de hoop - colometry hebrew verse masoretic accents.1 (2000)
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26/1 (2000), pp. 47-73
47
Raymond de Hoop (Groningen, The Netherlands)
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSEAND THE MASORETIC ACCENTS:
EVALUATION OF A RECENT APPROACH (PART 1)1
ABSTRACT
In this paper the recent use of the Masoretic accentuation as a means toestablish the colometry in Hebrew verse is evaluated. A comparison ofdifferent studies referring to these accents demonstrates that such areference is made in a rather ad hoc fashion, whereas the accents are notalways interpreted in a consistent manner. For that reason in this paperan attempt is made to give a systematic description of the Masoreticaccentuation with regard to its use for the colometry of Hebrew verse. Inthe present part (Part I) the poetic accents were studied and it has beenshown that (1) the accents function according to a system which mightalso provide a guideline for the colometry of the text; (2) the colometry oftexts from the "poetic books" in studies referring to the Masoreticaccentuation agrees to a large extent with these findings; whereas it wasdemonstrated that the colometry of diverging passages (e.g. Pss 68 and110) also could be read according to the Masoretic accentuation; (3)reference to "a major disjunctive accent" is not sufficient, the value of anaccent depends on its position within the complete syntax of Masoreticaccents. Part II will deal with the use of the system of accentuation in theso-called "prose books" (or Twenty-one Books).
1 The present paper is a revised and updated version of De Hoop 1993, of which
parts were read at a meeting of the staff of the Semitic Institute at theTheological University Kampen, August 1993. My colleague, Dr. PaulSanders (Zwolle), discussed several topics of this paper with me and sharedwith me his insights into these matters. I wish to thank him and Professor Dr.W.T. Woldemar Cloete (University of the Western Cape, Bellville), who bothvery kindly read the final draft of this paper and suggested several importantimprovements. Thanks are also due to Dr. Leslie McFall (Cambridge), whokindly corrected the English of this paper. Needless to say I alone amresponsible for the views expressed in this paper.
RAYMOND DE HOOP48
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GeneralOne of the problematic aspects of the study of Hebrew verse is the correctdelimitation of cola in a poem and scholars sometimes differ sharply onthe colometry of a verse (Korpel & De Moor 1988:6; Cloete 1989a:11-17; 1989b:17-19; Niccacci 1997). In his study of Joshua 24 Koopmansutilised the Masoretic accentuation in his discussion on the delimitationof cola in Hebrew verse (1990:177-178). The purpose of the presentpaper is to evaluate the use of the Masoretic accents in recent studiesfollowing Koopmans's suggestion.
Koopmans defended the poetic structure of Joshua 24 with the socalled "Kampen method", a method for the analysis of Semitic verse,developed by Van der Lugt (1978) and De Moor (1978a; 1978b; 1980;1984; 1986; see also Korpel & De Moor 1988). Koopmans addedexplicitly in his argumentation an element that had not been used before,namely Masoretic accentuation (1990:177-178). In the colometric text heincluded a codification of the disjunctive accents which stand at the endof cola as divided by him. Though he was certainly not the first to look atthe Masoretic accents for this purpose,2 as far as we are aware, he was thefirst to include them in the discussion of the colometry. To indicate therelative weight of an accent, he adopted a system whereby the accent isrepresented by a number corresponding to the order of the accents asfound in the tabula accentuum of BHS. Josh 24:2, for example, is writtenas follows (Koopmans 1990:181 [accents in square script added, RdH]):
And Joshua said to all the people, (2aA) [7] ![%hAlkAla [vwhy rmayw"Thus says Yahweh, God of Israel, (2aB) [3] larcy yhla hwhy rmaAhk
Across the river your fathers lived of old,(2bA)
[5] !lw[m !kytwba wbvy rhnh rb[b
Terah, father of Abraham and of Nahor, (2bB) [2] rwj–n ybaw !hrba yba jrt but they served other gods." (2bC) [1] .!yrêja !yhla wdb[yw
Koopmans (1990:178) stated that the representation of the accents wasnot intended to suggest that the Masoretic accentuation was the key tocolometric division, but only one consideration amongst others, such as
2 Cf., for example, LaSor 1979; Van der Lugt 1978:102-117; Van der Meer &
De Moor 1988:vii, sub 3; Korpel & De Moor 1988:6; Christensen 1987a;1987b; 1988; 1989. See also Cloete 1989a:61-66, for the studies byKurylowicz and Cooper.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 49
internal parallelism. Yet his system was immediately adopted by otherscholars applying the "Kampen method" (e.g. Kim 1993; Korpel 1993;De Moor 1993; Roersma 1993; Spronk 1995).3
Considering the results of the first analyses which adopted thissystem, De Moor (1993:192) wrote that as a rule the major Masoreticaccents were employed.4 Furthermore it was found "that within a verse-line the order of magnitude of accents is always increasing." Within thesequence of accents at the end of the cola "a distinctive accent of a lowermagnitude than the preceding one usually indicates that a new verse-lineis starting at that point." This rule can be found in Joshua 24:2 as quotedabove, where the order of accents is revia [7], segolta [3] // zaqeph qatan[5], atnach [2], silluq [1]. As a consequence, the system not onlyfunctions as an indication for the colometry of the passage, but also givesan indication with regard to the end of a poetic verse.5
The advantage of the system introduced by Koopmans is that thedelimitation of the cola is no longer a matter of a scholar's personalpreference. Colometry has to be based on the discussion of tradition,comparable to the use of the vocalisation of the text. The delimitation ofcola can be argued on the basis of comparison of other analyses in whichthe accents were used (De Hoop 1993; 1995:272-273; 1999:92-93; cf.also below), or compared with other traditions (Sanders 1996:102-132;De Moor 1997b; Korpel & De Moor 1998:1-9 and passim). Thesecomparisons demonstrate that the Masoretic accentuation is closelyrelated to ancient colometric divisions and gives an extra dimension to the
3 Cf. also other scholars such as Price 1990:145-147; 288-289; Christensen
1993:17-30; Tsumura 1993:293-304; Ryou 1995:180, 184-187.4 A definition of what the larger accents are is lacking in the earlier studies.
Often one had to derive from the analysis what an author had in mind in usingthis terminology. Cf., for example, De Moor 1993:192, who refers to the"larger Masoretic accents" which are followed with regard to the delimitationof the cola and verses. Consequently it appears that we have to consider tifcha,pashta and geresh also as "larger accents", because these accents arefrequently found at the end of cola (De Moor 1993:185-191). Cf., however,also n. 12, below. It should, however, be noted that in later studies a definitioncan be found; cf. De Moor 1997b:328; Korpel & De Moor 1998:10-11.
5 A unit consisting of one or more cola, hence a mono-, bi-, or tricolon (Korpel& De Moor 1988:14-29). Usually the term "verse" or "verse-line" is used, but"poetic verse" seems more appropriate; cf. Sanders 1996:101. The conclusionwith regard to the function of accents indicating the end of a poetic verse wasalso reached in Sanders 1996:257; Korpel & De Moor 1998:12.
RAYMOND DE HOOP50
discussion of Hebrew colometry.6 Yet the use of this system does notimply for any of the scholars who adopted it, that the Masoreticaccentuation should be followed blindly (cf. e.g. Kim 1993:124; Sanders1996:112), because the accentuation also reflects the Masoreticinterpretation (cf. Cohen 1972; Freedman & Cohen 1974; Tov1993:6771). For that reason one frequently finds deviations from theaccents indicated by means of exclamation or question marks betweenbrackets.
