Psalm 78 Poetic Structure
From Psalms: Layer by Layer
Psalm 78/Poetic Structure
Choose a PsalmNavigate Psalm 78
Psalm 78
Please note: Resources for Psalm 78 are in the process of being reformatted for visual consistency and improved functionality.
Poetic Structure
In poetic structure, we analyse the structure of the psalm beginning at the most basic level of the structure: the line (also known as the “colon” or “hemistich”). Then, based on the perception of patterned similarities (and on the assumption that the whole psalm is structured hierarchically), we argue for the grouping of lines into verses, verses into sub-sections, sub-sections into larger sections, etc. Because patterned similarities might be of various kinds (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, sonic) the analysis of poetic structure draws on all of the previous layers (especially the Discourse layer).
Poetic Macro-structure
At-a-Glance
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. |
Notes
- General notes:
- Fokkelman claims the entire poem (after the "parenetic opening" of vv. 1-8) consists of judgmental strophes and narrative units, so divides the psalm into five large-scale sections: vv. 1-8, 9-31, 32-43, 44-60, 61-72.[1] While correct on the introduction, his major divisions are otherwise unconvincing. Van der Lugt, on the other hand, follows our division of the major sections (vv. 1-8, 9-39, 40-72).[2] Ḥakham divides the text primarily thematically: 1-8; 9-39; 40-55; 56-72.[3] Our analysis essentially agrees with this, yet we see continuity throughout vv. 40-72, of which vv. 65-72, however, provide the denouement not only of this section, but of the whole psalm.
- Terrien provides the following structure: Exordium (vv. 1-2); Part One (vv. 3-8); Part Two (vv. 9-17); Part Three (vv. 18-28); Part Four (vv. 29-40); Part Five (vv. 41-51); Part Six (vv. 52-63); Part Seven (vv. 54-72), which does not coincide with our findings at almost any point.[4]
- In an influential essay, Clifford claims, "The author's outline can be discerned by the aid of formal devices such as repetition of key words and phrases, chiasm, paronomasia or word play, and especially in the parallel structure of the two historical recitals."[5] His proposed structure is as follows: introduction (vv. 1-11); first recital (vv. 12-32); sequel (vv. 33-39); second recital (vv. 40-64); sequel (vv. 65-72).[6] We find this structure compelling, with the exception of the extent of the introduction, for which the evidence points to eight-verse sections on either end of the psalm (cf. also the sequel in vv. 33-39), particularly in light of the clear topic shift in v. 9. Indeed, Campbell comments, "If the veiled mystery of the introduction is to be related to the traditions in the body of the psalm, it is likely that v. 9 will have to provide the key."[7] Despite Clifford's proposed structure, he rightly discerns a two-fold pattern of "Miracle, sin, divine anger, and punishment" in vv. 9-39 and 40-64.[8]
- Finally, we consider Campbell's semantic and theological approach to be almost spot on (1–8||9–11.12–39.40–58|59–64||65–72),[9] though the discourse markers and exclamatives in vv. 21, 32 and 40 should be given more weight.
- vv. 9, 21: The roots נשׁק and נשׂק only appear here in book of Psalms.
- vv. 9, 57: Of the four verses with the participant absence of YHWH from v. 9 to the end of the psalm, vv. 9 and 57 are two of them (see also v. 30, 72).
- vv. 32-39: According to Clifford, these verses provide the first eight-verse "sequel" to recital #1 (cf. vv. 65-72 below).[10]
- v. 35a: This is the central line of the psalm (81 lines either side), containing the first of threes instances of זכר (see also vv. 39, 42) and the third instance of צוּר (cf. the inclusio in vv. 15-20).
- v. 36: This is the central verse of the Psalms, containing tense shifting from wayyiqtol to yiqtol plus a symmetrical constituent order pattern.
- vv. 40-72: With the exception of vv. 40-43, each of the major sections throughout vv. 40-72 contains one instance of אֹהֶל.
