Psalm 1/Mathematical

From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Jump to: navigation, search

Mathematical[ ]

Fokkelman's prosody and syllable counts

The following table is from Fokkelman's Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible Volume 2, Appendix I.[1]

Strophe Verse Syllables per word Syllables per line Syllables per strophe
1 1ab 2.2.2 / 1.2.3.3 6 + 9 = 15 54
1cd 3.3.1.2 / 4.2.1.2 9 + 9 = 18
2 1.1.3.2.2 / 5.2.2.3 9 + 12 = 21
2 3ab 3.2.2.1.2.1 / 2.2.2.3 11 + 9 = 20 35
3cd 4.1.2 / 2.2.2.2 7 + 18 = 15
3 4 1.1.4 / 1.1.2.2.4.1 6 + 11 = 17 55
5 1.1.1.3.3.3 / 4.3.3 12 + 10 = 22
6 1.2.2.1.3 / 2.3.2 9 + 7 = 16
  • "16 cola with 144 syllables; average per colon 9.00"[2]
  • "The first Psalm immediately shows the ceiling of syllabic prosody: the exact 9 as the average number of syllables per colon. This has been realized here by arranging 144 syllables in 16 cola."[3]
  • The number 144 may be significant (144 = 12 x 12).
  • "The quantitative balance of the two L-strophes is almost perfect: 54 and 55 syllables."[4]
  • Note that Fokkelman's threefold division of the text differs from that proposed below). If his syllable count is applied to the strophic division proposed below, then it yields the following result: Strophe 1: 89 syllables, Strophe 2: 39 syllables, Strophe 3: 16 syllables.,

Alternative prosody and syllable counts

The first section (vv.1-3) has 89 syllables. The middle (45th) syllable of this section is תוֹ in בְּתוֹרָתוֹ (v.2b). The three middle syllables are thus -בְּתוֹרָ. This word also happens to be the middle word of the first section (see below).,

Cola distribution

Fokkelman claims that "Psalm 1 is a completely bicolic poem."[5] Alternatively, it seems that v.1 and v.3 might be analyzed as tetracola, since v.1c is, in many ways, parallel to v.1b, as is v.3c to v.3b. The first section (vv.1-3) would thus consist of the following: tetracolon, bicolon, tetracolon. The second section (vv.4-5) would consist of two bicola, and third section (v.6) of a single bicolon.,

Classifying parallelisms

Psalm 1 contains 6 parallelisms:

  • v. 1. Parallelism of similarity, with a structure of intensification: from walking to standing to sitting, from counsel to way to scoffers.
  • v. 3. Parallelism of specification, planted to yielding fruit (which most normally do) to not withering (which less do), to prospering. It is a structure of intensification.
  • v. 4. Parallelism of addition/expansion, extra information about the wicked is added.
  • v. 5. Parallelism of similarity, the wicked and sinners are synonymous, a word-pair, and although judgment and congregation are not synonymous, but indirectly related concepts of the gathering of the righteous.
  • v. 6. Parallelism of similarity indicated with contrast, with chiasm, contrasting the righteous and the wicked and the end destination of each. The parallelism does not seem to be tight but there must be a general idea of prosperity for the righteous and destruction for the wicked.
    • "The bicolic v. 6 serves as a summary by giving the competitors one half-verse each. Besides balance, there is also disruption of balance. God is on the side of the righteous, which makes the latter the target and grammatical object of God's interest. In the final clause, the other is degraded so far that he is neither grammatical subject nor object any more. His 'way' is a dead end: by using an intransitive verb, the original Hebrew suggests that misconduct is a process without God, which by itself and autonomously leads to a painful end."[6]
v.1.
אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי־הָאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר׀
cרְשָׁ֫עִ֥ים bבַּעֲצַ֪ת aלֹ֥א הָלַךְ֘
aלֹ֥א עָמָ֑ד c'חַ֭טָּאִים b'וּבְדֶ֣רֶךְ
aלֹ֣א יָשָֽׁב׃ c''לֵ֜צִ֗ים b''וּבְמוֹשַׁ֥ב
v.2.
bחֶ֫פְצ֥וֹ aבְּתוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה כִּ֤י אִ֥ם
cיוֹמָ֥ם וָלָֽיְלָה׃ b'יֶהְגֶּ֗ה a'וּֽבְתוֹרָת֥וֹ
v.5.
cבַּמִּשְׁפָּ֑ט bרְ֭שָׁעִים aלֹא־יָקֻ֣מוּ עַל־כֵּ֤ן׀
c'בַּעֲדַ֥ת צַדִּיקִֽים׃ a'⟨ ⟩ 'bוְ֜חַטָּאִ֗ים
v.6.
dצַדִּיקִ֑ים cדֶּ֣רֶךְ bיְ֭הוָה aיוֹדֵ֣עַ כִּֽי־
a'תֹּאבֵֽד׃ d'רְשָׁעִ֣ים c'וְדֶ֖רֶךְ

