PsALM 73 As rInG COMPOsITIOn 17 First, as analyses multiply, there is sometimes a tendency to over- complicate. For example, while I find Auffret’s multiple layers of chi- astic arrangements ingenious in many ways, it strikes me as perhaps too complex to be readily grasped by the originally intended audience 3. After all, if literary structure functions primarily to provide clues that facilitate comprehension of meaning, then the simpler the structure, the more effective it will be. For this reason, what I aim to propose is a simple and elegant structure that does not require complicated manoeuvres for understanding the relationships between subsections. second, while recent analyses have rightly paid greater attention to the use of repetitions and structural markers to guide the division of the psalm into subsections, at times such considerations seem to have come at the expense of the logical flow of thought. As a result, a section division is sometimes introduced where logic would not have naturally called for one. Allen’s placement of a section division at v. 5 to fit his perceived pattern of repetition is an obvious example 4. In the following analysis, I aim to give equal regard to form and content, so that any structural division proposed will simultaneously make sense from either perspective. Third, in identifying structural markers, very often the mere repe- tition of specific words at strategic locations is deemed sufficient for them to be designated structural markers. If a word so designated hap- pens to be rare or highly marked, then obviously nothing more is required. But if the designated marker happens to be a commonly occurring particle, pronoun, or pronominal suffix, then one should be prepared either to show how every single occurrence is structurally significant, or to explain clearly why only certain occurrences matter and others do not. unfortunately, in many of the existing analyses, not every single occurrence of a designated structural marker is accounted for, so that, as a result, the inconsistency weakens the analysis. In the following analysis, I aim to provide comprehensive discussions of all structural markers identified, so that it will become clear why a commonly occurring word is considered structurally significant only in some instances but not in others. Finally and perhaps most significantly, while the majority of ex- isting analyses seek to understand the structure of the psalm in terms of panels arranged in a linear fashion, I will attempt to make a case 3 For his extremely complicated structural diagrams, see AuFFreT, “Étude structurelle”, 255, 261, 266, 269, 272. 4 ALLen, “Psalm 73”, 100-102.