Psalm 25 Poetry
Psalm 25
About the Poetics Layer
Exploring the Psalms as poetry is crucial for understanding and experiencing the psalms and thus for faithfully translating them into another language. This layer is comprised of two main parts: Poetic Structure and Poetic Features.
Poetic Structure
In poetic structure, we analyse the structure of the psalm beginning at the most basic level of the structure: the line (also known as the “colon” or “hemistich”). Then, based on the perception of patterned similarities (and on the assumption that the whole psalm is structured hierarchically), we argue for the grouping of lines into verses, verses into sub-sections, sub-sections into larger sections, etc. Because patterned similarities might be of various kinds (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, sonic) the analysis of poetic structure draws on all of the previous layers (especially the Discourse layer).
Poetic Macro-structure
If an emendation or revocalization is preferred, that emendation or revocalization will be marked in the Hebrew text of all the visuals.
| Emendations/Revocalizations legend | |
|---|---|
| *Emended text* | Emended text, text in which the consonants differ from the consonants of the Masoretic text, is indicated by blue asterisks on either side of the emendation. |
| *Revocalized text* | Revocalized text, text in which only the vowels differ from the vowels of the Masoretic text, is indicated by purple asterisks on either side of the revocalization. |
[[File: |class=img-fluid|1110px]]
[[File: |class=img-fluid|1110px]]
Notes
Acrostic structure
Psalm 25 is an acrostic poem; each verse begins with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Like many biblical acrostics, however, the poem sometimes deviates from the expected alphabetic pattern. There are four points of apparent deviation:
- There is no waw verse.
- There is an additional pe verse at the end of the poem (v. 22).
- There is no qof verse.
- There are two resh verses (vv. 18–19).
The first two deviations occur also in Psalm 34, suggesting an intentional and established pattern.[1] The second two deviations are unique to Psalm 25, but they clearly contribute to the psalm's artistry, implying deliberate design rather than scribal error (see further The Missing Qof in Psalm 25:18). The double resh (vv. 18–19) (one of which has replaced the qof) stands at the center of a chiasm:[2]
A. pe (v. 16)
B. hope and rescue (vv. 15, 17)
X. double resh (vv. 18–19)
B. hope and rescue (vv. 20–21)
A. pe (v. 22)
This chiasm that spans vv. 16–22 helps to account for three of the deviations from the expected acrostic pattern. Without the double resh, the missing qof, and the additional pe at the end of the psalm, there would be no chiasm. This suggests that the poet has deliberately diverged from the standard alphabetic structure to create a chiasm. The disruption of the acrostic at the center of the chiasm (double resh and missing qof) contributes to the prominence of this center point.
One other feature related to the acrostic structure merits discussion: the order of pe (v. 16) and ayin (v. 15). Most biblical acrostics have the now-standard ayin-pe order, while several biblical acrostics have the order pe-ayin (e.g., MT Lamentations 2, 3, 4; LXX Prov 31). Scribes sometimes updated the order of these verses to reflect their preferred sequence (compare, e.g., Lam 1 in MT [ayin-pe] and 4QLam [pe-ayin]; and Prov 31 in MT [ayin-pe] and LXX [pe-ayin]). There is good evidence to suggest that this kind of updating was applied to certain psalms as well, especially Psalm 34 and Psalm 37.[3] These two psalms originally had a pe-ayin order, which has been updated to ayin-pe (and the update is reflected in all of our witnesses). Given the structural similarities between Psalm 34 and Psalm 25 – both lack a waw verse and add a pe verse; both are also written by David – it would not be surprising if Psalm 25 also originally had a pe-ayin order.[4] Indeed, a pe-ayin order results in a beautiful poetic arrangement (see the chiasm discussed above). If the traditional ayin-pe order is adopted, then the chiasm would be lost.[5]
Three part structure
In addition to the acrostic structure, the psalm is structured into three main sections: (1) alef—het (vv. 1–7); (2) tet—samek (vv. 8–14); (3) pe—taw+pe (vv. 16, 15, 17–22).[6]. Each section contains seven letters of the acrostic, except for the last section, which has an additional letter (the final pe, hence: 7+1). Despite the extra letter in the final section, this section has the same number of lines as the first section: 16 lines. (The extra lines in vv. 5, 7 contribute to this balance.)
The first section (vv. 1–7) addresses YHWH in the second person, and it is bound by an inclusio – vocative "YHWH" in vv. 1a, 7c, which functions to open and close the initial address.
The second, central section (vv. 8–14) talks about YHWH in the third person, except for the central verse of this section (v. 11), which addresses YHWH directly. This central section has an ABCXA'B'C structure that marks v. 11 as the central verse of the psalm.[7]
The final section (vv. 15, 16, 17–22) is arranged as a chiasm (see above).
The end of the final section hearkens back to the beginning of the psalm (see e.g., "my soul," "God," "hope," and "come to shame"), thus forming an inclusio around the whole poem.[8]
Line Divisions
Line division divides the poem into lines and line groupings. We determine line divisions based on a combination of external evidence (Masoretic accents, pausal forms, manuscripts) and internal evidence (syntax, prosodic word counting and patterned relation to other lines). Moreover, we indicate line-groupings by using additional spacing.
