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.)

Expand

Grammar Visuals for Psalm 38

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

The phrase לְדָוִד could either stand on its own or modify מִזְמֹור.
LXX adds περὶ σαββάτου "For the Sabbath" at the end of this verse. This could shed light on how the psalm was used, specifically in reference to the memorial offering offered each Sabbath (Lev 24:7-8). The LXX likely adds this to clarify the meaning of לְהַזְכִּיר. Since most manuscripts do not attest to this addition and no modern translations have included it, it is not represented in the diagram.

v. 2

The word אַל is either elided or to be added. The addition is supported by 11-20 Hebrew texts and the versions. Since the more difficult reading is its omission and elision, that reading is preferred.

v. 3

MT has וַתִּנְחַת for the second verb, coming from the same root as the first. The LXX has "and strengthened your hand against me" (καὶ ἐπεστήρισας ἐπʼ ἐμὲ τὴν χεῖρά σου), which BHS suggests would come from וַתְּנַחֵת, from the same root but in the piel instead of qal. In addition, the LXX takes "hand" as the object of the verb rather than the subject. The shift to the piel would only necessitate a change to the vowels of the verb in the MT. While this is a viable option, the only textual support is the LXX, so it is unlikely to be original.

The way the Syriac and the Targums translate this phrase indicates the word they are translating is וַתָּנַח, which comes from the root נוח "to rest." HALOT supports this reading. However, the imagery of someone's hand resting on someone is often used in imagery of blessing (c.f. Isa 25:10), which is not supported by the context of this psalm.

Since both verbs in the MT v. 3 come from the same root, it could be very easy for a scribe to become confused and replace the second verb with a similarly sounding verb. However, I find it strange that no Hebrew manuscripts have a different root. For these reasons I have preferred the text of the MT.

vv. 4-5

The phrase מִפְּנֵי is a combination of the preposition מן from and the noun פנים face. These words are frequently used together and have a more narrow definition, so BHRG categorizes them together as a preposition, similar to לפני (BHRG 2017, §39.15). Because these two words together are functioning as a preposition, they are diagrammed as such. See also verse 6.

v. 6

Many translations place a conjunction (וְ) between the first two clauses in both v. 6 and v. 7. Both are supported by the LXX, so it has some merit, but since the meaning is not greatly affected, they are not diagrammed as emendations here. There are three translations that do not have conjunctions in either verse 6 or 7: ELB, BDS, and NFC. Several others include the conjunction for verse 6, but not in verse 7 (GNT, EÜ, ZÜR, NBS, NVSR, S21). Because there is not much textual support for the addition, the text of the MT has been preferred here.

vv. 7-8

See v. 6 for the notes on the emendation that includes a וְ conjunction between the two verbs in v. 7.
The participle נִקְלֶה functioning as an object of מלא is not typical. We would expect a noun instead, so in this case the niphal participle is functioning substantivally, indicating something being burned. See the lexical semantic layer for more details on the meaning. Despite how this participle is typically rendered in English, it is not an abstract noun in Hebrew.

v. 9

It is possible that נְפוּגוֹתִי וְנִדְכֵּיתִי form a hendiadys (NRSV). Sometimes when a weqatal follows a qatal it expresses the same action (JM §119v). However, in this instance, דכה is more likely expressing the result of פוג (cf. BHRG §21.3.1.1.1).
Some scholars have the emendation לָבִיא instead of לִבִּי, changing the meaning from "the groaning/growling of my heart" to "the growling of a lion" (Gunkel 1926, 159; Baethgen 1904, 109). It makes more sense for a lion to growl than a heart, and the comparative מִן would parallel the use of עַד מְאֹד in the first line. However, the context is portraying the physical suffering of the psalmist, so it can still make good sense for the heart to be mentioned here. Elsewhere in this psalm, the psalmist has used מִן to give the reason for the main clause, so interpreting this prepositional phrase as the reason for the psalmist's groaning is not unreasonable (see v. 4 and v. 19 in particular). There is no textual support for this reading and no modern translations have taken this emendation as original.

