*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

Bibliography of Works Consulted

33

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