Post on 21-Feb-2023
*Gender Matched Parallelism/Gender SpecificCoordination:
A Study in Grammatical Gender Matching in Biblical Hebrew Poetry
by
R. Brian Rickett
Submitted in partial fulfillment of therequirements
For Old Testament Research Seminar: Hebrew PoetryThe Master’s SeminarySun Valley, California
Spring, 2001
1
Contents
Scope of the Study……………..……………………………………….…1
The Place of Parallelism in Poetry………………….………………….…1The Nature of Poetry……………………………………………....1
The Nature of Parallelism.…………………….……………………5
From Gender Matched Parallelism To Gender Specific Coordination…………………..………….…10
Classifications of Gender Specific Coordination…….……………….….11
Functions of Gender Specific Coordination………….…………………..15
Direct Functions…………………………………………………..16 Indirect Functions……………………………….…………………17
Pitfalls for the Study……………………………………………………...18
Criteria for the Identification and Analysis ofGender Specific Coordination………………….……………….…19
Proposed Model for Identification and Analysis Of Gender Specific Coordination…………………………………21
Bibliography……………………………………………………………...22
2
Scope of the Study
The purpose of the present paper is to define, set
parameters, and provide guidelines for the identification
and analysis of the poetical phenomena known as “grammatical
gender matched parallelism.” The study will progress by
first considering the role of parallelism in the study of
poetry. Then, it will define the terms used. Next, some
functions of the device will be considered. Criteria for
the identification and analysis of the device will be
proposed. Guidelines for study will be suggested and a
workable model for the identification and analysis of the
device will be attempted. Finally, a case study will be
performed on Psalm 19 in which the guidelines can be
demonstrated.
The Place of Parallelism in Poetry
3
The Nature of Poetry
Because parallelism is frequently but inappropriately
understood as the primary distinctive or most idiosyncratic
feature of Hebrew poetry,1 its relationship to poetry will
first be analyzed with a view to providing a correct working
definition for both poetry, parallelism, and ultimately
grammatical gender matched parallelism.
First, some minimal parameters will be provided with
which to distinguish poetic literature from narrative.
Having accomplished that task, a better foundation for
defining parallelism and ultimately gender-matched
parallelism will be set forth. The model that will be used
does not have the purpose of classifying or distinguishing
1 P.J. Nel, “Parallelism and Recurrence in Biblical Hebrw Poetry: A Theoretical Proposal,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 18 (1992): 135-43. Watson communicates this universal feature in W.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 115as do Berlin, (Adel Berlin,“Parallelism,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992, 5:155), Boling (Robert G. Boling, “‘Synonymous’ Parallelism in the Psalms,” Journal of Biblical Literature 5/ 3 [1960]: 221), and many others.
4
between mixed texts,2 but seeks to lay down general
principles to aid in classification.
Following Nel and De Saussure, the present model begins
with the view that the relationship between semiotic signs
of a text is basically twofold, i.e., syntagmatic and
paradigmatic.3 Syntagmatic here refers to the “grammatical
positioning of semiotic signs on a linear basis, often
conceptualized in terms of a horizontal axis.” In other
words, in a narrative text sign distribution is syntagmatic,
or primarily linear, or linear sequential. More precisely,
the meaning of the text is conveyed via the “continuity of
signs in a linear structure.”4 This linear sequence of
signs is what provides temporal continuity to any story.5 2 ? However, it may be possible at a late time to develop more precise principles for each.
3 ? Nel, 138.
4 ? Ibid.
5 ? Examples of words or phrases used in biblical Hebrewnarrative for the expression of linear sequences/temporal continuity include wayyiqtol and waqitol forms, i.e coordinate relationships of various combinations, qal infinitive construct lemor, the direct object marker, etc. All these provide logical, sequential cohesion, which is the primary characteristic of narrative and prose in general.
5
As Nel notes, “Without temporal continuity no story could be
a story; it is the minimum requirement.”6 Therefore, he
explains, temporal continuity is the absolute principle of a
narrative.7 It is important to note that coherence in
narrative is achieved by the contrast of signs as well as
causality.
In a narrative, coherence is created through the
contrast of events, characters, speeches, spaces, etc.
