible, than Roman Jakobson. Jakobsons (1966: 423) most famous dictum on the subject was
Pervasive parallelism inevitably activates all the levels of languagethe distinctive features, inherent
and prosodic, the morphological and syntactic categories and forms, the lexical units and their semantic
classes in both their convergences and divergences acquire an autonomous poetic value.
This was taken by both Stephen Geller (1979) and Adele Berlin (1979, 1985) as a programmatic guide for
the analysis of biblical parallelism. Geller limited his treatment to the grammatical aspect, as did Berlin
1979 (cf. also Greenstein 1982), but Berlins 1985 work offered a more comprehensive linguistic
description, including areas and issues previously dealt with in word pair studies. Since this is the
broadest and most recent study, a detailed summary of it will be presented here.
Parallel can be viewed as a linguistic phenomenon involving linguistic equivalences and/or contrasts
that may occur on the level of the word, the line, or larger areas of text. (For the most part, biblical
parallelism operates at the level of the line.) Equivalence does not mean only identity, but a word or
construction that, linguistically speaking, belongs to the same category or paradigm, or to the same

sequence or syntagm. One can discuss four linguistic aspects which may be activated in parallelism: the
grammatical aspect, the lexical aspect, the semantic aspect, and the phonological aspect.
a. The Grammatical Aspect. In grammatical parallelism the syntax of the lines is equivalent; i.e., their
deep structures (and perhaps their surface structures as well) are the same. For example, the surface
structures are the same in both lines (in the Hebrew) of Ps 103:10:
Not according to our sins did he deal with us;
And not according to our transgressions did he requite us.
Many parallelisms, however, employ lines of different surface structure which can be related back, using
the methodology of transformational grammar, to the same underlying deep structure. A nominal clause
may be paired with a verbal clause, as in Mic 6:2b.
For the Lord has a quarrel with his people;
And with Israel will he dispute.
A positive clause may be paired with a negative clause, as in Prov 6:20:
Guard, my son, the commandment of your father;
And do not forsake the teaching of your mother.
The subject of one clause may become the object in the next clause, as in Gen 27:29:
Be a lord over your brothers;
Let the sons of your mother bow before you.
There may be contrast in grammatical mood: an indicative may parallel an interrogative, an imperative
may parallel a jussive, etc. In Ps 6:6Eng6:5 a negative indicative is paired with an interrogative.
For in Death there is no mention of you;
In Sheol who can acclaim you?
The seeds of grammatical analysis are present in Lowths definition (similar to it in the form of
Grammatical Construction), but Lowth and his successors did not develop it because their understanding
of grammar was quite different from that of modern linguists and they lacked the tools for this type of
analysis.
Parts of lines are also subject to grammatical, or morphological, analysis. Parallel terms may be of
different word classes: e.g., noun // pronoun; noun, adjective, or participle // verb, etc. The first is
illustrated in Ps 33:2:
Praise the Lord with a lyre;
With the ten-stringed harp sing to him.
The second can be seen in Ps 145:18:
The Lord is near to all his callers;
To all who call him in truth.
This type of morphological pairing is possible because the forms paired can be substituted for each other
in a sentence. That is, they belong to the same paradigm and are, therefore, linguistically equivalent.
When parallel terms are from the same word class (e.g., both nouns), there may be other morphological
contrasts present: the tense or conjugation of verbs may be different; there may be contrast in the number,
gender, or definiteness of nouns. In fact, to quote P. Kiparsky (1973: 235): the linguistic sames which are
potentially relevant in poetry are just those which are potentially relevant in grammar. One could easily
substitute the word parallelism for poetry in this statement, for in parallelism any grammatically
equivalent form (linguistic same) can be paired with another. Some examples follow:
(a). The tenses contrast (qtl // yqtl) in Ps 26:4:
I do not [Heb: did not] consort with scoundrels;
And with hypocrites I do not [Heb: will not] associate.
(b) The conjugations contrast (qal // niphal) in Ps 24:7:
Lift up, O gates, your heads;
And be lifted up, O eternal doors.par
(c) A singular parallels a plural in Prov 14:12 = 16:25:
There is a right path before man;

But its end is paths of death.


