Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter 9780567679109, 9780567679123, 9780567679116

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

666 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

COVENANT RELATIONSHIPS AND THE EDITING OF THE HEBREW PSALTER

Adam D. Hensley

T&T Clark Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2018 This paperback edition published 2020 Copyright © Adam D. Hensley, 2018 Adam D. Hensley has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7910-9 PB: 978-0-5676-9260-3 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7911-6

Series: The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, volume 666 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com)

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters

To my lovely wife Joanna For her constant love and support throughout the research and writing of this book

C on t en t s Acknowledgments xiii Abbreviations xv Chapter 1 Introduction Recent Scholarship on Covenant Relationships in the Psalter Covenant Relationships in the Psalter: A Proposal Major Aspects of the Proposal in Scholarship The Methodology and the Approach Taken in this Book

1 2 9 10 13

Part I Editorial Evidence and the Psalter Chapter 2 Identifying Editorial Evidence in the Psalter 19 Pre-Enlightenment Views: Some Illustrative Examples 20 Modern “Accretion” Explanations Prior to Wilson 22 Gerald H. Wilson and Recent Scholarship 25 Conclusion 32 Chapter 3 External Editorial Evidence: Qumran and the Septuagint 33 The Qumran Psalms Hypothesis and the Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls 33 Evaluation 35 The LXX Psalter and the MT Psalter 39 Chapter 4 Internal Editorial Evidence 42 Editorial Use of Superscripts 42 Authorship as a Principle of Organization 42 Genre 45 Other Superscriptional Elements 48 ‫ הודו‬and ‫ הללו יה‬Psalms. 48 Summary Remarks on Superscripts and Their Implications 50

viii Contents

The Postscript of 72:20 51 “Doublets” 57 ‫אלהים‬/‫ יהוה‬Predominance 58 Doxologies 62 Books I–III 63 Psalm 106:48 64 Summary Remarks on Doxologies and Their Implications 69 Lexical and Thematic Connections between Psalms 69 Conclusion 71 Part II An Exploratory Survey of Covenantal References and Allusions in the Psalter Chapter 5 A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter: Introductory Matters and Direct References to YHWH’s ‫ ברית‬75 Previous Surveys of “Covenant” in the Psalter 75 Surveying “Covenant”: A Two-Pronged Approach 76 Identifying Allusions: Some Methodological Considerations 79 A Question of Terminology: the “Mosaic Covenant” 80 Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter: Direct References to YHWH’s ‫ ברית‬80 Psalm 25 81 Psalm 44 82 Psalm 50 83 Psalm 74 85 Psalm 78 86 Psalm 89 90 Psalm 103 102 Psalm 105 103 Psalm 106 104 Psalm 111 106 Psalm 132 108 Conclusion 110 Chapter 6 David as YHWH’s Faithful Covenant Partner David as YHWH’s Covenant Partner The Covenant Formula’s Appearance and Use in the Old Testament David and the Covenant Formula in the Psalms

112 112 113 114

Contents

ix

The People as YHWH’s “Inheritance”/“Possession” and YHWH as “Portion” 119 Conclusion 122 Chapter 7 David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant 124 David and the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4[–7]) 124 “Hear, O Israel” (‫ )שמע‬125 You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart (Deuteronomy 6:5) 128 Teach the Next Generation (Deuteronomy 6:7) 129 Summary 130 Other Criteria Denoting Faithfulness to the Mosaic Covenant 131 Clustered Terms Relating to Covenantal Stipulations 132 References to ‫ תורה‬ 135 Allusions to Specific Commands of the Decalogue 137 Walking in YHWH’s Way and Fearing Him 140 Conclusion 152 Addendum: ‫ חק‬and ‫ עדות‬in Their Singular Forms 152 Chapter 8 David as New Moses 157 The Song of the Sea, Sinai/Horeb, and God’s Gift of the Land 159 The Song of the Sea 159 “Sinai” (‫ )סיני‬and “Horeb” (‫ )חרב‬162 The Gift of the Land 163 Summary 166 David as Aaron-like Mediator of YHWH’s Blessing and Moses-like Intercessor: Intertextual Allusions to 167 Numbers 6:24–27 and Deuteronomy 9:26 Deuteronomy 9:26 167 169 Numbers 6:24–27 David as Confessor of YHWH the Faithful God: Allusions to Deuteronomy 7:9–10 171 174 David as Royal Servant and Son of YHWH The Servant-Lord (‫אדון‬/‫ )עבד‬Relationship 174 Father–Son 177 Summary 180 YHWH’s Sworn (‫ )שבע‬Promises 180 Conclusion 181

x Contents

Part III Psalms 72:17, 86:15, 103:8, and 145:8 in their Psalm and Book Contexts, and Psalms 1–2 as an Introduction to the Psalter Chapter 9 Psalm 72:17 in Book II 185 Psalm 72:17 in its Psalm Context 185 Psalm 72:17 and the Abrahamic Covenantal Promise of Blessing to All Nations 185 Psalm 72:17 in Psalm 72 187 Psalm 72 as Royal Intercession for a Royal Successor 190 Psalm 72 in the Context of Book(s I–)II 191 Major Allusions to the Abrahamic Covenant in the Psalter and Their Occurrences in Books I–II 191 Psalm 72 and Korah I (42–49) 195 David II (51–72): David as Exemplar and Fulfiller of YHWH’s Summons in Psalm 50 199 Conclusion 205 Addendum: “Give thanks” (‫ )ידה‬and the Psalter 206 Chapter 10 The Grace Formula in Exodus and the Psalter 209 The Grace Formula in Recent Scholarship 210 Major Theological Entailments of the Grace Formula in Exodus 34 212 The Psalter’s Allusions to the Grace Formula and Its Special Association with “David” 214 Conclusion 217 Chapter 11 The Grace Formula in Book III (Psalm 86:15) 219 The Grace Formula in Psalm 86 219 Psalm 86 in Its Book Context 222 David in the Asaph Group (73–83): Psalm 78:70–72 224 David as the Central Figure of the Korahite Group (84–88): Psalm 86 227 “Of David” or “For David?” 229 Conclusion 230

Contents

xi

Chapter 12 The Grace Formula in Book IV (Psalm 103:8) 232 The Grace Formula in Psalm 103 232 Psalm 103 in Its Book Context 234 Psalm 103 in its Immediate Context: Psalms 101–104 235 Psalm 103 and Psalms 90–100 238 Psalm 103 and Psalms 105–106 240 Conclusion 243 Chapter 13 The Grace Formula in Book V (Psalm 145:8) 244 The Grace Formula in Psalm 145:8 244 Psalm 145 in Its Book Context 246 Psalm 145 and the Beginning and Ending of Book V 246 The Egyptian Hallel Group (113–118) 250 The Songs of Ascent (120–134) 251 Conclusion 253 Concluding Remarks on the Grace Formula in Books III–V 253 Chapter 14 Ending with the Beginning: Psalms 1–2 as an Introduction to the Psalter Questions of Genre and Editorial History Psalms 1–2 and the King Further Reflections on the Characterization of David

255 256 258 261

Part IV Conclusion Chapter 15 Summing Up the Investigation 267 Conclusion 270 Appendix Allusions to the Covenant Formula

273

Bibliography 276 Index of References 288 Index of Authors 310

A c k n owl ed g me nts

I am very grateful to the many people who have supported me through the research and writing of this book. In particular I would like to thank Dr. Timothy E. Saleska for his guidance and encouragement during my doctoral research, Drs. Paul R. Raabe and Jerome F. D. Creach for their invaluable feedback and suggestions, and Dr. R. Reed Lessing who first gave me the idea to work in the Psalter. I would especially like to thank LHBOTS series editors Andrew Mein and Claudia V. Camp and the editorial team at Bloomsbury T&T Clark, as well as my copy-editor, Duncan Burns, for their generous assistance and guidance through the publication process. More broadly I owe a debt of thanks to the Concordia Seminary St. Louis community, especially the graduate school and library staff, and the staff of Mullen Library at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, whose facilities were crucial for the earlier stages of my research. Thank you, too, to my fellow faculty at Concordia University Irvine and to my current colleagues at Australian Lutheran College for their encouragement. Finally, special thanks to my family and the gracious God who has blessed me through them and with them. I am thankful to my mother, June, and father, Peter, for their support and encouragement, and to my in-laws Drs. Gene E. and Jackquelyn H. Veith for their support and advice along the way and generous hospitality to our family during the earlier stages of my research. Thanks especially to my wife Joanna to whom this book is dedicated. Joanna has been constant in her support and has sacrificed in countless ways to make this project possible, working at least as hard as me! I am ever thankful for our children and the joy and delight they bring to us: Samuel, Mary, John, Lucy, Thomas, and Hannah, two thirds of whom came into the world during the research, writing, and production stages of this book. Above all, thanks be to the Triune God, gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love!

A b b rev i at i ons

AB Anchor Bible AbrN Abr-Nahrain ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers BA Biblical Archaeologist BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BDB The Enhanced Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation BN Biblische Notizen BSac Bibliotheca Sacra BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAL The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CJT Canadian Journal of Theology ConcC Concordia Commentary DH Deuteronomic History DJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert DSS Dead Sea Scrolls EgT Eglise et Theologie EP Elohistic Psalter ESV English Standard Version EuroJTh European Journal of Theology FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology HS Hebrew Studies HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual HvTSt Hervormde teologiese studies Int Interpretation JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

xvi Abbreviations JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly JBR Journal of Bible and Religion JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplementary Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies LD Lectio Divina LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LTJ Lutheran Theological Journal LTQ Lexington Theological Quarterly LXX Septuagint McCQ McCormick Quarterly MdB Le Monde de la Bible MS/S Manuscript(s) MSJ The Master’s Seminary Journal MT Masoretic Text NKJV New King James Version NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible NIBCOT New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament NIV New International Version NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers NRSV New Revised Standard Version OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OTG Old Testament Guides OTL Old Testament Library OTS Old Testament Studies QD Quaestiones Disputatae ResQ Restoration Quarterly RevQ Revue de Qumran SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament ST Studia Theologica StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Text Textus TynBul Tyndale Bulletin VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WW Word and World ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1 I n t rod uct i on

Does the book of Psalms present a theological agenda or vision? What hopes and expectations were shared by those who arranged the Psalms into their present canonical shape? How does kingship and the Davidic covenant fit into the Psalter’s theological vision? Did the editors anticipate a future Davidic king, and if so, what would the coming king be like? Questions like these have preoccupied Psalms scholars for the past thirty years or so. Up to that point, however, scholars largely restricted their interpretive efforts to individual psalms. Psalms studies had been dominated by form-critical and cult-functional approaches pioneered by scholars like Hermann Gunkel and Sigmund Mowinckel,1 who did not view the Psalter as an especially illuminating literary context for understanding individual psalms. But now the scholarly landscape has broadened, and an ever-growing number of Psalms scholars are making the arrangement of psalms in the Psalter their primary object of inquiry. Generally speaking this trend reflects the influence of Brevard S. Childs’ call for a canonical critical approach2 and the gravitation of biblical scholarship toward studying tradition history and the final forms of texts.3 It received particular momentum in the 1980s when Childs’ student Gerald H. Wilson published 1.  Hermann Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, trans. James D. Nogalski (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998); and Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas, 2 vols. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962). 2.  Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 504–25. For a concise summary of recent scholarship see Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, “The Canonical Approach to Scripture and The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship, ed. Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 1–12. 3.  Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1965).

