Psalm 100 Test Macrosyntax
From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Psalm 100/Test/Macrosyntax
His Joyful Flock
Psalm 100
Macrosyntax
The macrosyntax layer rests on the belief that human communicators desire their addressees to receive a coherent picture of their message and will cooperatively provide clues to lead the addressee into a correct understanding. So, in the case of macrosyntax of the Psalms, the psalmist has explicitly left syntactic clues for the reader regarding the discourse structure of the entire psalm. Here we aim to account for the function of these elements, including the identification of conjunctions which either coordinate or subordinate entire clauses (as the analysis of coordinated individual phrases is carried out at the phrase-level semantics layer), vocatives, other discourse markers, direct speech, and clausal word order.
For a detailed explanation of our method, see the Macrosyntax Creator Guidelines.
Macrosyntax Diagram
(For more information, click "Macrosyntax Legend" below.)
| Macrosyntax legend | |
|---|---|
| Vocatives | Vocatives are indicated by purple text. |
| Discourse marker | Discourse markers (such as כִּי, הִנֵּה, לָכֵן) are indicated by orange text. |
 |
The scope governed by the discourse marker is indicated by a dashed orange bracket connecting the discourse marker to its scope. |
 |
The preceding discourse grounding the discourse marker is indicated by a solid orange bracket encompassing the relevant clauses. |
| Subordinating conjunction | The subordinating conjunction is indicated by teal text. |
 |
Subordination is indicated by a solid teal bracket connecting the subordinating conjunction with the clause to which it is subordinate. |
| Coordinating conjunction | The coordinating conjunction is indicated by blue text. |
 |
Coordination is indicated by a solid blue line connecting the coordinating clauses. |
 |
Coordination without an explicit conjunction is indicated by a dashed blue line connecting the coordinated clauses. |
 |
Marked topic is indicated by a black dashed rounded rectangle around the marked words. |
 |
The scope of the activated topic is indicated by a black dashed bracket encompassing the relevant clauses. |
| Marked focus or thetic sentence | Marked focus (if one constituent) or thetic sentences[1] are indicated by bold text. |
 |
Frame setters[2] are indicated by a solid gray rounded rectangle around the marked words. |
| [blank line] | Discourse discontinuity is indicated by a blank line. |
| [indentation] | Syntactic subordination is indicated by indentation. |
 |
Direct speech is indicated by a solid black rectangle surrounding all relevant clauses. |
| (text to elucidate the meaning of the macrosyntactic structures) | Within the CBC, any text elucidating the meaning of macrosyntax is indicated in gray text inside parentheses. |
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. |
(Click diagram to enlarge)
Paragraph Divisions
- vv. 1-3 | vv. 4-5
- Macrosyntactic analysis of Ps 100 points to one major division in the psalm, between vv. 3-4. This divides the psalm into two mirroring sections following an AB|AB pattern. This pattern involves (A) an independent clause (vv. 1b-2) followed by (B) subordination (v. 3), and is then repeated with another (A) independent clause (v. 4), followed again by (B) subordination (v.5). This can be seen visually in the text layout above, and can be represented as:
- A (1b-2)
- B (3)
- A (1b-2)
- ______________________
- A (4)
- B (5)
- A (4)
- Alternative delimitation = 1-4 | 5
- It is important to note that when Ps 100 is examined through a primarily poetic lens, the primary division in this psalm shifts to vv. 1-4 and v. 5, with v. 5 providing a closing כי statement grounding the whole preceding psalm and vv. 1-4 being unified by a concentric ABCB'A' structure. This follows a common pattern in the psalms where the final verse provides a closing כי statement (see e.g. Ps 1, 5, and 11, BHRG §40.29.2f).
Word Order
- v. 3 יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים YHWH, he is God + הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ He made us:
- Casus Pendens/left dislocation: Syntactically, the subject יהוה is dislocated from the matrix clause and re-activated by the resumptive pronoun הוּא "he" (BHRG §48.1.3 - for whether to read this clause as a casus pendens construction with a resumptive pronoun (הוּא) or a tripartite clause with a copular pronoun (הוּא), see notes in grammatical diagram).