Without these types of contrasts, “the analogy between real-
life people and the personages is inconceivable.” Likewise,
causality is important and is “explicitly realized through
the linking of signs, or is unconsciously projected onto the
ordering of signs.” Further, says Nel “Without the
principle of causality the plot structures of a narrative
would be unsolvable.”
In contrast to the syntagmatic ordering of signs, there
is paradigmatic sign ordering. Whereas syntagmatic
6 ? Nel, 138.
7 ? Ibid.
6
relationships provide temporal continuity, paradigmatic
relationships refer to “the signs as belonging to groups or
sets, e.g. words with related meanings or similar sounds.”
“The relationship of a sign to a paradigmatic set is
conceptualized in terms of a vertical axis,” explains Nel.
The literary system of a poetic text is . . .basically paradigmatic, the selection of signs andtheir interrelationships are determined by paradigmatic sets. The poet in his effort to describe or articulate phenomena in reality makes a paradigmatic selection to achieve his goal. Theinterrelationship of the signs and their meanings are always determined by the paradigm from which they have been selected. The ordering of the signs, therefore, is basically not linear, but vertical and associative. Temporal continuity andcausality do not constitute prerequisites for a poem, and are therefore not dominant principles. The creativeness involved in the paradigmatic selections in a poetic text dictates the comprehension of the interrelationship of the relevant signs. The association of interrelated signs in a poetic text and the incomprehension are the consequence of a human being’s mental competence to re-activate or re-vitalize signs and their diagnosticcomponents. This… [is] a basic principle in termsof which contiguity is created…
In conclusion, this discussion has suggested that
narrative literature is literature whose overall
construction consists in the syntagmatic, or linear
7
sequential, or temporally ordered semiotic signs. Further,
poetical literature is literature that is primarily
characterized by the paradigmatic, or grouping, or
clustering, or dense, etc. associative ordering of signs.
It is basically agnostic to temporal continuity and
communicates with little respect to linear ordering.
An understanding of this paradigmatic principle in
poetry greatly enhances any discussion that attempts to deal
with parallelism, as will be seen. So far it has been
argued that paradigmatic relationships are the primary
characteristic of poetry, but it will remain until after the
ensuing discussion before suggesting appropriate
nomenclature.
The Nature of Parallelism
R. Lowth in 1753 “discovered” the primary distinctive
or most idiosyncratic feature of Hebrew poetry to be
parallelism. He first popularized the idea in the
introduction to his Isaiah commentary that year. He defined
parallelism as follows:
8
The correspondence of one Verse, or line, with another I call parallelism. When a proposition isdelivered, and a second is subjoined to it, or drawn under it, equivalent, or contrasted with it,in Sense; or similar to it in the form of Grammatical Construction; these I call Parallel Lines; and the words or phrases answering one to another in the corresponding Lines Parallel Terms.8
Lowth also reduced parallelism to three categories,
those of “synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic
parallelism.”9 He coined a term for parallelism describing
“two coherent sententious versets” as parallelismus membrorum,
a cumbersome phrase that frequently pops up in studies of
parallelism in Hebrew poetry.10
Lowth originally understood the interaction between the
“two-member” lines in terms of semantic correspondence. For
him, semantic correspondence was the relation between things
(rebus) and words (verba).11 His three categories were based
8 ? Robert Lowth, Isaiah: A New Translation with a Preliminary Disstertation and Notes Critical, Philological, and Explanatory.
9 ? Adele Berlin. “Parallelism”, 156.
10 ? Nel, 135.
11 ? Nel, 135.
9
on the semantic relationship between the bipolar lines of a
couplet. However since that time, the term “parallelism”
has been expanded to accommodate morphological, syntactic and
phonological features.12
As studies in parallelism progressed, additional
“categories” or “types” have been observed. These other
“types” came about because they didn’t fit into Lowth’s
three categories. So, additional categories of parallelism
were created in order to classify permutations in word order
that differed from line to line, ellipsis of terms (complete
or incomplete parallelism), etc. Examples of these other
categories, as suggested by Berlin include: (1) chiastic
parallelism, (2) staircase parallelism, (3) emblematic
parallelism and (4) Janus Parallelism.13
Studies of parallelism have been primarily based on
parallel word pairs and linguistic models. The parallel
word pair of course refers to the pairing or coordinating of
12 ? Nel, 135.
