ENCYCLOPEDIA of HEBREW LANGUAGE and LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 3 P–Z

General Editor Geoffrey Khan

Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi

Volume One

Introduction ...... vii List of Contributors ...... ix Transcription Tables ...... xiii Articles A-F ...... 1

Volume Two

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles G-O ...... 1

Volume Three

Transcription Tables ...... vii Articles P-Z ...... 1

Volume Four

Transcription Tables ...... vii Index ...... 1

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 178 polysemy Polysemy 2007a; Morenz 2008), most of the Hebrew consonants have only one phonetic value and none bear logographic readings. Thus, poly- Polysemy is the capacity for a sign, word, semy in the Bible is primarily restricted to the phrase, or sentence to bear multiple meanings in levels of word, phrase, and sentence. Accord- a single context. It was observed in the Hebrew ingly, there are three primary ways that Israelite Bible, both in poetry and in prose, as early as authors could achieve polysemy—by exploiting the medieval times, but became the topic of homonyms, homographs, or single words with scholarly publications only after Casanowicz’s broad semantic ranges. Job’s lament in Job ground-breaking study (1893). Nevertheless, 9.30–31 demonstrates polysemy by way of despite more than a century of scholarly atten- homonyms. tion, the study of polysemy in the Hebrew Bible ִא ִם־ה ְתָר ַ ֥ח ְצ ִתּי ְב ֵמ ָ ֑י־שׁ ֶלג ַ֝ו ֲה ִז ֗כּ ִוֹתי ְבּ ֣בֹר ַכּ ָ ֽפּי: -remains in its infancy. We lack not only a con ָ֭אז ַבּ ַ ֣שּׁ ַחת ִתּ ְט ְבּ ֵ ֑ל ִני -sistent taxonomy for the various types of poly semy and their functions (e.g., Sasson 1976; ±im-hiμr<å™aßtì ∫ë-mè-š<ålÆ:g wa-h≥zikkòμì bë-∫òr cf. Beitzel 1980; Greenstein 1992), but also a kappåy< useful vocabulary (but see now Noegel 2013). ±åz< baš-ša™aμ ti†bëlènì Consequently, scholars have long used the Even if I should wash my hands with snow water, ,bë-∫òr ְבּ ֣בֹר terms ‘punning’ and ‘wordplay’ for all forms and clean my hands of polysemy (and paronomasia), even though You still would dip me in the pit. the former does not distinguish types and the bë-∫òr can mean ְבּ ֣בֹר latter implies that the device had a playful aim, In this passage the phrase which is not always the case ( Paronomasia). ‘with lye’ or ‘in a pit’. Though the readings Scholars have proposed a number of differ- derive from different roots, the former, from ,b-w-r בו"ר b-r-r, and the latter, from בר"ר .ent functions for the various types of polysemy Some types have been seen as demonstrations of the nouns are indistinguishable. Of course, the ,’bë-∫òr is ‘with lye ְבּ ֣בֹר erudition and literary or rhetorical ﬂare (Bohl primary meaning of 1926; Herzberg 1979; Hoffman 1980). Others since it makes little sense for Job to wash his appear to have mnemonic or organizational hands in a pit. Nevertheless, the mention of a ša™aμ) just afterwards ַשׂ ַחת) functions (Freedman 1986; Hurowitz 2001). synonym for pit Still others seem to have comedic or satiri- leads the reader to recontextualize the meaning .bë-∫òr ְבּ ֣בֹר cal aims (Watson 1986:245). Some polysemes of also have a hermeneutic function (Fishbane A second way Israelite authors achieved pol- 1977; Lieberman 1978; Tigay 1983, Noegel ysemy was by means of homographs; words 2007a). More recently, scholars have proposed that look alike, but whose pronunciations dif- that some forms of polysemy are mechanisms fer. This form of polysemy obtains strictly on for unleashing or harnessing the illocution- a visual level. A textbook example appears in ary power of words (Noegel 2007a; 2009a; Job 26.12–13. 2010; 2013), especially when employed in pro- ְ֭בּכֹחוֹ ָרַ ֣גע ַהָיּ֑ם ֝וּ ִב ְת ָבוּנ ֗תוֹ ָ ֣מ ַחץ ָ ֽר ַהב: phetic or ritually empowered contexts (Schorch ְ֭בּרוּחוֹ ָשׁ ַ ֣מ ִים ִשׁ ְפָ ֑רה ֽחֹ ֲל ָלה ָ֝י ֗דוֹ ָנ ָ ֥חשׁ ָבִּֽר ַיח: -Regardless of its many possible func .(2000 bë-úò™ò r<å:ga≠ hay-y<åm u-∫i-μë∫ùn<åμò m<å™aß tions, it is clear that Israelite writers, like their < counterparts in Mesopotamia and Egypt, were råha∫ bë-rù™ò šåmayim< šiƒrå< ™òl≥l yå< ≈ò nå< ™åš< bår< ìa™ particularly skillful at employing polysemy. We < : råga≠ the sea, and by his skill he ָרַ ֣גע also should note that, while polysemes are By his power, he smashed Rahab. extremely difﬁcult to capture in any translation, By his wind the heavens were calmed, his hand pierced there is evidence for attempts to do so in the Sep- the Fleeing Serpent. tuagint, Targumim, Vulgate, and other ancient -rå< ga: ≠ in this passage usually is ren ָרַ ֣גע witnesses (Noegel 1995; 1996a; 2011b). The verb Unlike the hieroglyphic and Akkadian writing dered ‘quieted, stilled’, or the like, thus presup- systems, in which individual signs bear multiple posing the Proto-Semitic root r-g-/. However, phonetic and logographic readings (Bottéro we also may derive the verb from Proto-Semitic 1977; Farber 1986; Loprieno 2000; Noegel r-g-≠ and translate it ‘disturbed’. Both readings

