28 GreGOrY T.K. WOnG evidence for the cause of that envy, namely, the prosperity of the wicked (v. 3). The distinction is admittedly a fine one, but if it is sus- tainable, then the yk in v. 4 could be translated “surely”, thus highlight- ing the evidence to be introduced. This would then put the yk in v. 4 in a similar category as the yk in v. 21 and v. 27, thus leaving the yk in v. 3 as the lone causal, and hence, conjunctive yk. related to this and equally significant is the fact that many have already noted the use of $a as a major structural marker 42. In fact, a few have argued for the division of the psalm into three major sections (vv. 1-12; 13-17; 18-28) based entirely on the occurrences of $a as a marker at the beginning of a new section 43. While the exact sense and function of $a generally varies with context, the majority of scholars take the particle within the psalm as asseverative, thus translating it “truly” or “surely” 44. But since it has just been argued that the three yk in v. 4, v. 21, and v. 27 are to be taken as asseverative, if the three $a in v. 1, v. 13, and v. 18 are also asseverative, then the six occurrences of these two par- ticles would in essence be functioning identically 45. This opens up the possibility that instead of $a alone functioning as a major structural marker that signals the beginning of a new rhetorical unit, yk is also used in tandem with $a to introduce new rhetorical units. 42 Although A. CAquOT, “Le Psaume LXXIII”, Semitica 21 (1971) 44; re- nAuD, “Le Psaume 73”, 543-544; ILLMAn, “Til tolkningen”, 123-124; CrenshAW, “Psalm 73”, 98-99; and BrueGGeMAnn, Message of the Psalms, 116-119, among others, all consider $a to be a significant structural marker, they have neither given all three occurrences equal weight, nor do they regard $a as the only criteria for section division. 43 KrAšOveC, Antithetic Structure, 41; CLIFFOrD, Psalms 73–150, 16; MCCAnn, “Psalm 73”, 249; MAYs, Psalms, 240; GIrArD, Les Psaumes, 286; COLe, Shape and Message, 17; hOssFeLD – ZenGer, Psalms, 226. 44 however, ALLen, “Psalm 73”, 101, consistently takes $a as adversative, thus “notwithstanding”. KrAšOveC, Antithetic Structure, 39-41, on the other hand, seems to consistently merge $a with $ya in v. 19, thus translating both as “how”. BAuMAnn, “struktur-untersuchungen”, 126, seems to consistently take $a as re- strictive, thus “only”. still others such as rOGersOn – MCKAY, Psalms 51–100, 117-119; DAhOOD, Psalms II, 186-187; rOss, “Psalm 73”, 161-162; sMITh, “A Crisis”, 170-178; KrAus, Psalms 60–150, 82-83, are inconsistent, translating the word as “surely/indeed”, “nay/but”, “only”, “how”, or leaving it untranslated on different occasions within the psalm. 45 In fact, other than the yk in v. 21, which he considers temporal, IrsIGLer, Psalm 73, 166-167, 170, has classified the remaining five instances of $a and yk in vv.1, 4, 13, 18, 27 similarly as “Modalwort”.