2

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

his The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter.4 Wilson identified several editorial techniques evident in the Psalter and their precedent in ancient Near Eastern texts, convincing many of its purposeful arrangement and leading to an explosion in scholarly literature on the Psalter’s editorial history and theological agenda. To date, much work on the Psalter’s theological agenda has revolved around the status of Davidic Covenant. Scholarly views about the Davidic kingship and covenant reflect one view or another of how that covenant relates to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, however, and so far little investigation of the Psalter itself has taken place on that question directly. Recent Scholarship on Covenant Relationships in the Psalter What is the relationship between the Davidic Covenant and its premonarchic counterparts in the Psalter? The question has been posed in general terms but not directly or thoroughly investigated with a methodology suited to the purpose.5 Nevertheless, most editorial theories on the Psalter imply a particular relationship between the covenants or presuppose one. Wilson is a good example here. For him Book IV (Pss 90–106) presents the pre-monarchic theocratic life in Moses’ day as the model solution for “failed” Davidic covenantal theology in Books I–III. The implied contrast between the Davidic and premonarchic covenants raises the question: how did the editors understand the relationship between those covenants, and what did it mean for postexilic Israel? Wilson describes Book IV as the “editorial center” of the Psalter and summarizes its message thus, “(1) YHWH is King; (2) He has been our ‘refuge’ in the past, long before the monarchy existed (i.e., in the Mosaic period); (3) He will continue to be our refuge now that the monarchy

4.  Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985). 5.  James Hely Hutchinson, “A New-Covenant Slogan in the Old Testament,” in The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Jamie A. Grant and Alistair I. Wilson (Leicester: Apollos, 2005), 120, states, “questions of degrees of continuity and discontinuity between the new covenant and covenants set up before the exile…may be fruitfully studied in the books of Psalms and Chronicles.” Hutchinson’s doctoral dissertation purportedly examines covenant relationships in the Psalter but was unavailable at time of writing (David Firth and Philip S. Johnston, eds., Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches [Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005], 8).

1. Introduction

3

is gone; (4) Blessed are they that trust in him!”6 At face value Wilson contrasts Davidic reign with Book IV’s emphasis on YHWH’s rule (cf. Pss 93–99). But the implications for covenant relationships are clear in view of Book IV’s significant focus on Mosaic/Abrahamic covenantal life and promises (Pss 103:18; 105:5–10; 106:45).7 Wilson’s summary implies that postexilic Israel must look for YHWH’s mercy and restoration exclusively in terms of these premonarchic covenants and sets aside the Davidic covenant as a locus of hope. However conscious Wilson was of these implications, his account of Book IV bears striking resemblance to the historical reconstruction popularized by George Mendenhall.8 As Dennis McCarthy summarizes, Mendenhall constructed: an interpretation of the history of Israel in terms of an original covenant mediated by Moses, then a falling away from this early pure Mosaic covenant under and because of the monarchy in which the religious community tried to become a civil community and was thus corrupted, and finally a reform, a return to the pure Mosaic tradition of the covenant.9

Hans-Joachim Kraus’s accounting of the covenants in the Deuteronomic History suggests an alternative model, however. According to Kraus, Davidic kings who purified the cult were in effect renewing the Sinaitic covenant. He writes, “the real aim behind the tradition of the Davidic covenant, as it was preserved in the priestly circles and evidently especially cherished by the ‘people of the land’, was the renewal of the fellowship between God and his people.”10 The king is therefore focal in the preservation of Israel’s covenant life as God’s people, and the Davidic and Mosaic covenants are intimately and functionally related to each other. What happens to that expectation during and after the 6.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 215. 7.  C. Hassell Bullock, Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 188, articulates the contrast clearly: Book IV represents “a shift of attention away from the Davidic to the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants.” See also Robert E. Wallace, The Narrative Effect of Book IV of the Hebrew Psalter, StBL 112 (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 143. 8.  George Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh, PA: Biblical Colloquium, 1955). 9.  Dennis J. McCarthy, “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry,” CBQ 27 (1965): 220. 10.  Hans-Joachim Kraus, Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament, trans. G. Buswell (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1965), 195.

4

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

exile becomes the new question. Is it abandoned in the face of exile, or do exilic and postexilic biblical authors—or editors, in the case of the Psalter—continue to express hope that a future Davidide will again restore fellowship between God and his people? This latter possibility deserves serious attention in the Psalter. Notwithstanding some problems to be discussed later, Wilson’s reading of Book IV makes a certain amount of sense if one presupposes Mendenhall’s account of covenant history.11 YHWH’s reign is unquestionably a dominant theme in Book IV and “Moses” and “Abraham” appear ten times12 compared with just two mentions of “David” in superscripts (Pss 101 and 103). Accordingly, many scholars share Wilson’s basic assessment of Book IV,13 even if their description of the Psalter’s theological trajectory is more nuanced. Scholars also vary on the closely related issue of whether the emphasis on YHWH’s reign comes at the expense of David’s reign in the Psalter generally and Book IV specifically.14 With regard to “David’s” place in the Psalter, then, there seems to be two main directions that scholars take. 11.  In his latest contribution prior to his death in 2005, Gerald H. Wilson, “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller (Leiden: Brill, 2005), allowed room for a priestly David in Book V of the Psalter based predominantly on Ps 110, but continued to downplay David’s royal office. 12.  Seven out of eight occurrences of ‫ משה‬are in Book IV (90:1; 99:6; 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, and 32; cf. 77:21), while Book IV accounts for three out of four instances of ‫( אברהם‬105:6, 9, and 42; cf. 47:9). 13.  Michael G. McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh: A Canonical Study of Book IV of the Psalter (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014); Wallace, The Narrative Effect of Book IV. 14.  Jamie A. Grant, The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms (Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 34, calls into question Wilson’s “strong contrast between the reign of Yahweh and his kingdom, on the one hand, and the co-regent reign of Yahweh’s anointed, on the other.” For similar objections see Jerome F. D. Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous in the Psalms (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2008), Chapter 7; David C. Mitchell, “Lord, Remember David: G. H. Wilson and the Message of the Psalter,” VT 56 (2006): 526–48; and Michael K. Snearly, The Return of the King: Messianic Expectation in Book V of the Psalter, LHBOTS 624 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 183–84. James Luther Mays, The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 101, pairs “the sovereignty of Yhwh and his Messiah” together, which is opposed by the “autonomous exercise of governance by rulers.”

1. Introduction

5

On the one hand, some follow Wilson in drastically downplaying “David” and the Davidic covenant in the overall theological message of the Psalter—for example, J. Clinton McCann Jr. and Nancy deClaisséWalford. According to McCann, even in Books I–III, “one discovers a pattern that serves to instruct the postexilic community not only to face the disorienting reality of exile but also to reach toward a reorientation beyond the traditional grounds for hope, that is, beyond the Davidic/Zion covenant theology.”15 Similarly, for deClaissé-Walford the Psalter reflects the post-exilic community’s struggle to find a new structure for existence and identity which went beyond traditional ancient Near Eastern concepts of nationhood. King and court could no longer be the center and grounding of national life; temple and cult had to assume that position—with YHWH, not David, as king over a new “religious nation” of Israel.16

For deClaissé-Walford David’s resurgence in Book V reflects the editors’ desire to instruct the postexilic community through appeal to David’s example, not to promote the restoration of Davidic kingship.17 But whereas McCann appears to lump “Zion” in the “problem” camp, deClaissé-Walford sees “temple and cult”—terms naturally compatible with Zion—as the solution. On the other hand, an increasing number of scholars see a more positive Davidic trajectory in view of the resurgence of Davidic psalms in Book V.18 Some examples here include Jerome Creach, David C. Mitchell, Jamie Grant, James Hely Hutchinson, James Luther Mays, Norbert Lohfink, Erich Zenger, and Michael Snearly.19 Although these scholars 15.  J. Clinton McCann Jr., A Theological Introduction, and “Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Psalter,” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann Jr., JSOTSup 159 (London: Sheffield Academic, 1993): 95. 16.  Nancy deClaissé-Walford, “The Canonical Shape of the Psalms,” in An Introduction to Wisdom Literature and the Psalms: Festschrift Marvin E. Tate, ed. H. Wayne Ballard and W. Dennis Tucker Jr. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2000), 99. 17.  deClaissé-Walford, “The Canonical Shape of the Psalms,” 110. 18.  Psalms 108–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145 are attributed to David. He is also mentioned four times in Ps 132 (vv. 1, 10, 11, and 17) and once in Ps 144 (v. 10). 19.  Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous; David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms, JSOTSup 252 (London: Sheffield Academic, 1997), and “Lord, Remember David”; Grant, The King as Exemplar; James Hely Hutchinson, “The Psalms and Praise,” in Firth and Johnston, eds., Interpreting the Psalms, 85–100, and “A New-Covenant Slogan in

6

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

generally recognize David and the Davidic covenant as a going concern in Book V, what that means is another matter. Does it translate into the expectation of a future Davidide, preserving the specific promises made to David (e.g., Ps 89:2–38)? Or do the editors radically reinterpret the Davidic covenant in terms of the post-exilic temple theocracy, without the expectation of a future Davidide? Here we come to a fork in the road for how the Davidic covenant relates to the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. Either the promises of the Davidic covenant find fulfillment in terms of a future king who exercises his royal office regarding the Sinaitic covenant (cf. Kraus), or those promises are fulfilled in terms of the torah-keeping people as Abraham’s seed. Erich Zenger exemplifies the latter of these interpretive stances, stressing that Israel’s covenant-history is singular, which suggests the theological unity of the covenants. For him and Lohfink the biblical concept of “covenant” is “not a question of several ‘covenants’, but of the one covenant from Sinai that unfolds and is actualized and becomes new (that is, renewed by Yhwh) again and again…an ‘open’ category.”20 Precisely how the Davidic covenant fits into this picture they do not indicate. Within the Psalter, however, they see psalms like Pss 2, 86, and 100–103 as applying to Israel with “messianic,” that is, Davidic characteristics,21 rather than referring to an anticipated Davidic figure. In other words, Zenger and Lohfink see Israel, not a new “David,” as the messianized “mediator of God’s Torah to the nations.”22 Although recognizing the ultimately Davidic trajectory of the Psalter, in concrete terms this translates into a theocratic Israel under the renewed Sinai covenant. The Davidic covenant has been absorbed into the essentially Sinaitic covenantal history of Israel; a bygone chapter that adds color to the present covenantal reality the editors wish to paint.

the Old Testament”; Mays, The Lord Reigns; Norbert L. Lohfink and Erich Zenger, The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms, trans. Everett R. Kalin (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000); Snearly, The Return of the King. 20.  Norbert L. Lohfink and Erich Zenger, “Theological Relevance: The Drama of Covenant History,” in Lohfink and Zenger, The God of Israel and the Nations, 191. 21.  Lohfink and Zenger, “Theological Relevance,” 192. Similarly, W. Dennis Tucker Jr., “Democratization and the Language of the Poor in Psalms 2–89,” HBT 25 (2003): 161–78. Jean-Marie Auwers, “Le Psautier comme livre biblique: édition, rédaction, function,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 84, sees a similar transference of the Davidic covenant to people and priests. 22.  Lohfink and Zenger, “Theological Relevance,” 192.

1. Introduction

7

In general, this theological move of applying Davidic covenantal promises to the people has been termed the “democratization” of the Davidic covenant. “Democratization” typically denotes a view of covenant relationships wherein the Davidic covenantal promises are transferred directly to the people.23 For instance, for Bernhard Gosse, “Abraham, the Patriarchs, and their descendants replace David in some aspects” in Pss 105–106, consistent with Book IV’s response to the disappearance of monarchy.24 According to Jamie Grant, “the process of democratization was a two way street [that] takes the particular and generalizes it for application to many, but it also particularizes the many by inviting them to see themselves standing in the shoes of the king and his courtiers.”25 From 23.  See, e.g., the subheading “democratization” under Jamie A. Grant, “Royal Court,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008): 668–72. Marko Marttila, Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms: A Study of the Redaction History of the Psalter, FAT 2/13 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), perceives a postexilic tendency to reinterpret individual psalms in a collective way. Moving in a similar direction, Susan Gillingham, “The Zion Tradition and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 308–41, considers the theme of Zion a collecting point for didactic themes (e.g., torah) and eschatological themes (e.g., YHWH’s reign as king) in the Psalter. Concerning kingship, Gillingham, “The Zion Tradition,” 334, claims that the Psalter, “speaks…of David as the founder of the Temple (as expressed in 2 Sam. 7) and marks out the Temple as the focal point for the good life and future hope.” Messianic expectation in the Psalter thus owes more to its reception history than to editorial intent. See Susan Gillingham, “The Messiah in the Psalms: A Question of Reception History and the Psalter,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 209–37. Sampson S. Ndoga, “Revisiting the Theocratic Agenda of Book 4 of the Psalter for Interpretive Premise,” in deClaissé-Walford, ed., The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms, 147–59, presents a slightly nuanced view. Ndoga agrees that Books III and IV shift focus from the Davidic to the Mosaic covenant, but notes that both books end “on a rather pessimistic note” (156). Because “[t]he kingship of YHWH predates both the Mosaic and the Davidic covenants,” Ndoga effectively puts both covenants in the “problem” camp, with YHWH as solution. While I agree with this assessment of the Mosaic covenant, Ndoga’s suggestion that Pss 108–110, “echo the failed monarchy” (157) is more questionable, as is the contention that Book V’s liturgical collections, wisdom psalms, and final Davidic group (138–145) “underscore the true king” YHWH in contradistinction to human kingship. 24.  Bernhard Gosse, “Abraham and David,” JSOT 34 (2009): 31. 25.  Grant, “Royal Court,” 670.