,

Selah

none,

Quotations / direct speech

none,

Elision

  • v.2. It may be significant that there is no elision in this line, but rather the word תוֹרה is repeated in both in a and b lines.
  • v.5. Verb and negative particle (לֹא יָקֻמוּ) elided in the b-line.,

Chiasms

Word order

  • v. 1. The locative proposition is fronted before both עָמָד and יָשָׁב but not הָלַך. The syntax and semantics of “locative inversion” needs to be checked (see Borer[7] for references and discussion as well as Rappaport Hovav and Levin[8]).
  • v. 2. The phrase בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה could be fronted for contrastive focus, but the normal syntax is probably in initial position (but this needs to be checked against the data, particularly for definite subjects with predicate PPs). The phrase וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ is certainly fronted for that reason.
  • v. 2a. "Lines 2a and 4a are nonverbal. The predicate of 2a is a prepositional phrase; the predicate of 4a is an adverb; each of these lines begins a new section of the poem: what the happy man does (2a-3e) and the fate of the wicked (4a-5b)."[9]
  • v. 3b. The normal order after the אֲשֶׁר clause would be VSO, so פִּרְיוֹ is fronted, but it is unclear to me why. Perhaps it is for prosodic reasons?
  • v. 3d. The Hiphil verbal form (יַצְלִיחַ) may be intransitive-exhibitive (“prospers”) or causative (“causes to prosper”). If the verb is intransitive, then כֹל ("all, everything”) is the subject. If the verb is causative, then the godly individual or the Lord himself is the subject and כֹל is the object.
  • v. 4a. See note on v. 2a.
  • v. 5b. The negative particle and verb from the preceding line (5a) are assumed by ellipsis here (the wicked “will not arise/stand”).
  • v. 6. Normal word order for participles is SVO on pretty much everyone’s account. The order could be flipped because of כִּי (though this is a debatable point[10]). If VSO is not the normal order here, the verb could be fronted for contrastive focus with תֹאבֵד.

Information Structure,

Lunn on Word order

The following table has been adapted from Nicholas Lunn's Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, Appendix 2.[11] For a key to the various symbols and abbreviations, click here.

Ref. Text Constituent Order Colon-Type
1ab // אַשְׁרֵי־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים Comp S R Vneg M // Nom-CANR//
1cd וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים לֹא עָמָד // וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב w-M Vneg // w-M Vneg DEF//DEF
2 כִּי אִם בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה חֶפְצוֹ // וּֽבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה C Comp S // w-M V M w-M Nom//MKD
3a / וְהָיָה כְּעֵץ שָׁתוּל עַל־פַּלְגֵי מָיִם w-V Comp / CAN/
3bc / אֲשֶׁר פִּרְיוֹ יִתֵּן בְּעִתּוֹ // וְעָלֵהוּ לֹא־יִבּוֹל R O V M // w-S Vneg / MKDR//MKD/
3d וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה יַצְלִיחַ w-O(R V) V CANR-MKD
4 לֹא־כֵן הָרְשָׁעִים / כִּי אִם־כַּמֹּץ אֲֽשֶׁר־תִּדְּפֶנּוּ רֽוּחַ Compneg S / C-Comp R V-o S Nom/Nom-CANR
5 עַל־כֵּן לֹא־יָקֻמוּ רְשָׁעִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט // וְחַטָּאִים בַּעֲדַת צַדִּיקִים C Vneg S M // w-S M CAN//Gap
6 כִּי־יוֹדֵעַ יְהוָה דֶּ֣רֶךְ צַדִּיקִים / וְדֶרֶךְ רְשָׁעִים תֹּאבֵד C-Vpt S O / w-S V Ptcp/MKD