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 polysemy 179 are possible, though they are likely to have been 2. Double Entendres distinguished in speech at an early period (Blau 1982). Thus, this polyseme operates only on a A double entendre is an idiom or other figure visual register. of speech that may be understood in two ways. A third way of creating polysemy was to The first is straightforward, innocuous, and exploit the semantic range of a single word. An not the primary meaning intended by the user, example of this appears in Pharoah’s command whereas the second is the intended meaning. ,wë-≠attå< Often double entendres serve as euphemisms ְו ַﬠ ָתּ ֙ה ְל ֣כוּ ִﬠ ְב ֔דוּ :to Moses in Exod. 5.18 lëúù ≠i∫≈ù ‘Now get to your work!’. In this as in the command of David to Uriah, whom ֵ ֥רד :i∫≈ù can mean ‘work, he has just summoned from the battle field≠ ִﬠ ְב ֔דוּ passage the verb >rè≈ lë-∫èμúå< ù-r™aß ragl: Æúå ְל ֵב ְית ָ֖ך ְוּר ַ ֣חץ ַר ְג ֶ ֑ליָך ,labor’ or ‘worship, serve’. In the former sense the statement fits Pharaoh’s command that ‘go down to your house and wash your feet’ the taskmasters increase the workload for the (2 Sam. 11.8). Uriah realizes that David is using Israelites. However, as ‘worship’, it prefigures the polysemous idiom ‘wash one’s feet’ as a Pharaoh’s release of the Israelites to worship euphemism for ‘have sex’. This is clear from Yahweh at Mt. Sinai. Uriah’s reply to David the next morning, when To date scholars have identified at least fif- asked why he did not return to his home: ‘and teen types of polysemy in the Hebrew Bible. I should go to my home to eat and drink and These include: contronymic polysemy, double sleep with my wife!?’ (v. 11). entendre, antanaclasis, unidirectional polysemy, Janus parallelism, double polysemy, bilingual 3. Antanaclasis polysemy, polysemy clusters, numerical polysemy, gematria, notariqon, acronymy, acrostics Antanaclasis is the repetition of the same word (also telestichs and menostichs), atbash, and or expression each time with a different mean- amphiboly. Each of these may perform dif- ing (Sasson 1976). While antanaclasis can have ferent functions depending on their contexts. a paronomastic effect, it does not involve hom- Moreover, these types and their functions can, onyms, but rather words or expressions of a and often do, overlap. Thus, a case of double single etymological derivation. Thus, it more polysemy or of amphiboly may also constitute properly belongs to the realm of polysemy. The a Janus parallelism, and also be part of a poly- device appears predominantly in poetry (Sasson semy cluster; basic polysemy and antanaclasis 1976:970; Ceresko 1982; Noegel 2007b:21–23). also can serve as double entendres, and so on. However, a classic prose example appears in There appears to be no limit to the sophistica- the narrative concerning the dreams of Pha- tion of the Israelite writers. raoh’s cupbearer and baker (Gen. 40). In this short pericope, we find two different uses of the nå< «å< ±èμ hå-r< òš ‘lift up ָנ ָשׂא ֵאת ָהר ֹאשׁ Contronymic Polysemy phrase .1 the head’ (Marcus 1990). In Gen. 40.13 Joseph A word that bears its own meaning and its uses it to predict that Pharaoh will ‘lift up your opposite is called a contronym (known as head’, i.e., pardon the cupbearer. However, ±a∂dàd ‘opposites’ in Arabic; Nöldeke 1910; when interpreting the baker’s dream, Joseph Gordis 1936–1937). An English example is employs the same idiom with reference to his ‘cleave’, which means both ‘join’ and ‘separate’. death by ‘beheading’ or perhaps ‘impaling’ We already have seen a strictly visual contro- (Gen. 40.19). nym in Job 26.12. A contronym that operates aurally appears in Job 4.6 in Eliphaz’s sarcastic 4. Unidirectional Polysemy ֲה ֣ל ֹא ִ֭יְר ָא ְתָך ִכּ ְס ָל ֶ ֑תָך* ִ֝תּ ְקָו ְת ָ֗ך ְו ֣ ֹתם :query to Job -h≥-lò± yir±å< μúå< kislå< μÆúå< tiqwå< μúå< wë-μòm Unidirectional polysemy is polysemy that pro ְדָּר ֶ ֽכיָך .duces two meanings that face a single direction ִכּ ְס ָל ֶ ֑תָך dërå< úÆúå< ‘Should not your piety be kislå< μÆúå< , and your hope be the blamenessness The example of homographic polysemy above of your ways?’ The query is a subtle barb that (i.e., Job 26.12–13) is also a case of unidirectional ,’kÆsÆl as both polysemy. Whether read as ‘stilled’ or ‘disturbed ֶכּ ֶסל relies on the dual meaning of rå< ga: ≠ ‘faces forward’ to both the calming of ָרַ ֣גע .’confidence’ and ‘stupidity‘

