Simon Paul Stocks on Psalm 120

3.2 Psalm 120

 

3.2.1 Colometric Analysis

 

¹ שִׁ֗יר הַֽמַּ֫עֲלֹ֥ות
 אֶל־יְ֭הוָה בַּצָּרָ֣תָה לִּ֑י קָ֝רָ֗אתִי וַֽיַּעֲנֵֽנִי׃

² יְֽהוָ֗ה הַצִּ֣ילָה נַ֭פְשִׁי מִשְּׂפַת־שֶׁ֑קֶר מִלָּשֹׁ֥ון רְמִיָּֽה׃

³ מַה־יִּתֵּ֣ן^a לְ֭ךָ וּמַה־יֹּסִ֥יף לָ֗ךְ לָשֹׁ֥ון רְמִיָּֽה׃

⁴ חִצֵּ֣י גִבֹּ֣ור שְׁנוּנִ֑ים עִ֝֗ם גַּחֲלֵ֥י רְתָמִֽים׃

⁵ אֹֽויָה־לִ֭י כִּי־גַ֣רְתִּי מֶ֑שֶׁךְ שָׁ֝כַ֗נְתִּי עִֽם־אָהֳלֵ֥י קֵדָֽר׃

⁶ רַ֭בַּת שָֽׁכְנָה־לָּ֣הּ נַפְשִׁ֑י עִ֝֗ם שֹׂונֵ֥א שָׁלֹֽום׃

⁷ אֲֽנִי־שָׁ֭לֹום וְכִ֣י אֲדַבֵּ֑ר הֵ֝֗מָּה לַמִּלְחָמָֽה׃

 

Verse 1 consists of an opening bicolon. A minor curiosity here is that M^L presents the midline gap after קָרָאתִי despite the imbalanced rhythm this generates (4+1) and the accentuation indicating the caesura at לִּי . Perhaps the scribe considered the first colon incomplete without its verb. Indeed the splitting of a verbal clause in this way generates an integral enjambment (caesura at a place of no syntactic pause), which is very unusual and would normally be regarded as an indication of potentially corrupt colometry. So, for example, in the light of this and of the unusual word order, Lunn reads the line as a monocolon. However it is also possible to recognise in the line a poetic device that creates ambiguity and forward impetus and which creates a syntactic discomfort illustrating the distress that the line describes. The resolution of the ambiguity in the second colon ties the line together. The line is therefore read according to the accentuation as a 3+2 bicolon.

 

Verse 2 opens with a vocative phrase of three words, the conjunctive accent on the

imperative verb indicating that the words should not be divided. This leaves three more

word-units in the line (both according to the maqqeph and according to Sievers’ theory), and

these are formed of two phrases. Three options for the distribution of stresses between

cola are immediately apparent. One option is to read a bicolon, following the accentuation that divides the line at שֶׁקֶר thus creating an imbalanced 4+2 rhythm but also a degree of synonymy between cola.261 This is similar to the type of ‘unbalanced bicolon’ proposed by Revell, except that the two synonymous phrases are split between cola whereas Revell was concerned with lines exhibiting internal parallelism in the longer colon. A second option is to read the line as a 3+2+2 tricolon, ignoring the maqqeph and ascribing two stresses to קֶר מִשְּׂפַת־שֶׁ . Following Gray’s, and Robinson’s, preference for equating two-word phrases with cola (§2.1.2.1 and §2.2.3), this approach is adopted by several translators.262 However this approach is rooted in reading the line according to Sievers’ 2-2- 2 pattern, which is not compatible with assigning a total of seven stresses to the line rather than six. A third option is to divide the line at נפְַשִׁי to give a balanced rhythm and generate internal parallelism within the following colon.263 All three options satisfy O’Connor’s and Fokkelman’s numerical constraints. The syllable count for the three phrases, 7/4/6, does not suggest any means of achieving ‘balanced’ cola. There is not sufficient evidence to regard the line as a full tricolon, nor does it fit the 2-2-2 pattern. It is therefore regarded as a bicolon, with some residual ambiguity over the division of the line. (Simon Paul Stocks, “The Function of the Tricolon in the Psalms of Ascents” [PhD Thesis; University of Manchester, September 2010], 76-77; “M^L” is a reference to the Leningrad Codex)