Psalm 51 Macrosyntax
From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Psalm 51/Macrosyntax
Choose a PsalmNavigate Psalm 51
Create a clean heart for me, God!
Psalm 51
Macrosyntax
Macrosyntax Diagram
| 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)
- There are no notes on divisions for this psalm.
- The significance of word order in Ps 51 is very difficult to determine, and bicola where both the A and B poetic lines follow the normal or "canonical" VSO word order are in the minority (vv. 6c-d, 9, 10, 16, 18, 20, 21). Ps 51 has many examples where the A line retains normal word order, but the order of the B line (or at least some of its constituents) is inverted to create a sort of chiastic parallel structure (e.g., vv. 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19). On the other hand, when the A line does not follow canonical word order, the B line generally follows the A line in departing from the expected word order (vv. 6a-b, 7, 8, 12, 17). This creates a situation where the B lines are predominantly in non-canonical order, contrary to normal expectations. In only one case does the B line show canonical order when the A line does not (v. 5), but here the B line is a verbless clause. Buth (1992) attempts to explain all of the examples of non-canonical word order as pragmatic marking of topic and/or focus, supposing the fronted elements on inverted B lines to be marked topics that resume the most prominent focal material from the A line (and thus can be considered focus as well). But Lunn (2006) argues that these explanations are forced and do not account for the full range of permissible differences in word order in poetic texts that are stylistic in nature and do not indicate information structure. In agreement with Lunn, this pattern of inverted chiastic word order in B lines is so prominent and not obviously information structural in nature that such examples will generally be treated as poetic and stylistic rather than pragmatic.
- v. 3. כְּרֹ֥ב רַ֝חֲמֶ֗יךָ is fronted to create an inverted sequence of adverbials and verbs in a sort of chiasm (so Lunn), rather than for any information structural reason (contra Buth).
- v. 4. The adverb הַרְבֵּה is fronted for marked focus, emphasizing the extent of the desired cleansing (so Buth). Lunn treats it as a verb in canonical order (see grammatical note on Ketiv/Qere reading). מֵחַטָּאתִ֥י is fronted to create an inverted sequence of adverbials and verbs in a sort of chiasm (so Lunn), rather than for any information structural reason (contra Buth).
- v. 5. The פְ֭שָׁעַי, which has been mentioned in the previous discourse, is fronted to indicate a topic shift (so Buth), where the following verses expound on the psalmist's sin. אֲנִ֣י is grammatically unnecessary, but does fill out the length of the A line nicely. Buth (1992, 90) makes a plausible case that it is fronted for marked focus, stressing the psalmist's person in this verse in anticipation of a contrast with לְךָ֤ לְבַדְּךָ֨ in the following verse. Furthermore, since the imperatives in vv. 3-4 presuppose God's knowledge of David's sin, the אֲנִ֣י adds that David also is aware of his own sin (an indirect confession), thus serving as adequate grounds for imperatives.
- v. 6. The adverbial phrase לְךָ֤ לְבַדְּךָ֨ has been fronted for marked focus (so Buth), highlighting that the psalmist's sin was against God himself. While this is often understood as a hyperbolic statement that the sin is against God only, it may rather be better read as against God especially with an emphasis on the gravity of sinning against one as high as God himself. The phrase הָרַ֥ע בְּעֵינֶ֗יךָ is similarly marked focus, stressing that the psalmist's deeds were evil in God's sight, rather than acceptable. Buth treats הָרַ֥ע בְּעֵינֶ֗יךָ as topic that repeats the salient information from 6a, but semantically it cannot be considered a repetition of לְךָ֤ לְבַדְּךָ֨, and the verb עָ֫שִׂ֥יתִי is too light to serve as the only focal content of the clause. The fronting of constituents in both lines may increase the prominence of the verse and support the idea of a paragraph division here.
- v. 7. בְּעָו֥וֹן is fronted for marked focus, correcting the possible presupposition that David was born in innocence. The בְחֵ֗טְא is fronted on the pattern of בְּעָו֥וֹן and may be marked focus (contra Buth, who prefers topic), adding another description of the sinful state in which the psalmist was conceived/born.
- v. 8. The אֱ֭מֶת is fronted for marked focus, contrasting what God desires with what the psalmist has done (so Buth). The phrase וּבַסָתֻם is fronted for marked topic (so Buth), indicating the shift in topic from the God who desires faithfulness to the location where the psalmist hopes to be instructed. The fronting of חָכְמָ֥ה is for marked focus (so Buth), stressing that wisdom is what the psalmist hopes to be instructed in. The word order also creates an inverted poetic pattern.
- v. 9. The מִשֶּׁ֥לֶג is fronted to create a closely parallel poetic sequence in v. 9 with the adverbials in the middle of the verbs, rather than for any information structural reason (e.g., indicating the full extent to which the psalmist will be made white) (contra Lunn).
- v. 11. The phrase כָל־עֲוֺ֖נֹתַ֣י is fronted to create an inverted poetic sequence in a sort of chiasm (so Lunn), rather than for any information structural reason (contra Buth).
- vv.12-14. The three-fold fronting of רוח in this verse may possibly be taken as marking a discourse peak.
- v. 12. The phrases לֵ֣ב טָ֭הוֹר and ר֥וּחַ נָ֝כ֗וֹן are fronted for marked focus, indicating what should be created and renewed respectively. Buth (1992, 90) takes the former as marked topic, defaulting to the less salient topic over focus when both seem possible. The fronting of constituents in both lines may increase the prominence of the verse and support the idea of a paragraph division here.