- The semantic function of this construction is to establish YHWH as the topic of the two subsequent clauses (v. 3a-b), and specifically to identify him "as the sole entity to whom the following predications could be attributed" (BHRG §48.2.2b). In other words, "YHWH, and he alone, is God, there is no other, and he alone made us, there is no other creator. This is illustrated more fully in the similar construction in Deut 4:35, לָדַ֔עַת כִּ֥י יְהוָ֖ה ה֣וּא הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ין ע֖וֹד מִלְבַדּֽוֹ׃ "...that you might know that YHWH, he is God; there is no other besides him"). Other similar constructions include Deut 4:39; 1 Kgs 8:60; 18:39; 2 Chr 33:13.
- In the second clause הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ "He made us", the pronoun is fronted before the verb here for marked focus (i.e. "He (alone, and no one else) made us").
- v. 3 וְל֣וֹ אֲנַ֑חְנוּ and we are his:
- Marked focus: Establishes the nature of the discourse active participant (BHRG §47.3.2a), emphasising that Israel belong to YHWH, who created them.
- v. 5 כִּי־ט֣וֹב יְ֭הֹוָה לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּ֑וֹ וְעַד־דֹּ֥ר וָ֝דֹ֗ר אֱמוּנָתֽוֹ׃ for YHWH is good, his loyalty is forever, and his faithfulness continues through generation after generation.
- Marked predicate focus: All three of these clauses are marked for predicate focus. In v. 5a the nature of YHWH is established (as good), in v. 5b the duration of YHWH's loyalty is established (forever), and in v. 5c the duration (and possibly also recipient) of YHWH's faithfulness is established (continuing through generation after generation).
Vocatives
- v. 1b כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ all the earth:
- The clause-final position of this vocative is noteworthy and open to multiple interpretations. When a vocative is simply identifying the addressee, it will more commonly be clause-initial (Kim 2022, 213-217).
- It may be, therefore, that the clause-final position of "all the earth" here has a subtle poetic effect. The supposed primary audience of Ps 100 would be the people of Israel, gathered for a thanksgiving ceremony. When Israel would have heard the words הריעו לה׳ "Shout joyfully to YHWH" they would have assumed it applies to them, as this was a common liturgical term in their worship (cf. e.g. Ps 95:1 נריעו לצור ישענו "Let us shout joyfully to the rock of our salvation"). One of the possible features of Ps 100 as a whole is an intentional layering wherein the psalm reads primarily as a thanksgiving liturgy for Israel in a thanksgiving ceremony, but with a possible secondary layering inviting the whole psalm to be re-read as addressing not Israel but all nations of the earth, with this key vocative address to כל הארץ "all the earth" (v. 1b) being the anchor for that layering.
- Could it be that this vocative was intentionally left to the clause-final position to allow for this double layering? Granted that is somewhat speculative, but it may be supported by the fact that the whole psalm seems so precisely balanced with every single word using stock Israelite language that can also be used and had been used to address the nations (for further details see poetic feature 3).
- An alternative, simpler explanation for the clause-final position of this vocative is other word-order factors wherein both cola begin with a clause-initial imperative, an arrangement that is programmatic throughout the psalm (with 7 clause-initial imperatives in vv. 1-4).
- v. 3 כִּי ki: Functioning as a complementizer (BHRG §40.29.2.1), indicating the object of דְּעוּ, or specifically the content to be acknowledged.
- v. 3 וְלא waw: The explicit function of this waw is simply to coordinate the two clauses, but the semantic context implies a function indicating result (BHRG §40.23.4.2.5). In light of the truth that YHWH created us, we therefore belong to him, our creator, "we are his".
- v. 5 כִּי ki: In terms of its basic semantic function, this כִּי provides causal grounds for the expression(s) preceding it. However, there may be a double layering in terms of which preceding expressions it provides grounds for.
