Gender Discord and Psalm 12:6-7

Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT)---that's what the authors named our book on the perfect preservation of scripture. And those words come from Psalm 12:7. Psalm 12:6-7 alone do not buttress the biblical doctrine of preservation; however, we believe that they teach it. We believe that these verses nicely complement the many other places that teach the perfect preservation of scripture as Christians through history have believed. Here's the psalm:

1	Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2	They speak vanity every one with his neighbor: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3	The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4	who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5	For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6	The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7	Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8	The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

What Do People Say

Others have contended that the "them" of v. 7 ("preserve them") refers to the poor and needy of v. 5. Among other men, I believe "them" refers to "words" in v. 6. It makes sense that "them" is "words" based upon proximity. "Words" is closer to "them" than the "poor" and "needy" are.

So why do the others say that "them" refers to "poor" and "needy" even though those words are further away from "them"? The first reason, they say, is context. Both sides say the context supports their position, so let's take that one off the table. Let's keep it to the grammatical point, that is, the gender of "them." The "poor and needy" side says "them" must refer to the "poor and needy" because of the agreement in gender. They have said that it settles the case. Done. Finished. No more debate needed. Why? The Hebrew word translated "words" is feminine in gender and the pronoun "them" is masculine. "Them," therefore, cannot refer to "words." On the other hand, "poor" and "needy" are masculine, so they would say this is obvious.

Doug Kutilek

This is what Doug Kutilek, big time critical text advocate, has said:

When we turn to the Hebrew text of Psalm 12, the ambiguity of the English disappears. Hebrew, like many non-English languages, has a feature that English lacks -- that of grammatical gender. In English, object words are classified according to natural gender: men, boys, and the male offspring of animals are classified as masculine and masculine pronouns he, him, etc., are used of them; women, girls, and the female offspring of animals, plus sometimes countries, boats, and until recently, hurricanes, are considered feminine, and feminine pronouns she, her, etc., are used of them. Just about everything else from forks, knives, and spoons to roofing nails and sheet rock is classified as neuter.

In English, we have only natural gender; many, if not most, other languages have, in addition to natural gender, grammatical gender. Some languages have two grammatical genders -- masculine and feminine (e.g., the Semitic languages); others add a third -- neuter (this is the situation in Greek, Latin, German, and others). Things naturally masculine and things naturally feminine are so treated, but very many things are grammatically treated as masculine, feminine, or neuter without any connection to natural gender at all. For example, the German word for spoon is masculine; for fork, feminine; and for knife, neuter.

In languages that have grammatical gender, it is usual and customary for pronouns to agree with their antecedents in gender and number. Hebrew here is like the rest. And also like the rest, there are occasional exceptions to the principle of agreement in the Hebrew Bible (see Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 135), but the Book of Psalms is exceptionally regular on the matter of gender agreement.

In the Hebrew of Psalm 12, the pronouns translated them in verse 7 are both masculine -- the first them being plural in number, the second being singular (him, literally), particularizing every individual in the group (with slightly different vowel points in Hebrew, the second pronoun could be understood as the first person plural common, viz., us). So, the antecedent noun can be expected to be masculine in gender and plural in number.

The word rendered words twice in verse 6 is a feminine plural noun in both cases; the words poor and needy in verse 5 are both masculine and plural in Hebrew. While the English translation is ambiguous and allows two different antecedents, the Hebrew is clear and plain -- the antecedent of them is the poor and needy ones of verse 5, not the words of verse 6. Gender agreement of pronoun and antecedent demonstrates this.

Kutilek talks like he is totally sure that gender discord between "words" and "them" really does settle the question.

Adam at OTSB

Then we have Adam at his Old Testament Studies Blog write:

Now, Psalm 12 is a complicated text, and to quote it glibly like this shows how sloppy Brandenburg is being in his exegesis to try to prove his point. There are real questions about whether the “them” in the phrase “you shall keep them, O Lord” refers to the words. In the first place, the genders don’t match up. The “words” of verse 6 are feminine [hr'm.ai], while the suffix “them” on “keep” in verse 6 is masculine [~rEm.v.Ti].

