12

Response
Martin Kessler Box
NY

6, Lawyersville,
12113
U.S.A.

Professor Alonso-Sch8kells work on Hebrew poetry always d eserves careful attention and Psalms 42f. form a splendid subject for study. Obviously, the author of the foregoing study gives us his conclusions which are based on a thorough preoccupation with the text. The heads under which he discusses his comments are helpful, though the present writer has some difficulty with the firsts Image Structure. Though the simile of a hart longing for water is Introduced ex abrunt, It is dropped with equal abruptness, as the poets inner state Is described (with the verbs gp as a transition to his eagerness to come to YHWHs temple).

Though the authors discussion of &dquo;the second Image&dquo; of water Is very helpful, together with his summary and conclusions of Its Interpretation, the following statement Is open to question: &dquo;...the poet who desperately seeks water, finds it, but It Is not life-giving water - it is destrucGod sends water, overwhelming, destructive of lif e.&dquo; tine. The poet does not say that he wants water, however; we have a simile, the referent of which Is his thirst for God. Granted, the image of water is significant, but the author It does not dominate the poem; Inhas overstated his case. stead, it is kept strictly subordinate to the relationship of the poet to his God. Perhaps the poet is subtly remindthough symbolizing life (via fertility) ing us that water is not the poets goal (as It is of the hart), for water may also symbolize death (via destruction: the flood of Gen 6-8). In other words, the symbolical quality of water Is The poet ambivalent: it can signify both life and death. seems to further suggest that, though water may satisfy the hart (physically), for the poet it does not satisfy his spirit; he longs for God and his presence In the temple, and This point is expressed emphatno substitute is acceptable. ically at the beginning of the psalm.
---

study of the &dquo;dialogue structure&dquo; is helpful, but be developed in greater detail and with more specifFor example, the statements &dquo;The ic references to the text. inner dialogue in the psalm is the expression of an inner drama, which in turn corresponds to the polarity of the psalmists experience of God&dquo; Is well-taken, but this should have been related e.g. to the thrice-rereated refrain (which
The it

might

13
indeed &dquo;does not necessarily signify an exact repetition of meaning&dquo;) and to the taunts of the enemy (42.4b, Ilb).

its

As to the authors third points There is &dquo;action and progressw in the poem, though It Is rather complex. Indeed, the refrain does not have &dquo;a simple formal value&dquo; but must be interpreted against the strophe which It concludes. The authors
< schemes

Strophe 1 Strophe 2 Strophe 3 -

past present
future

i s generally correct, even if oversimplified. In the first strophe, the root ZKR Indicates that the poem describes past events, the memory of which contributes to his sorrow. Thus, strophe #1 contemplates the past from the perspective of the present. The refrain points to the way out of sorrow. Then, the root ZKR Is taken up again, this time with God as object. Though a further description of his misery follows (using imagery of destructive waters), 42.9 (dominated by SWH, impf.s God as subject) solemnly declares Gods gracious intervention.

the poets inner struggle for faith. For cliNot the taunt &dquo;a eh eloheka?&dquo; la quoted from 42.4b. until 43.1 has the poet recovered sufficient faith to ask for and RYB). divine judgement on his Yet, even in his revived confidence he sounds a lament motifs lammah-coder ethallek belah_ag oyeb, 43.2b. Beyond that, there is a visualization of renewed hope, reminiscent of the The third and last occurrence of the refrain first strophe. sounds the most convincing of all, for the poet has himself traveled the road from discouragement, fired by memories of a joyful past and by taunts from unbelievers, to a renewed hope in God.
max,

upi. demonstrates

Though in 42.4 the poets tears had been his bread omsm will be manif ested by day, walayelah, presently Gods and by night his song(?) (t e p rase omam welayelah has been broken What follows (another statement of distress)

esed

enemies (see the roots SPT

To sum ups The dynamics of the psalm is much more complex Instead, than a sample configuration &dquo;past, present, future.&dquo; we find a constant interweaving of the three. Prof. Alonso-Sch8kels essay is a brief, sensitive analysis by an expert on Hebrew poetry. For those of us without such expertise, a safe road to travel may be to study sevBecause cursory reading tends to eral facets of the structure. miss details, even important ones, it may seem advisable to The next step would be make an inventory of verbs and nouns. to determine which nouns and verbs are used in noteworthy ways

14

as keywords. Sustained and dramatic examples such as the repeated use of SpQ In Gen 17ff. do not occur very frequently. Yet, a careful stuay of the repetition of nouns and verbs helps to lay bare some building blocks of the literary structure. For example, the root BW Is used In 42-3, where the poet asks when he will enter and see the face of God; In 43.3 he asks that God send his twin they messengers light and truth, that Thus, may lead him and bring him (Yllbiluni5 to Gods temple. through twofold use of BW both the problem and its resolution are

indicated.

The root MR occurs thrice; twice In the quotation of the taunt of the enemies: ayyeh elohpl{a, 42.4, 11, and once when the poet addresses God: omorah 11el salci, 42.10 (the beginning of the request In the lamen~ an epithet of praise to God sandwiched between expressions of unbelief by the impioua.

Another notable

case

has

already

been alluded tos

42.4a

Tears for bread omam

walayelah
+

42.4b be~mor ela kol-ha om

question

42.9

yomam yegawweh

YHWH

uballay lah iro mmi

asdo ) )
+

Turning
point

&horba ;&horba ;&horba ;&horba ;&horba ;-

CONTRAST

42.11 beomeram elay kol-hayyom

question.

An evident contrast exists between 42.4a and 42.9; It signals the turning point in the poem. Yet, both statements are juxtaposed to the quoted taunt, suggesting constant tension between

hope and despair.

A parallel procedure for the discovery of structure Is to go through the text in slow motion, noting how cola, verses, Sometimes the concatenous and strouhes are woven together. principle (S. M. Paul &dquo;Amos lt3-2:3: A Concatenous Literary 397-403) is apparent, e.g. napgl in Pattern,&dquo; JBL 90 and leel etc., 3a, hay (42.3a) with pene elohim 42.2b, (42.3b). Particular attention must be paid to parallelism: thus, keayyal/ken na Ki, 42.2. As our author has suggested, the use of imagery is of great Importance; the simile in 42.2 (k/ken) is further developed in 42.3a, while 3b reveals the referent: the object Is God, not water, as with the hart. Further, 42.4a describes the poets emotional distress by means of another Image: tears for bread, a In 4b, a aauae miserable comparison to water for the hart. f or his distress is given, while 5 develops thia point by

[1971)

describing past j~1B.

.

15

thing important

Sometimes parallel structure of bicola can say somefor the thrust of the poem as a wholes
mata

42.3b 42.5

abo weterveh

/ pene elohim

elleh ezkerah

wetexpekah / Cala na i.

3aT.

In ttie first quote, the time-projection is: present-future. It asks &dquo;when&dquo; and thus points to hope, though It remains On the other hand, the second quote Is pastas yet unborn. present oriented. It affirms the sentiments of &dquo;now&dquo; and Hope In God points to eloexpresses the present despair. him (3b), but present distress centers on the self (napsl.

These comments for the most part are In no way intended to detract from the illuminating article under discussion; they are Instead given 8S suggestions for further study and discussion, and hints how we may discover the structure of a biblical poes.