13 ? These categories were provided by A. Berlin. “Parallelism”. 156-57.
10
terms. In the linguistic model parallelism can be based on
the “grammatical aspect,” the “lexical aspect,” the
“semantic aspect” or the “phonological aspect.”14
By “grammatical aspect” is meant the equivalency of
syntax between lines. Parts of lines may be in parallel as
well, i.e. word classes such as “noun//pronoun; noun,
adjective, or participle // verb, etc.”15 Other
morphological contrasts include tense, conjugation of verbs,
number, gender, definiteness of nouns, etc.16
Parallelism based on the “lexical aspect”, means the
coordination of words, such as fixed word pairs, or
frequently recurring pairs or any parallelism involving the
pairing of terms.
Also included in the linguistic approach to parallelism
is the “semantic aspect,” which “pertains to the
relationship between the meaning [emphasis mine] of the
14 ? Berlin, “Parallelism.”158-160.
15 ? Ibid., 158.
16 ? Ibid.
11
parallel lines.”17 There is also the “phonological aspect,”
which refers to the paralleling of sound equivalencies, i.e.
pairing of phonologically equivalent words, etc.
With all the tremendous variations in types of
parallelism, the concept can become dizzying. It appears as
though the term has become a “catch all” phrase for poetical
phenomena. In light of all the variations that fall into
the category of “parallelism,” Lowth’s archaic
classification is, as Nel rightly suggests, considered to be
a misnomer.18
The most idiosyncratic or distinctive feature of Hebrew
poetry is still generally understood to be that of
parallelism. However, it will be demonstrated that this is
so in spite of inaccurate nomenclature. Nel explains that
what is generally called parallelism today, is not in fact
parallelism, but is “isocolon.” The “isocolon consists of
coordinated lines of the same length within a period or
sentence group” (p. 135). Nel alleges that R. Lowth, in 17 ? Ibid.
18 ? Nel., 135.
12
addition to subsequent writers such as Collins, O’Connor,
and Geller has mislabeled the grammatical conventions and
constraints of Hebrew versification. In other words, the
commonly occurring “couplet,” or “dipody” in BHP has
erroneously received the label “parallelism.”
W.E. Watson intimated this common error in his book
Classical Hebrew Poetry when he broached the subject of
parallelism. Watson did a good job of pointing out the
differences between parallelism (proper congruence,
exhibited by “same sequence, same sign”), chiasmus or mirror
symmetry (reflexive congruence, demonstrated by “same sign,
opposite sequence”), proper anti-congruence (“same sequence,
opposite sign”) and reflexive anti-congruence (chiasm
demonstrated by “reversed sequence, opposite sign”). He
stopped short however of making practical application of his
findings in the rest of his discussions i.e. he reverted
back to the traditional and inaccurate use of parallelism.
As already suggested, however parallelism is commonly
and improperly understood as more than proper congruence.
The term parallelism should be restricted to the two lines
13
of a couplet (or even triplet) that parallel or correspond
to one another, i.e. same sequence, same sign coordination.
Further, as shown in the discussion between prose and
poetry, the element most common in Biblical Hebrew poetry,
the most descriptive or idiosyncratic feature is the
paradigmatic ordering of semiotic signs. This may include
semantic, morphological, syntactic or phonological ordering, which
obviously excludes parallelism as properly understood as
proper congruence. Nel has chosen to term this primary
feature of poetry “recurrence” and to reserve parallelism
for the “isocolon” or “dipody.” His justification for doing
is:
a) the empirical evidence of the superfluous employment of a terse formulaic couplet; (b) the special kind of congruence and distribution of thesemantic signs in the couplet (and to a lesser extent in the triplet); and (c) the special semantic relationship of the elements in the couplet and in the triplet.19
From Gender Matched Parallelism to Gender Specific
Coordination
19 ? Ibid., 142.
