104 Th. Booij In conclusion, a few aspects of the psalm as a whole will be considered. (1) Understandably, the unity of the text has been called into question (51). Whereas vv. 2-7 are specific and largely uncommon in their content, vv. 1.8- 10 are markedly traditional. Moreover, in spite of a few common elements (v. 3 hrmv, ‘guard’ - v. 9 ynrmv, ‘keep me’; vv. 4.9 ˆwa yl[p, ‘workers of mischief’), the inner relationship between vv. 1.8-10 and vv. 2-7 is not really evident. The prayer ‘hasten to me!’ in v. 1 hardly appears to apply to the central part of the text (52). The attitude towards the ‘workers of mischief’ seems to be different in verses 6 and 10. It is conceivable that, for some reason, the author himself opened and closed the poem in a traditional manner. However, the nature of the collection to which the text belongs (Psalms 138-145, all ‘from David’) seems to point in another direction. Psalm 141 is followed by texts that, some evidently, others possibly, quote verses from older psalms or make variations on them. In Ps 142,7 the second stich reminds one of the last stich in Ps 79,8, while the fourth is identical to the end of Ps 18,18. In Psalm 143 the author’s familiarity with other biblical texts is so strong that a line can hardly be drawn between traditional phraseology and quotation; in vv. 5.7, however, elements of older texts may be identified (53). Psalm 144 has variations on Psalm 18 in vv. 1.2.5a.6 (54) and echos from other psalms in vv. 3.4.5b.9.15b (55), while vv. 12-15a seem to offer the author’s very own words. Psalm 145 contains a quotation from Ps 48,2 / 96,4 in v. 3 and a variation on Ps 104,27-28 in vv. 15-16. I think in our psalm the opening and conclusion of an existing prayer were used as a frame (vv.1.8-10) for the poet’s own text (vv. 2-7). (2) It is no wonder that vv. 2-7 have caused embarrassment, as their structure, to a modern reader, is awkward at some points. The relation of the second ytlpt (‘my prayer’, v. 5b) with the first (v. 2) is obscured by the distance between them and by the syntactically different context. The element ‘their’ in v. 5b (µhytw[r, ‘their troubles’) can only refer, logically, to the ‘gentlemen’ mentioned in v. 4; but the scene with the ‘righteous man’, essential as it is, may readily make us lose sight of that logic. In v. 6 it is not immediately clear that the ‘gentlemen’, not the judges, are the subject of w[mvw. Moreover, the metaphor in v. 7b, apparently inspired by the scene in v. 7a, is a bit strange. Yet for all that, vv. 2-7 make an original piece of poetry. The text is remarkable for its unconventional images. Its play on the notion µym[nm (‘pleasant things, delicacies’) in v. 4 (contrasted with µytw[r, ‘evil things’, in v. 5; echoed by µ[n, ‘be pleasant’, in v. 6) attests to intel- lectual imagination. (51) See H. HUPFELD – W. NOWACK, Die Psalmen. Übersetzt und ausgelegt (Gotha 1888) II, 642; W.O.E. OESTERLEY, The Psalms. Translated with Text-Critical and 3 Exegetical Notes (London 1939) 562, 563; J.P.M. VAN DER PLOEG, Psalmen. Uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (BOT VII; Roermond 1971-1974) II, 459. (52) See B. DUHM, Die Psalmen. Erklärt (KHC; Tübingen 21922) 463. Duhm wrongly infers that vwj has a different meaning here. (53) For v. 5 see Ps 77,6.13; for v. 7 see Ps 69,18 / 102,3 and Ps 28,1. (54) In Ps 18 see resp. verses 47, 35, 3, 48, 10, 15, 17. (55) For v. 3 see Ps 8,5; for v. 4 see Ps 39,6.12 and 102,12; for v. 5b see Ps 104,32; for v. 9 see Ps 33,2-3; for v. 15b see Ps 33,12.