Back to Psalm 033

About the Grammar Layer

The grammar layer visually represents the grammar and syntax of each clause. It also displays alternative interpretations of the grammar. (For more information, click "Expand" to the right.)

The grammatical diagram provides a way to visualise how different parts of a sentence work together. It represents the “surface-level” grammar, or morphosyntax, of a sentence. Morphosyntax includes both the form of words (morphology) and their placement in the sentence (syntax). This approach to visualising the text, based on the Reed-Kellogg diagramming method, places the grammatical subject in one slot, the verb in another slot, and modifiers and connectives in other slots.

For a detailed description of our method, see the Grammar Creator Guidelines.

Grammar Visuals for Psalm 033

The grammar layer visually represents the grammar and syntax of each clause. It also displays alternative interpretations of the grammar. (For more information, click "Grammar Legend" below.)

Visualization	Description
	The clause is represented by a horizontal line with a vertical line crossing through it, separating the subject and the verb.
	The object is indicated by a vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the clause. Infinitives and participles may also have objects. If the direct object marker (d.o.m.) is present in the text, it appears in the diagram immediately before the object. If the grammar includes a secondary object, the secondary object will appear after the object, separated by another vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the clause.
	The subject complement follows the verb (often omitted in Hebrew) separated with a line leaning toward the right. It can be a noun, a whole prepositional phrase or an adjective. The later two appear modifying the complement slot.
	When a noun further describes or renames the object, it is an object complement. The object complement follows the object separated by a line leaning toward the right.
	In a construct chain, the noun in the absolute form modifies the noun in the construct form.
	Participles are indicated in whatever position in the clause they are in with a curved line before the participle. Participles can occur as nominal, where they take the place of a noun, predicate, where they take the place of a verb, or attributive, where they modify a noun or a verb similar to adjectives or adverbs.
	Infinitives are indicated by two parallel lines before the infinitive that cross the horizontal line. Infinitive constructs can appear as the verb in an embedded clause. Infinitive absolutes typically appear as an adverbial.
	The subject of the infinitive often appears in construct to it. In this situation, the infinitive and subject are diagrammed as a construct chain.
	The object of the infinitive is indicated by a vertical line that does not cross the horizontal line of the infinitival clause.
	Modifiers are represented by a solid diagonal line from the word they modify. They can attach to verbs, adjectives, or nouns. If modifying a verb or adjective, it is an adverb, but if modifying a noun, it is an adjective, a quantifier, or a definite article. If an adverb is modifying a modifier, it is connected to the modifier by a small dashed horizontal line.
	Adverbials are indicated by a dashed diagonal line extending to a horizontal line. These are nouns or infinitives that function adverbially (modifying either a verb or a participle), but are not connected by a preposition.
	Prepositional phrases are indicated by a solid diagonal line extending to a horizontal line. The preposition is to the left of the diagonal line and the dependent of the preposition is on the horizontal line. They can modify verbs (adverbial) or nouns (adjectival).
	Embedded clauses are indicated by a "stand" that looks like an upside-down Y. The stand rests in the grammatical position that the clause fulfills. Extending from the top of the stand is a horizontal line for the clause. If introduced by a complementizer, for example כִּי, the complementizer appears before the stand. Embedded clauses can stand in the place of any noun.
	When clauses are joined by a conjunction, they are compound clauses. These clauses are connected by a vertical dotted line. The conjunction is placed next to the dotted line.
	Within a clause, if two or more parts of speech are compound, these are represented by angled lines reaching to the two compound elements connected by a solid vertical line. If a conjunction is used, the conjunction appears to the left of the vertical line. Almost all parts of speech can be compound.
	Subordinate clauses are indicated by a dashed line coming from the line dividing the subject from the predicate in the independent clause and leading to the horizontal line of the subordinate clause. The subordinating conjunction appears next to the dashed line.
	Relative clauses also have a dashed line, but the line connects the antecedent to the horizontal line of the relative clause. The relative particle appears next to the dashed line.
	Sentence fragments are represented by a horizontal line with no vertical lines. They are most frequently used in superscriptions to psalms. They are visually similar to discourse particles and vocatives, but most often consist of a noun phrase (that does not refer to a person or people group) or a prepositional phrase.
	In the body of the psalm, a horizontal line by itself (with no modifiers or vertical lines) can indicate either a discourse particle or a vocative (if the word is a noun referring to a person or people group). A discourse particle is a conjunction or particle that functions at the discourse level, not at the grammatical level. Vocatives can appear either before or after the clause addressed to them, depending on the word order of the Hebrew.
	Apposition is indicated by an equal sign equating the two noun phrases. This can occur with a noun in any function in a sentence.