8

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

the standpoint of covenant relationships, however, democratization is still a one-way street: the king ceases to be an active covenantal figure, and instead becomes a symbolic identity for the people in whom the Davidic covenantal promises are realized directly. From the outset, however, it may be asked whether “democratization” correctly discerns the direction of transference. Did the Psalter’s editors in fact view the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenantal promises—promises normally conceived in terms of the people—in terms of a future “David,” rather than the other way around? Does the Psalter instead royalize the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, rather than reinterpret the Davidic covenant according to a democratizing agenda? Whether editors saw this reverse transference in instances like Ps 106:45 and Ps 72:17 deserves consideration. Of course, this presupposes that the editorial agenda of the Psalter includes the anticipation of a future Davidide—the other major way of interpreting the Psalter’s Davidic trajectory. Here David C. Mitchell is a good example. Mitchell, who recognizes a single editorial impulse behind the Psalter’s macrostructure, believes editors were motivated by their expectation of an eschatological Davidic king. Indeed, from most points of view Mitchell’s analysis contrasts with Wilson’s more starkly than any other. Mitchell summarizes the differences thus: I agreed that the Psalms had been redacted to represent a developing sequence of ideas. But I parted from Wilson and others in proposing that the Psalms were prophetic rather than didactic or wisdom literature. And so between us we indicated the way to two quite different understandings of the redactional agenda of the Psalms: I, eschatologico-messianic, pointing to a coming son of David; he, historico-didactic and non-messianic, pointing Israel to a future without the house of David.26

Apart from the “messianic”/“didactic” divide, there exists another profound difference between them. Whereas Mitchell recognizes a predominantly eschatological editorial perspective, Wilson and his followers believe the editors interpreted the Davidic covenant and its history in 26.  Mitchell, “Lord, Remember David,” 527. Later Gerald H. Wilson, “The Structure of the Psalter,” in Firth and Johnston, eds., Interpreting the Psalms, 239, acknowledged an eschatological dimension in the Psalter limited to Books I–III, maintaining his original position that the Psalter’s final editorial agenda is dominated by wisdom themes in opposition to Davidic covenantal theology. Although Wilson cites Mitchell in support, he appears to miss the force of Mitchell’s evidence for an eschatological agenda in the Psalter, which spans Books II–V and is seen especially in his analysis of the Asaph psalms (Pss 50, 73–83) and Songs of Ascent (Pss 120–134).

1. Introduction

9

terms of present existential circumstances.27 This latter view of editorial perspective deserves more critical scrutiny that it has received, however. To assume that modern notions of existential angst primarily defined how ancient editors interpreted their experience of exile runs the risk of anachronism. On the other hand, Mitchell amasses immense evidence to show the historical plausibility—indeed the strong likelihood—that editors reflected on these events eschatologically.28 To summarize, there seem to be three main ways scholars have implicitly related the Davidic covenant to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. First, there is the “problem–solution” model adopted by Wilson, which suggests that they are theological alternatives. Second, the “democratization” model generally affirms their theological unity, but transfers the content and promises of the Davidic covenant directly to the people through their cultic life together minus an expected king. Third, there is what we might dub a “royalization” or “Messianic” model, whereby covenantal promises and obligations associated with the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are realized through a future Davidic king. This third model also accentuates the theological unity of the covenants in question, but implies that the king has a mediatory role. It reverses the orientation of the relationship and posits that the premonarchic covenants are royalized in the Psalter. Covenant Relationships in the Psalter: A Proposal It is my contention that the Psalter’s editors viewed the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants as a theological unity and anticipated their common fulfillment through a future Davidic successor. The Psalter attributes the traditionally Mosaic role of mediator of covenant renewal (cf. Exod 33–34) to this “new David,” who fulfills traditionally Abrahamic covenantal promises, supersedes Moses as intercessor for the people in the face of their covenantal unfaithfulness, and is faithful to Mosaic covenantal obligations. He therefore qualifies as YHWH’s faithful covenant partner in contrast with the people’s failure in this regard. Book IV’s uniquely greater concentration on “Moses” and “Abraham” does not present Abrahamic and Mosaic covenantal themes as an alternative covenantal theology to a “failed” Davidic covenant. On the contrary, it 27.  So Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, Introduction to the Psalms: A Song from Ancient Israel (St. Louis: Chalice, 2004), 53, who writes, “Israel survived because the people asked basic, existential questions of identity and survival—Who are we? Where have we come from? And where are we going?” 28.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 82–87.

10

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

“royalizes” those themes, especially through the small Davidic group of psalms in Pss 101–103. This challenges the view popularized by Wilson that there is a decisive theological-perspectival shift after Ps 89 regarding the Davidic covenant, and proposes an essential coherence and continuity between these covenants that centers on the awaited king. Major Aspects of the Proposal in Scholarship While very few have contributed directly to the question of covenant relationships in the Psalter, other contributions touch on important aspects of the thesis. Some in particular bear mentioning at this point. Jamie Grant’s published dissertation, The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms, argues that editors present an idealized king who fulfills Deut 17’s “kingship law” by purposefully juxtaposing the three torah psalms (Pss 1, 19, and 119) with royal or quasi-royal psalms (Pss 2, 18, and 118). Grant concludes, “in response to the climate of messianic expectation, the editors wished to make clear that the restored Davidic king should be one who follows the ideal of the kingship rather than the historical examples found in the Deuteronomic History,” and that, “the editors of the Psalter wished to pick up on this exemplary commitment to God, and set it as a model for the readers of the psalms to follow.”29 Grant has done valuable groundwork for investigating the question of covenant relationships without, however, exploring further implications. Indeed, if editors sought to portray the king as an exemplar of torah piety, then the anticipated king is ipso facto one who keeps the obligations of the Mosaic/Sinaitic covenant, uniting in his person both obedience to the Mosaic/Sinaitic covenant and the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. Moreover, my proposal sets Grant’s insight in a greater context. The expected king does not merely lead by example, but intercedes for the people to restore their proper covenantal relationship to YHWH. Like Moses in Exod 32–34, the king functions as a mediator of covenant renewal. Michael Barber also makes several observations that are important for our thesis in his briefer examination of the Psalter, Singing in the Reign: The Psalms and the Liturgy of God’s Kingdom.30 Barber understands the restoration of the Davidic kingdom and realization of a “new exodus” to lie at the center of the Psalter’s theological agenda. Like Grant, Barber sees 29.  Grant, The King as Exemplar, 291. 30.  Michael Barber, Singing in the Reign: The Psalms and the Liturgy of God’s Kingdom (Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road, 2001), 59–133.

1. Introduction

11

David, “as a kind of example for Israel in its affliction,” who “embodies the wise man who endures suffering by learning to offer todah, trusting in the Lord.”31 Our thesis explores such characterizations of “David” further, but recognizes the king as having a more instrumental role in covenantal renewal through his intercession. In The Return of the King: Messianic Expectation in Book V of the Psalter, Michael Snearly flatly rejects “the democratization of the royal promises as an editorial strategy in the Psalter,”32 thus agreeing with the position argued here. According to Snearly, Book V reaffirms David’s central place as YHWH’s “earthly vice-regent who represents his heavenly rule on earth; the earthly vice-regent and his people travail against the rebellious of the earth.”33 Book V affirms YHWH’s “eternal steadfast love” (‫ )הסד עולם‬to David, giving positive answer to Ps 89’s petition concerning the Davidic kingship: “where is your steadfast love of old, which by your faithfulness you swore to David?” (v. 50).34 Like Mitchell and others, Snearly highlights the strong evidence for messianic expectation in psalms like Ps 110 as the Psalter’s answer to that question. By highlighting linguistic connections between important terminology in Book V and Pss 1–2 and Ps 89 Snearly adds support to the notion that the Psalter celebrates YHWH’s eternal faithfulness toward the Davidic kingship. Snearly asks another relevant question, “Is the Book of Psalms a unified text, or is it an anthology of unrelated texts?,”35 suggesting the above literary connections as evidence for the former. In many ways the Psalter seems better described as an anthology of related texts, however, the extent to which psalms are interrelated being an ongoing object of inquiry for editorial critics.36 Nevertheless, the current investigation offers another test of Snearly’s question: whether or not the Psalter presents a unified, consistent perspective on covenant relationships. That question is particularly pertinent in light of the perspectival shift at the boundary of Books III and IV proposed by Wilson and others and the democratized 31.  Barber, Singing in the Reign, 133. 32.  Snearly, The Return of the King, 184. 33.  Snearly, The Return of the King, 187. 34.  Unless otherwise indicated biblical quotations are according to the ESV, translating YHWH for the divine name ‫יהוה‬. 35.  Snearly, The Return of the King, 41 (see also 49–50). 36. Similarly David Willgren, The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms: Reconsidering the Transmission and Canonization of Psalmody in Light of Material Culture and Poetics of Anthologies, FAT 2/88 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), sees the Psalter as an anthology rather than a “book.”

12

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

reading of kingship that often goes with it. Indeed, Part I of the present study provides a preliminary examination of the editorial evidence for such a perspectival shift, while Parts II and III proffer a clearer view of covenant relationships throughout the Psalter that enable conclusions to be drawn about the consistency of editorial perspective on this issue overall. Several other recent contributions to the psalms investigated in Part III (Pss 72, 86, 103, 145) merit brief mention at this point. For example, Brevard S. Childs and James L. Mays have contributed important insights on Ps 72. Childs argues that ‫ לשלמה‬in Ps 72:1 denotes Solomon as the beneficiary of a prayer made for him with the postscript at 72:20 identifying his father David as the elderly speaker (cf. Ps 71).37 This indicates that the theme of “royal succession” is a prominent one at this significant editorial juncture in the Psalter, and is explored further in Chapter 4. Also important for present purposes, Mays sees the attribution of Abrahamic promises to the king in Ps 72, writing that the king’s “name should endure forever, and the nations bless themselves by that name as God’s promise to Abraham is kept through him.”38 While not addressing the question of covenant relationships in detail, May’s insight is highly significant, and so is followed up in Chapter 9. In recent years there has also been a spate of publications and dissertations that investigate the quotation of Exod 34:6 in Pss 86, 103, and 145. These scholars include Nathan C. Lane II, Philip Pang, Susan Marie Pigott, Mary Vanderzee-Pals, and Donna Petter,39 all of whom analyze the numerous repetitions of the grace formula throughout the whole OT, not just the Psalms.40 These studies are noteworthy because they 37.  Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 516–17. 38.  Mays, The Lord Reigns, 104. Mays (100–107) examines the relationship between YHWH and Messiah, selecting Pss 2, 3, 18, 72, 89, 110, and 132. 39.  Nathan C. Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God: A Canonical Analysis of Exodus 34:6–7 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010); Philip K. Pang, “Exodus 34:6–7 and Its Intertextuality in the Old Testament” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002); Susan Marie Pigott, “God of Compassion and Mercy: An Analysis of the Background, Use, and Theological Significance of Exodus 34:6–7” (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995); Mary Vanderzee-Pals, “God’s Moral Essence: Exodus 34:6–7a and Its Echoes in the Old Testament” (Master’s thesis, Calvin Theological Seminary, 1996); Donna Petter, “Exodus 34:6–7: The Function and Meaning of the Declaration” (Master’s thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 1997). See also Alphonso Groenewald, “Exodus, Psalms and Hebrews: A God Abounding in Steadfast Love (Ex 34:6),” HvTSt 64 (2008): 1365–78. 40.  Other “fuller” instances of Exod 34:6(–7) include Num 14:18; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3; and Neh 9:17.

