Psalm 51 Discourse

Psalm Overview

• Grammar
• Semantics
• Story behind the Psalm
• Discourse
• Poetics

About the Discourse Layer

Our Discourse layer includes four analyses: macrosyntax, speech act analysis, emotional analysis, and participant analysis. (For more information, click 'Expand' to the right.)

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.

Speech Act Analysis

The Speech Act layer presents the text in terms of what it does, following the findings of Speech Act Theory. It builds on the recognition that there is more to communication than the exchange of propositions. Speech act analysis is particularly important when communicating cross-culturally, and lack of understanding can lead to serious misunderstandings, since the ways languages and cultures perform speech acts varies widely.

For a detailed explanation of our method, see the Speech Act Analysis Creator Guidelines.

Emotional Analysis

This layer explores the emotional dimension of the biblical text and seeks to uncover the clues within the text itself that are part of the communicative intent of its author. The goal of this analysis is to chart the basic emotional tone and/or progression of the psalm.

For a detailed explanation of our method, see the Emotional Analysis Creator Guidelines.

Participant Analysis

Participant Analysis focuses on the characters in the psalm and asks, “Who are the main participants (or characters) in this psalm, and what are they saying or doing? It is often helpful for understanding literary structure, speaker identification, etc.

For a detailed explanation of our method, see the Participant Analysis Creator Guidelines.

Discourse Visuals for Psalm 51

Macrosyntax

Notes

Word Order

• 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.

Vocatives

• 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.

Discourse Markers

• 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).

Conjunctions

• 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.

Speech Act Analysis

Summary Visual

Speech Act Chart

• v. 4. For the vocalization of the Ketiv הַרְבֵּה, see grammar note on v. 4 (MT Qere: הֶ֭רֶב).
• v. 6. For the revocalization of בְּדַבֵּרְךָ, see grammar note on v. 6 (MT: בְּדָבְרֶ֗ךָ).
• v. 8. For the revocalization of וּבַסָּתֻם, see grammar note on v. 8 (MT: וּ֝בְסָתֻ֗ם).

Notes

• v. 5. This verse is joined with vv. 3-4 in a single compound, complex sentence with a single predominant speech act. Nevertheless, by providing the grounds for the opening plea for cleansing and expressing recognition of the psalmist's ever-present sin, v. 5 serves as implicit confession that transitions nicely into the confession proper in vv. 6-7.
• v. 8. This reading understands v. 8b as a request for wisdom (see exegetical issue). As such, it serves as preparatory grounds (paralleling v. 5) for the following plea. If v. 8 is read rather as a present habitual general truth statement, then v. 8 asserts God's desire for truthful confession as grounds for acceptance of the psalmist's confession.
• v. 8b, 9a-b, 10a, 14b, 17a, 20b. The use of directive yiqtols have been described here as imperative and directive, rather than as indirect speech acts, since this seems to be a modal possibility of the yiqtol, rather than a question (e.g., "Would you please?") or statement (e.g., "you will...") per se .
• v. 10b. The verb תָּגֵלְנָה is here treated as semantically indicating result dependent upon v. 10a, but it could alternatively be understood syntactically as its own imperative + directive + requesting speech act.
• v. 15a. The verb אֲלַמְּדָה "I intend to teach" is cohortative in form and understood here as a weaker commissive than yiqtol "I will teach," since it seems contingent upon the requested restoration of the psalmist and focuses on the psalmist's intention/will rather than certainty about the future. This statement of intention functions pragmatically as a vow.
• v. 17. While v. 17a-b could be read with v. 16c as a three-fold result. But the vocative at the beginning of v. 17a would be very disruptive on this interpretation, and it suggests rather that the psalmist is calling the Lord to pay attention to a request in v. 17a. Reading v. 17a as a directive is also the most satisfying explanation for the purpose clause in v. 17b, which seems to require something stronger than a future indicative verb in v. 17a. Thus, v. 17 continues the theme of v. 16c not by elaborating with a series of results but rather by repeating the pattern of plea plus purpose/result. The request to open the psalmist's lips in v. 17a is implicitly a call for help in parallel to v. 16a.
• v. 18a. The verb וְאֶתֵּנָה commits the psalmist to offering a sacrifice in the counter-factual situation that God desires sacrifice. One might paraphrase, "(If sacrifices were acceptable,) I would offer (them)" >> "I will not offer sacrifices, because they would not be acceptable anyways."
• vv. 20-21. These verses work out the corporate application of the generalized principles established in vv. 18-19 in the form of the personal lament. God does not delight in sacrifices (alone), but only accepts a humble heart (vv. 18-19). Thus, when Israel is restored and comes with humble hearts, then their sacrifices will please God (vv. 20-21).