Hebrew text colors
Default preferred text	The default preferred reading is represented by a black line. The text of the MT is represented in bold black text.
Dispreferred reading	The dispreferred reading is an alternative interpretation of the grammar, represented by a pink line. The text of the MT is represented in bold pink text, while emendations and revocalizations retain their corresponding colors (see below).
Emended text	Emended text, text in which the consonants differ from the consonants of the Masoretic text, is represented by bold blue text, whether that reading is preferred or dispreferred.
Revocalized text	Revocalized text, text in which only the vowels differ from the vowels of the Masoretic text, is represented by bold purple text, whether that reading is preferred or dispreferred.
(Supplied elided element)	Any element that is elided in the Hebrew text is represented by bold gray text in parentheses.
( )	The position of a non-supplied elided element is represented by empty black parentheses. For example, this would be used in the place of the noun when an adjective functions substantivally or in the place of the antecedent when a relative clause has an implied antecedent.

Gloss text colors
Gloss used in the CBC	The gloss used in the Close-but-Clear translation is represented by bold blue text.
Literal gloss >> derived meaning	A gloss that shows the more literal meaning as well as the derived figurative meaning is represented in blue text with arrows pointing towards the more figurative meaning. The gloss used in the CBC will be bolded.
Supplied elided element	The gloss for a supplied elided element is represented in bold gray text.

v. 1

Psalm 33 lacks a superscription in the MT, but the LXX supplies one, attributing the Psalm "to David." The Qumran text 4QPsq has לדוד שיר מזמור ("to David, a hymn-song"), but 4QPsa lacks a superscription. So, even in ancient texts that contain a superscription, there is inconsistency as to its content. There are no details within the psalm that obviously connect it to David. The superscription may have been added due to similarities with Ps 32. The balance is therefore in favor of dispreferring the superscription, and it is not included in any of the modern translations.
The vocative designates the one to whom the speaker is addressing a statement (IBHS §8.3d). "The vocative construction... is... an element of the clause other than subject and predicate. Vocatives stand in apposition to the second person pronoun (or an imperative, IBHS §8.4d), expressed or unexpressed, and may occur with either verbless or verbal clauses" (IBHS §4.7d). The vocative is not a (clausal) subject (IBHS §8.3a n. 11).
What kind of lamed is in v. 1b? There are three main possibilities:
- Vocative lamed (diagrammed as alternative rendering): Some scholars argue that there is a vocative lamed, which is an emphatic lamed serving as a particle that stands before vocatives, and this verse is one of their examples (IBHS §11.2.10i, ex #67; cf. Dahood "Vocative Lamedh" 1966, 205; O'Connor 1980, 80-81; Craigie 1983, 270). The basis for such a lamed is twofold: 1) widespread parallels in Ugaritic poetry, and 2) the balance created in poetic lines when taking lamed as a vocative marker. Such balance is created between Ps 33:1a and 33:1b in the alternate reading here. Rendering lamed as a vocative marker also creates a strong connection with the last verse of Ps 32 (שִׂמְח֬וּ בַֽיהוָ֣ה וְ֭גִילוּ צַדִּיקִ֑ים וְ֝הַרְנִ֗ינוּ כָּל־יִשְׁרֵי־לֵֽב׃). There, the "righteous" (cf. Ps 33:1a) are addressed in the vocative and commanded to praise, and all the "upright" of heart (cf. Ps 33:1b) are commanded to "shout for joy" (וְהַרְנִינוּ; cf. Ps 33:1a). Thus, the connections with the dual vocatives in Ps 32:11 are strong. The German HFA and French NFC translations take לַיְשָׁרִים as vocative. However, other scholars question the parallels with Ugaritic and challenge many of the proposed instances in the Psalms. Suderman notes that the clauses in Ps 33:1 are not in perfect parallel without some creative interpretation of other constituents of 33:1b, and that the clause makes sense without proposing a vocative lamed (Suderman 2015, 307). Though many of the proposed instances of vocative lamed in the Psalms are doubted by these scholars, they admit that it cannot totally be ruled out in Pss 33:1 or 119:126 (Huehnegaard 1983, 591). So this reading is plausible, but not preferred.
- Lamed auctoris ("of authorship"; cf. IBHS §11.2.10d): in this case, the lamed stresses that the praise is authored by the "upright people"; this interpretation is found in the NEB/REB, and CSB.
- Lamed of interest/advantage (IBHS §11.2.10d): the lamed marks that the action (being "fitting") is directed at "upright people." This interpretation of lamed is the choice of the overwhelming number of translations, both ancient and modern, and is therefore preferred.