When line divisions are uncertain, we consult some of the many psalms manuscripts which lay out the text in lines. Then, if a division attested in one of these manuscripts/versions influences our decision to divide the text at a certain point, we place a green symbol (G, DSS, or MT) to the left of the line in question.
| Poetic line division legend | |
|---|---|
| Pausal form | Pausal forms are highlighted in yellow. |
| Accent which typically corresponds to line division | Accents which typically correspond to line divisions are indicated by red text. |
| | | Clause boundaries are indicated by a light gray vertical line in between clauses. |
| G | Line divisions that follow Greek manuscripts are indicated by a bold green G. |
| DSS | Line divisions that follow the Dead Sea Scrolls are indicated by a bold green DSS. |
| M | Line divisions that follow Masoretic manuscripts are indicated by a bold green M. |
| Number of prosodic words | The number of prosodic words are indicated in blue text. |
| Prosodic words greater than 5 | The number of prosodic words if greater than 5 is indicated by bold blue text. |
If an emendation or revocalization is preferred, that emendation or revocalization will be marked in the Hebrew text of all the visuals.
| Emendations/Revocalizations legend | |
|---|---|
| *Emended text* | Emended text, text in which the consonants differ from the consonants of the Masoretic text, is indicated by blue asterisks on either side of the emendation. |
| *Revocalized text* | Revocalized text, text in which only the vowels differ from the vowels of the Masoretic text, is indicated by purple asterisks on either side of the revocalization. |
[[File: |class=img-fluid|825px]]
Notes
- With one minor exception (v. 1, see below), all of the proposed line divisions follow the the Septuagint (according to Rahlfs 1931), which preserves an ancient Hebrew tradition of line division.[9] In vv. 1–2, 5, 6, the division of the Septuagint is superior to that of the Masoretic accents (see Grammar notes). Otherwise, the proposed line divisions also follow the Masoretic accents.[10]
- vv. 1–2. The vocative אֱֽלֹהַ֗י, which the Masoretic accents group with v. 2, should be grouped rather with v. 1 (so LXX; see Grammar note).
- v. 1. The question remains whether v. 1 should be regarded as one line (so LXX) or two lines (so, e.g., the old Babylonian manuscript: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Ms. Or. Qu. 680.). A division into two lines is preferred for the following reasons:
- (1) A two-line division would be more consistent with the rest of the psalm, both in terms of prosodic word count (2/3) and in terms of the predominance of two-line verses. By contrast, if v. 1 were a single line, it would be the only one-line verse in the psalm. It would also be the longest line in the psalm in terms of prosodic words (5).
- (2) A two-line division would create an interesting pattern, whereby the first and last line of the psalm (vv. 1, 22), along with the two middle lines (vv. 10–11) feature enjambment, where a single clause runs across two lines.
- (3) Verse 1 has an AB/AB pattern – A. To you, B. YHWH, A. I lift my soul, B. my God – which is the kind of pattern that we might expect to find across two parallel lines.
- v. 5. The division in v. 5a disagrees with the accents, but it follows the LXX, the pausal form, and Berlin Or. Qu. 680 (see Grammar note).
- v. 6. The division in v. 6 disagrees with the accents, but it follows the LXX (see Grammar note). The MT division would be more balanced in terms of prosodic words (3/3), but the preferred division results in slightly better syllabic balance.
- v. 22. As with v. 1, it is not clear whether v. 22 consists of one line or two lines. (The Septuagint manuscript tradition is divided on this point.) The accents suggest a two-line division, which would be consistent with the rest of the psalm.
Poetic Features
Bibliography
Footnotes
- ↑ Cf. Freedman 1992, 127: "If these phenomena had turned up in only one psalm, we might wonder about accidental omissions and possible inadvertencies, but when there are two psalms with so many identical points in common, it is clear that a deliberate program of alteration and adaptation has taken place in both cases."
- ↑ Note also that the divine name occurs in v. 15a. If it occurs also in v 21 (cf. LXX; see textual note), then this would significantly enhance the chiastic connection between these two verses.
- ↑ See Sikes and Longacre 2025, §3; cf. First 2014; see The Text and Meaning of Psalm 34:18.
- ↑ Cf. First 2014, 480–481.
- ↑ See further The Missing Qof in Psalm 25:18: Ayin-Pe or Pe-Ayin?.
- ↑ Cf. Weber 2016, §25. See also van der Lugt 2006, 270, who notes that "there is some unanimity among scholars who have studied the macrostructure of this psalm in distinguishing three main sections: vv. 1–7, 8–14/15, 15/16–21."
- ↑ Cf. Hossfeld 1993, 161; Doyle 2001, 200, 204.
- ↑ For a survey of other structural proposals, see van der Lugt 2006, §25. Van der Lugt's own analysis divides the text into three main parts: vv. 1–11; vv. 12–21; v. 22. In his view, the traditional tripartite analysis does not give due weight to the correspondences between vv. 6–7 and vv. 10–11.
- ↑ See Sikes 2025; Albrecht 2025.
- ↑ As interpreted by de Hoop and Sanders 2022.