14
The implications of the previous discussion are
significant for understanding the function of the device now
under investigation. The following will demonstrate that
the occurrences of this device cannot be restricted to
proper congruence, but also occurs in proper anti-
congruence, chiasmus and reflexive anti-congruence. In light
of the varied occurrences of the device, new nomenclature
must be suggested so that a definition can properly be
provided.
The proper nomenclature will now be provided as well as
a working definition. The device now under investigation
shall be called gender specific coordination instead of the
characteristic erroneous gender matched parallelism.
Furthermore, gender specific coordination refers to the
intentional paradigmatic arrangement of semiotic signs based
upon grammatical gender. Berlin understands grammatical
gender matching to be primarily morphological, whereas
Watson understands gender matching to be primarily semantic,
so the present definition allows for both.20 20 ? A second option could be that of “recurrence based upon grammatical gender matching.”
15
Now that the appropriate nomenclature as well as a
working definition has been established, the classifications
of gender specific coordination shall be examined.
Classifications of Gender Specific Coordination
The following attempts to provide some categories of
gender coordinated patterns that occur in the HB along with
some examples. Although the phenomena of gender specific
coordination occurs in other Semitic languages, such as
Ugaritic in which it was first discovered, the
classifications and examples given below will only consider
those in the Hebrew Bible.21Afterward, some criteria for
identification and analysis will be provided.
Following are the classifications of gender specific
coordination as inspired by W.E. Watson.22 The following
list isn’t comprehensive, but lists a good selection of
options observed.
“Straightforward Patterns”
21 ? Watson, Traditional Techniques., 192.
22 ? Ibid., 122-125. Watson also provides helpful verse references.
16
A. m. + m. // f. + f.
Here, the first two items in cola “a” are masculine, and the second two, those in cola “b” are feminine.
B. f.+ f. // m. + m.
The first two items in cola “a” are feminine, and the second items, those in cola “b” are masculine.
C. m. –m. // f. – f.
The first nouns in each line are in the construct state.
D. f. – f. // m. – m.
The first noun in each line is in the construct state but the gender is reverse from “C” above.
E. m. + m//m. + m. All nouns are of the same gender, i.e. that of masculine.
F. f. + f.//f. + f. All nouns are of the same gender, i.e. that of feminine.
II. “Reversed Patterns”
A. m. + f. // m. + f.
In the above, the first item in each pair is masculine. The second item in each pair is feminine.
17
B. f. + m. // f. + m.
Feminine items occur first in each pair followed by themasculine. It is generally believed when the feminine occurs first, the effect is more dramatic.
III. “Chiastic Gender Patterns”A. m. + f. // f. + m.
Here the last item of cola “a” is feminine as well as the first item in cola “b.”
B. f. + m. // m. + f.
Here, B., the situation is the opposite of A. above.
C. m. – f. // f. – m.
The first noun is in construct state in cola “a” and is
masculine, the second feminine. The first noun in cola “b”
is in construct state and is feminine, the second masculine.
According to Watson, this pattern is only found in Prov.
8:20.
D. f. – m. // m. – f.
The first noun is in construct state in cola “a” and is
feminine, the second masculine. The first noun is in
construct state in cola “b” and is masculine, the second
feminine. According to Watts this pattern is found several
18
times such as in Deut. 32:14; Isa. 24:18; Ps. 102.7; Job
29:13.
I.V. “Quatrains”
In quatrains, there is apparently no standard pattern.
Patterns that do occur, according to Watson include the
following.
A. m. + m. // m. +m. // f. + f. // f. + f.
B. m. + f. + f. // m. + m. + m. // f. + m. + m. // f.
C. m. // f. // f. // m.
D. m. + f. // f. // m. + f.
E. m. // f. // m. // f.
F. m. + m. + m. // f. + f. + f. // m. // f.
G. f. // f. // m. + m. + m. // m.
H. m. + m. // f. + f. // f + f// m. + m. + m.
I. f. + m. // m. + f. // m. + f. + m. //f. + m. + f.
J. m. // m. // f. // f.
V. “Longer Sequence” Watson provides a list of verse references that may be
consulted. As above, however there are “no fixed
19
patterns.”23 More prominent references include Judg. 9:8-
15; Ezek. 11: 18-20; Job 1:3; Prov. 16:1-3; 30: 21-23.24
VI. “Single Gender Passages”
Single gender passages are those passages that only
contain one gender, i.e. all masculine nouns or all feminine
nouns.