v. 2

Though there is no conjunction coordinating these two clauses, they are clearly related based upon similar syntax (though the word order is different in the two clauses). It is very close to an abc||cba chiasm, except that the b terms are dissimilar.

v. 3

Textual Issue: A textual note says that a few manuscripts (1, 39, primo 180; Kennicott 1775, 331) and the Targum read שִׁירוּ ליהוה, replacing the suffix pronoun with YHWH. The Qumran manuscripts 4QPsa and 4QPs-q likewise have this reading. The full name YHWH creates a stronger parallel with the first part of v. 2, הוֹדוּ לַיהוָה. However, this reading is not found in the Aleppo, Leningrad, or Sassoon codices, nor in the LXX. The suffix-pronoun has already been used in v. 2b to refer to YHWH. This reading is dispreferred.

v. 4

The particle כִּ͏י may be a clausal adverb, in which case it is either emphatic (i.e., "indeed") or logical (i.e., "because," "for"). Or, it may serve as a conjunction introducing various types of subordinate clauses. The two different clausal uses can occur in adjacent clauses (IBHS §39.3.4e, cf. Jer 31:18-19). Many commentators say that the whole main middle part of the psalm (vv. 4-19) provides the reasons for the exhortations to praise in vv. 1-3 "by elaborating certain representative acts of God in creation and history" (Anderson 1972, 261; Ross 2012, 723; though Kraus 1988, 375 says only vv 4-9 provide those reasons, and Craigie 1983, 272 believes only vv. 4-5 do so). Their observation makes the best sense of the discourse, and so the logical clausal adverb reading for the particle is preferred.

v. 5

The preferred view is to take the participle verbally. Alternatively, it could be a nominal in apposition to YHWH (v. 4a) or the 3ms suffix on "his works" (v. 4b). The problem is that the participle is not in immediate proximity to either of these words, which is normally required when terms are in apposition (Ross 2001, 331).

v. 6

Both vv. 6 and 11 contain one verb that governs both clauses, but is elided in the second clause for economy of style and poetic effect.

v. 7

The preferred rendering treats the participles as predicative (similarly to v. 5). The alternative rendering treats the participles as substantival, so that the clause becomes a nominal exclamation, which is a minor clause.
The MT reading "like a heap" has support from the Qumran manuscript 4QPs-q. However, it is followed in the ancient translations only by Quinta (συνάγων ὡς σωρόν ὕδατα θαλάσσης, τιθεὶς ἐν θησαυροῖς ἀβύσσους). The LXX and other ancient Greek translations read "like a wineskin" (ὡς ἀσκὸν) and the Targum, Peshitta, and Vulgate ("quasi in utre") follow suit. Apparently they read an elided letter aleph in the middle of the word for "heap" (כְּנֹ(א)ד). As an alternative to "wineskin" and "heap," some scholars have proposed that the word should be read as "kened" (כֵּנֵד) meaning "jar" or "bottle" based on parallels with Ugaritic (Dahood 1966, 201; followed by Anderson 1972, 263). The MT reading is very close to Exod 15:8 and Ps 78:13 (Ross 2011, 722), and the overwhelming majority of translations retain the MT "heap" or "dam." So, the MT reading is preferred. For more discussion, see the Exegetical Issue Psalm 33:7 - Heap, Wineskin, or Jar?.