Note that the same word is used in both forms. Often different words, one in each number, are used, as in
Deut 32:7 (remember [sing.] // consider [pl.]) and Lam 5:17 (this // these).
(d) In Lam 3:47 the terms in the first line lack the definite article while those in the second line have it.
Panic and pitfall were ours;
The desolation and the destruction.
There are other types of grammatical equivalences and contrasts, and numerous examples of each. The
benefit of such a grammatical approach to parallelism is that it can account for the many permutations
which earlier approaches were at a loss to explain, and it can relate, under one rubric, in a holistic manner,
many phenomena which were previously considered disparate.
b. The Lexical Aspect. Earlier approaches dealt with one facet of the lexical aspect of parallelism
fixed word pairs. But actually, there is no reason to limit the discussion only to fixed, or frequently
recurring, pairs. All parallelisms involve the pairing of terms, and all lexical pairings can be better
understood through recourse to linguistics.
The process whereby terms are paired in parallelism is similar to the process which generates
associations in psycholinguistic word association games. That is, parallel word pairs are the product of
normal linguistic association. Every word has a potential mate, and it does not require any special training
or talent to produce one.
Linguists have discovered rules that account for the kinds of associations that are made. They have
noted that in word association games a word may elicit itself; and so in parallelism, a word may be paired
with the same word, or with a word from the same root (cf. 2 Sam 22:7; Job 6:15). They have also noted
that a word may have a number of different associates, and that some are likely to be generated more
often than others.
The rules for word association are categorized as paradigmatic or syntagmatic. In paradigmatic
operations, a word is chosen from the same category and may substitute for the given word. The most
common type of paradigmatic choice is one with minimal contrast, which produces an opposite, as in
good-bad, man-woman. A related type of operation invokes the Feature Deletion and Addition Rule.
The features of a word are listed hierarchically by linguists; for example, father = noun, singular, animate,
human, parent, male. When a feature is deleted it is usually done from the end of the list, so that father
will more likely generate mother (changing male to female) or son (changing parent to its reverse) rather
than something involving a change higher on the list, like ram. The preferred change is the change of a
sign (plus or minus), i.e., +/ male, +/ parent. This yields minimal contrast. If a feature is deleted, the
result is a superordinate, as in father-man. An added feature produces a subordinate, as in fruit-apple. If
another word is chosen with the same list of features, we have a coordinate, as in cat-dog (both are noun,
singular, animate, mammal, domesticated, etc.). The higher on the list a feature is, the less likely that it
will be changed. This accounts, first of all, for the tendency toward paradigmatic responses (i.e.,
associations involving the same class of words). It also explains why certain responses occur more
frequently than others.
Syntagmatic responses involve the choice of an associate from the same sequence rather than the same
class. Often this is realized in the completion of idioms. In English the word cottage will often evoke
cheese. This is similar to the phenomenon described by Melamed (1961; 1964) as the breakup of
stereotyped phrases. Conventional coordinates, like sws-rkb (horse-chariot/driver), sd-mt (loyaltytruth), may be paired in parallel lines. Another type of syntagmatic pairing in the Bible involves the
splitting up of the components of a personal or geographic name: Balak // king of Moab (Num 23:7);
Ephrathah // Bethlehem (Ruth 4:11). There are also other examples of syntagmatic pairings such as chair
// sit (Isa 16:5; Lam 5:19) and write // book (Job 19:23).
While lexical parallelism, that is, the pairing of associated words, generally accompanies grammatical
parallelism, it can occur in lines which are not grammatically parallel (at least paradigmatically). An
example is Ps 111:6:
The power of his deeds he told to his people (mw)

In giving to them the inheritance of nations (qwym).


