POCHERETH-HAZZEBAIM
POCHERETH-HAZZEBAIM.—Amongthe'
children
of
Solomon's
servants'
who
returned
with
Zerubbabel.
Ezr
2"
=
Neh
7";
called
in
1
Es
5"
Phacareth.
POETRY.
—
1
.
The
presence
of
poetry
in
the
Bible
is
natural
and
fitting.
As
it
is
the
form
of
composition
which
is
easiest
to
memorize,
whether
in
the
earlier
stages
of
a
literature,
or
later
in
the
expression
of
common
religious
experience,
it
is
natural
that
poetry
should
be
preserved,
and
should
be
the
preserver
of
Hebrew
thought.
As
the
form
of
literature
which
is
concrete
in
its
pictures,
it
is
to
be
expected
that
the
Hebrew
people,
to
whom
abstract
thought
and
terminology
are
almost
unknown,
would
employ
it
very
freely.
As
the
literature
of
emotion
and
imagination,
it
is
naturally
used
to
express
religious
emotion
and
religious
ideals.
It
does
not
suflice,
however,
to
state
the
fitness
of
poetry
to
satisfy
in
a
measure
the
purposes
for
which
the
Bible
was
written.
Does
it
actually
contain
poetry?
The
answer
is
to
be
found
only
by
examina-tion
of
its
contents,
and
only
an
affirmative
answer
is
possible.
Though
the
Psalms
have
not
been
written
in
poetical
form
for
two
thousand
years,
yet
their
poetry
cannot
be
obscured.
Scholars
may
differ
as
to
the
forms
and
laws
of
Hebrew
poetry,
yet
they
do
not
venture
to
say
that
none
is
to
be
found
in
the
Bible.
The
presence
of
poetry
must
be
recognized
if
one
would
gain
any
adequate
linowledge
of
the
Scriptures.
Other-wise
correct
interpretation
is
impossible.
From
failure
in
this
respect
in
the
past,
our
theology
has
suffered,
the
warfare
between
the
Bible
and
science
has
been
intensified
if
not
caused,
and
Christians
have
lost
im-measurably
the
comfort
and
spiritual
help
available
from
this
kind
of
literature.
Poetry
must
be
inter-preted
as
poetry.
To
apply
to
it
the
same
principles
of
exegesis
as
are
applied
to
prose
is
highly
absurd;
for
in
attempting
to
mark
the
differences
between
prose
and
poetry
we
must
go
below
the
form
of
language,
and
note
that
there
is
a
distinctly
poetic
mode
of
thought
and
range
of
ideas.
The
facts
of
experience
are
so
grouped
and
wrought
upon
by
the
imagination
as
to
become
a
new
creation.
The
singer
is
not
bound
to
time
or
place;
he
speaks
in
figure
without
knowing
that
it
is
a
figure;
he
speaks
in
hyperbole
because
he
does
not
have
the
sense
of
proportion.
The
poetry
of
the
thought
affects
also
the
vocabulary
of
the
singer;
it
modifies
his
word
meanings,
and
affects
his
grammar.
It
alters
his
literary
style,
and
there
arises
a
distinct
study,
that
of
literature
as
poetry
—
a
study
in
which
the
attempt
is
made
to
discover
how
poetical
forms
express
the
poetical
thought
of
the
writer.
2.
In
treating
the
poetry
of
the
Bible
we
are
con-cerned
chiefiy
with
the
OT.
The
NT
has
a
few
poetical
sections
(see
Htmn),
but
these
are
confessedly
Hebrew
in
character,
and
do
not
call
for
independent
treatment
here.
As
compared
with
the
OT,
the
NT
contains
very
little
poetry,
for
the
obvious
reason
that
Chris-tianity,
early
and
late,
has
largely
found
the
Hebrew
Psalter
sufficient
for
its
devotional
purposes.
3.
What
are
the
characteristics
of
Hebrew
poetry?
They
must
be
found
from
an
inductive
study
of
recog-nized
poetical
sections
of
the
OT.
A
certain
part
of
the
Scriptures
is
clearly
poetry;
a
certain
other
part
is
clearly
prose.
Between
the
two
there
is
a
great
amount
of
literature,
especially
in
the
prophetical
books,
about
which
there
is
a
difference
of
opinion.
It
is
called
poetry
or
prose
according
to
the
scholar's
defini-tions
and
his
zeal
in
making
emendations.
There
are
prose
poems,
products
of
real
poetical
imagination,
and
artistic
in
form,
but
lacking
in
poetic
rhythm.
These
doubtful
passages
should
be
left
out
of
account
until
the
essential
principles
of
the
poetry
of
the
Hebrew
people
are
determined,
and
then
the
test
can
be
reason-ably
applied
to
them.
Such
has
not
always
been
the
mode
of
procedure
on
the
part
of
scholars.