Adam assumes that we should conclude that "them" does not refer to "words" because the "genders don't match up"---no other explanation offered to his readers---this issue is settled because of the gender discord. Case closed.

And What About Gender?

Alright, so what about the gender discord? Seems to make sense. But no. Biblical writers tend to employ masculine pronouns for their antecedent feminine usage of the noun "words" and its synonyms. Throughout the Old Testament there are examples of feminine "words" (or its synonyms) with masculine pronouns. This is something unmentioned by either Kutilek or Adam. If they did not know, then they were ignorant and needed to know. If they did know, then they misrepresented the whole issue to their readers in disingenuous fashion.

We see this kind of usage in Psalm 119:111, 129, 152, and 167. In every one of those verses, we have a masculine pronoun referring to a feminine noun that is a synonym of God's Words. The masculine pronoun serves a purpose of communicating stability and strength to the nature of its antecedent, extending these qualities of the Patriarchal God. It is purposeful gender discord. This does really put a smack-down on Kutilek's "the Book of Psalms is exceptionally regular on the matter of gender agreement." Exceptionally regular....hmmmm. Perhaps we could just look at one of the Psalms that refers to God's Words a lot of times to see if this is the case. Oh wow, not exceptionally regular.

Now I brought up this very point to Adam in his comment section. And, of course, he thanked me for that information, hopeful to rightly represent God's Word, right? Wrong. He said my point was "totally irrelevant." Is that how you would read such an answer to the point in his post? That it was "totally irrelevant"? I hope not. Of course, it is relevant. This is sheer pride on the part of this young man, intellectual and spiritual pride. I've written Doug Kutilek about this same point. Did he change his article? No. He just ignored it. I've found this typical of Doug Kutilek. In addition to his "totally irrelevant" comment, Adam wrote this in his comment section:

Of course, let us take a look at the pattern of all of these:

Psalm 119:111
A. I have inherited Your testimonies [Fem.] forever,
B. For they [Masc.] are the joy of my heart.

Psalm 119:129
A. Your testimonies [Fem.] are wonderful;
B. Therefore my soul observes them [Masc.].

Psalm 119:152
A. Of old I have known from Your testimonies [Fem.]
B. That You have founded them [Masc.] forever.

Psalm 119:167
A. My soul keeps Your testimonies [Fem.],
B. And I love them [Masc] exceedingly.

Now, the problem is that the syntax of these passages is not parallel to the syntax of Psalm 12. Notice how, in all of these texts, you have colon A with one gender, and colon B with another gender, all in one strophe. This is an example of what is called “gender parallelism,” where masculine and feminine are put in parallel with each other in two adjacent colons. Now, compare these with what you have in Psalm 12:

Psalm 12:5-7
5A. “Because of the devastation of the afflicted [Masc], because of the groaning of the needy [Masc],
5B. Now I will arise,” says the LORD;
5C. “I will set him [Masc] in the safety for which he longs.”
6A. The words [Fem.] of the LORD are pure words [Fem.];
6B. As silver tried in a furnace
6C. on the earth, refined seven times.
7A. You, O LORD, will keep them [Masc.];
7b. You will preserve him [Masc] from this generation forever.

That is not exactly parallel to the texts to which you pointed in Psalm 119. Structurally we have two colons between the “words” and the masculine suffixes [6B and 6C], and we have consistent uses of two feminine or two masculine nouns in the colons that are adjacent. We also have masculine plural nouns in 5A and a masculine singular noun in 5C, which is exactly parallel to what we have in 7A [masculine plural] and 7B [Masculine singular].

Also, I never used the gender disharmony as the “basis” for anything. I do realize that there is such a thing as gender disharmony in Hebrew. However, none of the passages to which you pointed are syntactically relevant, as all the passages you have cited are examples of a common usage of gender disharmony [gender parallelism], which is totally irrelevant to Psalm 12. Part of my my argument is that the gender disharmony in Psalm 12 makes “words” as the antecedent to the masculine suffixes far less likely.

