Review Reports - The Art of Highlighting the Endings of Literary Units in Prophetic Books

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This essay is well written, makes reference to many relevant bibliographic resources, and certainly proves its point that highlighting the ending of literary units is a recurring compositional technique found in prophetic literature and possibly rooted in oral tradition.

There are a few bibliographic lacunae. I was surprised not to see mention of the work of David Carr, Robert Culley, or Jacqueline Vayntrub each of whom engages in various ways with questions concerning oral nuances in Hebrew Scriptures and the boundaries shared by the written and the oral. Most recently, Vayntrub in particular approaches these matters creatively as she asks about style, worldviews, meaning and message. She is especially interested in the theme of “embodiment.”

The most important weakness of the essay in my view is neglect of questions concerning meaning and message, effect. How does the technique underscored by the writer of this study and the examples so carefully and thoroughly laid out engage listeners or (now) readers in particular ways, to what ends? How does “a departure from the expected formal pattern” convey meaning?

The author notes, for example, on p. 12 concerning Ezek 36:29 that the “final member shifts to a negative form, highlighting the ending.” This observation might be developed more deeply. The same applies to comments on p. 13 concerning “climactic force” and concerning the “surprising ending” at Am 7:14.

The authors’ conclusions on p. 16 about “performative cues,” the prevention of monotony” and “traces of oral origins,” and concerning performance, meaning, and communicative intent are all important and promising, but I would urge the author to go back to the case studies and deepen the analysis, example by example. The lack of such threads in the essay prevent me from giving the piece a full-throated recommendation for publication but the editors may decide that the carefully laid out case studies are useful and thought-provoking enough, in and of themselves.

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 1

I appreciate both the time and thoughtful guidance you invested in reviewing the article. I have organized my responses to your comments into sections and incorporated them directly into the body of your review. My remarks are highlighted in red.

I incorporated the three researchers into the literature review presented in the first part of the article’s introduction, and I also added these researchers to the bibliography at the end of the article.

In my view, the technique I have identified—and demonstrated through ten distinct methods and numerous examples—operates on listeners by drawing their attention to a change that highlights the ending. This effect is particularly strong when the audience’s ear is accustomed to a certain pattern and anticipates the recurrence of its final element; the deviation from the expected pattern surprises them and accentuates the closure of the unit, whether short or extended. While such emphasis on the ending may influence the delivery of the message, it does not necessarily convey additional meaning.

The main purpose of my article is to present multiple ways of marking endings and to establish this phenomenon as an important rhetorical technique. The article may serve other researchers who wish to explore additional aspects, such as its impact on meaning or message transmission. There is considerable similarity here to techniques found in musical compositions, in which modifications introduced at the ends of verses or choruses serve a clear purpose: to highlight the conclusion of musical sections that form part of the larger work.

In my view, the numerous examples I have presented and analyzed from a stylistic–rhetorical perspective are organized systematically and in detail, and they are both useful and thought‑provoking. My article may serve as a solid foundation for further research on the style of prophetic literature in particular and biblical literature in general.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the overall topic is worth pursuing, I felt there to be a significant theoretical question that was left unanswered from the beginning of the paper.

Namely, the author has nowhere explained what constitutes a "literary unit". Because the article begins with a discussion of oracles and actions, the reader is left with the initial impression that the level of analysis is the oracle. But it does not seem to be the case that the examples leveraged here are always clearly identified as occurring at the *end* of *oracles*. Far more, it seems to be the case that the "unit" level at which the author is working is the *verse*. This should be clarified early in the article.

Relatedly, I'm left wondering what it means to be "final"—the author ubiquitously addresses the final cola of verses. But if the oracle (/literary unit) extends beyond the verse, does that still count? The author should apply some sort of criteria—shift in theme, tone, tenor, etc.; change in reference or speaker; even citation of previous studies that find a break—to demonstrate FIRST that the passage at hand is the end of *something*, and only THEN should the literary features be evaluated. Without that first step, this article's arrangement suggests that the author has selected verses that demonstrate the literary feature under investigation, and simply identified that as indicating the verse is an "end" of some ill-defined "unit".

Without some sort of external corroboration that the selected verses are indeed the "final" verses of whatever literary unit the author claims, we have no real ability to judge the truth of the author's assertion regarding these literary features' function. The author has certainly pointed to highlighting through the use of literary features. But it is nowhere clear, in my view, that the author has successfully demonstrated these verses take place at the end of their respective literary units. (In some cases, they do indeed come from the end of clear units—chapters, parashot, etc.—but in others, their position at "the end of a unit" is less established.)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reply to reviewer 2

Although the overall topic is worth pursuing, I felt there to be a significant theoretical question that was left unanswered from the beginning of the paper.