1.2 Definition of the Problem
Nevertheless, despite the reservations expressed by the "Kampen"scholars, others have expressed their doubts about the validity ofMasoretic accentuation (Cloete 1989a:62; Edelman 1993:309; Höffken1997:250). Undoubtedly their reservations are inspired by the generaltendency to disregard the Masoretic interpretation of the text asrepresented in the Masoretic accentuation. The importance of the accentsis reduced to giving information about the stress and the cantillation ofthe text. The value of the syntactic interpretation in the sense ofpunctuation, which might indicate the end of a colon, is ignored or denied(cf. Cloete 1989a:61-62), whereas the fact that "certain accents coincidevery often with colon boundaries" is regarded as more or less accidental(Cloete 1989a:3, 62)7. The objective of this paper is to study whichaccents "often coincide", how often they do and in what context (ofaccents). This objective could be significant in view of the results of thestudy of Sanders, who concluded with regard to the colometry: "Invirtually all cases the presupposition that the accentuation of the TiberianMasoretes ... suggests a colometric division ... found clear confirmation"(Sanders 1996:257; see also 104-105; 256-257).8
6 This is in contrast to those scholars who emphasise the fact that the Masoretic
accentuation is much younger than the poem and thus unreliable as a guidelinefor the colometry of Hebrew verse (Cloete 1989a:3; Höffken 1997:250). Thecorrespondence between the Masoretic accents and other ancient divisions ofthe text are demonstrated in Revell 1971-72; 1976; Tov 1990:9-12; Sanders1996:110-111, 119-120 (on the basis of Revell 1980; 1981 [see in addition,recently Churchyard 1999]); De Moor 1997b.
7 Cloete's remarks on the Masoretic accentuation are not made in reaction to thestudies by the "Kampen School". His remarks represent more or less generalscholarly opinion on the system of accentuation.
8 This objective is not just promising in view of the results of studies from"Kampen" scholars, but also in view of studies by others, who expressed theirreservations regarding the Masoretic accentuation, such as Cloete 1989a.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 51
On the other hand, the doubts raised by Höffken and others might also bedue to some weakness in the analyses of the "Kampen School" and thesomewhat unclear value to be given to the Masoretic accents. First of all,the accents that mostly mark the end of a colon are the main accents:silluq, atnach, segolta, zaqeph qatan and revia. Yet these accents aresometimes found at the beginning of a colon, for example in Isa 40:16(De Moor 1993:188; Korpel & De Moor 1998:31-32):9
And the Lebanon will not suffice for fuel, (16aA) r[–b yd£ @ya @wn̄blw
and its beasts will not suffice for a burnt offering. (16aB) .hlêw[ yd£ @ya wtyjw
Whereas the colometry proposed by De Moor is straightforward, theposition of at least the zaqeph qatan on wtyjw in verse 16aB will raisedoubts concerning the validity of the Masoretic accentuation, as indicatedby the question mark in De Moor's analysis (1993:188).
However, the matter is even more complicated. Whereas it mightappear that there is a certain consensus regarding the main accentsmarking off the cola, one frequently encounters a different interpretationof their value. Judg 13:3b,10 for instance, was analysed by Kim(1993:175):11
Reed, reviewing Cloete 1989a, wrote of "Cloete's colographic arrangement",saying: "The ends of the cola often correspond with the Masoretic disjunctiveaccents, suggesting either than (sic, for 'that') the author has relied too heavilyon the Masoretes or more likely that the Masoretes deserve more credit fortheir work" (Reed 1991:351).
9 Cf. for similar cases also Gen 49:1B, 7C, 8aA, 13aA, 22 (De Hoop 1999:86[not listed on p. 93], 113, 145, 150, 221); Lev 26:14, 20aC, 25aB (Korpel1993:126-127); Deut 32:17, 20, 27 (Sanders 1996:104-105, 114-115); Judg13:3aA; 14:2; 15:18bC; 16:1aB, 14cB (Kim 1993:175, 227, 294, 301, 338); 1Kgs 2:4cA (Koopmans 1991:434; De Hoop 1995:273), 7bB (Koopmans1991:435) Nah 1:10aC; 3:13bA (Spronk 1995:170, 176). In several cases thesereferences concern the revia. Discussion of the remarkable position of thesemajor disjunctive accents is found in De Hoop 1993:24-27; Sanders 1996:114-115; followed by Korpel & De Moor 1998:31-32.
10 Texts, such as Judg 13:3, which are generally considered to be prose aresometimes defined as "narrative poetry" in studies by "Kampen" scholars (forexample, De Moor 1984; 1986; Koopmans 1988; 1990; 1991; De Hoop 1988;1995; 1999; Kim 1993; Korpel 1988; 1993; Roersma 1993). It is not withinthe range of this study to start a discussion on the distinction between verseand prose. In this paper we will accept the definition of a text as verse, when itwas defined as such in the studies by "Kampen" scholars (or others). On theproblems of the distinction between prose and verse, see Cloete 1988;
RAYMOND DE HOOP52
Behold, you are barren, (3bA) h~rq[Ata anAhnh
And have not given birth, (3bB) hdly alw but you will conceive, (3bC) tyr£hw
And give birth to a son. (3bD) .@bê tdlyw
Because only the disjunctive accents at the end are included in the text,differences in analysis may go unnoticed. However, if all the disjunctiveaccents are represented, discrepancies come to light very soon.Comparable to the foregoing example is Gen 16:11aB, but the colometryof the text is presented as follows (Roersma 1993:221 [accents added,RdH]):
And the angel of YHWH said to her, (11aA) why ^alm h~l rmayw
"Behold, you have conceived and shall bear a son." (11aB) @b– tdlyw hr£h ^nh
These examples demonstrate that in one case the pashta and the tifcha areregarded as indicating the end of a colon and in another, almost identicalcase they are not. However, such methodological inconsistency escapesnotice as long as the accents at the end of the cola are listed exclusively,whereas the accents that are ignored are left out.12 Inconsistencies are notsolely found between different studies but even in one strophe, forinstance, Josh 24:13 (Koopmans 1990:184, 205-206 [accents added,RdH]):
And I gave to you (13aA) !kÚl @taw
a land which you did not work in (13aB) hb% t[gyAal rva {$ra¤
And cities which you did not build, (13bA) !tynbAal rva µ!yr[w
and you dwell in them (13bB) !h–b wbªvtw
vineyards and olive groves (13cA) µ!ytyzw !ymrk
1989a:3-4; 1991; Koopmans 1990:165-176; De Moor & Watson 1993; Watson1993:380-381 (1994:27); Niccacci 1997; Kuntz 1999:44-47.
11 Cf. also Judg 13:5a, 7a, 24a (Kim 1993:175, 187, 211).12 References to the pashta, for instance, are sometimes clearly contradictory.
Korpel (e.g. 1996a:45-46) clearly considers pashta to indicate the end of acolon (Isa 55:10aA [cf. 1996a:45, n. 11]; 1laA). On the other hand, De Moor(1997b:330) considers it "unacceptable" to find a pashta at the end of a colon(with regard to Isa 61:1laA). Cf., however, Exod 19:3bA, 5bA (De Moor1997a:259); Isa 40:2aA, 9aA, etc. (De Moor 1993:185-186, 192-193; Korpel& De Moor 1998:23, 27).
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 53
Which you did not plant, (13cB) !t[fnAal rva
From them you are eating. (13cC) .!ylêka !tªa
If cola 13aB and 13bA, on the one hand, are compared with cola 13cAand 13cB, on the other hand, it is not clear why identical syntacticconstructions (i.e. with identical Masoretic accents) are writtencolometrically in different ways. In our view such a different delimitationis unlikely and for that reason a more systematic approach towardcolometric methodology and Masoretic accentuation is called for.
In more recent studies the information concerning the accents ingeneral still remains restricted to those at the end of a colon (De Hoop1995; Spronk 1995; Korpel 1996a; 1996b; 1996c; De Moor 1997b),thereby concealing on occasions a dubious use of the Masoreticaccentuation. Spronk (1995:178-179), for instance, stated that hiscolometry of Nah 2:9, 11 was "indicated by" and "according to theMasoretes". Yet in his colometry of Nah 2:9, 11, he ended several colaafter the tifcha, but he arbitrarily ignored the same accent elsewhere mostof the time (cf. e.g. Nah 2:10a with 10bB, 11aAB with 11bC) withouteven listing these occasions.