The syntactic structure of the lines is not equivalent, but the pair people-nation is a known association.
There are other cases in which the lexical pairing occurs in addition to semantic pairing; a creative tension
between the two may be at play. Job 5:14 provides an illustration:
By day they encounter darkness;
And as in the night they grope at noon.
The semantic and grammatical pair is day-noon, but the common lexical associates day-night gives an
added dimension to the parallelism.
c. The Semantic Aspect. The semantic aspect pertains to the relationship between the meaning of the
parallel lines. It was this relationship that Lowth categorized as synonymous, antithetic, or synthetic; and
which Kugel described as A, whats more, B (see above). From a linguistic perspective, the semantic
relationships in parallel lines, like the lexical relationship between word pairs, can be viewed as either
paradigmatic or syntagmatic.
It is not always so easy, however, to categorize particular examples as one or the other. Sometimes the
relationship is ambiguous and would be interpreted differently by different readers. Take, for example,
Hab 3:3:
His glory covers heaven;
And the earth is full of his praise
It is possible to analyze these lines as paradigmaticeach conveying a similar meaning; on the other
hand, the second line may be perceived as a result of the first, in which case there would be a semantic
sequence, or syntagm.
In many case both paradigmatic and syntagmatic elements are present, as in Isa 40:9:
Ascend a high hill, herald (to) Zion;
Lift your voice aloud, herald (to) Jerusalem.
The actions of the herald are sequential, but the vocatives (herald to Zion/Jerusalem) are paradigmatic.
It appears to be in the nature of parallelism to combine these two forces, so that the expression advances
even as the lines are bound firmly together. In this way the second line of a parallelism often
disambiguates, or clarifies, the first; or on a more abstract level, parallelism may serve as a metaphor.
A thorn comes to the hand of a drunkard;
And a proverb to the mouth of fools. (Prov 26:9)
d. The Phonological Aspect. Sound equivalences may be activated in parallelism just as grammatical
and lexical equivalences are. Often this takes the form of sound pairsthe pairing of terms that are
phonologically equivalent (i.e., they contain the same or linguistically related consonants). In some cases
the sound pairs are also word pairs: lwm // lwh, peace // tranquility in Ps 122:7; bwrk // rk, your
cistern // your well in Prov 5:15; w // , whip // rod in Prov 26:3. More often, it seems, sound pairs
are not lexical or semantic pairs; they may not even be from the same word class.
He made the moon for time-markers [mwdym]:
The sun knows its setting [yd m ww]. (Ps 104:19)
I will cut off your horses from your midst [mqrbk];your chariots [mrkbtyk]. (Mic 5:9)
(In this last verse the lexical pairs are horses // chariots.)
Several sound pairs may occur in a parallelism and they may be patterned in different ways: AABB,
ABAB, ABBA. The effect of sound pairs is to reinforce the bond created by the other forms of
equivalence between the parts of the parallelism. Sound pairs provide an added dimension, an additional
type of linguistic equivalence. The more equivalences there are in a parallelism, the stronger is the sense
of correspondence between one line and the next. This, in turn, promotes the perception of semantic unity.
The various linguistic equivalences may act in concert, or they may produce an artistic tension, creating
an interplay that adds to the interest of the parallelism.
Because there are infinite possibilities for activating linguistic equivalences, there are infinite
possibilities for constructing parallelisms. No parallelism is better or more complete than any other.