VII. “Prose Passages”
According to Watson, there are a number of examples of
gender matching that occur in prose. Further, these
occurrences may be helpful in identifying the presence of
verse in certain prose texts. Examples he provides include
Ex 2:1-10; Lev. 5:6; Jos. 11:6; Ruth 1:8-9; 2:21-22.25
Functions of Gender Specific Coordination26
Having observed an extensive list of the so far
recognized categories of gender specific coordination in the23 ? Ibid., 225.
24 ? Ibid., 225.
25 ? W.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques.(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.), 53.
26 ? These qualifiers are drawn from W.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques., 208.
20
HB, it is natural for a discussion of the function of the
device to be given. However, certain cautionary statements
should first be considered.
First, the study of function in Hebrew poetry is a
relatively recent enterprise, so any conclusions must be
made cautiously.
Second, the gender of many nouns in the HB cannot be
determined. As a result, examples that might otherwise
include those nouns were not provided in the list above, and
have not been taken into consideration. Any discussion made
at this time may have to be modified or extended.
A third and final reason for proceeding with caution is
that gender specific coordination frequently occurs in
combination with other devices. This makes assigning
function a bit tenuous.
With these qualifiers in mind, our discussion of
functions will occur in two sections. The first section
will discuss direct function of gender specific coordination
the second section will discuss indirect functions.
21
Direct Functions of Gender Specific Coordination
The primary function of gender specific coordination
seems to be that of merismus, or the presenting of a global
picture.27 This may be the case whether the gender is
matched, or mismatched.28 Each matched term will correspond
so as to indicate that an A-Z action is to take place.
Secondly, the use of gender matching may be employed in
order to “heighten antithesis or express contrast.”29 A
third use of gender matching may be for the purpose of
expressing the degree of a state of being.30 A fourth use
may be to achieve more dramatic coordination. A fifth use
of the form is to convey emphasis, as in the denial or
affirmation of something. Watson also notes that the form
may be used to express justice and abundance. A sixth use
is to provide a link, a logical connection between terms.31 27 ? Ibid., 208.
28 ? Ibid.
29 ? Ibid.
30 ? Watson categorizes this type as the “expression of harmony.”, 209.
31 ? Watson, Biblical Hebrew Poetry, 365.
22
Also expressed, but peculiar to the inversion of gender
matched synonyms is the denotation of the strange or
abnormal, the portrayal of various types of destruction, or
the reversal or undoing of normal conditions.32
Indirect Functions of Gender Specific Coordination
Yet another use of gender specific coordination may be
that of indicating the presence of verse in prose. This is
especially helpful if its use is concurrent with other
poetic devices. In this way, gender matching is
corroborative.33 Further, this could be evidenced if there
was a sudden change from the syntagmatic coordinating of
semiotic signs to the paradigmatic as explained previously.
This could also be the case if it was found that the
paradigmatic were unusually high in an otherwise linear
structured text.
32 ? I’m indebted to W.E. Watson for providing most of the above functions for gender specific coordination. W.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse, 207-210.
33 ? Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry., 53.
23
A second use of gender specific coordination could be
to verify the correct reading of a disputed text, especially
when found used in conjunction with other poetical devices
such as chiasmus.34 In some instances, such as in Joel 3:1-
2a, identification of gender-patterns can help to identify
the structure of the poem.35
Pitfalls of the Study
As one approaches a passage of scripture and attempts
to identify various poetical features, there may remain some
uncertainty as to whether or not the gender patterns were
intended by the poet. This uncertainty is heightened by a
number of reasons.
First, in regard to gender matched synonyms, all nouns
in Hebrew are either masculine or feminine, hence the
likelihood of a pair containing a word in each gender is
relatively high.
Further, most parallel terms, such as standardized
word-pairs are chosen because of lexical association rather 34 ? Ibid., 43.
35 ? Ibid., 188.