v. 8

v. 9

Both clauses begin with independent personal pronouns before finite verbs. This construction indicates emphasis or prominence in Hebrew. It may bring out an antithetical contrast with another member of a set, and sometimes the other member is not mentioned but only implicit (JM §146; IBHS §16.3.2). In this verse, the implicit member could be another deity, although no other deities are specifically mentioned in the psalm. Verse 17 is a polemic against reliance upon oneself or upon conventional means of power, and these may be the target of the antithesis with YHWH in verse 9. The use of the independent personal pronoun is clear in the LXX (and Aquila; both have αὐτὸς before the verb) and in the TOB French translation (c’est lui qui a parlé: "it was he who spoke").
Textual issue: The LXX translates both "and it was" and "and it stood" as plurals. NETS translates the verse as though the subjects of these verbs are "all the dwellers of the inhabited world" from v. 8. The Peshitta treats the first verb as plural and the second verb as the hiphil "he caused to stand" (as though the Hebrew read וַיַּעֲמֵד; cf. Ross 2001, 233). So, there is a lack of consensus among the ancient readings where they differ from the MT. The MT reading makes excellent sense on its own. The evidence is not strong for the variant readings, and so they are dispreferred. They are not followed by any modern translation.

v. 10

The LXX adds the duplicate phrase "and he rejected the council of rulers" (καὶ ἀθετεῖ βουλὰς ἀρχόντων). Other than being attested throughout the ancient Greek tradition, this addition is not included in any other translation, whether ancient or modern, and is thereby dispreferred.

v. 11

Both vv. 6 and 11 contain one verb that is elided in the second clause for poetic effect. In v. 11, some translations supply a verb in the second clause: NET, CEV, GNT, NLT, NEB/REB, GNB, BDS, PDV, NFC, DDH.

v. 12

The term אַשְׁרֵי is "a petrified plural noun found only in construct phrases or with suffixes" and serves as a nominal exclamation meaning "O the blessings of, enviable the situation of" (IBHS §40.2.3b). The translations, both ancient and modern, treat אַשְׁרֵי as though it governs not only clause 12a but also clause 12b, and this is reflected in the diagram. Though rendering v. 12b as an independent clause is grammatically feasible, it not only has the problem of not being reflected in the translations, but it also gives the awkward meaning "he chose the people for an inheritance" in which "the people" is unspecified.
The relative pronoun, which appeared in v. 12a, is elided in v. 12b, making v. 12b asyndetic.
The retrospective pronoun in an asyndetic relative clause is often omitted (cf. Judg 8:1 for a case following a determinate noun). JM argue that v. 12b elides a retrospective pronoun that would serve as the direct object of the verb בהר and could have been represented as בּוֹ or אֹתוֹ (JM §158c, which follows GKC §155h).
Textual issue: a few Hebrew manuscripts replace אֲשֶׁר with שֶׁ so that the phrase reads שֶׁיהוה. Both are relative pronouns that are not related to one another. The שֶׁ is found "mostly in the later books of the Old Testament" but is also found in ancient Hebrew texts such as the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:7; JM §38). So, even if this reading were preferred, it would not necessarily point to a later date for Ps 33. The reading is not found in the Qumran text 4QPs-q, or the Aleppo, Leningrad, or Sassoon codices, though, and is therefore dispreferred.