This definition clarifies that the present study does not examine the endings of complete prophetic oracles, but rather the endings of smaller, structurally coherent sub‑units within those oracles. These literary units function as independent rhetorical and poetic segments, even though they do not constitute full prophetic speeches. By emphasizing that a “literary unit” refers to a discrete sub‑section—typically composed of three or more cola—the definition makes clear that the phenomenon of highlighting the ending is analyzed at the level of these internal building blocks, not at the level of entire prophecies. This distinction directly addresses the reviewer’s concern and explains why the examples discussed in the article focus on verses or cola rather than complete oracular compositions.

In my books and numerous articles on the musical stylistics of biblical texts, I examine the various techniques that highlight the shift occurring in the final member of a literary unit. In my books and numerous articles, I frequently analyze short literary units which, in many cases, do not constitute complete thematic units but rather sub‑sections of them.

The term “final” refers to any literary unit consisting of at least three hemistichs. Such a unit may comprise a single verse or several verses, and the prophetic oracle may, of course, continue beyond this short unit.

The author should apply some sort of criteria—shift in theme, tone, tenor, etc.; change in reference or speaker;

This may represent an alternative way of approaching the material. I have chosen, however, to adopt different criteria—ten in total—which I have clearly presented in the introduction.

even citation of previous studies that find a break—to demonstrate FIRST that the passage at hand is the end of *something*, and only THEN should the literary features be evaluated.

In the second part of the introduction, which surveys the phenomenon within biblical literature, I noted a considerable number of studies that identify points of transition or structural turning points.

Without that first step, this article's arrangement suggests that the author has selected verses that demonstrate the literary feature under investigation, and simply identified that as indicating the verse is an "end" of some ill-defined "unit".

As noted above, the aim of the study was not to demonstrate that the phenomenon appears at the end of a complete literary unit, but rather at the end of sub‑units that form part of the larger composition. The author or prophet who delivers the material before an audience selects rhetorical techniques to captivate listeners and employs these techniques within various segments that together constitute the full composition.

(In some cases, they do indeed come from the end of clear units—chapters, parashot, etc.—but in others, their position at "the end of a unit" is less established.)

The intended focus of the article is not on complete units of content—such as chapters or parashot —but rather on stylistic units, typically brief, whose constituent lines are linked through distinctive stylistic‑rhetorical markers.

A definition of the term “literary unit,” which I integrated into the article’s introduction, appears in Endnote 1.

A “literary unit” refers to a discrete, structurally coherent segment within a prophetic text—typically consisting of three or more cola or members—that functions as an independent rhetorical and poetic entity within the larger prophetic composition. Such a unit does not necessarily coincide with a complete oracle or a self‑contained prophetic speech; rather, it represents a smaller building block within the broader discourse, marked by internal cohesion, parallelism, rhythmic organization, and identifiable structural boundaries. These units often exhibit their own internal patterns of repetition, syntactic arrangement, and rhetorical progression, which allow them to be analyzed as meaningful sub‑sections of the prophetic text.

In the context of this study, the term “literary unit” designates precisely these sub‑structures—segments that are smaller than full oracles yet sufficiently organized to display deliberate stylistic features, including the phenomenon of highlighting the ending.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is occasionally a disconnect between the translation given following the Hebrew and the translation used in the discussion - eg 2.3.1 "and to plunder" in translation and "they shall plunder" in discussion; 2.5.1 "sound" in translation and "voice" in discussion, "tumult" in translation and "noise" in discussion; 2.6.2 "earth" in translation and "land" in discussion; 2.6.4 "though" in translation and "if" in discussion; 2.7.1 "no tree" in translation and "every tree" in discussion; 2.10.1.1 "sycamores" in translation and "sycamore figs" in discussion; 2.10.3.1 translations of last two lines don't match.

I suggest the author clarify which translation is being used and ensure that the discussion uses the same translation.

Author Response

Cover Letter to Reviewer No. 3

I wish to express my sincere gratitude for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your comments regarding the lack of uniformity. I have accepted all of your suggestions and have implemented consistent revisions throughout the text. The corrected sections are highlighted in green.

I extend to you my best wishes.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I did submit letting you know that all seems acceptable now.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing again!!