1. Introduction

13

draw attention to the pervasiveness of the “grace formula” throughout the OT canon, showing its importance to biblical theology. Indeed, it is remarkable that Pss 86, 103, and 145 have not been more prominent in editorial theories to date. Of the above examples, Lane’s analysis pays most attention to the editorial shape of the Psalter, devoting a little over thirty pages to the subject in his fourth chapter. Lane largely follows the editorial theories of Wilson, McCann, and deClaissé-Walford,41 however, and illustrates a limitation from which all these investigations suffer: their broader focus precludes a sufficiently detailed treatment of editorial issues in the Psalter. Finally, James Borger’s dissertation, “Moses in the Fourth Book of the Psalter,”42 recognizes the significance of “intercession” in Book IV—another important aspect of my proposal. Borger finds Moses’ intercessory role especially prominent in Book IV, but confining his analysis to “Moses” he overlooks the possibility that Book IV envisions a transfer of the Moses-like intercessory role to the king. The Methodology and the Approach Taken in this Book Unlike biblical narrative, the Psalter explicitly presents itself as a collection of existing compositions, i.e., individual psalms. This difference suggests that one should not expect the Psalter to conform to standards of linear plot development expected in narrative. Accordingly, narrative approaches like Wallace’s risk reading into sequences of psalms an editorially unintended narrative-like “plot development.”43 While it can sometimes be demonstrated that editors intended such linear plot development in certain cases (e.g., Pss 71–72), other psalm groups exhibit concentric arrangements that accentuate the themes/psalms at their center and often present a composite picture rather than a linear sequence of unfolding events (e.g., Pss 15–24). It therefore seems best to let editorial clues determine when a sense of “plot development” may be present, rather than assume this too readily at the outset. It is also open to question whether multistage redaction-historical models must entail such dramatic shifts in covenantal perspective as, e.g., Wilson advocates between Books I–III and IV–V. Indeed, the consistency 41.  Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God, 111–18, 139–41. 42.  J. Borger, “Moses in the Fourth Book of the Psalter” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002). 43.  Robert E. Wallace, “Gerald Wilson and the Characterization of David in Book 5 of the Psalter,” in deClaissé-Walford, ed., The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms, 193–95.

14

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

and coherence of the Psalter’s editorial perspective on covenant relationships merits its own inquiry and should not be assumed. While Chapters 3 and 4 reassess the evidence for multistage models, this investigation ultimately assumes no particular view of the Psalter’s compositional history, but explores editorially significant psalms across the latter half of the Psalter that shed light on covenant relationships. Thus the degree of consistency or inconsistency of perspective on this point is a genuine object of investigation, not a methodological assumption as Wilson effectively makes it when attributing markedly different perspectives to the redactional layers he identifies. In order to explore the question of covenant relationships in the Psalter, then, this investigation integrates two major subsidiary foci. First is the matter of “editorial evidence.”44 Part I identifies and reassesses the different kinds of evidence that scholars have commonly identified. Since “editorial evidence” and its interpretation is an area of considerable dispute, preliminary investigation into this area is necessarily tentative, aiming at elucidating issues and distinguishing conclusions that are relatively more certain from those more speculative in nature. Despite the immensity of scholarly works on the editing of the Psalms, surprisingly few provide a systematic evaluation of commonly identified kinds of editorial evidence. While other studies may get by without it, reevaluating editorial evidence is especially necessary here for a couple of reasons. First, as noted earlier scholarly views on how editors understood covenant relationships are often a consequence of how the Psalter’s editorial history is understood and, in many cases, its “redactional layering.” Reexamining editorial evidence in the Psalter enables preliminary assessment of scholarly views that depend on compositional models that postulate divergent editorial perspectives. Indeed, Part I finds that scholarly descriptions of “different” editorial perspectives within the Psalter are based on very questionable evidence. Second, not all kinds of editorial evidence are equally clear or certain as to their utility in demonstrating editorial intent. So in order to identify demonstrable editorial intent at various points in 44.  To avoid unintended methodological baggage, in general I will use the common parlance of “editors,” “editorial evidence,” and the “editing of the Psalter” rather than “redactors/redactional etc.”—except where the latter provides an accurate description of other scholars’ methods. Such terminology risks baggage of its own, however, and is not intended to preclude a more nuanced understanding of the “editors” as, for example, “anthologists” (see Chapter 4; cf. Willgren, Formation, 26–29). Furthermore, the anarthrous designation “editors” is often preferred to “the editors” because of its non-restrictive character, keeping the possibilities open as to who they were or which theoretical editorial hand could be in view.

1. Introduction

15

the Psalter it is necessary first to distinguish those kinds of evidence that are clearer in terms of their implications from those that are more speculative. This approach ensures that editorial perspective—not simply that of a psalm’s original author—remains the actual object of inquiry about covenant relationships. Second is the theme of “covenant” itself. Part II sets out to provide a sufficiently thorough survey of covenant references and allusions and map their distribution in the Psalter, especially those instances where the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants appear related to each other. By drawing on Part I’s reevaluation of editorial evidence it becomes possible to highlight cases that exhibit demonstrable editorial importance. After a brief summary of previous survey work and the scope of the survey in Part II, Chapter 5 examines the Psalter’s direct references to YHWH’s covenant via the term ‫ברית‬. In the process, it identifies this term’s particular covenantal associations as far as possible and makes preliminary observations about ‫ ברית‬in the Psalms. Chapters 6, 7, and 8 complete the survey by examining different “criteria” that potentially allude to the historical covenants or some major aspect of them, drawing such conclusions about covenant relationships as the data allow. In this way Part II provides as full a view of covenant references and allusions as practically possible. Another important outcome of Parts I and II is to show that Pss 1–2, 72, 86, 103, and 145 qualify as psalms with the strongest potential to answer the question of covenant relationships in the Psalter. Part III further examines Pss 72, 86, 103, and 145 in the context of Books II‒V respectively (Chapters 9–13) before turning attention to Pss 1‒2 as the Psalter’s introduction (Chapter 14). This affords a fuller view of kingship in the Psalter and how these psalms’ editorial placement support my proposal. For present purposes “book contexts” means, narrowly, the milieu of other covenant references/allusions as they intersect with the editorial and structural concerns of each book. These chapters do not offer a general, unqualified analysis of the Psalter’s books, but specifically address how the above psalms relate to their respective books on the theme of covenant, bringing editorial evidence to bear on the investigation. Finally, Chapter 15 sums up the investigation, evaluating the extent to which covenant-alluding data and the key psalms in their book contexts reflect a consistent, coherent view of covenant relationships.

Part I E di tor i a l E vi d en ce a n d t he P salte r

Chapter 2 I de n t i f y i n g E d i tori a l E vi de nce i n t h e P s a lte r

While most investigations into the Psalter offer some sort of preamble on editorial questions and scholarly contributions to the field, very few undertake a thorough reevaluation of the major kinds of evidence. This is surprising given those studies’ often heavy dependence on such contributions and the sheer variety of redaction-historical opinions and methodologies in the field. One exception is David C. Mitchell’s The Message of the Psalter published in 1997.1 Though somewhat dated now, Mitchell’s incisive discussion covers the major kinds of editorial evidence identified and evaluated here. More recently, Michael K. Snearly’s discussion of editorial criticism and methodology in The Return of the King contributes especially to concatenation-related evidence such as distant parallelisms and structural parallelisms between psalms as befits the nature of his investigation.2 Two macrostructural issues deserve mention at the outset. First, following Wilson, scholars today commonly assume that the Psalter’s “books” are its major editorial subunits. Other contributors suggest that the five-part division is to some degree artificial, however, seeing it as a later set of divisions imposed on the Psalter.3 This issue is of particular 1.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, Chapters 1‒2. 2.  Michael K. Snearly, The Return of the King: Messianic Expectation in Book V of the Psalter, LHBOTS 624 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), Chapters 3‒4. Another notable exception is Willgren, Formation, who devotes his entire volume to the Psalter’s formation. After mounting an investigation of ancient anthologies, Parts III and IV of Willgren’s detailed investigation re-evaluate the Dead Sea Psalms scrolls, the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis, and evidence internal to the Psalter (cf. Chapters 3 and 4 of the present work). Unfortunately, I only had access to Willgren’s book after this manuscript was completed, but have nonetheless footnoted significant parallel discussions. 3.  Matthias Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz, FAT 9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); Christoph Levin, “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters,” VT 54 (2004): 83–90.

20

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

interest because numerous psalms containing covenant allusions occur near the Psalter’s book-divisions or “seams” (e.g., Pss 72, 89, and 105– 106), and to some extent that suggestion calls into question those psalms’ editorial importance. Second, scholars predominately adduce multi-stage redaction-historical models from certain editorial evidence. As noted earlier, existing views on covenant relationships are often a consequence of reconstructions of the Psalter’s editorial history that already presuppose divergent editorial agendas, either implying that the covenants are theological alternatives (Wilson) or reinterpreting the Davidic covenant in radically different terms (Zenger). By reevaluating the main kinds of evidence and their potential editorial implications, the following chapters reassess the editorial support for these views of the Psalter. In preparation for that task, the present chapter identifies what data scholars have perceived as “editorial evidence” and the major implications drawn from them. While premodern commentators contribute to the discussion, the modern era accounts for most work on the editing of the Psalter and therefore receives the most attention. Pre-Enlightenment Views: Some Illustrative Examples Early interpreters seldom sought to explain the order of the psalms, but puzzled over certain features nonetheless. For instance, the historical prologues raise questions of chronology. Why does Ps 3 (David’s flight from Absalom) precede Ps 51 (David’s adultery with Bathsheba)? In response to this kind of “problem,” the Midrash on Psalms appeals to the Psalter’s inscrutability: As to the exact order of David’s Psalms, Scripture says elsewhere; Man knoweth not the order thereof (Job 28:13). R. Eleazar taught: The sections of Scripture are not arranged in their proper order. For if they were arranged in their proper order, and any man so read them, he would be able to resurrect the dead and perform other miracles. For this reason the proper order of the sections of Scripture is hidden from mortals.4

Early Jewish and Christian interpreters were also aware of the five book structure of the Psalms, with Hippolytus (170–235 AD) viewing it as another Pentateuch.5 The Midrash also explicitly compares this five­fold division with the Torah: “As Moses gave five books of laws to Israel, so 4.  William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), 49. 5.  Hippolytus, On the Psalms 1 (ANF 5:201).

2. Identifying Editorial Evidence in the Psalter

21

David gave five Books of Psalms to Israel.”6 On the other hand, unable to explain the five-fold division, Augustine deemed it more important to defend the unity of the Psalter as one book.7 Similarly, Jerome rejected the five-book structure and Origen viewed it as Jewish.8 Another feature that attracted early attention is the postscript of Ps 72:20, which reads, “the prayers of David, son of Jesse, are ended.” Two Rabbinic examples are particularly instructive. In the twelfth century, Abraham Ibn Ezra offered an intriguing explanation, taking ‫ כלו‬in the sense of “fulfilled.” According to Kimhi, Ibn Ezra interprets it as follows. When all these consolations will be completed, then Fulfilled are the prayers of David ben Jesse. It does not say ‘Fulfilled are the songs’ or ‘Fulfilled are the hymns,’ but Fulfilled are the prayers of David, in relation to atonement and deliverance. For when everything is completed, that Israel go forth from the exile and are in their land, and the King Messiah ben David rules over them, nothing will be lacking, neither atonement, nor deliverance, nor prosperity, for everything will be theirs. And then Fulfilled are the prayers of David ben Jesse.9

Evidently, Ibn Ezra attributes prophetic significance to 72:20, and if ‫ כלו‬is to be understood in terms of “fulfillment,” then the presence of subsequent Davidic psalms no longer poses a “problem.” Though not convincing in all its details,10 Ibn Ezra’s explanation is important because it attempts to 6.  Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 5. 7.  Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm 150:2 (NPNF 8:681), writes, “But when I endeavoured to make out the principle of this division, I was not able,” and continues to press the unity the Psalter as one book. 8.  Paul Sanders, “Five Books of Psalms?,” in Zenger, eds., The Composition of the Book of Psalms, 683, cites Henri de Sainte-Marie, Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium Iuxta Hebraeos, Collectanea Biblica Latina 11 (Rome: Abbaye Saint-Jérome, 1954), 5. 9.  Kimhi, Commentary on Psalms 42–72, quoted from Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 68. Samuel Raphael Hirsch, The Psalms, trans. Gertrude Hirschler, 2 vols. (New York: Philipp Feldheim, 1960), translates 72:20, “Then the Prayers of David, the son of Jesse will be at an end.” 10.  Offering a measure of support, Targum Psalms translates ‫ כלו‬with ‫גמרין‬, “complete.” (The Targum text was accessed from “The Late Jewish Literary Aramaic Version of Psalms from the Files of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project” [CAL], the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, USA; Stephen A. Kaufman, Editor-in-Chief, via Logos Bible Software.) On the other hand, the LXX translates ‫ כלו‬with ἐξέλιπον, which reflects its more usual meaning of “finished” or “ceased,” and according to Liddell and Scott (“ἐκλείπω,” 511) “fulfilled”