24
than for grammatical reasons.36 Watson expresses his
concern thus, “How much did the poets really intend, how
much is actually present, and to what extent are scholars
reading such devices into the text?”37
As a result, it is helpful at this juncture to provide
some criteria to help objectify the study.
Criteria for Identifying and Analyzing Gender Specific
Coordination
In light of the difficulty of establishing whether the
gender matching was intended by the poet, or is merely a
fortuitous occurrence, some preliminary criteria will be set
forth in order to help objectify conclusions made. Then, in
the case study below the application of these principle will
be shown. For determining gender specific coordination,
Watson suggests that “where both masculine and feminine
36 ? Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. (IndianaUniversity Press, 1985.), 44.
37 ? Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse, 211. Berlin expresses her concerns as similarly. Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism., 44.
25
forms of the same noun exist, it must be shown that the
appropriate gender has been deliberately selected.”38
Secondly, when a range of synonyms is available to the
poet, it must be demonstrated that the one in use was done
so for the purpose of fitting the gender pattern.
Thirdly, if available consult a parallel passage to the
passage in question. In this manner it may be adduced that
the poet intentionally chose a pattern for the express
purpose of gender matching.
Fourthly, Watson suggests determining the stylistic
preference of the writer. He explains, “when five examples
turn up in as short a book as Joel (1:6; 2:1, 16; 4:3, 10)
it can safely be argued that this is not due to chance.”
Further, “Similarly, some thirty occurrences can be numbered
in Proverbs and in Job indicative that even more remain to
be identified.” On the other hand, a lack of gender
specific coordination, as occurs in Ezekiel suggests that
38 ? W.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse., 210.
26
any claim for the occurrence of the feature must be well
substantiated.
Fifthly, the discovery of clusters of words appearing
to be gender matched may indicate more than mere fortuitous
occurrence. In such a case, one must determine whether the
word pairs are “stock” and may be used with some other
intent. Likewise, if the breaking up of stock word pairs in
order to create the gender matching effect can be
demonstrated, by cross referencing the use of such word
pairs in other texts, than one may be relatively confident
that intentional gender matching has occurred.
Sixthly, if the word in question is a word whose
natural gender is both, if the selected gender is the
appropriate gender selected to constitute gender matching a
greater level of certainty may be obtained.
Seventhly, check to see if there are more multiple
poetic devices in play. For instance, if synonymous word
pairing is being used, the word chosen may be employed for
lexical purposes. Then check to see if other synonyms of
the opposite gender are available. In doing so it may be
27
determined that gender matching may be present, but no
intentionally so.
Eighthly, does the gender coordination appear to occur
in conjunction with the overall theme of the passage?
Having examined a number of rudimentary guidelines, a
model for identifying and analyzing gender matching in a
poetical section of the HB will now be given.
Proposed Model for Identifying and Analyzing Gender Specific
Coordination
The following is intended to serve as a preliminary
model to the identification and analysis of gender specific
coordination in the Hebrew Bible. At a later time, it may
be found necessary to make additions, corrections, or
expansions. Further, in the appendix the results of the
model as applied to Psalm 19 can be found.
Further, if a full exegetical analysis of the text is
being performed, this study may occur during the literary
analysis stage.
Step 1
28
First, read the passage in Hebrew, looking up necessary
words and coming to terms will all issues of grammar and
syntax. Overall, the goal is to familiarize one’s self with
the text. Pay attention to the meaning of the passage, the
structure, and note anything that stands out.
Step 2
Depending on the abilities of the student, it may be
necessary at this time to perform a preliminary translation
of the passage. Whether a translation is performed or not,
observe the overall flow and structure of the text, and if
possible, identify the type of literature, i.e. poetry,
prose, prophetic, etc.39
Is the passage primarily characterized by the
syntagmatic relationship of semiotic signs or by the
paradigmatic? This will inform the student that he’s
certainly dealing with prose literature, or poetic material,
or a passage that is a mixture of types. With a proper
understanding of the syntagmatic/paradigmatic dichotomy,
39 ? This study hasn’t attempted to provide guidelines for prophetic literature, so only prose and poetry will be discussed.
29
identification in most situations shouldn’t be too
difficult.