- On the one hand, this כִּי should be read as providing the immediate causal grounds for only the two preceding clauses הֽוֹדוּ־ל֝֗וֹ and בָּרֲכ֥וּ שְׁמֽוֹ (v. 4c-d) – this is the preferred reading for the macrosyntax layer. This is because the combination the phrases טוֹב יהוה (v. 5a "YHWH is good") and לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ (v. 5b "his loyalty is forever") with the verbs הוֹדוּ (v. 4c "Give thanks...") and בָּרְכוּ (v. 4d "Bless...") are common combinations reflecting set-refrains (i.e. repeated liturgical phrases) in Israelite worship (e.g. Jer 33:11; Pss 118:1-4, 29; 136:1; 31:22; Ezra 3:11; 1 Chr 16:34; 2 Chr 5:13; 7:3).
- Reading הוֹדוּ לוֹ and בָּרְכוּ שְׁמוֹ as a conceptual unit is supported by the brevity of both clauses, thus creating one poetic line out of two clauses, as well as a possible rhyming pattern (both ending with וֹ-) and very similar semantic content. It is worth noting also that the Peshitta joins these clauses with a conjunction ܐܘܕܘ ܠܗ݂ ܘܒ݁ܪܟܘ ܠܫܡܗ "...give thanks and bless his name" (Taylor 2020, 407).
- However, despite this strong binding between כִּי and the two immediately preceding clauses, it is may also provide causal grounds for the whole psalm, stretching back to the initial imperative הָרִ֥יעוּ (v. 1b "Shout joyfully..."). This structure has been noted in poetic structure, but the clausal subordination has been maintained both in the grammatical diagram and in macrosyntax. This arrangement including a closing כִּי ki statement to provide the causal grounds for the whole psalm is a recognised pattern throughout Hebrew poetry (among others, see examples of Pss 1:6; 5:13; 11:7. See also BHRG §40.29.2f).
- On the one hand, this כִּי should be read as providing the immediate causal grounds for only the two preceding clauses הֽוֹדוּ־ל֝֗וֹ and בָּרֲכ֥וּ שְׁמֽוֹ (v. 4c-d) – this is the preferred reading for the macrosyntax layer. This is because the combination the phrases טוֹב יהוה (v. 5a "YHWH is good") and לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ (v. 5b "his loyalty is forever") with the verbs הוֹדוּ (v. 4c "Give thanks...") and בָּרְכוּ (v. 4d "Bless...") are common combinations reflecting set-refrains (i.e. repeated liturgical phrases) in Israelite worship (e.g. Jer 33:11; Pss 118:1-4, 29; 136:1; 31:22; Ezra 3:11; 1 Chr 16:34; 2 Chr 5:13; 7:3).
- v. 5 וְעד waw: Introducing an addition to the list of YHWH's attributes being celebrated.
- ↑ When the entire utterance is new/unexpected, it is a thetic sentence (often called "sentence focus"). See our Creator Guidelines for more information on topic and focus.
- ↑ Frame setters are any orientational constituent – typically, but not limited to, spatio-temporal adverbials – function to "limit the applicability of the main predication to a certain restricted domain" and "indicate the general type of information that can be given" in the clause nucleus (Krifka & Musan 2012: 31-32). In previous scholarship, they have been referred to as contextualizing constituents (see, e.g., Buth (1994), “Contextualizing Constituents as Topic, Non-Sequential Background and Dramatic Pause: Hebrew and Aramaic evidence,” in E. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Falster Jakobsen and L. Schack Rasmussen (eds.) Function and expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 215-231; Buth (2023), “Functional Grammar and the Pragmatics of Information Structure for Biblical Languages,” in W. A. Ross & E. Robar (eds.) Linguistic Theory and the Biblical Text. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 67-116), but this has been conflated with the function of topic. In brief: sentence topics, belonging to the clause nucleus, are the entity or event about which the clause provides a new predication; frame setters do not belong in the clause nucleus and rather provide a contextual orientation by which to understand the following clause.