22

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

explain what 72:20 and its terminology mean. The Midrash on Psalms also offers a “semantic” explanation of 72:20 by reinterpreting ‫ כלו‬and qualifying ‫תפלות‬, The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended (kalu) (Ps 72:20). And are not the remaining prayers also prayers of David the son of Jesse? Kalu, however, is to be read as kol ’ellu, “all of these,” and hence the verse means that all of these were prayers David uttered concerning his son Solomon and concerning king Messiah. In a different interpretation of The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended, prayers is taken to mean the prayers of yearning, as is written My soul yearneth, yea, even pineth (Ps. 84:3).11

As these examples show, Rabbinic explanations of Ps 72:20 tend to be semantic in nature. By contrast modern redaction-critical explanations approach Ps 72:20 functionally as a redaction-historical phenomenon, rarely addressing its meaning. Modern “Accretion” Explanations Prior to Wilson Until the last few decades, modern scholars assumed that the Psalter acquired its final shape by gradual growth, not through deliberate redaction. David C. Mitchell summarizes a predominating view that assumed Ps 72:20 marked the end of an earlier Psalter and, because Davidic psalms occur after Ps 72, the collection gradually expanded to include all 150 psalms.12 Indeed, both J. G. Eichhorn (1753–1827) and W. M. L. de Wette (1780–1849) thought 72:20 implied an earlier collection comprising Pss 1–72,13 while Franz Delitzsch saw “the groundwork of the collection” lying within Pss 3–72, though puzzled over why only Ps 50 of the Asaph psalms was inserted.14 Complicating this hypothesis, however, was the discovery of the so-called Elohistic Psalter—the sequence of Pss 42–83 where ‫ אלהים‬predominates over ‫—יהוה‬because it suggested the pre-existence of Pss 42–83 is not a valid option for ἐκλείπω. Also interesting is Ibn Ezra’s insistence that ‫תפלות‬ means prayers to the exclusion of “songs” or “hymns”; cf. the LXX, which translates οἱ ὕμνοι. 11.  Braude, The Midrash, 563. This emendation lacks other textual support, and to limit ‫ תפלות‬to “prayers of yearning” seems arbitrary. Interestingly, a few MSS and the Syriac lack ‫ כלו‬altogether, reducing it to a phrase, “Prayers of David, son of Jesse.” 12.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 66. 13.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 66 n. 1. 14.  Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, 3 vols., trans. Francis Bolton (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1871), 1:16–18.

2. Identifying Editorial Evidence in the Psalter

23

as a once-separate collection. Subsequently the Elohistic Psalter has enjoyed a virtually unquestioned place in modern scholarship as a datum that must be accounted for in theories of the Psalter’s compositional history. Mitchell notes, however, that, “many nineteenth century interpreters were unable to agree on any theory about the Psalter’s redaction, except to affirm that the process was piecemeal and disordered.” Mitchell continues, “How this conclusion was reached is not clear. It generally seems to have been simply assumed.”15 Twentieth-century form critics like Herman Gunkel and Sigmund Mowinckel basically shared this perspective. They were more interested in establishing psalms’ genre and setting, and to a large extent their focus on individual psalms corresponds to their minimalist understanding of editorial intent across the whole Psalter. They nevertheless had things to say about the Psalter’s growth that affirm the editorial importance of data like 72:20 and ‫יהוה‬/‫ אלהים‬distribution. The main difference between Mowinckel and Gunkel is the former’s insistence on a cultic rationale for the whole collection.16 Mowinckel’s description of the Psalter’s growth is worth summarizing because it corresponds closely to more recent views of Books I–III and because his conclusions about Books IV and V resemble the views of earlier scholars like de Wette and Eichhorn. Like them Mowinckel thought the Psalter grew from several earlier, shorter collections, appealing to the existence of “doublets,” 72:20, and the predominance of ‫ אלהים‬in Pss 42–83 and ‫ יהוה‬elsewhere in the Psalter—though he does not always explain exactly how all these features demonstrate gradual accretion.17 The first of the preexisting collections of which Mowinckel speaks was the so-called first Davidic Psalter (Pss 3–41, hereafter referred to as David I), with the untitled Ps 33 a possible late addition. The Elohistic Psalter was a later collection comprised of three smaller collections: Korahite Psalms (Pss 42–49); a second Davidic group (Pss 51–72, hereafter referred to as David II); and the Psalms of Asaph (Pss 50, 73–83). Mowinckel regards Pss 84–89 as a second Korahite collection18 incorporating the Davidic Ps 86, which was added when David I and the Elohistic Psalter were 15.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 67. 16.  Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms, 333–48, dates the collection to ca. 400–200 BC, viewing the Elohistic Psalter as the combination of smaller cultic collections distinguishable by their Korahite, Asaphite, and Davidic attributions. 17.  Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:193. 18.  Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:194–95, agrees that Heman the Ezrahite (Ps 88) and Ethan the Elamite (Ps 89) belonged to the sons of Korah.

24

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

combined. At this time Ps 2 was also added as an introduction to form the new collection, Pss 2–89. Psalms 90–150 became part of the developing Psalter in a process of gradual extension “by means of other small collections—perhaps both earlier and later ones: Pss. 93–100, 113–118, 120–134 (136) and 146–150, and some individual psalms.”19 Mowinckel’s explanation of Books IV–V is therefore vaguer, lacking the level of precision with which he describes the growth process of Books I–III. Two features of Mowinckel’s explanation deserve comment. First, Mowinckel takes Ps 72:20 as evidence of an early Davidic collection constituting Pss 51–72. Second, the so-called Elohistic Psalter was once a separate group of psalms with its own editorial history. Both conclusions have received widespread acceptance, as reflected, for instance, in the views of Gerstenberger, Weiser, and Kraus.20 72:20 and the predominance of ‫ אלהים‬in Pss 42–83 have clearly attracted sufficient scholarly attention to be deemed significant kinds of editorial evidence. But what is their significance, and have these scholars drawn the right implications? Chapter 4 takes up these questions further. Before Wilson, scholars attributed little editorial significance to superscripts except to observe obvious sequences of psalms grouped by authorial attribution or ‫ המעלות שיר‬in the Songs of Ascent (Pss 120–134). Instead, scholarly interest focused primarily on their authenticity as witnesses to the authorship and origin of psalms. According to Mitchell, “De Wette, von Lengerke, Olshausen, Hupfield, Graetz, Kuenen, Reuss, Stade, Cheyne and Duhm are unwilling to connect any psalms with the individuals named. Ewald and Hitzig are more generous, the former allowing one psalm to David, the latter about thirteen.”21 Deemed unreliable, the superscripts’ editorial value also remained largely overlooked. Up to and throughout the twentieth century scholars took a similar view of the doxologies at Pss 41:14, 72:18–19, 89:53, and 106:48, calling into question the view common in premodern times that they divided the Psalter into five books. For instance, Mowinckel states, “Originally… these doxologies had nothing to do with the collection, neither with the earlier smaller collections, nor with the composition of the Psalter as a 19.  Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:196. 20.  Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction, 36–39; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 4–5; Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, OTL, trans. H. Hartwell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 99–101; and Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 17–18. 21.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 41.

2. Identifying Editorial Evidence in the Psalter

25

whole.”22 Gerstenberger even dates the five-book division to the fourth century AD, attributing the doxologies to an outgrowth of “Jewish synagogal worship practices” in which the ‫ ברוך יהוה‬formula played an increasingly important role.23 New discoveries toward the end of the twentieth century gave cause to rethink these assumptions, however. Gerald H. Wilson and Recent Scholarship In the 1980s, Gerald H. Wilson brought to light evidence of editorial techniques that led many scholars to understand the Psalter as the product of waves of deliberate redaction rather than more or less accidental accretion. This extended to the Psalter’s five-book structure as well. Whereas previous scholars largely had deemed the fivefold book division to be artificial and late, Wilson proposed that editors made use of the psalm superscripts to collate and organize psalms into the five books, confirming the concluding function of the doxologies for their respective books. Thus, although Wilson did not offer precise answers about when or by whom the superscripts were appended to individual psalms, he nevertheless demonstrated their organizational function to the satisfaction of many. One of Wilson’s major contributions was to show that such techniques have ancient precedent in the Sumerian Temple Hymns and Mesopotamian Catalogue of Hymnic Incipits. Wilson explains: Moreover, certain techniques employed in the organization of the collection should not be ignored. Two stand out in particular in relation to the Hebrew Psalter. The use of an explicit doxology to Nisaba at the conclusion of TH 42 (line 542), along with the corroborating data of the earlier collection from Abu Salabikh (in which each composition is concluded by the same doxology zà-mi “Praise”) affirms a similarity of practice when compared with the frequent use of concluding doxology in the Hebrew Psalter. The use of TH 42 as an expanded doxology concluding the whole Temple Hymn collection is, likewise comparable to the use of Psalm 150, in the absence of a fifth explicit doxology, as a final, expanded doxology concluding the last book of the Psalter as well as the Psalter as a whole.

22.  Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:197. Cf. Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms, 348; and Harmut Gese, “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters,” in Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie, BEvT 64 (Munich: Kaiser, 1974), 159–67. 23.  Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction, 36–37.

26

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter The second technique—the retention of the colophonic material as a “frozen” part of a literary composition, even after subsequent additions and editing had skewed the function of the work from that of the original—is comparable to the retention in the biblical pss-headings of data referring to the cultic background and function of these pss which have been adapted to function in a far different and later context.24

Wilson showed that these two techniques—the concluding function of “doxologies” and the organizational use of superscriptions—corroborate each other, evidencing purposeful arrangement in the Psalter. Like others before him, Wilson recognized that authorial attribution in superscripts served as a primary principle of organization, especially in Books I–III.25 But he also observed the same or similar genre classifications (‫מזמור‬, ‫שיר‬, ‫משכיל‬, etc.) occurring atop psalms that transition between author-groups (e.g., between Korahite Pss 42–49, Asaph Ps 50, and Davidic Pss 51–72), which “soften” the transition from one author group to another. Most importantly, Wilson observed that this “softening” technique is lacking at the transition points between books where the doxologies occur.26 For example, Ps 73’s superscript bears no similarity to Ps 72’s. Nor does Ps 90’s superscript resemble those atop Book III’s concluding psalms. Meanwhile the change of authorial attribution at these places marks them as points of disjuncture. Wilson concludes that the doxologies appear at real, “unsoftened” editorial breaks in the Psalter, summarizing the situation as follows: My study of the distribution of the technical terms in the pss-headings has already shown that the five-fold division is a real and purposeful division which is indicated internally by the editorial use of author designations and genre categories to mark the points of division and to bind together disparate groups within these larger sections. This coincidence of internal breaks and the occurrence of the doxologies is certainly not fortuitous, but represent editorially induced methods of giving “shape” to the pss corpus.27

Authorial attribution plays a lesser role in the organization of Books IV–V,28 so Wilson proposed other organizational techniques in these books. First, he noted that the ‫ הללו יה‬psalms fall into clusters: Pss 104–106; Pss 111–117; Ps 135; and Pss 146–150. Since his study of 24.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 23. 25.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 155 and 161. 26.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 155–67. 27.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 186 (italics original). 28.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 155, notes that of the 61 psalms in Books IV–V “only 19 bear attributions of authorship.”