For a detailed treatment, see pp. 195-200.[12]

  • v.1. "While the first clause adheres to canonical word order (Vneg M), the following two have been inverted (M Vneg) – ab//ba//ba... his rendering of constituents in the secondary lines of parallelisms is a commonplace feature in the poetry of the Old Testament."[13]
  • v.2. This is "an instance of replacing focus... Fronting invariably takes place in the clause containing the information replacing that of the negated first clause... We recall the constraint upon marked word order in parallelisms that the markedness of the A-line will be repeated in the B."[14]
  • v.3. "What we have here in [v.3bc] well fits the description of specifying focus. Having mentioned the tree in the opening line of the verse (3a), we are then introduced to two particular components of the tree, and these are placed in the preverbal position. We conclude therefore that lines B and C show marked focus."[15] "The fronting of the phrase וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה presents little difficulty. It has been remarked even in the earliest word-order studies in Hebrew that phrases containing the quantifier כֹּל ('all') are frequently placed in the clause-initial position. The reason for this can now be identified as pragmatic marking. The adjoining of the quantifier to the subject, object, or prepositional phrase serves to highlight the degree of extent of the entity in question. Here the stress is on the 'everything.'"[16]
  • v.6. "The fronting of the NP[Su] in the B-line of the bicolon is clearly indicative of a contrastive relationship with the A-line... We are thus not looking at a poetically motivated defamiliar reordering of constituents, but an order which is strictly pragmatically determined."[17],

Middle word (maqqef)

58 words. The middle word is מַיִם.,

Middle word (independent lexemes)

The middle word within the first section (vv.1-3) is וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ. This may be significant, given the thematic centrality of תּוֹרָה in this psalm. As for the entire Psalm, there are 67 words, and the middle words are יִתֵּן בְּעִתּוֹ.,

Middle line

The middle line is אֲשֶׁר פִּרְיוֹ יִתֵּן בְּעִתּוֹ. This corresponds to the fact that the middle words are יִתֵּן בְּעִתּוֹ, the last words of this middle line.

  1. ↑ J.P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis, Vol. 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), 387.
  2. ↑ J.P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis, Vol. 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), 387.
  3. ↑ J.P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis, Vol. 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), 53.
  4. ↑ J.P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis, Vol. 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), 53.
  5. ↑ J.P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis, Vol. 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), 54.
  6. ↑ J.P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Prosody and Structural Analysis, Vol. 2 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2000), 53.
  7. ↑ Hagit Borer, Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
  8. ↑ Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav, Unaccusativity : At the Syntax-LexicalSemantics.Interface (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995).
  9. ↑ Frederic Putnam, “Working with Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” in Basics of Hebrew Discourse, edited by Miles van Pelt (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 184-185.
  10. ↑ Robert Holmstedt, “אֲנִי וְלִבִּי: The Syntactic Encoding of the Collaborative Nature of Qohelet’s Experiment,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9, no. 19 (2009): 1–26; Robert Holmstedt, "The Typological Classifications of the Hebrew of Genesis: Subject-Verb or Verb-Subject?,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11, no. 14 (2011): 1–39.
  11. ↑ Nicholas Lunn, Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Pragmatics and Poetics (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006).
  12. ↑ Nicholas Lunn, Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Pragmatics and Poetics (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 195-200.
  13. ↑ Lunn, 196.
  14. ↑ Lunn, 197.
  15. ↑ Lunn, 198.
  16. ↑ Lunn, 198.
  17. ↑ Lunn, 200.
Retrieved from "https://psalms.scriptura.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Psalm_1/Mathematical&oldid=13753"