Each is constructed for its own purpose and context. The device of parallelism is extraordinarily flexible,
and its expressive capabilities and appeal are enormous, as the poets of the ANE discovered long ago.
Bibliography
Alonso-Schkel, L. 1963. Estudios de Poetica Hebrea. Barcelona.
Alter, R. 1983a. The Dynamics of Parallelism. Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts 11.1: 71101.
. 1983b. From Line to Story in Biblical Verse. Poetics Today 4: 61537.
. 1985. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York.
Avishur, Y. 1972. Addenda to the Expanded Colon in Ugaritic and Biblical Verse. UF 4: 110.
. 1974. Stylistic Common Elements Between Ugaritic Literature and Song of Songs. Beth Mikra 59: 50825 (in
Hebrew).
. 1975. Word Pairs Common to Phoenician and Biblical Hebrew. UF 7: 1347.
. 1976. Studies of Stylistic Features Common to the Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible. UF 8: 112.
. 1977. The Construct State of Synonyms in Biblical Rhetoric. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Baker, A. 1973. Parallelism: Englands Contribution to Biblical Studies. CBQ 35: 42940.
Berlin, A. 1979. Grammatical Aspects of Biblical Parallelism. HUCA 50: 1743.
. 1983. Parallel Word Pairs: A Linguistic Explanation. UF 15: 716.
. 1985. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington, IN.
Boling, R. 1960. Synonymous Parallelism in the Psalms. JSS 5: 22155.
Bostrom, G. 1928. Paronomasi i den aldre hebreiska Maschallitteraturen med sarskild hansyn till Proverbia. Lund.
Bronznick, n. 1979. Metathetic ParallelismAn Unrecognized Subtype of Synonymous Parallelism. HAR 3: 2539.
Cassuto, U. 1971. The Goddess Anath. Jerusalem.
. 197375. Biblical and Oriental Studies. 2 vols. Jerusalem.
Ceresko, A. 1975. The A:B::B:A Word Pattern in Hebrew and Northwest Semitic with Special Reference to the Book of Job.
UF 7: 7388.
. 1976. The Chiastic Word Pattern in Hebrew. CBQ 38: 30311.
. 1978. The Function of Chiasmus in Hebrew Poetry. CBQ 40: 110.
Clark, H. H. 1970. Word Associations and Linguistic Theory. Pp. 27186 in New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. J. Lyons.
Baltimore.
Collins, T. 1978. Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry. Rome.
Craigie, P. C. 1971. A Note on Fixed Pairs in Ugaritic and Early Hebrew Poetry. JTS 22: 14043.
. 1979a. Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic and Early Hebrew Poetry. JTS 22: 14043.
. 1979b. The Problem of Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry. Semitics 5: 4858.
Culley, R. C. 1967. Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms. Toronto.
Dahood, M. 1972. Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs. Pp. 71382 in Ras Shamra Parallels I, ed. L. Fisher. AnOr 49. Rome.
. 1975. Pp. 139 in Ras Shamra Parallels II, ed. L. Fisher. AnOr 50. Rome.
. 1981. Pp. 1206 in Ras Shamra Parallels III, ed. S. Rummel. AnOr 51. Rome.
Di Marco, A. 1976. Der Chiasmus in der Bibel. LB 36: 2179; 37: 4968.
Driver, G. R. 1953. Hebrew Poetic Diction. VTSup 1: 2639.
Fox, J. 1977. Roman Jakobson and the Comparative Study of Parallelism. Pp. 5960 in Roman Jakobson: Echoes of His
Scholarship, ed. D. Armstrong and C. van Schooneveld. Lisse.
Freedman, D. n. 1980. Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy. Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake, IN.
Geller, S. 1979. Parallelism in Early Biblical Poetry. Missoula, MT.
. 1982a. The Dynamics of Parallel Verse. A Poetic Analysis of Deut 32:612. HTR 75: 3556.
. 1982b. Theory and Method in the Study of Biblical Poetry. JQR 73: 6577.
Gevirtz, S. 1963. Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel. Chicago.
. 1973. On Canaanite Rhetoric: The Evidence of the Amarna Letters from Tyre. Or 42: 16277.
Gluck, J. 1970. Paronomasia in Biblical Literature. Semitics 1: 5078.
. 1971. Assonance in Ancient Hebrew Poetry: Sound Patterns as a Literary Device. Pp. 6984 in De Fructu Oris Sui,
Essays in Honor of Adrianus van Selms, ed. I. H. Eybers, F. C. Fensham, and C. J. Labuschagne. Leiden.
Gordis, R. 1971. The Structure of Biblical Poetry. Pp. 6194 in Poets, Prophets, and Sages. Bloomington, IN.
Gray, G. B. 1915. The Forms of Hebrew Poetry. New York. Repr. 1972.
Greenstein, E. 1974. Two Variations of Grammatical Parallelism in Canaanite Poetry and Their Psycholinguistic Background.
JANES 6: 87105.
. 1977. One More Step on the Staircase. UF 9: 7786.
. 1982. How Does Parallelism Mean? A Sense of Text. JQRSup pp. 4170.
Held, M. 1953. Additional Pairs of Words in Synonymous Parallelism in Biblical Hebrew and in Ugaritic. Le 18: 14460.
. 1962. The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and in Ugaritic. Pp. 28190 in
Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman, ed. M. Ben-Horin et al. Leiden.

