We had previously discussed the unique features of Biblical Hebrew - especially its ambiguity and poly-vocality. We noted that Rabbinic interpretation is based on this feature of the Holy Tongue.
Why did G-d write his Bible in such an unwieldy tongue, one that required extended interpretation and exegesis? This is the question that we will yet take up at length. Suffices to say for now that multiplicity of association and richness and multiplicity of meaning is particularly suitable for how He communicates with men. The Jew perceives the world as having arisen from the Divine word. The characteristic of spoken word is that, unlike sight, it is a medium that is modulated in volume, tonality, inflection and inner construction. The world that leapt into being when the Almighty spoke is correspondingly multi-faceted, inter-related, polyphonic and fraught with complexity. It requires interpretation to make sense. Since our earliest childhood, our parents, neighbors, society and later on the cultural heritage in the form of books and ideas provide the data and theory that enable us to make some sense of this complex world in which we find ourselves. The book that expresses such a world must correspondingly be multileveled, appear contradictory, require keys to be properly decoded and at times, be intentionally even ambiguous – and so it is. Its keys lie in the Oral Law.
The dynamic nature of Biblical Hebrew
At first approach to Tanakh, the new reader is struck by the liveliness and quick flow of its narratives, the rapid movement of feeling, emotion and action throughout its pages. You find in its pages unrestrained liveliness, surprising metaphors, unexpected personifications. Mountains jump and quake, trees clap hands and the Spirit of G-d moves men. It is rare to see the Bible pause for a leisurely description of a scene or event, a rumination or meditation on a concept or a prolonged consideration of a thought or idea. Instead, it almost races from one profundity to another. Time does not flow, it leaps - from one event to another; more a series of vignettes than a continuous narrative. The Torah does not take the time to provide background information or to fill-in missing historical or descriptive elements for it focuses on the flow of happening and how it fits into the overall scheme. Some situations are presented in copious detail while whole other epochs are skipped over with nary a mention. In it all is Action, feeling trumps emotion, and life is viewed through the prism of the heart more than intellect. It is this feature that accounts for a sense of plastic time, as something that picks up and slows down to serve the purpose of the Narrator. Similarly, the Tanach does not describe people, events or places in significant detail, preferring to intimate them with a feature or two. It does not lecture or draw explicit morals for it prefers that the reader draws his or her conclusions. By drawing the reader into the process of interpretation and inference, he or she becomes a part of the process.
These features of Biblical writing are even more striking when we compare them with other works of the same general period, such as the Odyssey and the Iliad or even the epic of Gilgamish. These epics have all the features with which we have become familiar from Western literature. They patiently sketch the background, expound at length upon appearances and features of characters and locations, provide extended meditations on the characters’ feelings and reactions and abound in descriptions of every kind. Tanach is written very differently and knwing this is of great importance to being able to read it properly[1]. The uniqueness of Biblical literature in comparison with Near Eastern and Greek literature has been acknowledged by academic scholars, some of whom suggested that it is purposeful. The form had to be made unique and different from pagan literature to fit the unique monotheistic content. The theology determines the structure.
While some of the features of Biblical writing are related to the unique features of its language, others are intentional literary devices. We will postpone the discussion of the latter to a separate section and focus , for now, on the former.
to be continued
[1] These features were first pointed out by E. Auerbach, in Mimesis: The representation of reality in Western literature. Tr. W. R. Task, Princeton University Press, 1953
Comments