2. Identifying Editorial Evidence in the Psalter

27

Mesopotamian hymns and catalogues found that, “ ‘praise’ and ‘blessing’ (Hallel and Doxology) frequently concluded documents or sections within documents,”29 he reasoned that ‫ הללו יה‬psalms served a similar concluding function in Books IV–V. Second, in the first three cases, the next psalm begins with the formula: ‫( ה[ו]דו ליהוה כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬Pss 107:1; 118:1, 136:1). Accordingly, Wilson concluded that psalms bearing this formula in Books IV–V begin subgroups of psalms. Wilson’s theory of the Psalter’s editorial history has also been very influential. He argued that the different editorial techniques found in Books I–III and Books IV–V reflect two main editorial stages, drawing on evidence from Qumran in support. Here Wilson followed James Sanders’ “Qumran Psalms Hypothesis,” which Peter W. Flint’s more recent work also supports.30 It theorizes that Pss 2–89 had stabilized as an early form of the Psalter before either the Dead Sea Psalms scrolls were produced or Books IV–V took shape. For Wilson, then, Ps 89 marks the major redaction-historical break in the MT Psalter,31 and the two editorial stages provide the key to interpreting its final form. Wilson posited that “royal” Pss 2 and 89 create a royal covenantal frame around the earlier collection, which culminates in a lament over the crisis of exile and “failure” of the Davidic covenant. Then later editors added Ps 1 and Books IV– V to envelop the earlier collection in a framework Wilson thought dominated by wisdom concerns and thereby championed pre-monarchic covenantal life in answer to that failure.32 Wilson’s deconstruction of the Psalter’s editorial history therefore inherently contrasts Davidic covenantal theology with Mosaic/pre-monarchic themes. Of all scholarly views about the composition-history of the Psalter, then, this purported shift of editorial perspective after Ps 89 has the greatest bearing on the 29.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 186. 30.  James A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa), DJD 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965); Peter W. Flint, “The Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” VT 48 (1998): 453–72; The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Psalms, STDJ 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1997); “The Psalms Scrolls from the Judean Desert: Relationships and Textual Affiliations,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings from the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, ed. George J. Brooke (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 31–52. 31.  Gerald H. Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms,” in Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann Jr. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 73–74; “Psalms and Psalter: Paradigm for Biblical Theology,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2002), 100–110; “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God,” 391–93. 32.  Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter,” 80–81.

28

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

question of covenant relationships. Chapter 3’s reevaluation of the DSS and LXX and their capacity to shed light on the Psalter’s editorial history therefore includes reassessment of the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis. Scholars have substantially accepted this notion of two major editorial stages, even if many posit other stages besides.33 Martin Rose suggests that priestly editors reinterpreted the Messianic Psalter by expanding it with theocratic Pss 90–99, thus advocating a similar editorial motive to that proposed by Wilson. Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger— known for their emphasis on redaction history for interpreting individual psalms—also recognize the Messianic Psalter as a discreet stage of development, albeit within a much more complex composition-historical model.34 Others, however, reconstruct the Psalter’s compositional history without Pss 2–89 as a discreet editorial “stage.”35 Matthias Millard advocates Pss 11–100 as the intermediate stage between an original Elohistic Psalter and the final MT Psalter.36 Alternatively, Jean-Marie Auwers limits his “Messianic Psalter” to Ps 83, interpreting several common features between Pss 2 and 83 as an editorial inclusio. Nevertheless, Auwers ultimately agrees that a theocratic program redefines royal covenantal theology, recasting it in terms of the people and priests.37 David C. Mitchell differs more radically by positing one editorial impulse behind the Psalter’s macrostructure. Instead of explaining the Psalter’s editorial shape and history in terms of Israel’s exilic and postexilic history, Mitchell argues that an eschatological program provides the meta-narrative of the canonical Psalter. Mitchell offers an impressive array of precedents for this messianic program among the later OT prophets and postexilic literature.38 Similarly, Roger T. Beckwith advocates one editorial effort 33.  For example, Christoph Rösel, Die messianische Redaktion des Psalters: Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie der Sammlung 2–89 (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1999); Martin Rose, “Psaumes,” in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament, ed. Thomas Römer, Jean-Daniel Macchi, and Christophe Nihan, MdB 49 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2004), 562–78; and Wilson’s followers mentioned earlier. 34.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 1–7, outline numerous redactional layers affecting Pss 51–100. For other summaries, see Erich Zenger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 7th ed. (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2008), 364–66, and Auwers, “Le Psautier comme livre biblique.” 35.  Willgren, Formation, 132, cautions against assuming too “linear” a process for the Psalter’s growth. 36.  Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters. 37.  Auwers, “Le Psautier comme livre biblique,” 84. 38.  Mitchell, “Lord, Remember David,” and The Message of the Psalter.

2. Identifying Editorial Evidence in the Psalter

29

behind the Psalter, but thinks it was originally subdivided into three major sections corresponding to Book I, Books II–III, and Books IV–V rather than the existing five-book structure.39 For both Mitchell and Beckwith the LXX’s macrostructural similarity to the MT Psalter calls Wilson’s two-redaction model into question.40 From this brief sketch, it is clear that no consensus exists on the Psalter’s editorial history. Accordingly, some scholars prefer to avoid diachronic speculation in favor of synchronic investigation of editorial arrangement, or have focused their attention on smaller subgroups of psalms.41 For example, Jerome Creach’s analyses of “the destiny of the righteous” and “Yahweh as refuge”42 employ what David Howard describes as a “semantic field or thematic approach” that uses its findings “to comment on the organization of the entire work.”43 Such an approach has the advantage of not binding itself to a particular redaction-historical model as the interpretive starting point. It is also clear that scholars agreeing with Wilson’s editorial break after Ps 89 usually see a significant perspectival shift regarding the Davidic covenant—whether as a covenant “failed” and replaced, or a covenant translated into new terms without the person of a king. At the same time there is clearly a great diversity of redaction-historical opinions among those who advocate such perspectival shifts. Indeed, these observations suggest that the consistency or inconsistency of editorial perspective throughout the Psalter should not be assumed, and that the extent to which the Psalter presents a consistent or inconsistent view of the covenants and their relationships to one another requires its own direct investigation. 39.  Roger T. Beckwith, “The Early History of the Psalter,” TynBul 46 (1995): 1–27. 40.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 16–20, 80, and “Lord, Remember David,” 543–45; Beckwith, “The Early History of the Psalter,” 21. 41.  See, e.g., the synchronic approach of Walter Brueggemann, “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon,” JSOT 50 (1991): 63–92; and attention to smaller psalm groups by, e.g., David M. Howard, The Structure of Psalms 93–100 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997); Robert Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73–89) (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000); and Wallace, The Narrative Effect of Book IV. 42.  Jerome F. D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, JSOTSup 217 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), and The Destiny of the Righteous. 43.  David M. Howard, “The Psalms and Current Study,” in Firth and Johnston, eds., Interpreting the Psalms, 28.

30

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

When it comes to editorial evidence found within the Psalter, we summarize the situation as follows. Wilson can be credited with reviving interest in the doxologies as intentional conclusions to the Psalter’s books. By extension he also revived interest in the books themselves as major subunits of the Psalter. That said, recent contributions by Reinhard Kratz, Christoph Levin, Erich Zenger, and others present different perspectives on the doxologies that make it necessary to reassess their editorial significance. Wilson’s identification of superscriptional organization also counts as a “new” kind of editorial evidence, as do his observations concerning ‫ הודו‬and ‫ הללו יה‬psalms. Besides these, several other features mentioned earlier count as evidence of editorial shaping: the predominance of ‫ אלהים‬in Pss 42–83 (and preference for ‫ יהוה‬outside these psalms), the postscript of Ps 72:20, “doublets,” and the phenomenon of lexical and thematic connections between psalms. Concerning the last of these, Walter Zimmerli’s 1972 article, “Zwil­ lingspsalmen,” addressed psalms that appear deliberately collocated according to similar content or themes, focusing especially on Pss 111–112 and 105–106.44 In a small way Zimmerli revived the principle of concatenation that Delitzsch had seen, as did Christoph Barth’s study of Book I in 1976.45 More recently Matthias Millard has taken such psalm pairs as an important point of departure in his form-critical approach to identifying different stages of the Psalter’s growth.46 For Millard the collocation of psalms linked by common themes and Stichwörter evidences a primary means by which editors arranged individual psalms into larger clusters. Similarly, David M. Howard’s analysis of Pss 93–100 appeals to the same kind of data by investigating the linguistic and thematic ties between sequences of psalms,47 as does Snearly.48 Recent scholarship therefore recognizes this kind of evidence as a helpful way to explore editorial intent behind smaller groups of psalms. The strength and number of linguistic and thematic links between psalms varies, however, and each case must be judged on merit. 44.  Walter Zimmerli, “Zwillingspsalmen,” in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten: Festschrift für J. Ziegler, ed. J. Schreiner (Würzburg: Echter, 1972), 105–13. 45.  Delitzsch, Psalms; Christoph Barth, “Concatenatio im ersten Buch des Psalters,” in Wort und Wirklichkeit: Studien zur Afrikanistik und Orientalistik 1: Eugen Ludwig Rapp zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Brigitta Benzing, Otto Böcher, and Günter Mayer (Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1976), 30–40. 46.  Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters. 47.  Howard, The Structure of Psalms 93–100. 48.  Snearly, The Return of the King.

2. Identifying Editorial Evidence in the Psalter

31

These categories of editorial evidence have most shaped scholars’ views on the Psalter’s editing, and therefore receive special attention in Chapter 4. Nevertheless, there are other “derivative” kinds of evidence that merit a few brief remarks here. First, recent scholarship has become more sensitive to structural possibilities like chiastic or concentric arrangements of psalms. For example, Zenger sees chiastic arrangements within Pss 3–14, 15–24, 25–34 and 42–49, wherein each group centers around hymns (Pss 9, 19, 29, and 46 respectively).49 Arguments vary in strength from case to case, but the possibility seems well demonstrated, especially in Pss 15–24.50 Second, convinced that the Psalter exhibits purposeful shape, some scholars direct their attention to the Psalter’s beginning and end—places of assumed significance in any intentional composition—or psalms that are in some sense “central.” A prime example is Walter Brueggemann’s synchronic interpretation of the Psalter that yields a pattern of orientation, disorientation, and reorientation. For Brueggemann, praise (Ps 150) reorients the community’s disorienting struggle with theodicy (Ps 73) once conventional wisdom (Ps 1) appeared too simplistic.51 Brueggemann’s theological conclusions aside, his analysis clearly concentrates on the Psalter’s beginning, end, and approximate midpoint. Likewise Jamie Grant justifies his focus on 1–2, 18–19, and 118–119 by appealing to the importance of “introduction, centrality, and conclusion,” only Grant applies this principle of “centrality” to individual books and subgroups and not just the whole Psalter.52 Regarding the Psalter’s end, Wilson suggested that Ps 145:21 introduces Pss 146–150 as a doxological conclusion for the

49.  So reports Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters, 25. 50.  See, e.g., Pierre Auffret, La Sagesse a bâti sa maison: Études de structures littéraires dans l’Ancient Testament et spécialement dans les Psaumes, OBO 49 (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1982), 407–38; Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters, 24–27; Patrick D. Miller, “Kingship, Torah Obedience, and Prayer: The Theology of Psalms 15–24,” in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays, ed. Patrick D. Miller, JSOTSup 267 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 279–97; and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, “ ‘Wer darf hinaufziehn zum Berg JHWHs?’ Zur Redaktionsgeschichte und Theologie der Psalmengruppe 15–24,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschäftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ, ed. Georg Braulik, Walter Groß, and Sean McEvenue (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1993), 166–82. 51.  Brueggemann, “Bounded by Obedience and Praise”; Walter Brueggemann and Patrick D. Miller, “Psalm 73 as a Canonical Marker,” JSOT 72 (1996): 45–56. 52.  Grant, The King as Exemplar, 17.

32

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

whole Psalter, and this has been generally accepted.53 Considerable debate surrounds Pss 1–2 at the beginning of the Psalter, however, and Chapter 14 addresses them in more detail. Third, some scholars have argued that the significant placement of other recurrent themes indicates their editorial importance. For example, Jerome Creach sets out “to show that ‘refuge’ is part of an intentional editorial schema, not a subjective structure imposed on the collection. The starting point for the thesis is the presence of the phrase, ’ašrê kol ḥôsê bô, at the end of Psalm 2.”54 Similarly, Susan Gillingham argues that the Zion motif is a key editorial concern that binds together various other aspects of the Psalter, specifically its didactic and eschatological dimensions,55 and James L. Mays claims special editorial significance for torah Pss 1, 19, and 119.56 These approaches each explore the editorial prominence of a particular theme, and to the extent that they are successful add to the pool of potential editorial evidence by demonstrating important thematic features of the Psalter. Conclusion This brief survey has identified numerous kinds of evidence to which scholars appeal when examining the editorial history, shape, and theology of the MT Psalter. Most of the examples discussed are “internal” kinds of evidence found within the MT Psalter. Others—chiefly the DSS and LXX—are “external” sources of evidence that potentially bear witness to the composition history of the MT Psalter. It remains now to reassess their utility in identifying demonstrable instances of editorial intent and their potential implications for how to understand the MT Psalter’s editorial history and shape.