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 180 polysemy the heavens and the smashing of Rahab. There meanings (Rendsburg 1982). In Gen. 49.6, are also cases in which unidirectional polysemy Jacob declares to Simeon and Levi: faces backwards (Noegel 2011b). ְבּסֹ ָד ֙ם ַא ָל־תּ ֣ב ֹא ַנ ְפ ִ֔שׁי ִבּ ְק ָה ָ ֖לם ַא ֵל־תּ ַ ֣חד ְכּבֹ ִ ֑די Janus Parallelism .5 bë-sò≈åm< ±al-tå< ∫ò naƒšì < < Janus parallelism (sometimes called pivotal poly- bi-qhålåm ±al-tè™a≈ kë∫ò≈ì ,tå< ∫ò in their council ָתּ ֣ב ֹא semy [Grossberg 1986]) is distinguished from Let not my person .tè™a≈ in their assembly ֵתּ ַ ֣חד unidirectional polysemy in that it exploits a Let not my being single word that has two meanings, one of which < tå∫ò ָתּ ֣ב ֹא faces backward’ to the previous line, while the Two polysemes are active—the verbs‘ tè™a≈. The former is vocalized as if ֵתּ ַ ֣חד other ‘faces forward’ to the next line. Since the and b-w-± meaning בו"א initial discovery of Janus parallelism (Gordon it derives from the root 1978), dozens more have been found in the ‘enter’. However, we also can derive it from the ֵתּ ַ ֣חד b-h meaning ‘desire’. The verb-± אב"ה Hebrew Bible and in other ancient Near Eastern root texts (e.g., Rendsburg 1992; Ceresko 1994; Gor- tè™a≈ is pointed as if it derives from the root ,y-™-d, in which case it means ‘unite with יח"ד don 1994; Noegel 2007a). There are two types of Janus parallelism: symmetrical and asym- be one with’. However, it also could derive from .’d-h, and be translated ‘rejoice-™ חד"ה metrical (Gordon 1982). The former obtains in the root three stichs of poetry while the second occurs in Both verbs require revocalization to achieve two (Noegel 1996a:154–155). An example of their dual meanings. To read ‘desire’ one must ’tò∫è and to read ‘rejoice ֹתּ ֵבא symmetrical Janus parallelism appears in God’s point the verb as tì™ad (a similar double ִתּ ַח ְדּ promise to Abram in Gen. 15.1: we must vocalize polysemy appears in Job 3.6). So, to be precise, -the polysemy here exists in the written con ַא ִל־תּ ָ ֣ירא ַא ְבָ ֗רם sonantal text, but not in the reading tradition ָא ֹנ ִ ֙כי ָמֵ ֣ג ן ָ֔לְך -reflected by the vocalization. It is likely, never ְשׂ ָכְר ָ֖ך ַהְר ֵ ֥בּה ְמ ֽ ֹאד: theless, that the writer exploited this graphic ±al-tìrå< ± ±a∫råm< ±ån< òúì må< g: èn lå< ú polysemy, which existed before the creation of «ëúårúå< harbè më±ò≈ the vocalization system in the Middle Ages. Fear not, Abram! må< g: èn to you. 7. Bilingual Polysemy ָמֵ ֣ג ן I am a Your reward shall be very great! Bilingual polysemy occurs when a word may be < måg: èn bears the meaning ‘shield’ read as reflecting more than one language. Thus ָמֵ ֣ג ן The noun g-n-n ‘protect’) far, scholars have proposed Hebrew-Egyptian גנ"ן if derived from the root) -m-g-n ‘grant, (Rendsburg 1988b), Hebrew-Akkadian (Machin מג"ן or ‘gift’ (if from the root bestow’). As ‘shield’ it faces back to God’s ist 1983:734–735), Hebrew-Aramaic (Greenstein protective command to ‘fear not’, and as ‘gift’ 1992:971; Noegel 1996a:43–44; 2000:171; it faces ahead to ‘your reward’ (Rendsburg 2013), Aramaic-Akkadian (Noegel 2007a:148– 1992). While ‘shield’ is the far more common 149), and Hebrew-Greek bilingual polysemes < .(måg: èn, the reader is primed for (Wolters 1985 ָמ ֵגן meaning of the latter connotation, because Melchizedek A couple of cases of Hebrew-Egyptian poly- has just blessed Abram in Gen. 14.20 saying: semy will demonstrate. In Pharaoh’s insult to ְר ֕אוּ ִ֥כּי ָר ָ ֖ﬠה ֶ ֥נ ֶ גד :Moses in Exod. 10.10 we read ִמֵ ֥גּ ן) Blessed is El Elyon who has delivered‘ rë±ù kì rå< ≠å< nÆgÆ≈ pënèúÆm ‘See, indeed ְפּ ֵנ ֶ ֽיכם miggèn) your enemies into your hands’. As such this case of polysemy also functions like antan- evil is before you!’ The noun rendered ‘evil’ rå< ≠å< ) also can be read as the name ָר ָ ֖ﬠה ,.aclasis, though here the two Hebrew roots are (i.e not identical. of the Egyptian solar god Ra, thus allowing us to translate the line: ‘See, indeed Ra is against 6. Double Polysemy you!’ The same bilingual polysemy occurs in Exod. 32.12, and possibly also in Exod. 32.22 Double polysemy exploits two words in suc- and Num. 11.1 (Rendsburg 1988a; 1988b). cessive stichs, each of which projects multiple It also has been suggested that we read the © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 polysemy 181 < .yiššannù [cf ִי ַשּׁנּוּ åm in Gen. 9–10 bilingually, both and repointed as a nif≠al£ ָחם name as a personal name and as the Egyptian noun Isa. 49.2]). Each of these polysemes is strictly ™m ‘servant’. The latter underscores his role as visual. Capping off the polysemous cluster is ti††òƒ, whose semantic range ִתּ ֥טֹּף the progenitor of the Egyptians (Gen. 10.6) and the verb anticipates Noah’s curse (Gen. 9.25) that Ham includes ‘drivel, prophesy, argue