Similarly, De Moor stated in his presentation of the colometry of Isa61:10-62:9 that Codex Leningradensis (henceforth CL) represents Isa61:1lb as follows (De Moor 1997b:326, 330):13
So the Lord YHWH will make sproutrighteousness and praise
hlhtw hqdx jymxy hwhy ynda @k
Before all the nations. .!y”wghAlk dgn
In 1QIsa the text is written:
So YHWH Elohim will make sprout righteousness hqdx jymxy !yhla hwhy @k
and praise before all nations. !yawgh lk dgn hlhtw
Presented in that way it might appear that 1QIsa has a better colometrythan CL. However, the text of Isa 61:Ilb in CL contains several otherdisjunctive accents, which were not listed by De Moor. According tothese accents the colometry would be written differently:
13 We assume De Moor refers to the Masoretic accentuation as presented in the
CL, because the text is not written colometrically in the codex.
RAYMOND DE HOOP54
So the Lord YHWH 14 hw%hy ynda {@k¤(He) will make sprout righteousness and praise hlhtw h~qdx jymxy
before all the nations. .!y”wghAlk dgnª
So, even if one would prefer the colometry found in 1QIsa – which is notunder discussion here – De Moor's presentation should have provided allthe evidence available in order not to obscure the discussion. In the mostrecent studies by "Kampen scholars" the complete evidence is provided(Sanders 1996; Korpel & De Moor 1998; De Hoop 1999), which is animportant development in the discussion on the use of Masoreticaccents.15
In conclusion it can be objected that the Masoretic accentuation isapplied to the text in these studies in a rather ad hoc fashion. First of all,Kampen scholars do not offer an explanation or a discussion of thesystem of accentuation in case the Masoretic accentuation gives rise toproblems concerning its own validity. Secondly, the representation of thedisjunctive accents in the analysed texts is generally incomplete, whichgives a misguided impression of the evidence under discussion. Thirdly,it appears that the accents are not interpreted in a consistent manner. Insome cases certain accents are ignored, whereas in other cases they arereferred to as evidence for the proposed colometry, an apparentinconsistency that not only occurs between different scholars, but also inone and the same study. Because the examples given above could easilybe multiplied, it appears that we are dealing with a lack of a soundmethodology. Therefore, a new start is called for in which the referenceto the Masoretic accentuation is tied to a more systematic approach thanthe one which has been offered to date.
14 Note that in other cases the revia – where it is preceded by the geresh – is
regarded as indicating the end of a colon too: Isa 61:10aA; 62:4aA, 6aA (DeMoor 1997b:328, 329-332). For a comparable colometry, cf. e.g. Isa55:12bAB (Korpel 1996a:46).
15 In Korpel & De Moor 1998 all accents are presented in the colometric writtentext; however, they refer in the discussion solely to the accent at the end of thecolon. In Sanders 1996 and De Hoop 1999 all disjunctive accents are listed inthe discussion. Both presentations have their own advantage, though acombination of both would probably be the best: the value of each disjunctiveaccent – except for silluq – is dependent on the possible presence of thepreceding and following disjunctive accents; cf. n. 28 below.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 55
1.3 The Present Study
In this paper we will make an attempt to give a systematic description ofthe Masoretic accentuation with regard to its use for the colometry ofHebrew verse. In order to reach that goal, we will first discuss brieflyprevious studies on the Masoretic accentuation which described thesystem of accentuation and rules underlying this system. Then we willdiscuss the Masoretic accentuation in a twofold manner: we will startwith the "poetic accents" in Psalms, Job and Proverbs; and then, in Part IIwe will discuss the system in the "prose books" ("Twenty-One Books").16
In order to avoid subjectivity as much as possible, we will give adescription of the Masoretic accentuation system in combination withtexts in which the colometry is indisputable. In the first section on thepoetic accents several acrostics can be explored because in general, thetext itself gives an indication of the delimitation of the different poeticunits (colon, poetic verse, etc.) in the text (LaSor 1979:331-333). In thisrespect we will consider Pss 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, 145; Prov 31:10-31; Pss 136 and 150 could be helpful too. In Part II colometrically writtentexts in the Twenty-One Books will be considered, namely Deut 32; 2Sam 22; 23:24; also the acrostics in Lam 3-4;17 while Lam 5 might beincluded too. On the other hand, texts like Exod 15; Judg 5 are to beexcluded.18 After having given an overview of the accentuation in these 16 On the two different systems, cf. Wickes 1881; 1887; Yeivin 1980:157-158
(and passim). According to Cohen (1969:5) the understanding of the prosesystem will greatly facilitate the study of the poetic system. In our view thisstatement is capable of being reversed: because our interest is mainly focusedon poetic texts, it is appropriate to start with the poetic books.
17 Lam 1 and 2 are not listed here. Both chapters form an acrostic, yet theircolometry is not indisputable. On this matter, cf. the discussion in Part II, andfurthermore De Hoop (forthcoming). In addition to these two chapters, Pss 9–10, Cant 4:9-11 (cf. Watson 1984:199) and Nah 1:2-7 (Spronk 1995; 1997:22-26; 1998) could be included as acrostics. However, the acrostic form does notoffer an unmistakable colometry and for that reason these texts are excludedfrom this discussion.
18 Spronk (1995:168 n. 37) suggested that on the basis of, among others, thecolometrically written poem of Exod 15, it has been established that thedisjunctive accents of the Masoretes can be trusted in about 90% of the cases.However, with regard to the traditional colography of Exod 15 in the codiceshe errs, because the text is written in a "small brick over large brick" layout(cf. Snaith 1962:108-109). In this layout even the major disjunctive accentslike atnach and zaqeph qatan are disregarded. So the traditional colography ofthis text is not in line with the Masoretic accentuation. With regard to Exod15, cf. also Sanders 1996:131, n. 132. Spronk (1995:168, as well as Korpel &
RAYMOND DE HOOP56
texts we will give in both sections ("poetic" and "prose") a similar outlineof the accentuation in studies presented by the "Kampen School". Theresults will be combined later in order to establish whether there is anycorrespondence between the two sets of results. Finally we will test theoutlined system in several ways in order to discover if the system has anymerit. On the basis of these results we will try to give an outline of thesystem of the Masoretic accentuation with regard to the colometry ofHebrew verse.
2. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON THE MASORETIC ACCENTUATION19
In the earlier studies of the "Kampen School" the previous studies on theMasoretic accentual system (such as, for example, Wickes 1881; 1887;Cohen 1969; Yeivin 1980) are generally ignored. However, the increasingimportance of the Masoretic accents for the colometry (and thetermination of poetic verses) of a poem within the "Kampen School"(compare Korpel & De Moor 1998: passim) makes a change in thissituation desirable. Recent studies (De Hoop 1993; Sanders 1996) havedemonstrated that earlier literature sometimes dealt with the system ofMasoretic accentuation in a way that helped for a better understanding ofaccentuation with regard to the colometry. For that reason a shortoverview of the system of accentuation as presented in earlier studies isgiven here.
The two treatises on the Masoretic accentuation by Wickes (1881;1887) are pivotal and have set the standard for a systematic description ofthe use of Masoretic accents (Cohen 1969:10; Dotan 1970:xvi-xviii;Yeivin 1980:162-163; Price 1990:5-6). The results of his work, withsome modifications, have been presented by Yeivin (1980:165-218, 264-274), who added some additional material of his own on the interpretativevalue of the accents. Wickes (1881:24-53; 1887:29-60) explained thesystem underlying the placing of the accents on the basis of thedichotomy of the Masoretic verse. Yet his explanation cannot be used inevery instance (Yeivin 1980:172; cf. esp. Price 1990:36-47), while later
De Moor 1998:3 (who mention 85%) neglect to give a scholarly presentationof the evidence that these calculations were based on. However, as will bedemonstrated in the present paper, the number of cases where the accents canbe trusted is considerably higher than they suggest.