Step 3
Classify each of the nouns in the passage. It will be
helpful to write the letter “f” by feminine nouns, and the
letter “m” by masculine nouns. Note the relationship of the
nouns to each other. Pay special attention to nouns in
construct relationships.
Step 4
Arrange the structure of the poem to reflect findings.
The poem may be rearranged later after additional data is
gathered, or if superior relationships are observed.
Step 5
Having familiarized one self with the classifications
listed above, work through the passage to see which
classification(s) any potential gender option(s) fits.
Step 6
Apply the criteria for objectification listed
previously. At this stage, it may be determined that
certain gender specific relationships that genuinely exist,
30
at least grammatically, may actually be fortuitous, i.e.
consider literary style, the presence of other poetical
devices, etc. Be sure to identify any poetical features
that may effect your findings.
Step 7
Finally, after having determined the presence of other
pertinent poetical devices, try to make a positive
identification of function, such as merismus. Then
determine, if possible the level at which the gender
matching is occurring. Is it the sole feature? Is it
subsidiary, etc? Further, can the function of the gender
coordination be determined? Are words grammatically matched
that constitute a merismus or other device, etc?
Conclusion
In conclusion, the present paper has:
(1) Provided minimal parameters for distinguishing between
poetry and prose literature.
(2) It has suggested that the most descriptive or
idiosyncratic feature of Biblical Hebrew poetry is
recurrence.
31
(3) It has demonstrated that the traditional understanding
of “grammatical gender matched parallelism” is actually
a misnomer.
(4) It has suggested new nomenclature for the device
traditionally referred to as grammatical gender matched
parallelism, i.e. gender specific coordination.
(5) Provided a significant listing of classifications for
gender specific coordination.
(6) Given a preliminary listing of functions for gender
specific coordination.
(7) Provided a listing of “pitfalls” for the study of
gender specific coordination.
(8) Provided a preliminary set of criteria for identifying
and analyzing gender specific coordination.
(9) Proposed a preliminary model for identifying and
analyzing gender specific coordination.
(10) It has demonstrated said model on a passage of Hebrew
poetry, namely Psalm 19.
32
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. Usa: Basic Books, 1985.
Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1992.
Berlin, Adel. “Parallelism.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Boling, Robert G. “Synonymous’ Parallelism in the Psalms.” Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol. 5, 3 (1960): 221-255.
Ceresko, Anthony R. “The Chiastic Word Pattern In Hebrew.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. (1976): 303-11.
______________. “The Function of Chiasmus in Hebrew Poetry.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 40 (1978): 1-10.
Clark, Arthur. Analytical Studies in the Psalms. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1979.
Clines, David J.A. “The Parallelism of Greater Precision.” In Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. Elaine R. Follis, 77-100. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987.
Coogan, Michael David. “A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 40, (1978): 143-167.
34
Craigee, Peter, C. Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 19. Waco Tex.: Word Books, 1983.
Dahood, Mitchell, Psalms 1-50. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1965.
Honeyman, A. M. “Merismus in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of Biblical Literature. LXXI/1, (1952): 11-18
Kugel, James. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.
Miller, Patrick D. “Synonymous-Sequential Parallelism in the Psalm”, Biblica. (1980): 257-61.
Nel, P.J. “Parallelism and Recurrence in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: a Theoretical Proposal.” Journal of Northwest Semitic LanguagesXVIII (1992): 135-143.
Waltke, Bruce and M. O’Connor. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1980.
Raabe, Paul R. “Deliberate Ambiguity in the Psalter.” Journal of Biblical Literature. LLQ/2 (1991): 213-227.
Saydon, P. P. “Assonance in Hebrew as a Means of Expressing Emphasis.” Biblica. 36/204 (1955): 36-50.
35
Sandy, D. Brent. And Ronad L. Giese, Jr. Cracking Old TestamentCodes. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.
Schokel, L. Alonso. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988.
Petersen, David L. and Kent Harold Richards. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Waltke, Bruce k. and M. O’Conner. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind.: 1990.
Watson, W.E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.
___________. Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Wendlen, Ernst R. Analyzing the Psalms. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998.
Westermann, Claus. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1965.
*The present paper is a paper I wrote as a student in 2001 but still find valuable as a teaching tool.
36