against’ (Deut. will become a servant to his brothers (Rends- 32.2; Amos 7.16; Mic. 2.6) and ‘dew upon’ burg 2000:144–145). (Job 36.27). The result is a concatenation of It is likely that further examples of bilingual multiple meanings. polsemy remain to be discovered. The device A special type of polysemous cluster exploits certainly continued to be employed well after the literal meanings of idioms containing body the Second Temple Period, as is evident from parts by using them in tandem with literal ref- rabbinic texts (Noegel 2007a:235–244). erences to body parts as well as polysemes that suggest body parts. The result is an assembly 8. Polysemy Cluster of human features that provides a subtext to reinforce key themes. The device has been iden- When multiple polysemes appear in close prox- tified in Exod. 4.1–17; Judg. 3.12–30; 7.1–25; imity they constitute a polysemy cluster. The 1 Sam. 5.1–6; Jon. 2.3–10; Prov. 6.1–35; and clustering of polysemes creates an unraveling Prov. 8.1–36 (Noegel 2011a). Thus, in the effect in which the contextual meaning must be episode detailing Gideon’s campaign against ≈ >yå ָיד continually rethought. Polysemy clusters relate the Midianites (Judg. 7.1–25), one finds to the poetic strategy of clustering other devices ‘hand’ used abundantly as a keyword (7.2 [2×], in biblical Hebrew poetry (Greenfield 1990; 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19; 20 [2×]). In addi- Noegel 2004; 2011a). An exquisite polysemy tion, the word ‘hand’ constitutes a partial ana- mi≈yån< ‘Midian’, with ִמ ְדָ֨ין cluster can be found in Job 29.20–23. gram with the name which it is collocated three times (7.7, 14, 15). The frequent idiomatic use of this body part ְ֭כּ ִבוֹדי ָח ָ ֣דשׁ ִﬠ ָמּ ִ ֑די ְ֝ו ַק ְשׁ ִ֗תּי ְבּ ָי ִ֥די ַת ֲח ִֽליף: heightens one’s awareness of other body parts ִֽל ָי־שׁ ְמ ֥ﬠוּ ְו ִי ֵ ֑חלּוּ ְ֝ו ִי ְדּ ֗מוּ ְל ֣מוֹ ֲﬠ ָצ ִֽתי: ’in the story including: ‘ears’ (7.3), ‘tongue ַא ֲחֵ ֣רי ְ֭ד ָבִרי ֣ל ֹא ִי ְשׁ ֑נוּ ְ֝ו ָﬠ ֵ֗לימוֹ ִתּ ֥טֹּף ִמ ָלּ ִֽתי: ְוִֽי ֲח ֣לוּ ַכ ָמּ ָ ֣טר ִ ֑לי ֝וּ ִפ ֶ֗יהם ָפּ ֲﬠ ֥רוּ ְל ַמ ְל ֽקוֹשׁ: (7.5), ‘knees’ (7.5, 6), and ‘mouth’ (7.6), as kë∫ò≈ì ™å< ≈åš< ≠immå< ≈ì wë-qaštì bë-yå< ≈ì μa™≥lìƒ < < well as idioms that contain body parts, such lì-šåmë≠ù wë-yi™èllù wë-yiddëmù lëmò ≠≥ßåμì < ëƒaμ hay-yåm, literally ‘lip of the» ְשׂ ַ ֥פת ַהָ ֖יּם a r bår< l yišn w - ål< m ti millå< as ± ™≥ è ≈ë ì ò± ù ë ≠ è ò ††òƒ μì < råšìm, literally ָר ִ ֑אשׁים ,(wë-yi™≥lù úam-må< †år< lì ù-ƒìhÆm på< ≠≥rù lë-malqòš sea’ > ‘seashore’ (7.12 ’ròš, literally ‘head ר ֹאשׁ ,(My vigor refreshed, ‘heads’ > ‘men’ (7.16 ְשׂ ַפת־ ,(μa™≥lìƒ in my hand. > ‘beginning’ of the middle watch (7.19 ַת ֲח ִֽליף my bow ’ëƒaμ-±å< ∫èl, literally ‘lip of the meadow» ָא ֵ ֥בל ;wë-yi™èllù ְו ִי ֵ ֑חלּוּ Men would listen to me and ∫ròš ≠òrè ר ֹאשׁ־עֵֹ ֣רב ְוּז ֵ֔אב wë-yiddëmù. > ‘border’ (7.22), and ְ֝ו ִי ְדּ ֗מוּ at my counsel they would ;yišnù ִי ְשׁ ֑נוּ After I spoke they did not -z ‘head(s) of Oreb and Ze’eb’ for ‘leaders’ ∫ti††òƒ upon them. ù ±è ִתּ ֥טֹּף my words They waited for me as for rain, (7.25). In turn, these are reinforced by other ַו ַיּ ְשׁ ֵ֨כּם for the late rain, their mouths open wide. words that suggest body parts, such as šëúÆm ְשׁ ֶכם .wayyaškèm ‘get up early’ (7.1; cf ayin≠ ַﬠ ִין .èn ‘spring’ (7.1; cf≠ ֵ ֣ﬠין There are no fewer than five polysemes in this ‘shoulder’) and μa™≥lìƒ, can be ‘eye’). The combined impact of the numerous ַת ֲח ִֽליף ,brief passage. The first Proto-Semitic ™-l-p) or body parts, and the audible connection between ,חל"ף) ’rendered ‘renews -mi≈yån< ‘Midian’ intensi ִמ ְדָ֨ין yå< ≈ ‘hand’ and ָיד Proto-Semitic •-l-p). We ,חל"ף) ’made to pierce‘ wë-yi™èllù, as fies the narrative’s central theme that Yahweh ְו ִי ֵ ֑חלּוּ ,may understand the second y-™-l) or ‘they pierced’ has promised Gideon that he would deliver the יחל they awaited’ (from‘ (Midianites into his hand (7.7 ְי ַחלּוּ l-l and repointed as a pi≠el-™ חל"ל from) -wë-yid ְ֝ו ִי ְדּ ֗מוּ ,yë™allù). The third polyseme Numerical Polysemy .9 דמ"ה dëmù, means both ‘they waited’ (from d-m-m דמ"ם d-m-h) or ‘they were silent’ (from wë-yiddammù), Numerical polysemy occurs when the names ְו ִי ַדּמּוּ and repointed as a nif≠al -yišnù, we can translate of numbers are exploited extensively for non ִי ְשׁ ֑נוּ ,and the fourth Proto-Semitic μ-n-y) or numerical meanings (Garsiel 1994:326). An ,שׁנ"ה as ‘reply’ (from :Proto-Semitic š-n-n example of this appears in Qoh. 4.8–14 ,שׁנ"ן was sharpened’ (from‘ © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 182 polysemy polysemy underscores Qoheleth’s point that it ֵי֣שׁ ֶא ָח ֩ד ְו ֵ֨אין ֵשׁ ִ֜ני ַ ֣גּם ֵ ֧בּן ָו ָ ֣אח ֵ ֽא ֗ין־לוֹ .is best not to be alone ְו ֵ ֥אין ֵק ֙ץ ְל ָכ ֲל־ﬠ ָמ ֔לוֹ ַגּ ֵם־ﬠ ֖ינוֹ ל ֹ ִא־ת ְשׂ ַ ֣בּע ֑ﬠֹ ֶשׁר ְוּל ִ ֣מי ׀ ֲאִ ֣ני ָﬠ ֵ֗מל ְוּמ ַח ֵ ֤סּר ֶא ַת־נ ְפ ִ ֙שׁי ִמ ָ֔טּוֹבה ַגּ ֶ ֥ם־זה ֶ ֛ה ֶבל ְו ִﬠ ְנַ ֥י ן ָ ֖רע ֽהוּא: Gematria .10 ִ֥טוֹבים ַה ְשַּׁ ֖נ ִ ים ִמ ָן־ה ֶא ָ ֑חד ֲא ֶ ֧שׁר ֵי ָשׁ־ל ֶ ֛הם ָשׂ ָ ֥כר ֖טוֹב ַבּ ֲﬠ ָמ ָ ֽלם: Another form of polysemy that involves ִ ֣כּי ִא ִם־י ֔ ֹפּלוּ ָה ֶא ָ ֖חד ָיִ ֣ קים ֶא ֲת־ח ֵב ֑רוֹ ְו ִ ֣א ֗ילוֹ ָ ֽה ֶא ָח ֙ד ֶשׁ ִיּ ֔פּוֹל .