v. 13-15

Verse 13
- The direct object marker אֶת is rare in Hebrew poetry. So why does it appear here? Bekins finds that the DOM is used in selected psalms with a proper noun 35% of the time, with a definite and human object 17% of the time, with a definite and nonhuman object 5% of the time, and never with an indefinite object (Bekins 2014, 3). Commenting on the differences between the prose (Judg 4) and poetry accounts (Judges 5) of Deborah's slaying of Sisera, Bekins writes that "the poet seems to avoid having two major participants interacting directly with each other in the same clause" (Ibid., 7). He says, "Contrary to expectation, the primary function of object marking is not to help the audience distinguish the grammatical object from the subject. Rather, object marking has a discourse-pragmatic motivation that is related to the audience’s need to organize and track the various referents that are under discussion within a text" (Ibid., 8). The DOM marks a secondary topic and therefore a prominent role within the discourse (Ibid.).
- Textual issue: Some Hebrew manuscripts and the Peshitta supply a waw-conjunction to open v. 13b. This addition is followed by NIV, GNT, NLT, LUT, HFA, ELB, EÜ, ZÜR, TOB, NVI and DDH. The conjunction is not found in 4QPsq or the Aleppo, Leningrad, or Sassoon codices. The waw-conjunction often does not appear in Hebrew poetry where one might expect it, and the verse makes good sense without it. For these reasons, the waw-conjunction is a dispreferred reading.
- Textual issue: Some Hebrew manuscripts do not have the direct object marker. However, it is found in 4QPs-q and the Aleppo, Leningrad, and Sassoon codices, and therefore should be retained.
- Textual Issue: A few manuscripts read ארם instead of אָדָם. The word means "Aram" which was a people antagonistic to the Israelites (Judg 18:7, 28; 1 Kgs 11:25; 19:15; 2 Kgs 8:13; Ezek 16:57; 1 Chr 2:23). It is pointed אֲרָם. It is possible that the Sassoon codex has this reading, since it points the word הָארָם (assuming that the ד was read as ר). But the Aleppo and Leningrad codices clearly do not read this way, and it would have been easy enough for a scribe to misread ד as ר. So the variant reading is dispreferred.
Verse 15
- The article on these two participles may indicate that they are substantival. Normally if the participle demonstrates an attribute of a determinate noun (expressed or implied) then the article is omitted in poetry, but not here (cf. Is 40:22; J-M §138e). Alternatively, one may note that the articles on the participles "forming" and "discerning" join on new statements concerning a preceding noun, which in this case is YHWH (the subject of vv. 13-14). The article in such situations therefore functions as a demonstrative and has almost the force of the independent pronoun הוּא as the subject of a noun-clause (GKC §126b). The resulting translation would be either "he is forming...he is discerning" or "even he, that is forming...even he, that is discerning."
- The article was originally a demonstrative pronoun, but this force has largely been lost. It does still appear when the article affixed to a participle "joins on a new statement concerning a preceding noun," so that the article has "almost the force of הוּא as the subject of a noun-clause" (GCK §126b(b); cf. Ps 19:10; Gen 49:21: Isa 40:22; 44:27; 46:6; Amos 2:7; 5:7; Ps 49:7; 104:3; Job 6:16; 28:4; 30:3; 41:25).

v. 16

Does אֵין function as a particle showing non-existence, so that the phrase declares that no king exists who is saved ("there is no king saved")? Or does it function as an adverb, so that the phrase means, "a king is not saved"? Modern translations are divided, with some (NET, NIV, NEB/REB, HFA, TOB, NBS, NVSR, DDH) taking the former reading, while others (ESV, NRSV, JPS85, CSB, LUT, ELB, EÜ, BDS, RVR95, S21, BTX4) taking the latter. The LXX translates the phrase "a king is not saved," (NETS; οὐ σῴζεται βασιλεὺς). Stec translates the Targum as "a king is not saved" (לית מלכא מתפריק; Stec 2004, 73). The Peshitta has ܡܠܟܐ ܠܐ ܡܬܦܪܩ (Heb: מלכא לא מתפרק) which means "a king is not saved" (Taylor 2020, 119). Stec argues that, "in Pm (ms 3231, Biblioteca Palatina, Parma) the reading of dpryq for what other texts read as mtprq suggests that Pm intends the opening of the verse to mean "there is not a king who saves"" (Stec 2004, 73). So, the adverbial interpretation has the most widespread ancient translation support, but it suffers from having few analogous examples of this usage of אֵין elsewhere in the HB.
The participle in v. 16a is in parallel with a yiqtol verb in 16b. Both may express present and durative action, but they are not interchangeable (JM §113c n. 3).