19 It is not within the range of this study to give a comprehensive overview ofprevious research on the Masoretic accents. The reader is referred to theoverview offered by Dotan 1970:viii-xviii; Yeivin 1980:160-163; Price1990:5-9.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 57
modifications have to be taken into account (Cohen 1969:30-35). A rathershort, but very instructive, description has been offered by Revell (1992),who combined the new insights with previous studies. The followingdescription is largely based on Revell's work (Revell 1992:595, col. 11).
The accentuation can be described as marking "terminal" accentclauses, ending with silluq or atnach, and "medial" accent clauses, endingwith zaqeph qatan or segolta. The shortest Masoretic verses contain onlyone terminal clause, e.g. Exod. 15:18:20
YHWH will reign for ever and ever. (18) .d[êw !l[l ^lªmy hwhy
A few Masoretic verses consist of one medial and one terminal clause,such as Exod 15:12:21
You stretched out your right hand, (12A) ̂nymy t~yf~nthe earth swallowed them. (12B) .$raê wm[ªlbt
But usually, when a Masoretic verse consists of more than one clauseending with an accent, it contains – according to Revell – two terminalclauses, as in Exod 15:3:22
YHWH is a warrior, (3A) hm–jlm vya hw£hy
YHWH is his name. (3B) .wmêv hw£hy
However, in our view the clause ending with atnach should not beconsidered a terminal clause, but medial. It immediately precedes aterminal clause and for that reason it should be regarded as a medialclause.23 In the following passage the clause marked by atnach can be
20 Yeivin 1980:178; Revell 1992:595, col. II. For the colometry, see Snaith
1962:109; Giese 1991:10; 1994:37; a different colometry is found inFreedman 1980:197. Similar accentual patterns are found in Gen 1:13; Lam3:16.
21 Yeivin 1980:178; Revell 1992:595, col. II. Colometry according to Giese1991:9; 1994:37; Freedman 1980:196 (contrast Snaith 1962:109). Cf. Gen23:12; Qoh 4:5; Lam 5:19, 21.
22 Yeivin 1980:178; Revell 1992:595, col. II; Giese 1991:8; 1994:37; Freedman1980:195 (contrast Snaith 1962:108). Cf. also Exod 15:5, 13; Gen 2:4; 1 Sam2:6; 2 Sam 22:27.
23 The value of the Masoretic accents is relative and not absolute (Yeivin1980:169; see also p. 59, with n. 28, below), so in this case too the value ofatnach is relative and not the same as that of silluq. In our view this is the best
RAYMOND DE HOOP58
regarded as "terminal". These clauses (or one of them), are mostlypreceded by medial clauses, for instance Exod 15:2:24
YH is my strength and my song, (2aA) hy t~rmzw yz[
and he is my salvation; (2aB) h[–wvyl yl£Ayhyw
This is my God, and I will praise him, (2bA) whwnaw yl~a hz
my father's God, and I will exalt him. (2bB) .whnmêmraw ybªa yhla
Finally, according to Revell (1992:595), "no verse contains more thantwo terminal clauses, but either [clause] may be preceded by severalmedial clauses." Where more than one medial clause is used beforeatnach, the first may be marked by segolta. However, in case segoltamarks the end of a colon, it is questionable whether we are dealing with amedial clause. In such a case it is possible that segolta marks a (third)terminal clause, which is preceded itself by a medial clause as, forinstance, in 1 Kgs 2:4 (accents added, RdH):25
So that YHWH may establish his word (4aA) wr%bdAta hwÛhy !yqy @[ml
which he spoke to me saying: (4aB) rmal yïl[ rbd rva
'If your sons observe their way, (4bA) !k%rdAta ^ynÛb wrmvyA!a
to walk before me in truth, (4bB) tmab yÙnpl tkll
with all their heart and all their soul', (4bC) !v–pnAlkbw !bÁblAlkb
saying, 'there will not be cut off from you a man (4cA) vya ~̂l trkyAal rm̄al
from upon the throne of Israel.' (4cB) .laêrcy ask l[Ám
It may be obvious from the previous examples that the Masoreticaccentuation also gives an indication regarding the end of a poetic verse,when indicating the terminal clause. However, as was observed above,26
our prime interest in this paper is the colometry of Hebrew verse; thedelimitation of poetic verses is only secondary here.
As indicated in the texts cited above, the accent clauses aresubdivided by minor disjunctive accents (e.g. tifcha, pashta) according to
conclusion, given the fact that the value of the accents is relative, andconsequently the grades offered in Yeivin should be adjusted accordingly toreflect this.
24 Revell 1992:585, col. II. Colometry according to Giese 1991:8; 1994:37;Freedman 1980:195. See also Snaith 1962:108. Cf. also Exod 15:16; Gen 2:3;etc.
25 Koopmans 1991:434, with some modifications in De Hoop 1995:273. Cf. alsoJosh 24:2 in Koopmans 1990:181 (quoted above).
26 Cf. n. 5 above; see also Sanders 1996:256-257.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 59
the principle of dichotomy. Each clause is divided in two, and each ofthese units may be divided in two again. Studies based on Wickes'sTreatise take it for granted that, if the major dichotomy by means ofatnach is absent, the position of atnach is taken either by zaqeph qatan orby tifcha (Wickes 1887:61-65; Mitchell 1889:132-133; Yeivin 1980:178;Price 1990:65-71). However, in his study of the Masoretic accents Cohenhas demonstrated that the major dichotomy in the verse is sometimeslacking, and the subdivision is created by means of tifcha as, for example,in Gen 46:23 (Cohen 1969:30-35):27
And the son(s) of Dan: Hushim. .!yvêj @d£Aynbw
The verse consists of only two stresses and it would seem rather unlikelythat this clause had to be split up. Consequently, the major dichotomy isnot supported by the Masoretic accentuation where a minor disjunctiveaccent is used (Cohen 1969:33).
Sometimes the accents are classified in grades of disjunctive force(generally four grades) on the basis of their use in marking the dichotomy(cf. Yeivin 1980:168-169; Price 1990:27-31; Revell 1992:595, tablemas.01). However, to begin with, as was already argued by Wickes(1887:14-15; Yeivin 1980:169) such a classification might be misleadingwhen followed as an absolute guideline, indicating the pausal value of anaccent. The pausal value of an accent is relative, not absolute:28
a disjunctive of grade II is not classified by a longer pause than those ofgrade III, but by the fact that their clause is normally divided by adisjunctive of grade III. For this reason, in a short verse, the realdisjunctive value .... of a disjunctive of grade II might be less than that ofa disjunctive of grade IV in a long verse or in different circumstances(Yeivin 1980:169).
27 Cf. also Gen 26:6 (three stresses); Num 26:11 (two stresses). Contrast,
however, Price 1990:65, with n. 4, who considers tifcha as carrying the mainsyntactic division of the verse in certain cases.
28 The advantage of the present system in grades 1-4 over the more ancientclassification of "emperors, kings, dukes, counts" is that the former systemleaves the possibility open for a relative grading, whereas the latter clearlyclassifies in the sense of "more" and "less" (Yeivin 1980:169). However, itappears that the atnach has still a more or less absolute value, while its valueis dependent on silluq and on the presence or absence of other disjunctiveaccents breaking the clauses between atnach and silluq (see n. 23, above).
RAYMOND DE HOOP60
Next, these grades do not take into account the distinction made by Revellbetween an accent which ends an "accent clause" and the minordisjunctive accents29 which subdivide these "accent clauses" (Wickes1887:15; cf. also Mitchell 1889; 1891). An approach which does notdistinguish sufficiently between these two different types of accents willeasily err in its reference to the Masoretic accentuation. For that reasonwe will now start with an overview of the use of the accents that markaccent clauses in the acrostics of the Hebrew Bible. The results of thisoverview will be compared with the analyses of texts by the "KampenSchool".
