Vineyard. The problem with this approach seems to me to be that it uses a severely synchronic form of reading, based upon the late Masoretic divisions and accents, in order to arrive at a conclusion concerning what may have been diachronically ‘original’; but the Masoretes had no access to this latter point, and were clearly working on the basis of the inherited text. If, as suggested here, a diachronic analysis based on conventional critical methods suggests that v. 9 may represent a later expansion,