v. 17

Textual issue: the verb at the end of v. 17b in the MT is יְמַלֵּט, which is a piel form meaning "he/it will deliver." In context, the horse must be the subject: "it (the horse) will deliver." However, the LXX and the Targum render the verb as passive, "he/it will be delivered," in which case the subject is probably not the horse, but the warrior or king from v. 16, or some other elided "rider" (perhaps reflected in HFA, NGÜ). The MT is more straightforward syntactically and semantically, and so this is the preferred reading. Overwhelmingly, the modern translations follow the MT.

v. 18-19

Verse 18
- Textual issue: A single Hebrew manuscript and the LXX and Peshitta make the noun "eye" plural. Modern translations with this change are NIV, NEB/REB, NGÜ, and NVI. However, Ps 32:8, which is close in proximity and probably related to Ps 33, has the singular "eye" of God with no textual issue ("I will counsel you with my eye upon you"; אִיעֲצָה עָלֶיךָ עֵינִי). A great many translations simply substitute a verb such as "watches." Not much is gained or lost from pluralizing the "eye" in many languages (though one might want to check on any connotations a singular "eye" may have with "the evil eye" in many modern cultures).

v. 20-21

Verse 20
- "Our help and shield is he." The independent personal pronoun normally occupies the subject slot when no verb indicates the subject (Ross 2001, 94), so the order in this clause is predicate-subject. This order comports with identifying this verbless clause as a clause of classification. In such clauses, "the predicate refers to a general class of which the subject is a member... Clauses of classification answer the question, 'What is the subject like?'" (IBHS §8.4.2.a). Most modern translations put the pronoun at the beginning of the clause; exceptions are TOB and NFC (both French, and both highlight the emphasis: c'est lui !).
- The LXX and Peshitta both supply the conjunction "because" (LXX: ὅτι; Peshitta: ܡܛܠ) at the beginning of v. 20b. If this reading were original, then the Hebrew of v. 20 would read: נַפְשֵׁנוּ חִכְּתָה לַיהוָה כִּי עֶזְרֵנוּ וּמָגִנֵּנוּ הוּא ("We will wait for YHWH, since he is our help and our shield"). However, v. 20b is most likely a parenthetical clause. Thus, there is no need to supply a כִּי at the beginning of v. 20b to avoid a rendering that makes praising YHWH the condition for him to protect. See the Exegetical Issue Ps 33:20-21 Praise for Salvation? for more details.

v. 22

The Psalm begins and ends with a vocative.
The function of כאשׁר: "Clauses comparing one situation with another often use particles to introduce both the situation compared (in the subordinate clause or protasis) and the present situation (in the main clause or apodosis)" (IBHS §38.5a).

Bibliography

Anderson, A. A. 1972.The Book of Psalms Volume 1: Psalms 1-72. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bekins, Peter. 2014. Object Marking in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. SBL San Diego

Blau, Joshua. 1976. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Otto Harrassowitz

Briggs, Charles A., and Emilie Grace Briggs. 1906. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons.

Craigie, Peter C. 1983. Psalms 1–50. Vol 19 of Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Dahood, Mitchell. 1966. “Vocative Lamedh in the Psalter.” Vetus Testamentum, 16, no. 3: 299–311.

DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L., et al. 2014.The Book of Psalms. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Huehnergard, John. 1983. “Asseverative *la and Hypothetical *lu/Law in Semitic.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 103, no. 3: 569–93.

Keil, Carl Friedrich, and Franz Delitzsch. 1996. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson.

Kennicott, Benjamin. 1775. Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum Cum Variis Lectionibus. Cancellar: North.

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. 1988. Psalms 1-59 : A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House.

Locatell, Christian. 2019. “Causal Categories in Biblical Hebrew Discourse: A Cognitive Approach to Causal כי.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 45, no. 2: 79–102.

O’Connor, Michael Patrick. 1980. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Ross, Allen P. 2001. Introducing Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Ross, Allen P. 2011. A Commentary on the Psalms, Volume 1: 1-41. Kregel Exegetical Library. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional.

Suderman, W. Derek. May 2015. “The Vocative Lamed and Shifting Address in the Psalms: Reevaluating Dahood’s Proposal.” Vetus Testamentum, 65, no. 2: 297–312.

Psalm 033 Grammar