- vv. 65-72: According to Clifford, these verses provide the second eight-verse "sequel" to recital #2 (cf. vv. 32-39 above).[11]
Line Divisions
Line division divides the poem into lines and line groupings. We determine line divisions based on a combination of external evidence (Masoretic accents, pausal forms, manuscripts) and internal evidence (syntax, prosodic word counting and patterned relation to other lines). Moreover, we indicate line-groupings by using additional spacing.
When line divisions are uncertain, we consult some of the many psalms manuscripts which lay out the text in lines. Then, if a division attested in one of these manuscripts/versions influences our decision to divide the text at a certain point, we place a green symbol (G, DSS, or MT) to the left of the line in question.
| Poetic line division legend | |
|---|---|
| Pausal form | Pausal forms are highlighted in yellow. |
| Accent which typically corresponds to line division | Accents which typically correspond to line divisions are indicated by red text. |
| | | Clause boundaries are indicated by a light gray vertical line in between clauses. |
| G | Line divisions that follow Greek manuscripts are indicated by a bold green G. |
| DSS | Line divisions that follow the Dead Sea Scrolls are indicated by a bold green DSS. |
| M | Line divisions that follow Masoretic manuscripts are indicated by a bold green M. |
| Number of prosodic words | The number of prosodic words are indicated in blue text. |
| Prosodic words greater than 5 | The number of prosodic words if greater than 5 is indicated by bold blue text. |
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. |
Notes
- v. 4: So the LXX (T, Sy, He, 1219, 55) and BL Or 2373, contra Aleppo and Rahlfs. The phrase לְד֥וֹר אַחֲר֗וֹן is absent in Sassoon.
- Van der Lugt, following Fokkelman, suggests the four-line unit, which disregards the accents:[12]
- לֹ֤א נְכַחֵ֨ד ׀ מִבְּנֵיהֶ֗ם
- לְד֥וֹר אַחֲר֗וֹן מְֽ֭סַפְּרִים
- תְּהִלּ֣וֹת יְהוָ֑ה וֶעֱזוּז֥וֹ
- וְ֝נִפְלְאוֹתָ֗יו אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָֽׂה׃
- v. 6: Rahlfs' edition here reads (cf. BL Or 2373, Sassoon):
- ὅπως ἂν γνῷ γενεὰ ἑτέρα,
- υἱοὶ οἱ τεχθησόμενοι,
- καὶ ἀναστήσονται καὶ ἀπαγγελοῦσιν αὐτὰ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτῶν
- Sinaiticus continues the second line from υἱοὶ to the end of the verse. JTS 680, however, follows the Masoretic accents of Leningradensis, with a 6-word A-line. The latter has been dispreferred due to factors of line balance.
- v. 8: So the LXX, Aleppo and BL Or 2373.
- v. 9: So the LXX, BL Or 2373, and van der Lugt.[13] Fokkelman suggests the three-line unit in this "maverick verse,", which would result in a one-word line and is thus rejected:[14]
- בְּֽנֵי־אֶפְרַ֗יִם
- נוֹשְׁקֵ֥י רוֹמֵי־קָ֑שֶׁת
- הָ֝פְכ֗וּ בְּי֣וֹם קְרָֽב׃
- v. 20: So the LXX, BL Or 2373, and van der Lugt.[15] The evidence of the two manuscript traditions has been preferred over the following five-line unit, suggested by Fokkelman.[16] Such a suggestion would improve the line balance to 2-2-2-3-3, but disregards the tsinnor as the first major accent:
- הֵ֤ן הִכָּה־צ֨וּר ׀
- וַיָּז֣וּבוּ מַיִם֮
- וּנְחָלִ֪ים יִ֫שְׁטֹ֥פוּ
- הֲגַם־לֶ֭חֶם י֣וּכַל תֵּ֑ת
- אִם־יָכִ֖ין שְׁאֵ֣ר לְעַמּֽוֹ׃
- v. 21: So the LXX, Sassoon and BL Or 2373. Aleppo follows the accents and divides the line after יְהוָ֗ה. The latter would follow the accents more closely, though the present analysis finds support in the pausal form on וַֽיִּתְעַבָּ֥ר.