Sometimes
their
aim
seems
to
have
been
to
discover
new
examples.
POETRY
whether
by
direct
study
or
by
inexact
methods.
One
cannot
look
very
deeply
into
the
subject
without
discovering
the
most
extreme
differences
of
opinion
among
scholars.
There
is
abundant
reason
for
this
state
of
things.
The
very
reasons
which
make
the
presence
of
poetry
in
the
Bible
natural
and
fitting,
operate
to
make
its
definition
difficult.
The
niore
natural
the
poetic
expression
of
thought
and
feeling,
the
freer
it
will
be
from
conventional
regulation,
and
the
less
sharp
will
be
the
difference
between
the
prose
and
the
poetical
literature
of
a
people.
And
again,
in
Hebrew
so
many
facts
are
lost
upon
which
we
are
wont
to
place
dependence
in
such
a
study,
that
until
we
get
new
light
from
without,
any
scheme
of
Hebrew
metre
must
be
merely
a
worljing
hypothesis,
and
no
complete
system
can
be
expected.
There
Is
not
a
commanding
tradition
of
the
pronunciation
of
the
language,
whether
we
think
of
vowels,
syllables,
or
accent.
We
have
no
knowledge
of
Hebrew
music
of
a
character
that
would
aid
in
determining
thg^
rhythm
of
the
poems
that
were
sung
to
its
accompani-ment.
Even
the
consonantal
text
is
corrupt,
in
many
places
confessedly
so;
and
there
is
almost
no
place
so
certain
that
a
new
scholar
does
not
feel
himself
free
to
arise
and
emend
it,
and
so
win
his
spurs.
Under
these
circumstances
wide
differences
of
opinion
are
to
be
expected,
and
their
existence
must
be
endured
patiently.
If
there
is
any
ridicule
justifiable,
it
should
be
expended,
with
extreme
caution,
upon
those
who,
ignoring
these
many
points
of
uncertainty
which
neces-sarily
limit
the
value
of
their
inductions,
formulate
an
elaborate
and
microscopically
minute
system
of
metre,
and
then
turn
confidently
round
and
use
the
system
to
emend
the
text
so
as
to
bring
it
to
its
original
condition.
Rhythmical
considerations
may
to
a
certain
extent
enter
into
literary
and
textual
criticism,
but
unsupported
they
cannot
be
convincing.
The
OT
is
not
quite
destitute
of
evidence
that
the
Hebrews
themselves
were
conscious
of
a
difference
between
their
prose
and
their
poetry.
They
had
special
names
for
'proverb'
and
'song';
they
pro-vided
the
Psalms
with
headings,
some
of
which
must
have
been
musical
directions;
they
made
alphabetical
poems,
the
several
lines
or
stanzas
of
which
begin
with
the
letters
of
the
alphabet
in
regular
order.
These
lines
and
stanzas
are
of
equal
length
and
similar
rhythm.
Some
of
the
poems
inserted
in
the
prose
books
are
written
and
printed
line
by
line,
as
Ex
15,
Dt
32,
Jg
5,
2
S
22;
and
for
the
three
poetical
books
of
the
canon
the
Massoretes
of
later
times
provided
a
special
system
of
pointing,
thereby
recognizing
a
distinction
that
must
have
had
its
basis
in
tradition,
although
the
special
pointing
was
not
to
preserve
the
poetic
value.
Passing
over,
with
the
brief
allusion
already
made,
the
peculiarities
of
thought,
of
vocabulary,
and
of
grammar
which
poetry
reveals,
the
features
that
one
expects
to
find
in
OT
poetry
concern
the
line,
and
the
stanza
or
strophe.
(1)
The
line
is
so
constructed
that
when
it
is
read
aloud
it
sounds
agreeable
to
the
ear
by
virtue
of
a
distinct
rhythm;
this
rhythm
is
repeated
with
little
or
no
variation
from
line
to
line;
the
end
of
the
line
coincides
with
a
break
in
the
sense.
The
line
is
properly
regarded
as
the
unit
of
poetical
expression.
It
is
commonly
of
a
length
to
be
uttered
with
a
single
breath,
and,
if
sung,
a
brief
strain
of
music
suffices
to
accompany
it.
The
fundamental
importance
of
the
line
makes
it
desirable
to
determine,
if
possible,
what
are
the
rules
for
its
length,
and
what
is
the
nature
of
the
measurement
that
secures
the
rhythmical
effect
so
universally
recognizable.
The
history
of
the
search
for
a
satisfactory
system
of
metre
cannot
be
given
here.
Classical
models,
with
quantity
as
a
basis,
were
long
ago
abandoned
;
one
group
of
scholars
discard
the
Massoretic
accents,
and
attempt
an
explanation
on
the
basis
of
Syriac
metre,
counting
syllables,
and
accenting
alter-nate
ones;
but
the
predominant
theories
arS
accentual.