53.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 189 and 225–26. 54.  Creach, Yahweh as Refuge, 17. 55.  Gillingham, “The Zion Tradition.” 56.  James Luther Mays, “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter,” JBL 106 (1987): 3–12. Also Grant, The King as Exemplar.

Chapter 3 E x t ern a l E d i tori a l E vi de nce : Q u m ra n a n d t h e S eptuagi nt

Having identified phenomena that scholars deem to be “editorial evidence,” it is time to reassess their value and possible implications, beginning with “external” evidence in the present chapter before evaluating evidence arising from within the MT Psalter in the next. What light do the DSS and LXX shed on the MT Psalter’s editorial history? Addressing this question means reassessing the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis, which scholars who argue for a theological-perspectival shift between Books III and IV often advocate. As we shall see, evidence for the Hypothesis is quite weak, and a better account of the DSS and LXX can be given if one presumes that the MT Psalter had already taken shape by the time of their production. The Qumran Psalms Hypothesis and the Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls Advocates of the “Qumran Psalms Hypothesis” argue for a two (or more) stage stabilization process of the Hebrew Psalter. Against this, others argue that 11QPsa is a secondary arrangement of psalms that presupposes an already established MT Psalter.1 The MT Psalter had been finalized 1.  Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text,” Text 5 (1966): 22–33; Shemaryahu Talmon, “Pisqah Be’emsa‘ Pasuq and 11QPsa,” Text 5 (1965): 11–21; Patrick Skehan, “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa,” CBQ 35 (1973): 202–5, and “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” in Qumran: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu, ed. M. Delcor, BETL 46 (Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1978), 163–82; and Ulrich Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran, STDJ 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon suggest a liturgical rationale, while Skehan considers 11QPsa a “library edition.” Dahmen’s extensive textual analysis of 11QPsa deems it a creative reordering of the proto-Masoretic Psalter.

34

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

before the DSS were copied, hence the DSS bear no direct witness to the compositional history of the MT Psalter. As summarized by Flint, the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis comprises several discreet arguments. These concern the Psalter’s “stabilization,” the existence of multiple Psalter “editions” (of which an “11QPsa Psalter” is the major alternative to the MT), and 11QPsa’s provenance.2 The major arguments are as follows: First, Wilson and Flint argue for the early stabilization of Books I–III on the basis of content and ordering of psalms in the Qumran MSS.3 With respect to content Flint writes, “no compositions absent from the Received Psalter are found joined to any of these Psalms” (i.e., Pss 1–89), whereas variations in content are “frequent” for psalms known from MT Books IV–V.4 Regarding arrangement, Wilson claims that “evidence in support of the MT arrangement of pss is fairly consistent throughout,” but that “examples of variation, practically non-existent in the first three books, increase markedly in Books Four and Five.”5 Accordingly, for Wilson and Flint Books I–III were a stabilized collection at a time when the order and composition of Books IV–V was still fluid. Second, according to Flint, the DSS bear witness to three forms of the Psalter: an early collection comprising Pss (1)2–89; the “11QPsa Psalter”; and (possibly) the MT Psalter. This hypothetical “11QPsa Psalter” is thought to consist of “Psalms i–lxxxix followed by the arrangement preserved in 11QPsa,”6 representing an alternative edition to that of the 2.  See Willgren, Formation, Part III (81–132), for further examination of the Dead Sea Psalms scrolls and critique of the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis. 3.  Sanders had recognized Pss 1–100 as the “stabilized” portion of the Psalter, but Wilson’s work has since shifted focus to Pss [1]2–89. For summaries of the earlier debate see Gerald H. Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate,” CBQ 47 (1985): 624–42; and Peter W. Flint, “The Contribution of Gerald Wilson Toward Understanding the Book of Psalms in Light of the Psalms Scrolls,” in deClaissé-Walford, ed., The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms, 209–30. 4.  Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 141. 5.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 121. Flint and Wilson nevertheless disagree on the merit of comparing the ages of MSS that support or contradict the MT. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 121–22, claims that the earlier MSS from Qumran contradict the MT arrangement, while only MSS from the first century AD support it, thus evidencing a gradual stabilization. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 144, disagrees with Wilson’s assessment of certain MSS as “contradictory” or “supportive.” 6.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 462.

3. External Editorial Evidence: Qumran and the Septuagint

35

MT Psalter.7 Flint claims that the Qumran MSS predominantly reflect this form over the MT Psalter. He counts three MSS (4QPse, 11QPsa, and 11QPsb) that affirm it against the MT ordering of psalms, compared with a single MS from Masada that supports the MT (MasPsb) against 11QPsa. On the other hand, “no Qumran manuscript supports the MT-150 arrangement against 11QPsa on the macro-level; perhaps some Qumran Psalms scrolls may be aligned with the MT on the basis of key individual variants—but this remains to be demonstrated.”8 Third, although Sanders originally argued that 11QPsa was composed at Qumran, he later modified his view, claiming that the covenanters brought it to Qumran when they fled Jerusalem. Thus 11QPsa was merely copied at Qumran having originated from elsewhere. This is an important aspect of the theory because it allows these scholars to claim a provenance for 11QPsa wider than just the Qumran community.9 The implication is that the MT Psalter was not “the” Psalter in wider Judaism but one among several extended forms of an originally shorter Psalter or, more radically, it took shape only after 11QPsa was composed.10 Evaluation According to Wilson’s data 11QPsa accounts for 26 of the 34 instances of variation (76%) of DSS psalms sequences from their canonical order in MT Books IV–V. This percentage jumps to 82% if we include 11QPsb.11 Without 11QPsa, then, Wilson’s and Flint’s statistics are far less impressive. It therefore matters a great deal whether 11QPsa reflects the state of affairs at Qumran alone or a more widespread situation. Flint’s arguments for wider provenance suffer serious flaws, however. First, he claims that, “[a]ll the individual compositions in 11QPsa seem to predate the Qumran period.”12 Flint has in mind here the non-canonical compositions, which he dates to the third century BC or earlier.13 But all this proves is that the compilers copied previously authored material, which is unsurprising and says nothing about them as an arranged 7.  See also Wilson, “The Structure of the Psalter,” 242; Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 167–71. 8.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 463. 9.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 469–71; The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 199–200. 10.  Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered,” 641. 11.  According to the tabulated data in Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 117, 11QPsb agrees with 11QPsa against the MT ordering of Books IV–V psalms: Pss 141→133→144. 12.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 469–70. 13.  Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 199.

36

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

collection. Second, Flint appeals to “[t]he absence of ‘sectually explicit’ Qumranic indicators,”14 which is precisely that: an argument from absence in a partially preserved scroll. Third, Flint suggests that 11QPsa’s “[e]xpanded orthography” is “by no means a sure indicator of Qumranic provenance.”15 “Expanded orthography” is very much a characteristic of Qumran MSS, however,16 so although Flint is probably correct to warn against firm conclusions based on orthography, it is more accurate to describe 11QPsa’s expanded orthography as an uncertain indicator of Qumranic provenance. Finally, Flint correctly infers from David’s Compositions (column XXVII)17 that 11QPsa reflects a solar calendar. Since the solar calendar was used “among other Jewish circles”18 as well, Flint finds cause to dismiss Goshen-Gottstein’s argument for 11QPsa’s sectarian origin based on its acceptance of this calendar.19 While Flint probably has the better of the argument with Goshen-Gottstein on this point, the solar calendar issue is immaterial. That 11QPsa reflects a characteristic widespread in Judaism does not make it the product of wider Judaism. Thus, Flint’s arguments do no more than establish the possibility of wider provenance in certain respects. On the other hand, MasPsb and its witness to MT psalm sequences is evidence suggesting that it did enjoy a wider provenance beyond Qumran. Setting aside the question of provenance and returning to Flint’s argument for the hypothetical “11QPsa Psalter…containing Psalms i– lxxxix followed by the arrangement preserved in 11QPsa,” Flint appeals to three MSS: 11QPsa, 11QPsb, and 4QPse. Specifically, he contends that, “[w]hile the earlier part of the 11QPsa-Psalter is not found in 11QPsa, material from both Psalms i–lxxxix and the later part is preserved in both 4QPse and 11QPsb.”20 Of these 4QPse yields seven canonical psalms from Books I–III while 11QPsb yields two.21 Flint exaggerates the correspondence between 4QPse and 11QPsa, however, when he claims that 14.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 470. 15.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 470 16.  See Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd ed. (Minnea­ polis: Fortress, 2001), 108–9. 17.  Line 6 says that David provided 365 psalms for the perpetual offering, one for each day of the year. 18.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 470. 19.  Goshen-Gottstein, “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa),” 28 n. 30. 20.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 462. 21.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 462 n. 57, summarizes, “In 4QPse Psalms lxxvi 10–12; lxxvii 1; lxviii [sic] 6–7, 31–33; lxxxi 2–3; lxxxvi 10–11; lxxxviii 1–5; lxxxix 44–48, 50–53. In 11QPsb Psalms lxxvii 18–21; lxxviii 1.”

3. External Editorial Evidence: Qumran and the Septuagint

37

4QPse reflects five psalms in a sequence known from 11QPsa: “cxviii→ civ→[cxlvii]→cv→cxlvi.”22 Psalm 147 is absent from 4QPse, as indicated by Flint’s square brackets. He is probably correct in identifying Ps 118 at the head of this sequence, even though only a meager portion of its final v. 29 remains (‫)טוב כי לע‬.23 On the other hand, only ‫ הללויה‬survives from the last psalm in this sequence, making positive identification impossible. This psalm remnant follows Ps 105 in 4QPse, but since MT Ps 106 also begins with ‫הללויה‬, it could as well be Ps 106 as Ps 146.24 We are therefore left with a four-psalm sequence of Pss 118, 104, 105, and possibly 106, which is at least as close to the MT sequence as that in 11QPsa. So while 4QPse clearly differs from the MT sequence of psalms overall, it does not offer very solid support for 11QPsa and may even contradict it.25 Flint makes a stronger argument in the case of 11QPsb, whose sequence of Pss 141, 133, and 144 and the apocryphal “Plea for Deliverance” matches that found in 11QPsa.26 But since 11QPsb contains only Pss 77–78 from the supposedly stabilized collection, its support for the hypothetical “11QPsa Psalter” overall is very minimal. In sum, the evidence for an 11QPsa Psalter comprised of Pss 1–89 followed by the sequence in 11QPsa is very thin, and illustrates the difficulties raised by the fragmentary nature of the evidence. Several other observations work against a hypothetical “11QPsa Psalter.” First, some MSS actually contradict the psalm sequence in 11QPsa. 4QPsd is noteworthy here because it reverses the sequence of Pss 147 and 104 from that found in 11QPsa II. Similarly, Wilson admits that its “placement…of the ‘Apostrophe to Zion’ immediately preceding other apocryphal compositions does not confirm the order of 11QPsa where this work was followed immediately by the canonical Ps 93 and then eight other canonical psalms.”27 Skehan notes these and several other

22.  Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 462 n. 56. 23.  Psalm 118:29’s reconstructed form is the thanksgiving formula, ‫הודו ליהוה‬ ‫כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬. Though occurring in several psalms, only Ps 118 concludes with it, and the blank space after this verse in 4QPse probably indicates that this was the concluding line of a psalm. Cf. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 104. 24.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 104, agrees that “it is impossible to conclusively identify it, though Ps 106 may be the logical choice.” 25.  Dahmen, Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum, 231, similarly dismisses the parallel between 4QPse and 11QPsa. 26.  Cf. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 114–15. Wilson also identifies in 11QPsb part of a “Catena” of different verses found in 11QPsa (Ps 118:1, 15–16). 27.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 68.