. 1965. The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic. JANES 6:
87105.
Holenstein, E. 1976. Roman Jako sons Approach to Language: Phenomenological Structuralism. Bloomington, IN.
Holladay, W. L. 1970. Form and Word-Play in Davids Lament over Saul and Jonathan. VT 20: 15389.
Jakobson, R. 1960. Linguistics and Poetics. Pp. 35077 in Style in Language, ed. T. Sebeck. Cambridge, MA.
. 1966. Grammatical Parallelism and its Russian Facet. Language 42: 399429.
. 1971. Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances. Pp. 23959 in Selected Writings. Vol. 2.
The Hague.
. 1972. Verbal Communication. Scientific American 227.3: 7380.
. 1980a. On Poetic Intentions and Linguistic Devices in Poetry. A Discussion with Professors and Students at the
University of Cologne. Poetics Today 2: 8796.
. 1980b. A Postscript to the Discussion on Grammar of Poetry. Diacritics 10.1: 2235.
. 1980c. Subliminal Verbal Patterning in Poetry. Poetics Today 2: 12736.
Kaddari, M. Z. 1968. On Semantic Parallelism in Biblical Hebrew. Le 32: 3745 (in Hebrew).
. 1973. A Semantic Approach to Biblical Parallelism. JJS 24: 16775.
Kiparsky, P. 1973. The Role of Linguistics in a Theory of Poetry. Daedalus 102.3: 23144.
Kselman, J. S. 1977. Semantic-Sonant Chiasmus in Biblical Poetry. Bib 58: 21923.
Kugel, J. 1981. The Idea of Biblical Poetry, Parallelism and Its History. New Haven.
. 1984. Some Thoughts on Future Research into Biblical Style: Addenda to the Idea of Biblical Poetry. JSOT 28: 107
17.
Landy, F. 1984. Poetics and Parallelism: Some Comments on James Kugels The Idea of Biblical Poetry. JSOT 28: 6187.
Levin, S. 1962. Linguistic Structures in Poetry. The Hague.
Loewenstamm, S. E. 1975. The Expanded Colon Reconstructed. UF 7: 26164.
Lowth, R. 1753. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. London. Repr. 1835.
. 1778. Isaiah. A New Translation With a Preliminary Dissertation and Notes. London. Repr. 1848.
Lundbom, J. R. 1975. Jeremiah. A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. SBLDS 18. Missoula, MT.
McNeill, D. 1966. A Study in Word Association. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5: 54857.
Malkiel, Y. 1968. Studies in Irreversible Binomials. Pp. 31155 in Essay on Linguistic Themes. Berkeley.
Melamed, E. Z. 1961. Break-up of Stereotype Phrases. ScrHier 8: 11553.
. 1964. Break-up of Stereotype Phrases as an Artistic Device in Biblical Poetry. Pp. 188219 in Sefer Segal. Studies in
the Bible Presented to Professor M. H. Segal, ed. Y. Grintz. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Miller, P. J. 1980a. Studies in Hebrew Word Patterns. HTR 73: 7989.
. 1980b. Synonymous-Sequential Parallelism in the Psalms. Bib 61: 25660.
. 1984. Meter, Parallelism, and Tropes: The Search for Poetic Style. JSOT 28: 99106.
Moor, J. C. de 1978a. The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel. Pp. 11939 in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East
Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm, ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau. Jerusalem.
. 1987b. The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel II: The Formal Structure. UF 10: 187217.
. 1980. The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel III: Further Illustrations of the Principle of Expansion. UF 12: 311
15.
Muilenburg, J. 1953. A Study in Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style. VTSup 1: 97111.
Newman, L. 1918. Studies in Old Testament Parallelism, I: Parallelism in Amos. Berkeley.
OConnor, M. 1980. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, IN.
Pardee, D. 1980. Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry: Parallelism. Paper read at the First International Symposium on the Antiquities
of Palestine. Aleppo.
. 1982. Types and Distributions of Parallelism in Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry. Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the
Society of Biblical Literature. New York.
. 1984. The Semantic Parallelism of Psalm 89. Pp. 12137 in In the Shelter of Elyon, ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R.
Spenser. JSOTSup 31. Sheffield.
Parker, S. 1974. Parallelism and Prosody in Ugaritic Narrative Verse. UF 6: 28394.
Popper, W. 191823. Studies in Biblical Parallelism, Part II: Parallelism in Isaiah. UCPNES. Berkeley.
Rendsburg, G. 1980. Janus Parallelism in Gen 49:26. JBL 99: 29193.
Ridderbos, n. H. 1963. The Psalms: Style-Figures and Structure. OTS 13: 4376.
Robinson, T. H. 1953. Hebrew Poetic Form: The English Tradition. VTSup 1: 12849.
Sayce, R. A. 1971. The Style of Montaigne: Word-Pairs and Word-Groups. Pp. 383405 in Literary Style: A Symposium, ed. S.
Chatman. London.
Saydon, P. P. 1955. Assonance in Hebrew as a Means of Expressing Emphasis. Bib 36: 3650, 287304.
Schramm, G. M. 1976. Poetic Patterning in Biblical Hebrew. Pp. 16791 in Michigan Oriental Studies in Honor of George G.
Cameron, ed. L. Orlin. Ann Arbor.
Segert, S. 1960. Problems of Hebrew Prosody. VTSup 7: 28391.
. 1979. Ugaritic Poetry and Poetics: Some Preliminary Observations. UF 11: 72938.

. 1983a. Parallelism in Ugaritic Poetry. JAOS 103: 295306.