First, we will start with the three poetical books (Psalms, Job,Proverbs), which give a good indication of the system of the Masoreticaccentuation. In Part II of this paper we will continue with texts from theso-called Twenty-One Books ("prose books").
3. THE SYSTEM OF MASORETIC ACCENTUATION: "POETICACCENTS "
3.1 Acrostics
The placement of the accents by the Masoretes reflects a regular patternin combining the diverse accents, even though a general description isquite difficult to offer (Revell 1992:596). However, to start with the mostsimple, verses are generally divided into two halves, of which the firsttypically ends with atnach, and the second part ends with silluq, as in Ps25:8
Good and upright is YHWH, (8a) hwh=y rvywAbwf
therefore he instructs sinners in the way. (8b) .^rdêb !yafj hrwy @kAl[
In the acrostics of the poetical books these two parts are, in almost half ofthe cases, not subdivided by a minor disjunctive accent (approximately45%). In more than half of the cases the "atnach clause" is subdivided bya dechi (56.5%) and in the "silluq clause" by a revia mugrash (53.4%), asin Ps 25:10:30
29 These minor disjunctive accents which only subdivide the accent clauses are
erroneously called "servi" in Korpel & De Moor 1998:10. Yet the term"servus" is restricted to the conjunctive accents in the realm of a disjunctiveaccent – no matter whether a "heavy" or a "minor" disjunctive accent; cf.Yeivin 1980:165.
30 On the "defective revia mugrash", cf. n. 32, below.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 61
All YHWH's paths are loyal and reliable, (10a) tm–aw dsj hwhy£ twjraAlk
for those who keep his covenant and charge. (10b) .wytêd[w wt%yrb yrxnl
In a longer verse containing three parts the first part might end with arevia gadol (30.7% without subdivision by any lesser disjunctive accent),which in turn might be subdivided by mehuppak legarmeh or azlalegarmeh (in 69.3% of the cases) as Ps 25:5:
Lead me in your truth and teach me, (5A) ynd%mlw {^tÙmab ynkyrdh
for you are the God of my salvation, (5B) y[–vy yhla hta£Ayk
for you I wait all the day long. (5C) .!wy”hAlk ytyw%qÛ ^twa
Sometimes the first accent clause might end with 'oleh we-yored(occurring only twice in the acrostics), and be subdivided by tsinnor (orzarqa) or revia qatan, as Ps 37:40:
YHWH helps them and delivers them; (40aA) !fèlpèyw hw%hy !rz[yw
he delivers from the wicked and saves them, (40bA) 
RAYMOND DE HOOP62
gadol were positioned at the end of a colon. The "minor disjunctiveaccents" like azla legarmeh, mehuppak legarmeh, dechi, revia qatan,tsinnor (or zarqa) and revia mugrash are never used as an accent markingthe end of a colon, but only to subdivide one.32
3.2 Studies from the "Kampen School"
An analysis of the colometrically written texts in the studies from the"Kampen School" shows some divergent results with regard to theMasoretic accents. For our analysis we took every colometrically writtentext in their studies into consideration; the analyses of complete texts orchapters are listed first, followed by some smaller passages.1. In Ps 46 the cola ended with a major disjunctive accent in 95.8% of
the cases; only once (4.2%) did a colon end with a minor disjunctiveaccent (De Moor 1978b:216).
2. In Ps 68 the major disjunctive accents were found at the end of thecola in 88.9% of the cases, and the minor disjunctive accents in11.1% of the cola (De Moor 1990:118-122; 1997a: 172-176).
3. In Ps 70 we found the major disjunctive accents at the end in 81.3%of the cases, and the minor accents in 18.7% of the cola (De Moor1978b:206-207).
4. In Ps 77 the major disjunctive accents were found in 100% of thecases at the end of a colon (Van der Meer 1994:110).
5. In Ps 78 major disjunctive accents are found at the end of the cola in96.9% of the cases, and minor disjunctive accents were found at theend of a colon in only 3.1 % of the cola (Korpel & De Moor1988:54-60).
6. In Ps 83 the cola were ended in 100% of the cases with a majordisjunctive accent (De Moor 1978b:216).
7. In Ps 96 the cola had the major disjunctive accents at the end in93.5% of the cases; in 6.5% of all cola a minor disjunctive accentwas found at the end (De Moor 1978b:207-208).
8. In Ps 98 we found the major disjunctive accents at the end in 90.5%of the cases; 9.5% of the cola ended with a minor disjunctive accent(De Moor 1978b:208).
32 The use of the revia mugrash might be somewhat confusing. The revia
mugrash is sometimes found at the position normally occupied by atnach butin that case written defectively (without geresh). However, in that case itsfunction is comparable to revia gadol, whereas the accent is generallypreceded by dechi. Cf. Yeivin 1980:270; Price 1990:207-208; Revell1992:596.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 63
9. In Ps 107 the cola had a major disjunctive accent at its end in 98.3%of the cases, whereas only one colon (out of 59, i.e. 1.7%) had aminor disjunctive accent (De Moor 1980:315).
10. In Ps 110 the cola ended with a major disjunctive accent in 77.3% ofthe cases; the rest (i.e. 22.7%) ended with a minor accent (Van derMeer 1988:211-215).
11. In Job 3-14 selected passages33 and in Job 28 only the majordisjunctive accents (i.e. 100%) were found at the end of the cola(Van der Lugt 1988a; 1988b:279-280). The analysis by the sameauthor of the whole book of Job (i.e. Job 3:3-42:6) agrees with thisresult in that only in a very few cases does a minor disjunctive oreven a conjunctive accent end a colon (Van der Lugt 1995:476-477).
12. In some smaller units of texts in De Moor 1978a; 1978b; 1980 themajor disjunctive accents were found in 91.4% of the cases and therest were terminated by a minor disjunctive accent (8.6%).34 InKorpel & De Moor 1988,35 Korpel 1990,36 Sanders 1996,37 De Hoop199938 the major disjunctive accents were used in 100% of the casesexamined.
33 The following passages were written colometrically in Van der Lugt 1988a:3-
38: Job 3:11-12, 16, 20-21; 4:2-21; 5:8, 17; 6:2-13; 7:1-21; 9:13-24; 13:1-28;14:4-6, 13-15.
34 The poetic texts that are found, are Pss 1:5-6; 18:2b-3, 25, 39; 31:6; 40:15;57:8-9a; 59:5b-6a; 80:20; 108:2; 135:1; 140:13-14; 149:9. Passages fromPsalms which were also discussed in their entirety in these articles, are notlisted here.
35 The following passages are listed: Pss 3:8; 16:1 1; 33:16-17; 34:11; 63:6;64:2-5; 74:22; 98:5-6; 103:1-5; 126:5-6; 145:15-16; 146:6.
36 We found the following passages: Pss 2:7; 58:10; 82:1; 89:6-8; 91:4; 131:2;Job 16:9.
37 In this study we found the following passages: Pss 50:12-13; 73:16-19; 74:16-17; 81:10, 14-17; 92:15-16; Job 38:7. His colography of Ps 106:36-38(Sanders 1996:394) was not included in this calculation. The Masoreticaccentuation in verse 37 contains a clear example of Rabbinic exegesis,because according to the accentuation the word !ydvl should be read as onecolon, therefore Sanders' colography (and that of BHS) should be followedhere. On the other hand, one could follow the Masoretic accents with regard tothe colometry of verse 38 and a change would not be required. If Ps 106:36-38was included in the calculation, the result would have been that 95% of thecola were marked by a major disjunctive accent, and consequently 5% by aminor one.
38 The following passages are found: Pss 72:10; 76:12; Job 6:15. The finalpassage was listed as a part of Job 6:15-20 in De Hoop 1997:19; here too themajor disjunctive accents were used to indicate the end of a colon.
