Psalm 30 Poetic Structure
From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Psalm 30/Poetic Structure
Choose a PsalmNavigate Psalm 30
Psalm 30
Please note: Resources for Psalm 30 are in the process of being reformatted for visual consistency and improved functionality.
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
At-a-Glance
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. |
Notes
- The numerical center of the psalm is v. 8 (with twelve lines on each side). More precisely, v. 8a has 39 prosodic word preceding and 39 prosodic words following (including v. 8b). This line represents the answer to the psalm's dilemma and could be described as "the meaningful centre on colon level,"[1] also providing the middle instance of nine occurrences of the divine name. More generally, "vs 7–8 may be considered the larger meaningful centre."[2] Nevertheless, v. 7 is what sets Psalm 30 apart from other reports of lament (see, e.g., Pss 6, 32, among others). The issue was the psalmist's arrogance, iconically reflected in being the psalm's only verse without mention of God.[3] The awareness of the reality communicated in v. 8a nullifies any arrogant claim of self-sufficiency—David's strength was entirely reliant on YHWH's favor. Structurally, the prominence of v. 7 is also supported by the the position of this key word, "favor," appearing in both vv. 6 and 8—for other correspondences between vv. 6 and 8, see Auffret (1982, 236).
- In broad terms, "scholars generally agree that the first main section ends with v. 6.[4] Nevertheless, the details of vv. 7–13 and its divisions are highly debated[5] and "present, according to commentaries, a large variety."[6] We agree with Krinetzki's[7] recognition of vv. 7–8, 9–11 and 12–13 as the main sections of the psalm's second half. Further, our analysis is similar to that of van der Lugt (2006), who notes the privileged position of vv. 12–13, which reflect the succession of events in vv. 2–6 (against the more common view of the psalm's two large sections being vv. 2–6 and 7–13; see, e.g., Malul 1996, 138).[8]
- Part of the complication regarding the psalm's poetic macrostructural analysis is, no doubt, caused by the tension between the symmetrical structure—and therefore the direct of prominence to the psalm's center—and the linear development (see the correspondences between, e.g., vv. 2–6 and 12–13.[9] Compare the poetic macrostructure of Psalm 92 in this respect.[10]
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. |
Notes
- v. 3. G has one line for this verse, supported by the single clause; M reflects our preference, in agreement with the accents.
- v. 6. G has four lines for this verse, supported by the accents (though see also v. 8); M reflects our preference, reflecting the more common two-line section.
- v. 8. Despite the accents, the two-line verse is attested in M and G.[11]
- v. 10. The Babylonian evidence (e.g., BL 2373), as well as the accents and clause divisions, support a three-line verse here. While the Greek tradition is mixed (Rahlfs has four lines, though the major codices—Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus—have three). We have preferred the two-line verse, maintaining the rhythm of vv. 6, 8 and 12, especially, and the pattern of two-line verses throughout the psalm more generally.
- v. 12. So G, against the clause divisions.
- v. 13. So G and B, supported by the accents.
- ↑ Labuschagne, Logotechnical Analysis, 1.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Cohen 2019, 109.
- ↑ van er Lugt 2006, 306.
- ↑ For a list of previous analyses, see van der Lugt 2006, 304–305.
- ↑ Auffret 1982, 231; "La détermination des unités dans le psaume 30 présente selon les commentaires une grande variété."
- ↑ Krinetzki 1961, 357.
- ↑ Van der Lugt's more precise division, though, differs slightly from ours (he argues for section of vv. 7–9, 10–11, 12–13, resulting in sections containing 3–2–3–2–2 verses, whereas we prefer 3-2-2-3-2, with a structural symmetry between the 3-2-2-3 of vv. 2–11). Ḥakham (1979, 160), without recognizing the quoted speech throughout vv. 10–11, suggests the second half should consist of the two sections vv. 7–10 and vv. 11–13. (Auffret's dismay involves the fact that, besides vv. 3–4, only vv. 10–11 have escaped scholars' attempts to place section divisions between individual verses—if he discovered Ḥakham's commentary he would have been further disappointed. Of course, if the Greek text were followed—see the textual note—v. 11 would indeed provide the same indicative verbs forms as v. 12 and 11–13 would naturally provide the final section.)
- ↑ For the AB//AB of vv. 2–6, 12–13, see the larger inclusio observations on the entire psalm and the verb pair זמר, ידה in vv. 5, 13.
- ↑ On the cohortative inclusio, cf. Psalm 118:28: אֵלִ֣י אַתָּ֣ה וְאוֹדֶ֑ךָּ אֱ֝לֹהַ֗י אֲרוֹמְמֶֽךָּ.
- ↑ Sommer (2022, 168) claims the traditional reading of the syntax—see the exegetical issue— would require enjambment, apparently analyzing the verse as either three or four lines.