Psalm 23/Macrosyntax/Notes

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

Paragraph Divisions

The psalm divides into two paragraphs:

  1. vv. 1-5 - This paragraph presents the key discourse topic of the psalm (i.e., YHWH as David's shepherd), and it is characterized by instances of marked focus (cf. vv. 2-3), the presence of the subordinating marker גַּ֤ם כִּֽי "even when" (v. 4), and the only occurrence of a marked topic in Psalm 23 (cf. v. 4).
  2. v. 6 - The discourse marker אַ֤ךְ and the marked focus ט֤וֹב וָחֶ֣סֶד indicate the final paragraph. This paragraph has the only case of a coordinating marker (i.e., waw in v. 6b).

Word Order

  • v. 1 - The mention of YHWH as David's shepherd initiates the discourse, and it activates the contextual domain of shepherding.
  • vv. 2-3 - The prepositional phrases בִּנְא֣וֹת דֶּ֭שֶׁא (in green pastures) and עַל־מֵ֖י מְנֻח֣וֹת (to waters of resting places >> to water where I can rest) as well as נַפְשִׁ֥י (my life) are fronted for focus.[1] בִּנְא֣וֹת דֶּ֭שֶׁא (in green pastures) and עַל־מֵ֖י מְנֻח֣וֹת (to water where I can rest) provide the focal selection of ways in which YHWH shepherds David, namely, he leads him to food, water, and rest. The fronting of נַפְשִׁ֥י (my life) is for scalar focus as it reinforces that YHWH takes care of David's needs in a most plentiful way so that his whole life is restored.[2]
  • v. 4 - Left dislocation: Syntactically, the compound subject שִׁבְטְךָ֥ וּ֝מִשְׁעַנְתֶּ֗ךָ (your rod and your staff) is dislocated from the matrix clause and resumed in the main clause by the resumptive pronoun הֵ֣מָּה (they). The compound subject שִׁבְטְךָ֥ וּ֝מִשְׁעַנְתֶּ֗ךָ (your rod and your staff) signals the activation of this entity as the topic of the sentence (cf. BHRG §48.2.1, "Most typical [dislocated constructions] are instances where the activated referent is the primary topic of the subsequent clause"). Moreover, this topic introduces new participants; YHWH's rod and staff are personified as the agents responsible for dispensing YHWH's care, protection, and guidance.[3]
  • v. 6a - ט֤וֹב וָחֶ֣סֶד (goodness and loyalty) are fronted for completive focus. Of all of the things that could pursue David such as disaster (Prov 13:21); the angel of the Lord (Ps 35:6); sword, famine, and pestilence (Jer 29:18); and adversaries (Ps 71:10-11), it is YHWH's goodness and loyalty that pursues David.

(There are no vocatives in this psalm.)