RAYMOND DE HOOP64
As a result of this evidence we may conclude that the analyses in thesestudies correspond to a large extent with the pattern of accentuation foundin the acrostics, namely, major disjunctive accents are to be found at theend of a colon, not the minor ones. Such a conclusion seems to suggestthat studies which do not confirm this pattern are based on a wrongcolometry of the poem. But this cannot be absolutely conclusive. Theonly valid conclusion at this stage is that such studies are apparently notin line with the Masoretic accentuation. In the next section we willdiscuss two passages which were found not to be in line with theMasoretic accentuation. Maybe a different colometry on the basis of theMasoretic accents is possible and may provide a better colometry (or, atleast, one of equal quality) of the text.
3.3 Discussion
Pss 68 and 110 both had a clearly diverging pattern when compared withthe Masoretic accents in the acrostics. In Ps 68 it was seen that 11.1 % ofthe cola terminated at a minor disjunctive accent; in Ps 110 it was 22.7%.Using both Psalms, we will now discuss two verses in order to checkwhether a colometry based on the Masoretic accentuation is possible. Wewill start with Ps 110:1-2.
3.3.1 Psalm 110Ps 110:1-2 is presented in the work of Van der Meer (1988:211-212, 215)as a unicolon, a tricolon, followed by an uncertain bicolon and aunicolon:
Word of YHWH to my lord: (1aA) yn%dal {hwµhy !an
"Sit at my right hand, (1bA) ynëymyl bv
till I make your foes (1bB) ^yb%yaÛ tyvaAd[
your footstool. (1bC) .^ylêgrl !dh
Your mighty sceptre, (2aA) %̂z[Ahfm
YHWH stretches forth from Zion, (2aB) @wyëxm hwhy£ jlvy
Rule in the midst of your foes!" (2bA) .^ybêya brqb hd%rÛ
In our view the Masoretic accentuation might suggest a different reading.First, the revia at the end of verse 1aA does not suggest that we aredealing here with a unicolon, but just with the beginning of a new poeticverse (cf. Van der Lugt 1995:477).39 Furthermore, the introductory 39 Cf. Booij 1991:407, who seems to prefer this delimitation of the text.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 65
formula yndal hwhy !an (v. 1aA) might be regarded as part of the samepoetic verse as the contents of the "word of YHWH", because sometimesthe formula constitutes part of the same colon (e.g. Isa 14:22b).40 Acomparison with other introductory formulas demonstrates that adistinction between introduction to direct speech and the direct speechitself does not necessarily always result in separated units, neither inUgaritic verse (De Moor 1984:266-268) nor in Hebrew verse; see e.g. Ps82:6 (cf. Korpel 1990:351):41
I, I say, "You are gods, (6aA) !t–a !yhla ytrma£Ayna
and sons of the Most High, all you." (6aB) .!kêlk @wyl[ ynbw
A second example is from Ps 2:7 (Van der Lugt 1978:496):
I will tell of the decree (7A) qjè laè hr%psa
YHWH said to me, "You are my son, (7B) hta– ynb yla rma hw%hy
Today I have begotten you." (7C) .^ytêdly !wyh yn%aÛ
These examples demonstrate that the introductory formulas can beconsidered to be an integral part of the poem and do not necessarily haveto be separated from their contents (De Moor 1984:268).
Secondly, in verse 1b we are dealing with two parallel elements, notthree. Note the parallelism of the verbs bvy and tyv on the one hand, andon the other hand the locative elements ynymyl and ^ylgrl !dh. So, theMasoretic accentuation correctly suggests we read two parallel cola here.
Furthermore, the word ^z[Ahfm (verse 2A) has an emphatic position,which is emphasised by revia. The use of this revia is comparable to theuse of the revia in the Twenty-One Books. Syntactically the word is partof the following clause, and it appears that the accent is positioned here asan emphatic or musical accent, not as a pause indicator (cf. Sanders1996:115).42 As a result verse 2 should be read as a bicolon, in which thedominion of the ruler over his enemies is the subject (Booij 1991:397).Finally it should be pointed out that the parallelism of imperatives bv and 40 Snaith 1962:1033 reads verse 1aA and 1bA as one colon.41 Reference could also be made to Job 28:14 (Van der Lugt 1988b:280;
1995:309); Lam 3:18, 24, 54, 57 (Renkema 1998:332, 334).42 Cf. also, for example, Pss 46:5; 83:5, 14 (De Moor 1978b:216); 81:14
(Sanders 1996:389); 98:9 (De Moor 1978b:207-208); 107:25 (De Moor1980:315); 118:9 (De Moor 1978b:198); 140:13 (De Moor 1978a:139). Cf.also Ps 76:12, where atnach has a comparable position (De Hoop 1999:132).With regard to the prose system, cf. now also Korpel & De Moor 1998:31.
RAYMOND DE HOOP66
hdr, and the repetition of ^ybya "your foes" argue in favour of takingthese two verses together, reading them as one strophe. For that reasonwe would suggest Ps 110:1-2 be read as follows (cf. Snaith 1962:1033):
Word of YHWH to my lord: (1aA) yn%dal { hwÙhy !an
"Sit at my right hand, (1aB) ynëymyl bv
till I make your foes your footstool. (1aC) .@ylêgrl !dh ^yb%yaÛ tyvaAd[
Your mighty sceptre, YHWH stretches forth fromZion, (2aA)
^wyëxm hwhy£ jlvy %̂z[Ahfm
Rule in the midst of your foes." (2aB) .^ybêya brqb hd%rÛ
3.3.2 Psalm 68Ps 68:16-17 was written in a strophic layout by De Moor (1990:121;1997a: 174-175) as follows:
Mountain of Elohim, (16aA) !yhla£Arh
Mount Bashan, (16aB) @v–bArh
mountain of the hump-backed, (16bA) !yn%nbgÛ rh
Mount Bashan, (16bB) .@vêbArh
why do you lay in wait, (17aA) @ïwdxrt {hml»
mountains of the hump-backed, (17aB) !yn“nèbg !yrh
O mountain on which Elohim desired to stay, (17bA) wt–bvl !yhla dmj rh%h
yes, (on which) YHWH wanted to dwell for ever? (17bB) .jxn”l @kvy hw%hyÛA#a
The first strophe betrays a delimitation in which the so-called intra-colonor half-line parallelism43 was avoided. However, in Ps 68:9 we find thefollowing delimitation (De Moor 1990:120; 1997a: 173):
The earth quaked, also the heavens dripped, (9aA) wïpfn !ymvA#a {hv[Ùr $ra
before Elohim, He-of-the-Sinai, (9aB) ynëys hz !yh“lèèa ynpm
before Elohim, the Elohim of Israel. (9aC) .laêrcy yhla !yh%laÛ ynpm
Note that in this case the Masoretic accentuation seems to suggest anothercolometry, but in our view the reading suggested by De Moor should bepreferred (cf. also Carniti 1985:28; Fokkelman 1990:74; for a differentcolometry: Snaith 1962:995). The strong parallelism of !yhla ynpm (9aB,
43 To avoid confusion the latter term should be abandoned for this phenomenon
(Sanders 1996:115-116, with n. 65). On this phenomenon, cf. Watson1994:104-191.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 67
9aC), and the very strong present intra-colon parallelism44 argues infavour of this colometry. This layout supports a different reading of verse16, namely as a bicolon containing in both cola intra-colon parallelism(cf. Watson 1994:155). The next bicolon in De Moor's layout (v. 17a)should be read as one colon (cf. Fokkelman 1990:74) if we were to followthe Masoretic accentuation. Together with the next bicolon (v. 17b) itmight form a tricolon, although the Masoretic accent at the end of verse17a, 'oleh we-yored, has a larger pausal value than atnach (Yeivin1980:267). With regard to this accent Van der Lugt found it frequently atthe end of the first colon in a tricolon (1995:476). Consequently verses16-17 might be read as one strophe, in which !ynnbg rh of the first colonof verse 17 clearly parallels the same expression in verse 16 (cf. inter aliiSnaith 1962:995; Fokkelman 1990:74, 77-81; Emerton 1993:25).