. 1983b. Prague Structuralism in American Biblical Scholarship: Performance and Potential. Pp. 697708 in WLSGF.
Shapiro, M. 1976. Asymmetry. An Inquiry into the Linguistic Structure of Poetry. Amsterdam.
Steinitz, W. 1934. Der Parallelismus in der finnisch-karelischen Volksdichtung. Folklore Fellows Communication 115.
Helsinki.
Watson, W. G. 1984. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. JSOTSup 26. Sheffield.
Watters, W. R. 1976. Formula Criticism and the Poetry of the Old Testament. Berlin.
Waugh, L. 1980. The Poetic Function and the Nature of Language. Poetics Today 2.1a: 5782.
Werth, P. 1976. Roman Jakobsons Verbal Analysis of Poetry. Journal of Linguistics 12: 2173.
Whallon, W. 1963. Formulaic Poetry in the Old Testament. Comparative Literature 15: 114.
. 1969. Formula, Character, and Context: Studies in Homeric, Old English and Old Testament Poetry. Cambridge, MA.
Whitley, C. F. 1975. Some Aspects of Hebrew Poetic Diction. UF 7: 493502.
Willis, J. T. 1979. The Juxtaposition of Synonymous and Chiastic Parallelism in Tricola in Old Testament Hebrew Psalm
Poetry. VT 29: 46580.
Yoder, P. 1970. Fixed Word Pairs and the Composition of Hebrew Poetry. Ph.D. Diss. University of Pennsylvania.
. 1971. A-B pairs and Oral Composition in Hebrew Poetry. VT 21: 47089.

ADELE BERLIN

PARALYSIS. See SICKNESS AND DISEASE.


PARAN (PLACE) [Heb prn (
]) . The name which designates the wilderness area S of Israel,
W of Edom, and N of the wilderness of Sinai (IDB 3: 657). While this location is not given directly, it can
be inferred from the several OT references to the wilderness of Paran. In particular, Num 13:3 and 26
report that the spies sent to scout out Canaan from the S were sent from and returned to Paran. Num 13:26
adds the specific note that the spies returned to Kadesh, apparently a town within the larger area
designated by the Wilderness of Paran. In Deut 1:22, the location is also given specifically as Kadeshbarnea. The site of Kadesh-barnea is located at Tell el-Qudeirat in N Sinai at the juncture of two ancient
routes: the Way of Shur and a branch of the Via Maris (EAEHL, 697).
While Deuteronomy names the departure point of the S reconnaissance of Canaan as Kadesh-barnea at
Deut 1:22, Deut 1:1 includes Paran in its list of locales which define the wilderness in which Israel
encamped and locates this wilderness in the Arabah, which lies S of the Dead Sea and N of Sinai.
Additional information about the location of the Wilderness of Paran can be gleaned from the account
of Abrahams victory over the coalition of kings in Genesis 14. Gen 14:6 states the limit of territory taken
by the king Chedorlaomer to be as far as El-paran on the border of the wilderness. n. Glueck (1935:
104) places the route of this action in the Arabah on the way to Sinai. From thence Chedorlaomer turned
back to Kadesh (Gen 14:7), a note which strengthens the geographical tie between Paran and Kadesh.
Num 12:16 reinforces this general location for the Wilderness of Paran as it notes that the people of
Israel travelled there from Hazeroth, which Numbers locates on the journey from the Wilderness of Sinai
to the Wilderness of Paran. Gen 21:21 names the Wilderness of Paran as the place where Ishmael grew
up, and the rest of the chapter allows us to infer that this must be placed beyond Beer-sheba (cf. Gen
21:15) on the way to Egypt (cf. Gen 21:21b); that is, in the general area S of Israel and N of Sinai. Such a
general picture of the location of the Wilderness of Paran is confirmed in 1 Kgs 11:18, where Solomons
adversary Hadad the Edomite flees from Edom to Egypt by way of Midian and Paran (that is, W from
Edom).
Num 33:36 has an additional geographical reference lacking in the MT which equates Paran and
Kadesh, but this cannot be relied upon, as it could well be an attempt to harmonize the various references
to Kadesh and Paran.
The other references to Paran are of a different sort. Deut 33:2 and Hab 3:3 bear great similarity to each
other, as both describe in poetic terms the appearance of YHWH on the path of the Exodus (cf. Exod
15:15, Ps 68:7f, and Judg 5:4 for similar descriptions of the Exodus and the entry into Canaan as divine
appearances).
1 Sam 25:1 should be read as the Wilderness of Maon with the LXX, since the continuation of this
story about David, Abigail, and Nabal takes place in Maon (see McCarter 1 Samuel AB, 388).