Discourse Markers

  • v. 4a: גַּ֤ם כִּֽי ("even when") occurs only here in the Psalter (for other instantiations of גַּם כִּי in the Hebrew Bible, see Isa 1:15; Hos 8:10, 9:16; Prov 22:6; Lam 3:8; etc.). גַּם כִּי is a compound conjunction that introduces a concessive conditional sentence (the particle כִּי can occur in compound conjunctions such as גַּם כִּי [even though[4]], עַל כִּי [because[5]], אַף כִּי [indeed, really[6]). Some particles such as the כִּי can be used for both conditional and concessive clauses.[7] Moreover, concessive clauses, especially hypothetical ones, can be considered as a specific category of the conditional clause. For this reason, some כִּי-clauses are regarded as concessive by some authors, whereas others regard them as conditional. For instance, Zechariah 8:6 is considered to be conditional by Schoors, whereas JM §171b and BDB explain it as concessive.[8] Likewise, the כִּי in Psalm 23:4 is regarded as concessive by JM §171c but conditional by GKC §159bb. We render גַּם כִּי as a concessive conditional reading.[9] As Locatell has noted, the crucial point here is that the כִּי displays the characteristics of a typical conditional construction.[10] Rendering גַּם כִּי ("even though/if/when") as a concessive conditional reading "maintains the potentiality of the conditional, while adding the concessive characteristic of asserting that normally incompatible events would coincide if this potential were realized.[11] It is this potentiality that continues to distinguish it from a genuine concessive (cf. NET)."[12] In other words, "walking in a valley of darkness" and "fearing no harm" are incompatible events that will coincide if the potential of the conditional is realized. Locatell has further noted that "concessive conditional readings are constrained even more when conditional כִּי is immediately preceded by the focus particle גם."[13] Although "even if" and "even though" are plausible glosses for גַּם כִּי, if understood as hypothetical or concessive, we have chosen to render it as "even when" in order to convey the likelihood of the conditional actually happening. The alternatives maintain the possibility of the conditional, but they can too readily be understood as suggesting that the conditional (such a difficult time) is unlikely to ever happen. The particle גַּם, as is typical of its function as a focus particle, contributes a scalar implicature, though here to the concessive כִּי and, only by extension, to the whole clause. It thus maintains its independent contribution, though as modifying only the כִּי. Hence, we have represented it as part of the conjunction for simplicity's sake, rather than a discourse marker over the whole sentence, which would not accurately capture its function. The ancient versions' inclusion of καὶ, et, ברם and ܐܦ, though most naturally rendered 'also' (as an isomorphic translation of גַּם), nonetheless exhibit the independent contribution of גַּם (LXX: ἐὰν γὰρ καὶ - "for even if,"[14] Jerome Hebr.: sed et si - "but even if," Targum: ברם כד "even when,"[15] and Peshitta: ܐܦܢ - "even if"[16]).
  • v. 6: אַךְ is a focal particle that may be interpreted in two different ways:[17]
    • Option 1 (preferred): אַךְ can be treated as an asseverative particle,[18] which can be translated as "surely,"[19], "certainly,"[20] or "indeed."[21] We favored this option for two main reasons. First, surely expresses a confidence in God's goodness and loyalty that is not explicit in the alternative translation, "only." Taking into account that Ps 23 is widely regarded as a psalm of confidence/trust,[22] "surely" fits better than "only." Second, as an asseverative particle, אַךְ has a broad scope; i.e., it encompasses the whole clause. The psalmist expresses deep confidence that YHWH's goodness and loyalty will pursue him throughout life. This option is supported by the majority of modern translations (e.g., NIV, NLT, ESV, NET, etc.).
    • Option 2: אַךְ can be treated as a restrictive particle translated as "only."[23] Two main reasons support this position. First, "אַךְ is primarily a focus particle, governing one constituent ('only x')."[24] Second, this reading fits the context of Ps 23. The verb רדף ("be behind, follow after, pursue, persecute"[25]) is normally something that enemies do. However, in Ps 23 (where the psalmist experiences YHWH’s protective hospitality), the only 'enemies' that pursue the psalmist are "goodness and loyalty" ("In YHWH’s house, I am safe and sound, and only goodness and loyalty [and no real enemies] will pursue me"). Although this option is plausible, we have opted for option 1 because the scope in a restrictive אַךְ ("only") is restricted to goodness and loyalty instead of encompassing the whole clause (which would include the length of YHWH's pursuit - "all the days of the psalmist's life"). Therefore, this rendering loses some of the nuances that are present with the asseverative rendering.[26] For modern translations supporting this rendering, see CSB and YLT. Moreover, the contrast between "YHWH's goodness and loyalty" pursuing David instead of other things (such as adversaries) pursuing him is still evident in the focus-fronting of ט֤וֹב וָחֶ֣סֶד (see the word order notes below), even when אַךְ is interpreted as having scope over the whole clause, as we have preferred.

Conjunctions

  • v. 4a: See the discussion of גַּ֤ם כִּֽי above.
  • v. 4c: The כִּי clause provides the grounds of David's absence of fear; i.e., YHWH's presence (v. 4bc - "I will not fear harm because you [YHWH] are with me."[27]).
  • Coordinating lines within a verse: v. 6 (וְשִבְתִּי). v. 6b: ** for revocalization see exegetical issue The Text of Ps. 23:6b (MT: וְשַׁבְתִּ֥י).
  1. ↑ Cf. Lunn 2004, 302.
  2. ↑ Cf. VanGemeren 2008, 254. For other instances of scalar focus, see Ps 119:2.
  3. ↑ Cf. Craigie 2004, 207; VanGemeren 2008, 254. Cf. also Fokkelman 2003, 39, footnote 50.
  4. ↑ DCH 15. b.
  5. ↑ DCH 15. d.
  6. ↑ DCH 15. a.
  7. ↑ Cf. Schoors 1981, 271.
  8. ↑ Schoors 1981, 271.
  9. ↑ Cf. Locatell 2017, 255.
  10. ↑ Locatell 2017, 255.
  11. ↑ Cf. König 2006, 822.
  12. ↑ Locatell 2017, 255.
  13. ↑ Locatell 2017, 255.
  14. ↑ NETS.
  15. ↑ Stec 2004, 61.
  16. ↑ Taylor 2020, 81.
  17. ↑ Lunn 2006, 139.
  18. ↑ Cf. DCH 1. (3).
  19. ↑ Cf. NIV, ESV, NET, NLT; Perowne 1870, 241; Craigie 2004, 204; Ross 2011, 554; Bullock 2015, 169.
  20. ↑ GWT, NASB; Goldingay 2006, 467.
  21. ↑ Cf. Jacobson 2014, 240.
  22. ↑ Cf. VanGemeren 2008, 251; Goldingay 2006, 345; Gunkel 1998, 121, 191; Bullock 2015, 166; Perowne 1870, 238; etc.
  23. ↑ Scholars who favor this position include Alexander 1864,117; Delitzsch 1944,331; Kraus 1988, 304, 308.
  24. ↑ BHRG 40.8.
  25. ↑ TWOT 2124.
  26. ↑ Williams 1967, 391(ii), page 67.
  27. ↑ Cf. BHRG §40.29.2. (2).