Mountain of Elohim, Mount Bashan, (16aA) @v–bArh !yhla£Arhmountain of the hump-backed, Mount Bashan, (16bB) .@vêbArh !yn%nbgÛ rh
why do you lay in wait, mountains of the hump-backed, (17aC)
!yn“nèbg !yrh @ïwdxrt { hml¥
O mountain on which Elohim desired to stay, (17bA) wt–bvl !yhla dmj rh%h yes, (on which) YHWH wanted to dwell for
ever? (17bB).jxn”l @kvy hw%hyÛA#a
3.4 Conclusion regarding the "Poetic Accents"
It appears that the Masoretic accentuation in the Three Books (Psalms,Job, Proverbs) functions according to a system which might also providea guideline for the colometry of the text. It was found that the cola of theacrostics were always ended by the major disjunctive accents: silluq, 'olehwe-yored, atnach, revia gadol.45 These cola may be subdivided by theminor disjunctive accents, which had, however, no separating force in thesense of indicating the end of a colon.
The colometry of texts from the "poetic books" in studies by the"Kampen School" agrees to a large extent with the findings in theacrostics. On the other hand, there were also analyses which showed adivergence of 10-22% from the reading suggested by the accentuation.Two passages (Pss 68 and 110) from these texts were discussed, and thisdiscussion demonstrated that it is possible to read the colometry of thesetexts according to the Masoretic accentuation, offering in that way acolometry which is able to compete with the "diverging" one.
44 According to Watson (1994:144-145) Ps 68 has a "high density of internal
parallelism".45 Sometimes the defective revia mugrash, on this accent, cf. n. 32 above.
RAYMOND DE HOOP68
It has also been shown that a reference to "a major disjunctive accent" isnot sufficient. Words which received an emphatic position in the colonsyntactically (especially at the beginning of a colon) can also beemphasised by means of a Masoretic accent. In the poetical books(Psalms, Job, Proverbs) we found revia gadol at this position,corresponding to the position which revia sometimes has in the "prose"books. So, it depends entirely on the position of such "a major Masoreticaccent" whether it should be seen as indicating the end of a colon or not.46
In Part II of this paper we will deal with the use of the system ofaccentuation in the so-called "prose books" (or Twenty-one Books).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Booij, Th 1991. Psalm cx: Rule in the Midst of Your Foes! VT 41, 396-407.
Carniti, C 1985. Il Salmo 68: Studio letterario (BSRel 68). Roma: Libreria AteneoSalesiano.
Christensen, D L 1987a. Narrative Poetics and the Interpretation of the Book ofJonah, in: Follis, E R (ed.) 1987. Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (JSOTS40). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 29-48.
Christensen, D L 1987b. The Acrostic of Nahum Once Again: A Prosodic Analysis ofNahum 1, 1-10. ZAW 99, 409-415.
Christensen, D L 1988. The Book of Nahum: the Question of Authorship within theCanonical Process. JETS 31, 51-58.
Christensen, D L 1989. The Book of Nahum as a Liturgical Composition: A ProsodicAnalysis. JETS 32, 159-169.
Christensen, D L 1993. Poetry and Prose in the Composition and Performance of theBook of Haggai, in: De Moor, J C & Watson, W G E (eds) 1993, 17-30.
Churchyard, H 1999. Topics in Tiberian Biblical Hebrew, Metrical Phonology and
Prosodics. University of Texas dissertation (www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr).
Cloete, W T W 1988. Verse and Prose: Does the Distinction Apply to the OldTestament? JNSL 14, 9-15.
Cloete, W T W 1989a. Versification and Syntax in Jeremiah 2-25: Syntactical
Constraints in Hebrew Colometry (SBL.DS 117). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.
Cloete, W T W 1989b. The Colometry of Hebrew Verse. JNSL 15, 15-29.
46 Cf. also the quotation from Yeivin 1980:169, at p. 59 with n. 28 above.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 69
Cloete, W T W 1991. Some Recent Research on Old Testament Verse: Progress,Problems and Possibilities. JNSL 17, 189-204.
Cohen, M B 1969. The System of Accentuation in the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis:Milco Press.
Cohen, M B 1972. Masoretic Accents as a Biblical Commentary. JANES 4, 3-11.
De Hoop, R 1988. The Book of Jonah as Poetry: An Analysis of Jonah 1:1-16, in: Vander Meer, W & De Moor, J C (eds) 1988, 156-171.
De Hoop, R 1993. Kamper School en Masoretische Accenten: Evaluatie enPerspectief. Kampen (unpublished paper Theol. University Kampen).
De Hoop, R 1995. The Testament of David: A Response to W T Koopmans. VT 45,270-279.
De Hoop, R 1997. The Meaning of PHZ in Classical Hebrew. ZAH 10, 16-26.
De Hoop, R 1999. Genesis 49 in Its Literary and Historical Context (OTS 39).Leiden: Brill.
De Hoop, R forthcoming. Lamentations: The qinah-metre questioned, in: Korpel, M CA & Oesch, J (eds) forthcoming. Delimitation Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical
Scholarship. Assen: Van Gorcum.
De Moor, J C 1978a. The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel, I: The RythmicalStructure, in: Avishur, Y & Blau, J (eds) 1978. Studies in Bible and the Ancient
Near East (Fs S E Loewenstamm). Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 119-139.
De Moor, J C 1978b. The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel, ll: The FormalStructure. UF 10, 187-217.
De Moor, J C 1980. The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel, III: FurtherIllustrations of the Principle of Expansion. UF 12, 311-315.
De Moor, J C 1984. The Poetry of the Book of Ruth (Part I). Or 53, 262-283.
De Moor, J C 1986. The Poetry of the Book of Ruth (Part II), Or 55, 16-46.
De Moor, J C 1988. Micah 1: A Structural Approach, in: Van der Meer, W & DeMoor, J C (eds) 1988, 172-185.
De Moor, J C 1990. The Rise of Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (BETL91). Leuven: Peeters.
De Moor, J C 1993. The Integrity of Isaiah 40, in: Dietrich, M & Loretz, O (Hrsg.)1993. Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica: Fs. K Bergerhof (AOAT 232).Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 181-216.
De Moor, J C 1997a. The Rise of Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (BETL91). Leuven: Peeters (2nd edition).
RAYMOND DE HOOP70
De Moor, J C 1997b. Structure and Redaction: Isaiah 60:1-63:3, in: Van Ruiten, J &Vervenne, M (eds) 1997. Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Fs. W A M Beuken
(BETL 132). Leuven: Peeters, 325-346.
De Moor, J C & Sanders, P 1991. An Ugaritic Expiation Ritual and its OldTestaments Parallels. UF 23, 283-300.
De Moor, J C & Watson W G E 1993. General Introduction, in: De Moor, J C &Watson W G E (eds) 1993, ix-xviii.
De Moor, J C & Watson, G E (eds) 1993. Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose
(AOAT 42). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Dotan, A 1970. Prolegomenon. Research in Biblical Accentuation: Backgrounds andTrends, in: Wickes 1970:vii-xlvi.
Edelman, D 1993. Review Article, Koopmans 1990. JNES 52, 308-310.
Emerton, J A 1993. The "Mountain of God" in Psalm 68:16, in: Lemaire, A & Otzen,B (eds) 1993. History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to E
Nielsen (Suppl VT 50). Leiden: Brill, 24-37.
Fokkelman, J P 1990. The Structure of Psalm 68, in: Van der Woude, A S (ed.) 1990.In Quest of the Past: Studies in Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism
(OTS 26). Leiden: Brill, 72-83.