(numbers is gematria (also called isopsephy ְו ֵ ֥אין ֵשִׁ ֖ני ַל ֲה ִק ֽימוֹ: ַ ֛גּם ִא ִם־י ְשׁ ְכּ ֥בוּ ְשַׁ ֖נ ִ ים ְו ַ ֣חם ָל ֶ ֑הם ְוּל ֶא ָ ֖חד ֵ ֥איְך ֵי ָ ֽחם: Gematria involves reading the consonants that ְו ִֽא ִם־י ְת ְק ֙פוֹ ָה ֶא ָ֔חד ַה ְשַּׁ ֖נ ִ ים ַי ַﬠ ְמ ֣דוּ ֶנ ְג ֑דּוֹ ְו ַה ֙חוּט ַ ֽה ְמ ֻשׁ ָ֔לּשׁ comprise a word for their numerical values. In ֥ל ֹא ִב ְמ ֵהָ ֖רה ִי ָנּ ֵ ֽתק: Hebrew alphabetic letters double for numbers. y š å< w - n š n gam b n wå-< å< n-l = bet ב ,aleph = one א è ±Æ™ ≈ ë ±è è ì è ± ™ ±è ò Thus, the first letter wë-±èn qèß lë-úål-≠≥mål< ò gam-≠ènò lò-μi«ba≠ ≠òšÆr ± u-l-mì ±≥nì ≠åm< èl u-më™assèr ±Æμ-naƒšì mi†-†ò∫å< gam- two, and so on up to ten; subsequent letters zÆ hÆ∫Æl wë-≠inyan rå< ≠ hù hold values of ten, i.e., twenty, thirty, forty, < < < < < †ò∫ìm haš-šënayim min-hå-±Æ™å≈ ±≥šÆr yèš-låhÆm «åúår etc., through ßade ‘90’; and then the last four †ò∫ ba-≠≥mål< åm< kì ±im-yippòlù hå-< ±Æ™å< ≈ yåq< ìm ±Æμ-™≥∫èrò wë-±ìlò hå-< letters of the alphabet connote ‘100’ through ±Æ™å< ≈ šÆy-yippòl wë-±èn šènì lah≥qìmò ‘400’. The earliest discussion of gematria in the gam ±im-yiškë∫ù šënayim wë-™am låh< Æm u-lë-±Æ™å< ≈ Hebrew Bible occurs in rabbinic texts. Conse- < ±èú yè™åm quently, scholars debate whether these are later wë-±im-yiμqëƒò hå-< ±Æ™å< ≈ haš-šënayim ya≠am≈ù nÆgd: ò wë-ha-™ù† ha-mëšullåš< lò ∫i-mhèrå< yinnå< μèq readings imposed on the text. However, the presence of gematria as an exegetical tool in Æ™<å≈), with no± ֶא ָח ֩ד) The case of one person šènì), who has neither son nor much earlier Akkadian materials demonstrates ֵשׁ ִ֜ני) companion brother. that the device could have been known dur- Yet he amasses wealth without limit, and his eye is ing the time in which the biblical texts were lò-μi«ba≠ written (Lieberman 1978; Tigay 1983). Some ל ֹ ִא־ת ְשׂ ַ ֣בּע ֑ﬠֹ ֶשׁר) never sated with riches ≠òšÆr). (He never asks) ‘For whom, now, am I amassing it scholars have proposed the presence of a gema- while denying myself enjoyment?’ tria on the name Gad in Gen. 46.16, because That too is a futility and unhappy business. the numerical value of Gad is seven, and the haš-š nayim) are better off than the ַה ְשַּׁ ֖נ ִ ים) The two ë name appears in a chapter replete with sevens hå-< ±Æ™å< ≈), in that they have greater ָה ֶא ָ ֑חד) one benefit from their earnings. and multiples of seven (Sasson 1976:969). A -hå-< ±Æ™å< ≈) can well-known case of gematria found in a rab ָה ֶא ָ ֖חד) For should they fall, the one raise his friend; but woe to the one who is alone binic comment states that the 318 soldiers who h<å- <å ) and falls with no companion ָ ֽה ֶא ָח ֙ד) ±Æ™ ≈ battled alongside Abram against the kings of !šènì) to raise him ֵשִׁ ֖ני) šënayim) lie together they are the east (Gen. 14.14) is a gematria for Abram’s ְשַׁ ֖נ ִ ים) Further, when two -Æ™å< ≈) get servant Eleazar, whose name equals 318 (Baby± ֶא ָ ֖חד) warm; but how can one alone warm? lonian Talmud, Nedarim 32a). hå-< ±Æ™å< ≈) attacks, the two ָה ֶא ָ֔חד) Also, if the one haš-šënayim) can stand up to him. A ַה ְשַּׁ ֖נ ִ ים) ha-mëšull<åš) cord is not 11. Notarikon ַ ֽה ְמ ֻשׁ ָ֔לּשׁ) three-fold easily broken! Notarikon is the practice of reading the con- -Æ™å< ≈) is used sonant of a word or successive words acro± ֶא ָ ֖חד) Note how the number one idiomatically for someone who is ‘alone’ in vv. nymically. For example, in Jer. 7.4 the phrase 8, 9, 10 (2x), 11, and 12, and how the number ‘temple of Yahweh’ is repeated verbatim three .’hèmmå< ‘these ֵ ֽה ָמּה haš-šënayim) appears variously in times and followed by ַה ְשַּׁ ֖נ ִ ים) ’two‘ vv. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, often with the meaning The odd line has led some to conclude that the ֵ ֽה ָמּה friend, companion’. Moreover, in the conso- three consonants that comprise the word‘ h) are an acronym ה + m מ + h ה ,.lò-μi«ba≠ hèmmå< (i.e ל ֹ ִא־ת ְשׂ ַ ֣בּע ֑ﬠֹ ֶשׁר nantal text, the phrase h[am]-m[åq< òm] h[az-zÆ] ‘this ַה ָמּ[קוֹם] ַה[ ֶזּה] òšÆr ‘never sated with riches’, also resembles for≠ Æ«Ær place’ (Sasson 1976; though Corré 1973 argues≠ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר šÆ∫a≠ ‘seven’ and ֶשׁ ַבע the numbers hèmmå< is equivalent to ‘sic’). Like ֵ ֽה ָמּה ten’. The passage concludes by making refer- that‘ mëšullåš< ) cord in gematria, notarikon is more common in later ְמ ֻשׁ ָ֔לּשׁ) ’ence to a ‘three-fold v. 12 (Noegel 2007b:26–27). The numerical rabbinic texts; however, it too is an attested