Aha, oh yes, ahem, we've got to look at the, um, pattern of the few examples I gave Adam to chew on. Adam is saying that, oh yes, of course, gender discord, yes, that happens, yes, he knew that, of course. But that's not what he said. All he said was that the genders didn't match up. He said nothing about a particular pattern in which the genders may be discordant. Nothing. If he knew that in the first place, and then said that gender discord was making a certain grammatical point, then he was misleading his audience. No admission of that, however. If he knew it, then he was misleading his readers. If he didn't know it, then he should admit it. The latter seems like a better choice.

But he comes back in his comment to say that the syntax is not parallel and he cites "gender parallelism," so according to him this case in Psalm 12:6-7, the point of gender disharmony rule is not occurring. The implication is that gender disharmony between the pronoun and its antecedent "words" only works with the syntax found in my Psalm 119 examples, but not with Psalm 12. So if that's true, then every example should be the same syntax as we see in the Psalm 119 examples, his so-called "gender parallelism." But it isn't.

Joshua 1:7 doesn't have the same syntax as the Psalm 119 examples.

Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law [feminine], which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it [masculine] to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.

Psalm 78:5 doesn't have the same syntax as the Psalm 119 examples.

For he established a testimony [feminine] in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them [masculine] known to their children.

Leviticus 26:3 doesn't have the same syntax as the Psalm 119 examples.

If ye walk in my statutes [feminine], and keep my commandments [feminine], and do them [masculine].

1 Kings 6:12 doesn't have the same syntax as the Psalm 119 examples.

Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes [feminine], and execute my judgments [feminine], and keep all my commandments [feminine] to walk in them [masculine].

There are more examples than these, but these above blow Adam's whole syntactical parallel argument to bits. His "gender parallelism" point is nothing more than gobbly-gook.

You should notice that Adam and Doug disagree on the second masculine pronoun in v. 7. Doug says it should be understood as a plural, "particularizing every member within a group." That's obviously how the KJV translators took it, when they translated it "them." It's what I believe too, except referring to "words" in the previous verse. Kutilek also says "the antecedent noun can be expected to be masculine in gender and plural in number." And that's because he has been either clueless or rebellious about the existence of this gender discord rule. On the other hand, Adam attempts to refer that second pronoun in v. 7 back to the supplied "him" of v. 5. He makes a pronoun refer back to an understood pronoun, and uses his colon argument in order to accomplish that. But if we really do have some pattern there, like he says, then where is the 7c? According to him, there is a 5abc and 6abc in order to make it work, but there is only a 7ab---no c. He is seeing things that aren't there.

So What's Happening in Psalm 12 with Gender Discord

It would be better to see the structure of the psalm as asymmetric, like this.

A. Psalm 12:1
B. Psalm 12:2-4
C. Psalm 12:5
B. Psalm 12:6-7
A. Psalm 12:8

Psalm 12:2-4 speak of the words of the ungodly and Psalm 12:6-7 speak of the Words of God. Both Psalm 12:1 and 12:8 recognize the need of divine help. Psalm 12:5 is the promise of God. And here's a big tip on this asymmetric structure. V. 1 and v. 8 end with the same exact word in the Hebrew text, the Hebrew word for "man," adam.

Kutilek and Adam make the psalm about the poor and needy. The poem is marked by an incredibly strong emphasis on speech—three uses each of "speak" and "lips," four of "say," and two of "tongue." There is also one “groans.” The poet is focused on words. Vv. 2-3 and vv. 6-7 parallel in the structure. The most obvious contrast is between the words of the evildoers and the words of God with the implication that the veracity of words is primarily dependent on the speaker.

Adam later comes back to use structure to make a point of gender harmony. He's reading into the text. He should just go ahead and look at the nouns that are closest in proximity. "Words" fits with "them." If you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras, think horses. Don't try to force the text into what you want it to say.

Psalm 12 is a perfect example of gender discord in play. The contrast between man's vacillating, untrustworthy words with the pure, preserved Words of God takes advantage of the masculine pronouns to make that point. The One Who speaks those Words overpowers and outlives the ones who speak the others.

Conclusion

Psalm 12 is talking about words. The gender discord, used purposefully, indicates the trustworthiness, stability, permanence, and strength of God's Words versus those of evil men. There is a bit of irony here as it relates to the trust in one representation of Psalm 12 over another. You'll have to judge what and/or who to trust.

*************

Order Thou Shalt Keep Them below.