- v. 31: So the LXX, Aleppo and Sassoon,[17] contra BL Or 2373, which treats וְאַ֤ף אֱלֹהִ֨ים ׀ עָ֘לָ֤ה בָהֶ֗ם וַֽ֭יַּהֲרֹג בְּמִשְׁמַנֵּיהֶ֑ם as one line.
- v. 38: The LXX (Rhalfs, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus) here reads:
- αὐτὸς δέ ἐστιν οἰκτίρμων (רַח֨וּם ׀)
- καὶ ἱλάσεται ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτῶν καὶ οὐ διαφθερεῖ
- καὶ πληθυνεῖ τοῦ ἀποστρέψαι τὸν θυμὸν αὐτοῦ
- καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκαύσει πᾶσαν τὴν ὀργὴν αὐτοῦ·
- Likewise, Aleppo. Sassoon, BL Or 2373 and JTS 680 all have one long line for the entire verse.
- Fokkelman and van der Lugt suggest the following first two lines, which preferably treats the tsinnor (on עָוֺן֮) as the first major disjunctive accent, yet results in four prosodic words followed by one, if the maqqeph of Leningradensis and Aleppo is to be observed:[18]
- וְה֤וּא רַח֨וּם ׀ יְכַפֵּ֥ר עָוֺן֮
- וְֽלֹא־יַ֫שְׁחִ֥ית
- v. 41: The silluq is not visible in either Leningradensis or Sassoon, though it is in Aleppo, so has been supplied here.
- v. 49: So the LXX, Aleppo and Sassoon, contra BL Or 2373, which treats יְשַׁלַּח־בָּ֨ם ׀ חֲר֬וֹן אַפּ֗וֹ עֶבְרָ֣ה וָזַ֣עַם וְצָרָ֑ה as one line.
- v. 55: So the LXX. Aleppo and Sassoon are unclear, while BL Or 2373, which treats שִׁבְטֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל as its own line.
- v. 56: Out of concern for supposed balance and alliteration between עֶלְי֑וֹן and וְ֝עֵדוֹתָ֗יו, Fokkelman suggests the two lines should be divided as follows, which disregards the maqqeph, the prosodic unit of אֶת־אֱלֹהִ֣ים עֶלְי֑וֹן as one syntactic constituent, and the atnakh accent on עֶלְי֑וֹן, so is thus rejected:[19]
- וַיְנַסּ֣וּ וַ֭יַּמְרוּ אֶת־אֱלֹהִ֣ים
- עֶלְי֑וֹן וְ֝עֵדוֹתָ֗יו לֹ֣א שָׁמָֽרוּ׃
- ↑ Fokkelman 2000, 210.
- ↑ Van der Lugt 2010, 344-346.
- ↑ Ḥakham 1979, 40.
- ↑ Terrien 2003, 558-563.
- ↑ Clifford 1981, 127.
- ↑ See Clifford 1981, 129.
- ↑ Campbell 1979, 53.
- ↑ Clifford 1981, 129.
- ↑ Campbell 1979.
- ↑ Clifford 1981, 129.
- ↑ Clifford 1981, 129.
- ↑ Van der Lugt 2010, 342; Fokkelman 2000, 212.
- ↑ van der Lugt 2010, 342.
- ↑ Fokkelman 2000, 214 and 228.
- ↑ van der Lugt 2010, 342.
- ↑ Fokkelman 2000, 214.
- ↑ Cf. van der Lugt 2010, 343.
- ↑ Fokkelman 2000, 219; van der Lugt 2010, 343.
- ↑ Fokkelman 2000, 224.