v. 10

v. 11

The verb סְחַרְחַר is in the stem pe'alal, a very rare stem in Hebrew. This stem is only used here and in Psalm 45:3. It is a variant of the piel, changed because of the lexical root (BHRG 2017, 80).
גָם could either be modifying the verb (translated as "also") or modifying הם (translated emphatically "even"). However, גם typically immediately precedes whatever word or phrase it is modifying, so it is most likely modifying the pronoun הם (BHRG 2017, 401).
The use of הֵם is difficult in this verse. It would be expected to match the gender and number of the word it is in apposition to, whether אוֹר or עֵינַי. However, אוֹר is singular and so cannot be the antecedent. עַיִן can be either masculine or feminine (DCH 2011, 6:355; BDB 1977, 744; 2 Chr 7:15). However, since it is in construct to אוֹר, the grammar does not allow for הֵם to be in apposition to it. The LXX reads καὶ αὐτό, where the singular pronoun aligns with the singular of אוֹר. Some Greek versions and the Syriac omit the phrase גַּם־הֵם entirely. There are four different options for how to understand this phrase. This could be a case of the pronoun matching the gender of the nomen rectum, the masculine plural form of עֵינַי. Although it is rare for an independent pronoun to not agree with its antecedent in gender and number, sometimes the independent pronoun matches the gender and/or number of the nomen rectum (JM 2006, §149c, a; Delitzsch 1871, 22). The second option makes גַּם־הֵם parenthetical, eliminating the need for it to match the gender and number of אור. However, this is more complicated and does not differ in meaning from the apposition. A third option is a corrupted text where the original was הוא, the masculine singular, but because וא can look similar to מ in some manuscripts, the scribe misread it, resulting in הם. However, this does not have any sure textual support (but see the singular of LXX, which may be translational). The final option is that וְאוֹר־עֵינַי should be understood as part of a compound subject for the previous clause. In this case, הֵם would refer cataphorically to David's friends and loved ones in v. 12. However, this creates another issue with agreement since the number of the verb עזב is singular, whereas the compound subject כחי ואור עיני might expect a plural verb. The Masoretic accents argue against this interpretation, no modern translations take this as an option, and it does not fit the poetic parallelism of the verse, so it is not represented in the diagram. This also would break the parallelism within the verse. With these options, it is probably best to take it as a case of attraction, with the number matching the number of the nomen rectum, even though it is rare.

v. 12

v. 13

v. 14

The text of the Leningrad Codex has אֶשְׁמָע, which is a first-person yiqtol verb. If this is the case, there are three ways to understand the phrase וַאֲנִי כְחֵרֵשׁ לֹא אֶשְׁמָע.
- First, אֲנִי could be the subject of אֶשְׁמָע and the prepositional phrase could be adverbial.
- Second, אֲנִי כְחֵרֵשׁ could be a verbless clause with the prepositional phrase functioning as the complement. In this case, לֹא אֶשְׁמָע would be an independent clause.
- A third possibility is that this text should be emended to the third-person yiqtol verb יִשְׁמָע, which three to ten Hebrew manuscripts support. If this third option is correct, 14a would follow the pattern of the clauses in 14b and 15, where the complement of the verb is a comparative prepositional phrase which is modified by a relative clause. However, the textual support is against this option, so either of the two previous options are more likely.
- Based on the pattern of the surrounding clauses (v. 14b and 15) and the macrosyntax of this verse, it is most likely that וַאֲנִי כְחֵרֵשׁ לֹא אֶשְׁמָע functions as a clause with the prepositional phrase functioning as an adverbial.

