24 GreGOrY T.K. WOnG disjunctive ynaw is sometimes also cited as signalling a rhetorical break 26. On the other hand, those who favour taking v. 2 together with v. 1 point out that, since the psalm primarily revolves around a dilemma about theodicy, the contrast between God’s goodness in v. 1 and the psalmist’s doubt expressed in v. 2 is precisely what brings out the dilemma. The two verses should therefore be read together rather than separately 27. here, the issue is not so much whether a contrast exists between v. 1 and v. 2 — everyone agrees it does — but whether the contrast intro- duced by the disjunctive ynaw at the beginning of v. 2 necessarily signals a rhetorical break. Concerning this, the identification of a complex se- quence of structural markers by Illman and Baumann, involving $a or yk followed by one or two occurrences of ynaw (v. 2, vv. 22-23, and v. 28) or yhaw (v. 14), already implies that the occurrence of ynaw alone does not in itself necessarily signal a rhetorical break 28. But an even stronger case can be made if, instead of giving all four occurrences of ynaw within the psalm equal weight, one differentiates between them and focuses only on the two occurring in v. 2 and v. 28 29. While it is true that all four instances of ynaw occur at verse-initial positions, an important dis- tinction must be made: the two occurrences in vv. 22-23 are grammat- ically obligatory, whereas those in v. 2 and v. 28 are not. verse 22 begins with r[b-ynaw (“and I [was] brutish”), a verbless clause involving a pred- icate adjective. In this kind of construction, the subject (“I”) must be overtly stated 30. Likewise in v. 23, $m[ dymt ynaw (“but I [am] con- soula, MT 1977) 288-289; rOss, “Psalm 73”, 164; B. renAuD, “Le Psaume 73. Méditation individuelle ou prière collective?” RHPR 59 (1979) 541-550, here 543; TATe, Psalms 51–100, 232; W. BrueGGeMAnn – P.D. MILLer, “Psalm 73 as a Canonical Marker”, JSOT 72 (1996) 45-56, here 46; GOLDInGAY, Psalms, 402. 26 BrueGGeMAnn, Message of the Psalms, 117; KrAšOveC, Antithetic Struc- ture, 42. 27 AuFFreT, “Étude structurelle”, 246; COLe, Shape and Message, 17-18; BOADT, “Panels”, 539. 28 e. BAuMAnn, “struktur-untersuchungen im Psalter II”, ZAW 62 (1950) 115-152, here 126-127; K.J. ILLMAn, “Til tolkningen av Psalm 73”, SEA 41-42 (1976-77) 120-129, here 123-124. 29 While KrAšOveC, Antithetic Structure, 42, and CLIFFOrD, Psalms 73–150, 16-17, both take ynaw as a significant structural marker, they do not further differ- entiate between occurrences within the psalm. In this, although Clifford sees ynaw as indicative of subsection division, he never explains why the two ynaw in v. 23 and v. 28 are placed at the beginning of a new subsection, while the two occur- rences of ynaw in v. 2 and v. 22 are placed at the end. 30 In fact, in contrast to the other occurrences of ynaw, the w that precedes the