- v. 13. The phrase ר֥וּחַ קָ֝דְשְׁךָ֗ is fronted to create an inverted poetic sequence in a sort of chiasm (so Lunn), rather than for any information structural reason (contra Buth).
- v. 14. The phrase ר֖וּחַ נְדִיבָ֣ה is fronted to create an inverted poetic sequence in a sort of chiasm (so Lunn), rather than for any information structural reason (contra Buth).
- v. 15. The אֵלֶ֥יךָ may be placed before the verb to create an inverted poetic sequence in a sort of chiasm (so Lunn), rather than for any information structural reason (contra Buth).
- v. 18. The ע֝וֹלָ֗ה is fronted to create an inverted sequence of verbs and objects in a sort of chiasm (so Lunn), rather than for any information structural reason (contra Buth).
- v. 19. The phrase לֵב־נִשְׁבָּ֥ר וְנִדְכֶּ֑ה is fronted to create an inverted poetic sequence in a sort of chiasm (so Lunn), rather than for any information structural reason (contra Buth). This chiastic structure is further supported by the clause-medial vocatives and the phonetic correspondence between זִבְחִי and תִבְזֶֽה.
- v. 3. The clause-medial vocative אֱלֹהִ֣ים introduces God as the addressee and may serve to focus the preceding חָנֵּ֣נִי (cf. Miller 2010, 357).
- v. 12. The post-clausal vocative אֱלֹהִ֑ים helps delimit the poetic lines (cf. Miller 2010, 360-363), and it repeats the addressee after a long section where the addressee is left implied, possibly resuming it for a new section of the psalm.
- v. 16. The post-clausal אֱֽלֹהִ֗ים אֱלֹהֵ֥י תְּשׁוּעָתִ֑י helps delimit the poetic lines, which is true even if אֱלֹהֵ֥י תְּשׁוּעָתִ֑י is its own line as part of a tricolon (cf. Miller 2010, 360-363). In conjunction with a return to directive verbal forms, it also repeats the addressee after several verses where the addressee is left implied.
- v. 17. The pre-clausal vocative אֲ֭דֹנָי grabs the attention of the addressee and makes explicit that the Lord is the subject of the following verbs (cf. Kim 2022, 213-217). This avoids ambiguity by clearly marking the resumption of 2ms forms after this pattern has been interrupted by a 3fs verb in the previous line. The vocative could also be understood as a marker of a new section, but thematic continuities make this difficult to accept.
- v. 17. The שְׂפָתַ֣י is fronted for marked topic to indicate that the psalmist is shifting to talking about a new oral body part with which to praise God. Buth (1992, 90) similarly takes this as topic, defaulting to the less salient topic over focus when both seem possible. The פִ֗י is fronted for marked topic, indicating that the following clause relates to the action of the mouth. Fronting of constituents in two consecutive lines in vv. 6 and 12 have been interpreted as beginning new sections, but this is thematically difficult to argue for v. 17.
- v. 19. The clause-medial אֱ֝לֹהִ֗ים in v. 19b may simply be part of the inverted sequence in the b-line corresponding the אֱלֹהִים֮ in the a-line.
- vv. 7–8. The mirative particle הֵן is placed at the beginning of both verses 7 and 8. These particles call God (the addressee) to pay attention to the confession (v. 7) and prepare him to receive the plea (vv. 9–14) by pointing out both God's and the psalmist's commensurate desires for inner wisdom and faithfulness. A similar repetition of discourse particles is also found at the end of the psalm (v. 21). The combination of mirative particles and vocatives justifies treating these verses as a separate paragraph macrosyntactically, even though semantically they seem closely related to what precedes (and potentially what follows).
- v. 18. The כִּ֤י functions as discourse particle introducing the entire description of the psalmist's sacrifice in vv. 18–19; for discourse כי, see Locatell 2017. A close causal connection between vv. 17-18 would be difficult to argue, since it is not clear why God's lack of desire for sacrifice should be the reason for the psalmist's praise. The reasoning only becomes clear with the self-offering in v. 19, which then connects back to vv. 12-14. Thus, the causal relationship seems to have a larger scope than only vv. 17-18.
- v. 21. The discourse particle אָז is placed at the beginning of both lines in v. 21. These repeated temporal deictics emphatically point to the futurity of the restoration that is envisioned in these verses (as opposed to the psalmist's contemporary present), and may also hint that these future offerings are the logical result of the prospering of Zion. A similar repetition of discourse particles is also found at the end of the confession (vv. 5–8).
- v. 5. Based on the thematic similarities of vv. 5-6 as confessions, one could argue that the כִּֽי here functions as a discourse particle introducing the entire section of confession in vv. 5–6 (possibly also vv. 7–8). However, in poetic structure we noted a concluding repetition that more closely bound v. 5 to vv. 3-4. The double fronting in v. 6 may also be an indication that a new section begins with v. 6.
- v. 9. The conjunctions ו in this verse are syntactically coordinating, but indicate a semantics of purpose/result.
- v. 15. The conjunction ו in this verse is syntactically coordinating, but indicates a semantics of purpose/result.
- v. 17. The conjunction ו in this verse is syntactically coordinating, but indicates a semantics of purpose/result.
- ↑ 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.