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 polysemy 183 exegetical tool in much earlier Akkadian mate- does the same, but repeats the acrostic letter in rials (Lieberman 1978; Tigay 1983). each of the three successive verses. The acrostic in Ps. 119 starts with a new letter every ninth 12. Acronymy verse. Some broken or fragmentary alphabetic acrostics are also present in Nah. 1.2–8 (Chris- Acronymy is the oppostite of notarikon and tensen 1987; Spronk 1998; Pinker 2006); Prov. requires that one read the initial consonant of 24.1–22 (Hurowitz 2000); and Prov. 29.22–27 successive words. One example of acronymy (Hurowitz 2001). Acrostics may have been that has been proposed appears in Esther’s employed as mnemonics (Soll 1988) or to con- vey a sense of order. Those in Lamentations ָי[ ֨בוֹא] :statement to the Persian king in Esth. 5.4 y[å< ∫ò] h[am-mÆlÆú] w[ë- may have provided readers with a tool for ַה[ ֶ ֤מּ ֶלְך] ְו[ ָה ָ ֙מן] ַה[ ֔יּוֹם] håm< ån< ] h[ay-yòm] ‘Let the king and Haman rationalizing their emotions. come’. The inital consonants of each of these y-h-w-h) spell out the 14. Atbash י-ה-ו-ה ,.words (i.e divine name Yahweh, which is nowhere explic- -is a polysemy of consonan (אתב"שׁ) ’itly mentioned in the book of Esther (Beitzel ‘Atbash 1980:7–8). tal transposition. It replaces the first letter of the alphabet with the last, the second with 13. Acrostics (also Telestichs the penultimate, the third with the antepen- and Menostichs) ultimate, and so on (hence, the name ‘atbash’ which combines the first, last, second, and aleph± א ,.An acrostic (also called an abacedarius) is a penultimate letters of the alphabet, i.e šin. Though atbash is שׁ bet and ב ,taw ת form of polysemy that works by reading verti- and cally the initial letter of each successive word in sometimes thought to be an exegetical device a poem. Since each of the lines also bear mean- of the Rabbinic period, the clear use of atbash ings horizontally an acrostic may be considered on a 12th century B.C.E. abecedary from ≠Izbet- a structural form of polysemy. A telestich is an Íar†a shows it to have been in use well before acrostic that reads the final letters of successive the period of the Israelite monarchy. Moreover, lines. A mesostich is an acrostic that reads the scholars often treat atbash as if it functions as middle consonants of a word (on this form a cipher (Steiner 1996), though there is limited see below under Atbash). When an acrostic, evidence that it served such a purpose (Korpel telestich, or mesostich spell out a name, word, 2009). Others see atbash as a performative or sentence it is called a menostich (Brug 1990; device of illocutionary power (Noegel 2009a). Guillaume 2009). Many biblical menostichs There are three types of atbash. The first have been suggested, but have met with varied employs a word that makes little sense unless levels of acceptance (e.g., Ps. 2 [Treves 1967; it is read as an atbash. A second type of atbash refuted by Lindars 1967]; Ps. 9 [Skehan 1965]; makes perfect sense both as it appears and Ps. 10 [Treves 1967; refuted by Lindars 1967]; when read as an atbash (Noegel 1996a; 1996c; and Lam. 5.17–18 [Bergler 1977; and sup- 1996d). A third type of atbash is even more ported in part by Guillaume 2009]). Though sophisticated, in that the consonants to be telestichs and menostichs are more frequently transposed appear vertically in the form of a attested in Akkadian and Egyptian texts (Clère mesostich (Korpel 2009). 1938; Stewart 1971; Soll 1988), a few do I demonstrate the device by way of the first appear in the Hebrew Bible. group, to which belongs Jer. 25.26; 51.1, 41, Most acrostics in the Hebrew Bible proceed and a possible fourth spotted by Cyrus H. Gor- .(aleph) to don in 1 Kgs 9.1 (noted in Sasson 1976:969± א) alphabetically from the first letter taw), but there are a variety of ways The best known atbash appears in Jeremiah’s ת) the last this is achieved. A new letter can commence prophecy that a number of nations will drink with every line (Ps. 25; 34; 145), or couplet the wrath of Yahweh: ‘And last of all, the šèšaú shall drink’ (Jer. 25.26). As ֵשׁ ַ ֖שְׁך Ps. 37; Prov. 31.10–31; Lam. 1, 2, 4), or even king of) every half-line (Ps. 111; 112). The acrostics in the Targum translates and medieval Hebrew Lam. 1; 2; 4 move to a new alphabetic letter commentators observe, the consonants in the bå< ∫Æl ָבּ ֶבל šèšaú are an atbash for ֵשׁ ַ ֖שְׁך every fourth verse (Renkema 1995). Lam. 3 word © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 184 polysemy ‘Babylon’. Here the meaning ‘Babylon’ is the verb (Joosten 1990). While both readings are only one that makes sense. Jeremiah has encap- possible in the consonantal text, neither is pos- sulated the destruction of ‘Babylon’ by turning sible in the vocalized text. The vocalization its name into a meaningless heap of letters. could be interpreted as reflecting elements of both readings. Other formae mixtae of this type 15. Amphiboly appear in Gen. 16.11; Judg. 13.5; 2 Sam. 11.1; Isa. 59.3; Jer. 23.6; Lam. 4.14; and Ps. 68.3. A third type of amphiboly combines an Amphiboly (also called amphibology) is the infinitive absolute derived from one root with employment of an ambiguous grammatical a finite verb derived from another (Noegel structure for polysemous effect. Three types of 1998a; 1998b). Only a handful of these appear amphiboly appear in the Bible. The first suggests in the Bible (Isa. 28.28; Jer. 8.13; 42.10; 48.9, multiple readings by combining two different Zeph. 1.2). The prophecy against Judah in Jer. morphologies, while at the same time making 8.13 will demonstrate. a clear reading of one or the other impossible. This type of amphiboly is sometimes referred to הֹ ִ֕בשׁוּ ִ֥כּי ֵתוֹﬠ ָ ֖בה ָﬠ ֑שׂוּ as forma mixta or portmanteau. An example of ַגּ ֣ם־בּוֹשׁ ֽל ֹ ֵא־י ֗בֹשׁוּ ְו ִה ָכּ ֵל ֙ם ֣ל ֹא ָי ָ֔דעוּ this appears in Job’s statement about Yahweh ָל ֵ֞כן ִי ְפּ ֣לוּ ַב ֹנּ ְפ ִ֗לים ְבּ ֵ ֧ﬠת ְפּ ֻק ָדּ ָ ֛תם ִי ָכּ ְשׁ ֖לוּ ָא ַ ֥מר ְי ָ ֽהוה: ָא ֥סֹף ֲא ִס ֵ ֖יפם ְנ ֻא ְם־י ָ ֑הוֹה ֵא ֩ין ֲﬠ ָנ ִ֨בים ַבּ ֶ֜גּ ֶפן .in Job 26.9 ְו ֵ ֧אין ְתּ ֵאִ ֣נים ַבּ ְתּ ֵא ָ֗נה ְו ֶ ֽה ָﬠ ֶל ֙ה ָנ ֵ֔בל ָו ֶא ֵ ֥תּן ָל ֶ ֖הם ַי ַﬠ ְבֽרוּם: ְמ ַא ֵ ֥חז ְפּ ֵנ ִי־כ ֵ ֑סּה ַפְּר ֵ ֖שׁז ָﬠ ָ ֣ליו ֲﬠ ָנ ֽנוֹ hò∫ìšù kì μò≠è∫å< ≠å< «ù < < < më±a™èz pënè-úissè paršèz ≠ål< åw< ≠≥nån< ò gam-bòš lò-yè∫òšù wë-hikkålèm lò yå≈å≠ù lå< úèn yippëlù ∫an-nòƒlìm bë-≠èμ pëquddå< μåm< yikkåšl< ù He seizes (his) throne, parš z his cloud upon it. è ±åmar< YHWH ַפְּר ֵ ֖שׁז ±<åsòƒ ±≥sìƒèm në±um-YHWH ±èn ≠≥n<å∫ìm bag- parš z is a rare example of a gÆƒÆn ַפְּר ֵ ֖שׁז The verb è < < < < blend word in ancient Hebrew, created by com- wë-±èn të±ènìm bat-të±ènå wë-hÆ-≠ålÆ nå∫èl wå-±Ættèn låh< Æm ya≠a∫rùm bining two different roots to form a quadralit- ?Are they ashamed of the abomination they commit ָפַּרשׂ ,eral verb and hapax legomenon. The first < Indeed, they are verily not ashamed, they do not even påra« means ‘spread out, extend’; the second, know to blush. påraz< , means ‘muster, separate’. The use Therefore, they will fall among the fallen, in the time of ָפַּרז of the verb creates a polysemy, suggesting both their punishment they shall stumble, says Yahweh. < < åsòƒ ±åsìƒ èm declares Yahweh. No± ָא ֥סֹף ֲא ִס ֵ ֖יפם meanings while conforming morphologically to grapes upon the vine, neither verb. No figs on the fig tree, the leaves all withered, that A second type of amphiboly seamlessly com- which I gave them shall pass from them. bines the morphology of two different, but nor- ås< òƒ± ָא ֥סֹף ֲא ִס ֵ ֖יפם mative grammatical structures. The amphiboly Yahweh’s proclamation of these structures is marked in the Masoretic ±≥sìƒèm is amphibolous. The infinitive abso- ,’s-p ‘gather-± אס"ף vocalization. See, for example, Jotham’s para- lute derives from the root סו"ף ble in Judg. 9, where the olive tree replies to the but the finite verb derives from the root other trees that would make him king: ‘Have I s-w-p ‘sweep away, destroy’. By suggesting hÆ-™å≥ ≈altì) my rich oil, the meaning ‘gather’, the phrase anticipates ֶה ֳח ַ֙ד ְל ִ ֙תּי) ceased yielding through whom God and men are honored, that the agricultural reference in the next line: ‘No I should go and wave above the trees?’ (v. 9). grapes on the vine, no figs on the fig tree, the The highlighted verb combines two different leaves all withered’ (Jer. 8.13). By suggesting a morphologies—either it is a first person sin- violent ‘sweeping away’, the pronouncement gular perfect hiph≠il of the verb ‘cease’ or first follows Jeremiah’s guarantee that the people of person singular perfect qal of the same root, Judah ‘will fall among the fallen, in the time of preceded by an interrogative he. If the former, their punishment they shall stumble’ (Jer. 8.12). the vowel under the ™et should have been šewa Thus, the amphiboly in this passage functions or ™ateph-seghol. If the latter, then we would also like a Janus parallelism, but does so by expect to see a qameß rather than ™ateph-qameß combining different roots where a single root as the vowel marking the first syllable of the would be normative.