Emotional Analysis

Summary visual

Emotional Analysis Chart

Participant analysis

There are 4 participants/characters in Psalm 51:

• Psalmist / David: In Story Behind, we determined to treat David as the "I" of the psalm based on the traditional superscription. The psalmist also refers metonymically to himself when he speaks of his body in agentive terms.
• God: In the version of the psalm we have today (within the context of the Elohistic psalter), God is referred to as "God," "the God who saves me," and "Lord," but never YHWH.
• Israel and Jerusalem: The city Jerusalem/Zion is mentioned explicitly twice in v. 20 and may be understood to refer implicitly also to the people who inhabit the city or at least have it as their capital (= the people of Israel). Israel is never explicitly mentioned, but must be supposed by the impersonal verb יַעֲלוּ in v. 21. The "sinners" are only mentioned explicitly in v. 15, but they may also be implied as the threat in "Deliver me from bloodshed" in v. 16, depending on the interpretation of the situation in view. The text is not explicit whether these sinners are foreigners or Israelites, but their anticipated returning to the Lord suggests that these sinners constitute the restored faithful of Israel who offer right sacrifices in Jerusalem in v. 21. Thus, there seems to be an ironic blend/twist involved, where Israel and the sinners are one and the same participant, just at different points in time and in different roles (the faithless enemies become faithful worshippers). Just as David moves from sinner to restored worshipper, so also does the nation of Israel. The reference to "hearing" gladness and joy in v. 10 may also be an allusive reference to restored Israel in joyful corporate worship.
• Psalmist's mother: The psalmist's mother plays only a limited background role in v. 7 (and some interpret v. 8 as referring to the mother's womb), setting the context for the psalmist's pre-natal sinfulness.

Participant Relations Diagram

The relationships among the participants may be abstracted and summarized as follows:

Participant Analysis Table

• v. 4. For the vocalization of the ketiv הַרְבֵּה, see grammar note on v. 4 (MT qere: הֶ֭רֶב).
• v. 6. For the revocalization of בְּדַבֵּרְךָ, see grammar note on v. 6 (MT: בְּדָבְרֶ֗ךָ).
• v. 8. For the revocalization of וּבַסָּתֻם, see grammar note on v. 8 (MT: וּ֝בְסָתֻ֗ם).

Notes

• vv. 5, 7. These are the only verses in the entire psalm where God does not appear as a participant. The textual absence of God may be iconic for his felt absence (or at least distance) due to the psalmist's sinfulness.
• vv. 15, 21. If the sinners mentioned in v. 15 are the faithful of restored Israel in v. 21, then vv. 15-21 begin and end with references to Israel.
• v. 16. For אֱלֹהֵי תְּשׁוּעָתִי, the entire phrase is an appellation for God, but the 1cs suffix within it refers to the psalmist.
• v. 20. According to Ross (2019), Jerusalem is a metonymic reference to David himself, but this seems both unwarranted and unparalleled.

Bibliography

Buth, Randall. 1992. "Topic and Focus in Hebrew Poetry—Psalm 51." Pages 83–96 in Hwang Shin Ja J. and William Ro, Merrifield (eds.), Language in Contest: Essays for Robert E. Longacre. Arlington: SIL and the University of Texas.

Locatell, Christian S. 2017. "Grammatical Polysemy in the Hebrew Bible: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to כי." Ph.D. diss. University of Stellenbosch.

Lunn, Nicholas P. 2006. "Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating Pragmatics and Poetics." Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster.

Miller, Cynthia L. 2010. “Vocative Syntax in Biblical Hebrew Prose and Poetry: A Preliminary Analysis.” Semitic Studies 55 (1): 347–64.

Ross, William A. 2019. "David's Spiritual Walls and Conceptual Blending in Psalm 51." JSOT 43, no. 4: 607-626.