v. 15

v. 16

v. 17

The elided phrase which פֶן modifies is ambiguous. What is it the psalmist decided to do "unless..."? Based on the context, the elided main clause could be a yiqtol of the verb from v. 16b -- "You will answer," but one scholar suggested אשׁמרה דרכי "I will take heed of my ways" (Leveen 1971, 56). Another potential elided clause would be the negative yiqtol: לא אענה "I will not answer," referring back to all of vv. 14-16, and the contrast between vv. 14-15 and v. 16. The use of the qatal אמרתי sets this at the time when he hoped in YHWH and chose not to answer, so this elided phrase makes sense in context. The conjunction פֶן is frequently used without an explicit main clause (e.g. Gen 3:22; 26:9 (cf. 26:7 for the explicit main clause); 1 Sam 13:19), so it is not uncommon for the main clause to be absent.
Because פֶן introduces something the author does not want to happen (JM 2006, §168g), many modern versions translate the following verbs like jussives: "Don't let them rejoice over me" (CSB). Taking the conjunction this way removes the need for an elided clause, but does not reflect the Hebrew syntax.
The next issue is what to do with the qatal הִגְדִּילוּ. The majority of the time, פֶן is followed by a yiqtol verb. There are three options here. First, the use of פֶן with a qatal is rare but not unheard of (cf. 2 Kings 2:16, 2 Sam 20:6). Therefore, it could be that עָלַי הִגְדִּילוּ is a compound clause with the previous clause (see NIV, NLT, GNT, NET, KJV, NJB, JPS, Luther 2017, HFA, NGÜ, ELB, GNB, ZÜR, RVR95, NVI DHH, BTX4, NBS, NVSR, BDS, PDV, NFC, S21). However, there is no conjunction and it is rare to have a qatal following פֶן. In addition, when פֶן is used with the qatal, it typically refers to something that could have happened in the past, which is not the meaning here. While it is odd that the author would switch conjugations, it is not uncommon for a yiqtol and qatal to be parallel to one another in Hebrew poetry. Whenever the פֶן is followed with a compound clause cluster, the first is a yiqtol and the second is a qatal joined with a vav. Here we are missing the ו, but the omission of conjunctions is not uncommon in Hebrew poetry. The second option is that the clause עָלַי הִגְדִּילוּ is an independent clause. This would imply that David's feet have slipped already, which may very well be the case because David has already sinned (vv. 4-5). However, the parallelism would expect to continue the content of what David is thinking with אמרתי. No modern translations take this approach. The last option is that the qatal is in a headless asyndetic relative clause (ESV, NASB, CSB, HCSB, NRSV, NEB, REB, EÜ, TOB). While asyndetic relative clauses usually have the verb at the beginning and the verb here is at the end, headless asyndetic relative clauses with verbs in the final position are not uncommon (Isa 54:1; Prov 8:32; see also Isa 42:24; Jer 2:11; JM 2006, §158d; Holmstedt 2002, 112). Because פֶן does not typically govern qatal clauses, it is most likely that הִגְדִּילוּ is a verb in a headless relative clause.

v. 18

v. 19

The כִּי in this verse is difficult in discourse. It could be a causal, giving the grounds for either the preceding statement (v. 18b: "My pain is always before me"). However, it is unclear how confessing sin would cause his pain to be always before David, unless it is the confession of sin that is causing pain, which doesn't make sense in the context of the psalm. It could be giving grounds to the reason why David is relying on YHWH to answer and is not answering himself, going back to vv. 14-16, but it is also not clear as to how confessing sin gives the reason for that. The third causal option is to take it as subordinate to v. 19b, giving the reason why the psalmist is anxious about his sin. Once again, this doesn't make sense theologically since confessing sin should not result in anxiety, but rather a restoration of relationship. The final option is to take the כי as concessive: "Although I confess my iniquity, I am anxious because of my sin." This makes the best sense in context and so is preferred here.

v. 20

The adjective חַיִּים can either function as a predicate adjective or as an adjective further describing the psalmist's enemies. However, its presence here is difficult to translate, so the BHS recommends replacing it with חִנָּם to align with similar phrases in Psalm 35:19 and 69:5. The Qumran Psalms manuscript (4Q83) also supports this reading. The preferred text is חִנָּם since it is a clearer parallel within the verse itself, has the older textual support, and its meaning is clearer. (See The Text and Meaning of Ps. 38:20 for more detail.)

v. 21

The text of the Leningrad codex has the ketiv רְדוֹפִי. This verbal form is a misspelling of the infinitive construct with a first-person singular pronominal suffix. The vowels align with the infinitive construct without a pronominal suffix. Therefore, the qere in the Leningrad codex suggests that this should be read רָֽדְפִי instead, which is the correct spelling for the qal infinitive construct with a first-person singular pronominal suffix. The correct spelling is preferred in the diagram.

The Qumran manuscript 4Q83 has דבר instead of רְדוֹפִי, which would change the meaning of the prepositional phrase to "in recompense for something good." This is not likely to have been an accidental change, but has more likely been changed to make better sense of the phrase.

v. 22

The vocative אֱלֹהַי could accompany either of the clauses in this verse.

v. 23

The Qumran manuscript of this psalm, 4Q83, tacks Psalm 71 onto the end of this psalm (DJD XVI 2003). This is not likely original. It could have been attached because of the similar beginning and theme of Psalm 70.

Bibliography

Baethgen, Friedrich. 1904. Die Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

Delitzsch, Franz. 1871. Biblical Commentary on the Psalms: Vol. 2. Translated by Francis Bolton. Vol. 2. T & T Clark.

Gunkel, Hermann. 1926. Die Psalmen. 4th ed. Göttinger Handkommentar Zum Alten Testament 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Holmstedt, Robert D. 2002. "The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis." PhD Diss. University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Leveen, J. 1971. “Textual Problems in the Psalms.” VT 21: 48–58.

Psalm 38 Grammar