This taxonomy most likely does not exhaust the Gordon, Cyrus H. 1978. “New directions”. Bul- possibilities for polysemy in the Hebrew Bible, and letin of the American Society of Papyrologists doubtless, as scholars continue to give attention 15:59–66. ——. 1982. “Asymmetric Janus parallelism”. Eretz to such devices, new discoveries will be made. Israel 16 (Harry M. Orlinsky volume):80*–81*. Greenfield, Jonas. 1990. “The cluster in biblical poetry”. Maarav 5–6:159–168. References Greenstein, Edward L. 1992. “Wordplay, Hebrew”. Beitzel, B. 1980. “Exodus 3:14 and the divine name: Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6, ed. by D. N. A case of biblical paronomasia”. Trinity Journal Freedman, 968–971. New York: Doubleday. NS 1:5–20. Grossberg, Daniel. 1986. “Pivotal polysemy in Bergler, Siegfried. 1977. “Threni V, Nur ein alpha- Jeremiah XXV 10–11a”. Vetus Testamentum betisierende Lied? Versuch Einer Deutung”. Vetus 36:481–485. Testamentum 27:304–320. Guillaume, Philippe. 2009. “Lamentations 5: The Blau, Joshua. 1982. On polyphony in Biblical seventh acrostic”. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Hebrew. Proceedings of the Israel academy of sci- 9:1–6. ences and humanities 6/2; Jerusalem: Israel Acad- Herzberg, Walter. 1979. “Polysemy in the Hebrew emy of Sciences and Humanities. Bible”. PhD dissertation, New York University. Bohl, F. 1926. “Wortspiele im Alten Testament”. Jour- Hoffman, Yair. 1980. “The use of equivocal words nal of the Palestine Oriental Society 6:196–212. in the first speech of Eliphaz (Job IV–V)”. Vetus Bottéro, Jean. 1977. “Les noms de Marduk, l’écriture Testamentum 30:114–119. et la ‘logique’ en Mésopotamie ancienne”. Mem- Hurowitz, V. A. 2000. “An often overlooked alpha- oirs of the academy of arts and sciences: Essays betic acrostic in Proverbs 24:1–22”. Revue Bib- on the ancient near east in memory of Jacob Joel lique 107:526–540. Finkelstein. Vol. 19, ed. M. de Jong Ellis, 5–28. ——. 2001. “Proverbs 29:22–27: Another unnoticed Hamden, Connecticut: Archon. alphabetic acrostic”. Journal for the Study of the Brug, John F. 1990. “Biblical acrostics and their Old Testament 92:121–125. relationship to other ancient near eastern acros- Joosten, Jan. 1990. “Hechadalti forma mixta?” tics”. The Bible in the light of cuneiform literature: Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Scripture in context III, Ancient Near Eastern 102:96–97. Texts and Studies 8, ed. by William W. Hallo, Korpel, Marjo C. A. 2009. “Kryptogramme in Eze- 283–304. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen. chiel 19 und im ≠Izbet-Íar†a-Ostrakon”. Zeitschrift Casanowicz, I. M. 1893. “Paronomasia in the Old für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 121:70–86. Testament”. Journal of Biblical Literature 12:105– Lieberman, Stephen J. 1978. “A mesopotamian 167. background for the so-called aggadic ‘measures’ Ceresko, Anthony R. 1982. “The function of antana- of biblical hermeneutics?” Hebrew Union College clasis (mß± “to find”// mß± “to reach, overtake, Annual 58:157–225. grasp”) in Hebrew poetry, especially in the book Lindars, Barnabas. 1967. “Is Psalm 2 and acrostic of Qoheleth”. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44:551– poem?” Vetus Testamentum 17:60–67. 569. Loprieno, Antonio. 2000. “Puns and word play in ——. 1994. “Janus parallelism in Amos’s ‘oracles ancient Egyptian”. Puns and pundits: Wordplay against the nations’ (Amos 1:3–2:16)”. Journal of in the Hebrew Bible and ancient near eastern Biblical Literature 113:485–490. literature, ed. by Scott B. Noegel, 3–20. Bethesda, Christensen, D. L. 1987. “The acrostic of Nahum Maryland: CDL. once again: A prosodic analysis of Nah 1, 1–10”. Machinist, Peter. 1983. “Assyria and its image in Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft first Isaiah”. Journal of the American Oriental 99:409–414. Society 103:719–737. Clère, J. J. 1938. “Acrostiches et mots croisés des Marcus, David. 1990. “‘Lifting up the head’: On the anciens égyptiens”. Chronique d’Égypte 13:35–58. trail of a word play in Genesis 40”. Prooftexts Corré, Alan D. 1973. “±èlle, hèmma = sic”. Biblica 10:17–27. 54:263–264. Morenz, Ludwig D. 2008. Sinn und Spiel der Farber, Walter. 1986. “Associative magic: Some Zeichen: Visuelle Poesie im Alten Ägypten. Pictura rituals, word plays, and philology”. Journal of the et Poesis. Interdiziplinäre Studien zum Verhältnis American Oriental Society 106:447–449. von Literatur und Kunst 21; Cologne / Wiemar / Fishbane, Michael. 1977. “The Qumran pesher and Vienna: Böhlau. traits of ancient hermeneutics”. Proceedings of the Noegel, Scott B. 1995. “Wordplay and translation sixth world congress of Jewish studies. Hebrew technique in the Septuagint of Job”. Aula Orien- University of Jerusalem, 13–19 August, 1973, ed. talis 14:33–44. by Malka Jagendorf and Avigdor Shinan, 97–114. ——. 1996a. Janus parallelism in the book of Job. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Garsiel, M. 1994. “Punning upon the names of the ——. 1996b. “Atbash in Jeremiah and its liter- letters of the alphabet in biblical acrostics” (in ary significance: Part 1”. Jewish Bible Quarterly Hebrew). Beth Miqra 139:313–334. 24:82–89. Gordis, Robert. 1936–1937. “Studies in Hebrew ——. 1996c. “Atbash in Jeremiah and its liter- roots of contrasted meaning”. Jewish Quarterly ary significance: Part 2”. Jewish Bible Quarterly Review 27:33–58. 24:160–166.

