Psalm 39 Poetic Structure
From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Psalm 39/Poetic Structure
Choose a PsalmNavigate Psalm 39
Psalm 39
Please note: Resources for Psalm 39 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
General notes
- v. 1. For the qere לִֽידוּת֗וּן and the ketiv לידיתון, see the textual note.
- v. 14. For the revocalization *הֶשַׁ֣ע* (MT: הָשַׁ֣ע), see the lexical note.
- Scholars have interpreted the poetic macrostructure of Psalm 39 in a number of different ways. Crenshaw has recently summarized the situation: "The structure of the poem is unclear, for clues point to different ways of dividing its individual units."[1] There seem to be contradictory signals between the position of the refrains and "selahs," on the one hand (vv. 6c, 12c), and the apparent continuity between vv. 6–7 and interactional discourse marker, "But now" (v. 8) on the other hand. Only universally recognized is the introduction of vv. 2–4.
- By far the most common structure suggested by scholarship is the division of sections vv. 2–4; vv. 5–7; vv. 8–12; vv. 13–14.[2] This is largely based on the position of the vocatives at the beginning of each suggested section (see vv. 5, 8, 13) and the interpretation of thematic content.[3]
- These proposed structures intentionally overlook the contribution of the refrain and "selah" (vv. 6c, 12c), which are, by far, the most significant formal indications of the poetic macrostructure (see Raabe 1990).[4] If these refrains are given their due weight, the poem must be divided into two larger sections of vv. 2–6; vv. 7–12, with vv. 13–14 as a final section, about half the length of the other sections.[5] While typically refrains are found in section-final position (especially with an accompanying "selah"; cf. Ps 46:8, 12), Raabe notes that "One could argue that [the refrain in] 39.6c [is] section-initial."[6] Such an observation accounts for the larger section divisions in accordance with the refrains, but also allows significant continuity through vv. 6c–7.[7]
Structural observations
- vv. 2–4 are dominated by the psalmist determination to keep silence. In terms of participant analysis, YHWH is absent throughout these verses. Structurally, the section contains the inclusio of first-person verb and the prepositional phrase "with my tongue."
- vv. 5–6b contain the quoted speech introduced by the verb of speech at the end of v. 4. Structurally, the section is bound by the repetition of "my days" and the word play on the roots חדל/חלד.
- vv. 6c–12c are demarcated by the inclusio consisting of the refrain, "selah," and the word אִישׁ.
- vv. 13–14 are found outside the final refrain and "selah" (v. 12c) and are dominated by imperatival forms. As noted above, this section contains only seven lines, roughly half the length of the previous two sections.
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. 1. For the qere לִֽידוּת֗וּן and the ketiv לידיתון, see the textual note.
- v. 14. For the revocalization *הֶשַׁ֣ע* (MT: הָשַׁ֣ע), see the lexical note.
- v. 2. So G, as supported by the accents. M (as attested in BL Or 2373 and Aleppo) treats the first, longer, line as two.
- vv. 4–5. The major G codices (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus) combine the last line of v. 4 and the first line of v. 5 (ἐλάλησα ἐν γλώσσῃ μου γνώρισόν μοι, κύριε, τὸ πέρας μου).
- vv. 10(-11). The G tradition seems to favor one line for verse 10, though some witnesses combine 10b (according to our preferred reading) with 11a (see Rahlfs' apparatus). The stichography of M (as attested in the Babylonian manuscripts Berlin Qu 680 and BL Or 2373; cf. also Codices Aleppo and Sassoon) is consistent with the Tiberian accents.
- v. 12. So the Babylonian (see the stichography of manuscripts Berlin Qu 680 and BL Or 2373) and Greek traditions.
- v. 13. The internal evidence of clause divisions and balance are consistent with our preferred line division, despite five-line verses being rare. The external evidence is mixed, however, with the accents supporting the combination of the first two lines (though this would result in twice as many syllables in comparison to what we understand as the third line—16 and 8, respectively). There is much variation among manuscript traditions.
- For discussion of the Greek tradition, see Barthélemy et al. (2005, xliv–xlvi). The oldest witnesses contain four lines (see, e.g., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus), but divide the syntax differently, reading הַאֲזִינָה֮ אֶֽל־דִּמְעָתִ֗י together and beginning the third line with אַֽל־תֶּ֫חֱרַ֥שׁ.
- BL Or 2373 follows the Greek tradition in this respect, yet places אַֽל־תֶּ֫חֱרַ֥שׁ on its own line and reads the final two lines as one.
- Berlin Qu 680 reads שִֽׁמְעָ֥ה־תְפִלָּתִ֨י ׀ יְהוָ֡ה וְשַׁוְעָתִ֨י ׀ הַאֲזִינָה֮ as one line, but combines אֶֽל־דִּמְעָתִ֗י אַֽל־תֶּ֫חֱרַ֥שׁ כִּ֤י גֵ֣ר אָנֹכִ֣י עִמָּ֑ךְ as the second line, for a three-line verse with two significantly long first line (4 and 6 prosodic words, with 16 and 15 syllables, respectively).
- v. 14. The G tradition is divided between reading v. 14 as one line or two, as our preferred reading (see Rahlfs' apparatus).
- ↑ Crenshaw 2012, 181.
- ↑ See, e.g., Auffret (1990); Botha (2017); Beuken (2020, 60–61); Böhler (2021, 710). A slight variation is found in van der Lugt's (2006, 390) estimation of the final two sections as vv. 8–11 and vv. 12–14.
- ↑ Alternatively, an ABAB structure has been proposed, consisting of vv. 2–4; vv. 5–7; vv. 8–10; vv. 11–14 (see Kirkpatrick 1897, 202–203). On the other hand, Ḥakham (1979, 233) suggests a three-part division between the sections vv. 2–4; vv. 5–7; vv. 8–14.
- ↑ In the other direction, van der Lugt claims that the observation of the refrains "does not satisfy. In terms of subject matter v. 7 belongs to v. 6. Additionally, v. 8 clearly represents a break in the development of the thought content" (2006, 395).
- ↑ See also Ramond 2017. Raabe notes that "the psalmists exhibit a strong sense of symmetry. They work with stanzas of equal size or with half-stanzas plus full-stanzas in a given psalm" (Raabe 1990, 175). He, therefore, considers the final section of Psalm 39 as a "half-stanza."
- ↑ Raabe 1990, 166.
- ↑ Cf. Fokkelman's observation: "the traditional verse division of v.7 is misguided ... if we obey the anaphora governing a series of three successive cola, starting in v.6c with the particle ʾak" (Fokkelman 2003, 60).