Philotheos

Psalms 9 and 10: Are They Really Acrostic?

One cause of the numbering differences between the Septuagint (LXX) and Hebrew Psalms is the union in the LXX of Psalms 9 and 10. This is argued to be the original form of the Psalm(s) on the basis of their generally similar content as well as the lack of ascription to David in Psalm 10 which is present in the surrounding Psalms.

One further hint that they may have been one is given that 9 is said to flow into 10 as an acrostic. If this be the case, it would indeed seem strange for Psalm 10 to begin its acrostic half-way through the alphabet if it weren’t originally part of Psalm 9.

Here is Psalm 9 with acrostic elements lettered according to my best attempt:

It is missing a Dalet, but it is not bad. I appreciate the ease of composition for the Waw lines resulted in four in succession.

And Psalm 10:

I think clutching at straws describes Psalm 10. M, N, and the second P are actually on the atnach and are unlikely(?) to be real, whilst Q is not right after it and so would seem to serve no purpose as part of a mnemonic.

Alter in his translation complains the text Masoretic of Psalm 10 is horribly mangled which may obscure an older form. If it was originally a continuation of the acrostic, it doesn’t particularly look to be any more.

Perhaps that’s why it was split? Then one must invent a reason why only the second half of the Psalm was mangled.

O. Palmer Robertson, in a footnote on page 79 of his book The Flow of the Psalms, argues the thematic unity of Psalms 9 and 10 “strongly [supports] the idea of a unified rather than ‘broken’ poem”. However, that doesn’t actually answer why the acrostic is broken (his argument seems to confuse the brokenness of the Psalms into two and the brokenness of the acrostic).

Indeed, if the acrostic was originally complete, as the form would strongly suggest, would it not make more sense to conclude the lacuna was replenished with fitting content, possibly drawing from the remnants of what could be salvaged from the original, but, due to a conservative tendency of not wanting to recreate the acrostic (or not even noticing it??), that content had to be left in an inappropriate form? If that is the best the scribe could do, is that a problem?