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 186 popular music ——. 1996d. “Atbash in Jeremiah and its liter- Renkema, J. 1995. “The meaning of the parallel ary significance: Part 3”. Jewish Bible Quarterly acrostics in Lamentations”. Vetus Testamentum 24:247–250. 45:379–382. ——. 1998a. “A slip of the reader and not the reed: Rosenfeld, A. 1992. “An acrostic in Lamentations 5” Infinitive absolutes with divergent finite forms. (in Hebrew). Sinai 110:96. Part I”. Jewish Bible Quarterly 26:12–19. Sasson, Jack M. 1976. “Word play in the O.T.”. ——. 1998b. “A slip of the reader and not the reed: Interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible. Supplement, Infinitive absolutes with divergent finite forms. 968–970. Nashville: Abingdon. Part II”. Jewish Bible Quarterly 26:93–100. Schorch, Stefan. 2000. “Between science and magic: ——. 2000. “Drinking feasts and deceptive feats: The function and roots of paronomasia in the pro- Jacob and Laban’s double talk”. Puns and pundits: phetic books of the Hebrew Bible”. Puns and pun- Wordplay in the Hebrew Bible and ancient near dits: Wordplay in the Hebrew Bible and ancient eastern literature, ed. by Scott B. Noegel, 163–180. near eastern literature, ed. by Scott B. Noegel, Bethesda, Maryland: CDL. 205–222. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL. ——. 2004. “Geminate ballast and clustering: An Spronk, K. 1998. “Acrostics in the book of Nahum”. unrecognized literary feature in ancient Semitic Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft poetry”. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5:1–18. 110:209–222. ——. 2007a. Nocturnal ciphers: The punning lan- Steiner, R. C. 1996. “The two sons of Neriah and guage of dreams in the ancient near east. New the two editions of Jeremiah in light of the two Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society. atbash code-words for Babylon”. Vetus Testamen- ——. 2007b. “‘Wordplay’ in Qoheleth”. Journal of tum 46:83–84. Hebrew Scriptures 7:1–28. Stewart, H. M. 1971. “A crossword hymn to Mut”. ——. 2009a. “The ritual use of linguistic and textual Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57:87–104. violence in the Hebrew Bible and ancient near Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1983. “An early technique of east”. State, Power, and Violence, Ritual Dynam- aggadic exegesis”. History, historiography, and ics and the Science of Ritual 3, ed. by Margo Kitts, interpretation: Studies in biblical and cuneiform 33–46. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. literatures, ed. by H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, ——. 2010. “‘Sign, sign, everywhere a sign’: Script, 169–189. Jerusalem: Magnes. power, and interpretation in the ancient near Treves, M. 1965. “Two acrostic poems”. Vetus Tes- east”. Science and superstition: Interpretation of tamentum 15:81–90. signs in the ancient world. The fifth annual Univer- Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1986. Classical Hebrew sity of Chicago Oriental Institute seminar, ed. by poetry: A guide to its techniques. Sheffield: Shef- Amar Annus, 143–162. Chicago: Oriental Institute field Academic. of the University of Chicago. Wolters, Al. 1985. “Íopîyyâ (Prov 31:27) as a hym- ——. 2011a. “Bodily features as literary devices in nic participle and play on Sophia”. Journal of the Hebrew Bible” (in Hebrew). Studies in Bible Biblical Literature 104:577–587. and exegesis presented to Samuel Vargon, ed. by Moshe Garsiel, et al., 491–514. Ramat-Gan: Bar- Scott B. Noegel Ilan University Press. (University of Washington) ——. 2013. “Wordplay” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Forthcoming. Nöldeke, Theodor. 1910. “Wörter mit Gegensinn Popular Music (A∂dåd< )”. Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprach- wissenschaft, 67–108. Strassbourg: Trübner. Secular popular music in Hebrew first emerged Paul, Shalom M., 1992. “Polysensuous polyvalency in poetic parallelism”. “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies with the rise of national sentiments among Jews in the Bible, Qumran, and the ancient near east in the 1880s. The nation-building efforts of the presented to Shemaryahu Talmon, ed. by Michael Jewish national movement was accompanied by Fishbane and Emanuek Tov, 147–163. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. a project of transforming Hebrew into a spoken Pinker, A. 2006. “Nahum 1: Acrostic and author- language, to be used by the emergent speech ship”. Jewish Bible Quarterly 34:97–103. community for all its communication needs. All Rendsburg, Gary A. 1982. “Double polysemy in realms of endeavor, including popular culture, Genesis 49:6 and Job 3:6”. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44:48–51. had to be catered to. The creation of songs was ——. 1988a. “Bilingual wordplay in the Bible”. an integral component of this general trend. Vetus Testamentum 38:357–362. Two main phases may be observed in the ——. 1988b. “The egyptian sun-god Ra in the pen- evolution of Hebrew popular music (Regev tateuch”. Henoch 10:3–15. ——. 1992. “Notes on Genesis XV”. Vetus Testa- and Seroussi 2004). Between the 1880s and the mentum 42:266–272. 1960s the field was dominated by music which ——. 2000. “Wordplay in the Hebrew Bible: An consciously reflected and supported the hege- eclectic collection”. Puns and pundits: Wordplay monic Zionist ideology. This tradition, named in the Hebrew Bible and ancient near eastern liter- šire ±ereß שירי ארץ ישראל ature, ed. by Scott B. Noegel, 137–162. Bethesda, by musicologists Maryland: CDL. yi«ra±el ‘Songs of the Land of Israel’ (henceforce