Freedman, D B & Cohen, M B 1974. The Masoretes as Exegetes: Selected Examples.SBL.MasSt 1, 35-46.
Freedman, D N 1980. Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15, in: Freedman, D N 1980.Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy. Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake:Eisenbrauns.
Giese, R L 1991. Strophic Hebrew Verse as Free Verse. JNSL 17, 1-15.
Giese, R L 1994. Strophic Hebrew Verse as Free Verse. JSOT 61, 29-38.
Höffken, P 1997. Zur Symmetrie in Jesaja Iv, ein Gespräch mit M C A Korpel. VT 47,249-252.
Kim, J 1993. The Structure of the Samson Cycle. Kampen: Kok.
Koopmans, W T 1988. The Poetic Prose of Joshua 23, in: Van der Meer, W & DeMoor, J C (eds) 1988, 83-118.
Koopmans, W T 1990. Joshua 24 as Narrative Poetry (JSOTS 93). Sheffield: JSOTPress.
Koopmans, W T 1991. The Testament of David. VT 41, 429-449.
Koopmans, W T 1993. Poetic Reciprocation: The Oracles against Edom and Philistiain Ezek. 25:12-17, in: De Moor, J C & Watson, W G E (eds) 1993, 113-122.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 71
Korpel, M C A 1988. The Literary Genre of the Song of the Vineyard (Isa 5:1-7), in:Van der Meer, W & De Moor, J C (eds) 1988, 119-155.
Korpel, M C A 1990. A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the
Divine (UBL 8). Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Korpel, M C A 1993. The Epilogue to the Holiness Code, in: De Moor, J C &Watson, W G E (eds) 1993, 123-150.
Korpel, M C A 1996a. Metaphors in Isaiah lv. VT 46, 43-55.
Korpel, M C A 1996b. Structural Analysis as a Tool for Redaction-Criticism: TheExample of Isaiah 5 and 10: 1-6. JS0T 96, 53-71.
Korpel, M C A 1996c. The Female Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 54, in: Becking, B &Dijkstra, M (eds) 1996. On Reading Prophetic Texts. Gender Specific and
Related Studies in Memory of F van Dijk-Hemmes (BIS 18). Leiden: Brill, 153-176.
Korpel, M C A & De Moor, J C 1988. Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry,in: Van der Meer, W & De Moor, J C (eds) 1988, 1-61. (Originally UF 18, 1986,173-212).
Korpel, M C A & De Moor, J C 1998. The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry:
Isaiah 40-55 (OTS 41). Leiden: Brill.
Kuntz, J K 1999. Biblical Hebrew Poetry in Recent Research, Part II. CR:BS 7, 35-79.
LaSor, W S 1979. An Approach to Hebrew Poetry through the Masoretic Accents, in:Katsh, A I & Nemoy, L (eds) 1979. Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth
Anniversary of the Dropsie University (1909-1979). Philadelphia, PA: TheDropsie University, 327-353.
Mashiah, R 1996. Parallel Realizations of Dichotomy Patterns in BiblicalAccentuation, in: Revell, E J (ed.) 1996. Proceedings of the Twelfth International
Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, 1995 (SBL.MasS 8). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 59-69.
Mitchell, H G 1889. The Prose Accents. JBL 9, 132-135.
Mitchell, H G 1891. The Poetical Accents. JBL 10, 144-146.
Niccacci, A 1997. Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry. JSOT 74, 77-93.
Price, J D 1990. The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible (SBEC 27).Lewiston, NY: E Mellen Press.
Reed, S A 1991. Booknote on Cloete 1989a. RSR 17, 351.
Renkema, J 1988. The Literary Structure of Lamentations (I-IV), in: Van der Meer, W& De Moor, J C (eds) 1988, 294-396.
RAYMOND DE HOOP72
Renkema, J 1998. Lamentations (HCOT). Leuven: Peeters.
Revell, E J 1971-72. The Oldest Evidence for the Hebrew Accent System. BJRL 54,214-222.
Revell, E J 1976. Biblical Punctuation and Chant in the Second Temple Period. JSJ 7,181-198.
Revell, E J 1980. Pausal Forms in Biblical Hebrew: Their Function, Origin andSignificance. JSST 25, 165-179.
Revell, E J 1981. Pausal Forms and the Structure of Biblical Poetry. VT 31, 186-199.
Revell, E J 1992. Masoretic Accents, in: ABD, vol. 4, 594-596.
Roersma, L 1993. The First-born of Abraham: An Analysis of the Poetic Structure ofGen. 16, in: De Moor, J C & Watson, W G E (eds) 1993, 219-241.
Ryou, D H 1995. Zephaniah's Oracles against the Nations: A Synchronic and
Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1-3:8 (BIN 13). Leiden: Brill.
Sanders, P 1996. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OTS 37). Leiden: Brill.
Snaith, N H (ed.) 1962. hrwsmh yp l[ bfyh qywdm !ybwtkw !yaybn hrwt rps. London:British and Foreign Bible Society.
Spronk, K 1995. Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to the Book of Nahum, in:De Moor, J C (ed.) 1995. Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old
Testament Exegesis (OTS 34). Leiden: Brill 1995, 159-186.
Spronk, K 1997. Nahum (HCOT). Kampen: Kok.
Spronk, K 1998. Acrostics in the Book of Nahum. ZAW 110, 209-222.
Tov, E 1990. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (DJD8). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tov, E 1993. The Text of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press; Assen: VanGorcum.
Van der Lugt, P 1978. De strofische structuur van het derde knechtslied (Jes. 50:4-11), in: Grosheide, H H et alii (red.) 1978. De Knecht. Studies rondom Deutero-
Jesaja: Fs. J L Koole. Kampen: Kok, 102-117.
Van der Lugt, P 1980. Strofische structuren in de bijbels-hebreeuwse poëzie: De
geschiedenis van het onderzoek en een bijdrage tot de theorievorming omtrent de
strofenbouw van de Psalmen. Kampen: Kok.
Van der Lugt, P 1988a. Stanza Structure and Word-Repetition in Job 3-14. JSOT 40,3-38.
THE COLOMETRY OF HEBREW VERSE 73
Van der Lugt, P 1988b. The Form and Function of the Refrains in Job 28: SomeComments Relating to the 'Strophic' Structure of Hebrew Poetry, in: Van derMeer, W & De Moor, J C (eds) 1988, 265-293.
Van der Lugt, P 1995. Rhetorical Criticism and the Poetry of the Book of Job (OTS32). Leiden: Brill.
Van der Meer, W 1988. Psalm 110: A psalm of Rehabilitation? in: Van der Meer, W& De Moor, J C (eds) 1988, 207-234.
Van der Meer, W 1989. Oude woorden worden nieuw: De opbouw van het boek Joël.
Kampen: Kok.
Van der Meer, W 1994. Psalm 77, 17-19: Hymnisches Fragment oder Aktualisierung?ETHL 70, 105-111.
Van der Meer, W & De Moor, J C (eds) 1988. Structural Analysis of Biblical and
Canaanite Poetry (JSOTS 74). Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Watson, W G E 1984. Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTS26). Sheffield: JSOT Press.
Watson, W G E 1993. Problems and Solutions in Hebrew Verse: A Survey of RecentWork. VT 41, 372-384 (= Watson 1994:18-31).
Watson, W G E 1994. Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (JSOTS170). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Weil, D M 1995. The Masoretic Chant of the Bible. Jerusalem: R. Mass Ltd.
Wickes, W 1881. A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Three So-Called Poetical
Books of the Old Testament: Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. London: OxfordUniversity Press (Repr. in: Wickes 1970).
Wickes, W 1887. A Treatise on the Accentuation of the Twenty-one So-Called Prose
Books of the Old Testament. London: Oxford Press (Repr. in: Wickes 1970).
Wickes, W 1970. Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament.(Prolegomenon by A. Dotan). New York: KTAV.
Yeivin, I 1980. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (SBL.MasS 5). Missoula, MA:Scholars Press.