38

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

instances that contradict 11QPsa.28 The apparent flexibility with which the Qumran MSS order their psalms suggests that talk of an “11QPsa Psalter” overstates the “fixed” or authoritative status of its particular sequence at Qumran, let alone wider Judaism. On the other hand, Heinz-Josef Fabry’s explanation that individual psalms were arranged for specific cult-related purposes at Qumran sufficiently accounts for the variety and diversity of psalms scrolls there.29 Second, Beckwith questions the statistical reliability of the surviving Qumran MSS, claiming that “only three manuscripts, in total, speak for Book II of the Psalter, and only three for Book III; and even for Book I there are still two irregular manuscripts, the same as for Book IV.” He concludes that, “the abundance of evidence for irregularities in Book IV–V corresponds directly to the abundance of manuscript material for those two books.”30 Beckwith thus calls into question the claim that the DSS evidence supports a stabilized Books I–III vis-à-vis a fluid Books IV–V, and recalls the point made earlier that 11QPsa and 11QPsb account for the vast majority of the evidence against the MT arrangement with respect to Books IV–V. Third, Andrew E. Steinmann claims that “all of the scholars who deny that the standard collection of 150 psalms was a closed, stabilized collection (Sanders, Wilson and Flint) ignore the implication that 11QPsa itself is assuming that 150 is the basic number of psalms. These scholars never address this point and do not offer any defense for rejecting it as relevant [sic].”31 Steinmann’s claim that 11QPsa assumes 150 to be a “standard” builds on Skehan’s assessment of the prose catalogue (“David’s Compositions”) in column 27.32 This credits David with 3600 psalms (‫ )תהלים‬and counts an additional 450 songs for regular use and for praying over the sick, listing a total of 4050. Skehan recognizes the divisibility of all three figures by 150 as testimony to the established significance of 150 for psalm collections, hence the MT Psalter.

28.  Skehan, “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” 166, who adds 4QPsk to the list of contradictory MSS. 29.  Heinz-Josef Fabry, “Der Psalter in Qumran,” in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum, ed. Erich Zenger (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1998), 137–63 (esp. 159). 30.  Beckwith, “The Early History of the Psalter,” 21–22. 31.  Andrew E. Steinmann, The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon (St. Louis: CPH, 1999), 76. Beckwith, “The Early History of the Psalter,” 22, makes the same point. 32.  Skehan, “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” 169–70.

3. External Editorial Evidence: Qumran and the Septuagint

39

In conclusion, the relationship of Qumran MSS to the canonical Psalter as Wilson and Flint interpret it remains highly speculative, and others more convincingly explain them as liturgically inspired arrangements that presuppose an existing MT Psalter. Since there is little to commend a wider provenance for 11QPsa, the difference in its arrangement is best explained by the Qumran community’s idiosyncratic liturgical needs. The LXX Psalter and the MT Psalter Mitchell and Beckwith argue that the translation of LXX in the second century BC precludes a late date for the final form of the MT Psalter claimed by Wilson.33 For his part, Wilson does not deny that the Hebrew Psalter was translated into Greek, but disputes its content at the time. Indeed, Wilson’s adherence to the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis requires that only the purportedly earlier Messianic Psalter was translated at that time, not the whole MT Psalter.34 But unless one posits an implausibly late production of the extant LXX Psalter, the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis cannot account for the LXX Psalter’s macrostructural dependence on the whole MT. Indeed, even the differences in psalm-divisions35 between MT and LXX attest to the same sequence of psalm material, and the LXX’s explicit description of Ps 151 as “outside the number” (ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ) suggests that 150 is the accepted number of psalms in the Psalter. What, then, of the numerous superscriptional differences between the LXX and MT Psalters? These, too, underscore the LXX’s macrostructural dependence on the MT and also confirm that LXX scribes viewed the MT superscripts as sacrosanct. The LXX superscripts almost always expand their MT equivalent or supply a superscript where the MT lacks one.36 The only exceptions are found in the Songs of Ascent, where LXX Pss 121 and 123 lack the Davidic attribution present in their MT equivalents (Pss 122 and 124).37 Nevertheless, even the Greek witnesses are divided on this. According to Rahlfs, two LXX MSS (and Targum) omit Davidic attribution for MT Ps 122, and a few omit it for MT Ps 124. 33.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 16–20, 80; Beckwith, “Early History of the Psalter,” 6. 34.  Wilson, “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God,” 394. 35.  Gerald H. Wilson, “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter,” ZAW 97 (1985): 411–12. The differences are as follows: MT Pss 9–10 = LXX 9, MT 114–115 = LXX 113, MT 116 = LXX 114–115, and MT 147 = LXX 146–147. 36.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 17–18. 37.  R. Dean Anderson Jr., “The Division and Order of the Psalms,” WTJ 56 (1994): 224, emphasizes this difference.

40

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Another apparent omission turns out to be an alternative division of psalms and superscriptional material: the absence of Αλληλουια postscripts for LXX Pss 103–105, 112–116, 134, 145–147, and 149, where the equivalent MT psalms have ‫הללו יה‬. In every case the equivalent Αλληλουια appears atop the following psalm, reflecting the LXX copyist’s efforts to standardize Αλληλουια as a superscript. LXX Pss 146–148 confirm this. LXX Pss 146–147 are equivalent to MT Ps 147, yet even the component comprising LXX 147 (= MT Ps 147:12–20) has its own Αλληλουια superscript otherwise absent from MT Ps 147:12. Meanwhile LXX Ps 148 has just one Αλληλουια in its superscript where we might expect two given that MT 147 concludes with ‫ הללו יה‬and MT 148 begins with it. The resultant uniformity is most easily explained as having arisen through standardization of a preexisting MT Psalter. It is also interesting that, apart from Pss 9/10 (commonly thought to be a broken acrostic in the MT), all the differences in psalm division between the MT and LXX occur in halleluiah groupings—the same places where these minor divisions involving Αλληλουια occur. This localizes the phenomenon significantly, and suggests that both kinds of alternative division may be part of the same “standardizing” effort. In view of all this, it is clear that the LXX superscripts overwhelmingly preserve their MT counterparts in keeping with the LXX Psalter’s expansive character. This both affirms the LXX’s macrostructural dependence on the whole MT Psalter,38 and underscores the MT superscripts’ sacrosanct status in the eyes of scribes. Nevertheless, Flint sees other, “strong evidence for a Vorlage that differs from M,”39 proffering Ps 151—found in both the LXX and 11QPsa—as one such example. As noted above, however, LXX scribes seem to have regarded Ps 151 as extraneous to the Psalter. The other main example Flint cites is also best explained if LXX translators had the whole MT Psalter before them. Both the LXX and 11QPsa supply a 38.  Further supporting this, Tyler Williams, “Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter,” in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma, ed. Robert J. V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter J. Gentry (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 248–76, and Olivier Munnich, “Indices d’une Septante originelle dans le Psautier grec,” Bib 63 (1982): 406–16, argue that the LXX reflects one translation effort dated to second century BC (according to Williams) based on analysis of unique translations recurring throughout the LXX Psalter, consistency in translating doublets, and other indications that the translator regularly consulted his own translation throughout. Cf. Joachim Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter, WUNT 2/76 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995), 34. 39.  Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 235.

3. External Editorial Evidence: Qumran and the Septuagint

41

“missing” ‫ נ‬verse for the acrostic Ps 145 not found in the MT (v. 13b): πιστὸς κύριος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅσιος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ ≡ ‫נאמן אלוהים בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשיו‬. But as Skehan observes, 11QPsa’s ‫ נ‬verse is, “really a doublet of the ṣade line in the same acrostic” and amounts to a “clumsy repair” of an MT form of the psalm,40 rather than preserving a form of Ps 145 predating the MT. That the LXX differs from 11QPsa by having κύριος instead of θεός (= ‫ אלוהים‬in 11QPsa) shows that the LXX translator was willing to deviate also from the 11QPsa attested form of the text. Consequently, this (near) agreement between the LXX and 11QPsa against the MT does not diminish the LXX’s dependence on the MT. On the contrary, it suggests translators drew on other MSS to fill in perceived gaps like 145:13 or provide supplementary material they deemed fitting (LXX Ps 151).41 In summary, the chronological problems created by the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis, the LXX Psalter’s macrostructural dependence on the MT, and the LXX’s Psalter’s expansionistic tendency all indicate that the LXX scribes(s) translated an established MT Psalter. That being so the LXX sheds no direct light on editorial data within the MT, except to confirm the canonical authority of both its psalms sequence and superscriptional content. It also seems clear that the LXX was translated at some temporal distance from the finalization of the MT sequence. This makes a first-century AD date for that sequence most unlikely (contra. Wilson), and instead suggests that the MT 150 was finalized much earlier in the postexilic period.

40.  Skehan, “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” 171. 41.  Interestingly, R. Dean Anderson Jr. argues for a two-stage redaction by appealing to the relatively greater number of superscriptional additions in LXX Books IV–V than Books I–III. On that basis Anderson claims that the first part of the Psalter was more stabilized than the second. His argument loses force, however, when one bears in mind that the vast majority of psalms lacking superscripts in the MT occur in Books IV–V.

Chapter 4 I n t er n a l E d i tori a l E vi de nce

Chapter 2 identified numerous kinds of evidence within the Psalter itself that have proven especially formative for scholarly views about its shape and shaping. The main categories include superscripts, ‫ הודו‬and ‫הללו יה‬ psalms, the 72:20 postscript, “doublets,” ‫אלהים‬/‫ יהוה‬predominance, doxologies, and lexical and thematic links between psalms and groups of psalms (concatenation). Scholars have often assessed their editorial significance very differently, however. Indeed, some categories of evidence have clearer and more demonstrable editorial implications than others, making it necessary first to reevaluate these kinds of evidence for their utility in identifying editorial intent.1 Editorial Use of Superscripts Wilson’s observations about the deliberate use of superscripts have been well received overall. This is especially the case concerning his views on the organizational function of authorial attribution and genre, but less so regarding the structural significance of ‫ הודו‬and ‫ הללו יה‬psalms in Book V. Authorship as a Principle of Organization There can be no doubt that editors deliberately grouped psalms by common authorial attribution. This is visible throughout the Psalter, no matter how many editorial stages or what kinds of anthologizing processes are posited. The Psalms comprising Book I (Pss 3–41) are all Davidic except for anonymous Pss 10 and 33. Psalm 10 may form a broken acrostic with Ps 9, but its quasi-Davidic status can be inferred from its strongly Davidic context anyway. The same may be said for Ps 33, and

1.  For another re-evaluation of internal evidence, see Willgren, Formation, Part IV (133–286), which addresses Pss 1–2, superscripts, 72:20, “book-dividing” doxologies, and Pss 146–150.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

43

furthermore scholars recognize affinities between Ps 33 and Pss 32 and 34 that strengthen the ties between them and confirm Ps 33’s deliberate editorial association with David.2 Books II and III contain several clear author groups: a Korahite group (Pss 42–49), a Davidic group (Pss 51–72), an Asaph group (Pss 73–83), and another Korahite group (Pss 84–85, 87–88). Several instances require further comment. First, Pss 50 and 86 are special cases because they occur as isolated, attributed psalms. Whatever the specific reasons for Asaph Ps 50’s dislocation from the main Asaph group—a matter explored in Chapters 5 and 9—its oft-noted thematic affinities with Ps 51 regarding sacrifice reflects deliberate effort to relate the two, as does the common genre of Pss 49–51 (‫ )מזמור‬according to Wilson’s “softening” theory. On the other hand, Davidic Ps 86’s superscript bears no resemblance to the Korahite psalms surrounding it. Psalm 86 is a “prayer” (‫ )תפלה‬whereas Pss 85 and 87 are a “psalm,” ‫מזמור‬, and “psalm song,” ‫מזמור שיר‬, respectively. This can hardly be random either. Its centrality to the Korahite group finds a likely counterpart in the central psalm of the Asaph collection, Ps 78. At the very end of Ps 78 we find the only mention of David in the Asaph Pss 73–83, where he is called YHWH’s ‫( עבד‬v. 70). Meanwhile, the psalmist in Ps 86 refers to himself as “your servant” (‫ )עבדך‬three times (vv. 2, 4, and 16). Moreover, the oft-noted lament of Ps 89 confirms the specific importance of David as YHWH’s servant in Book III (89:4, 21, and 40). Further investigation must wait until Chapter 11, but these preliminary observations demonstrate that authorial attribution played an important role in the placement of these psalms, even when not part of a larger group of similarly authored psalms. Second, Pss 43 and 71 lack superscripts but show signs of deliberate association with their attributed neighbors, just like Pss 10 and 33 in Book I.3 Psalms 42 and 43 share a common refrain (42:6, 12; and 43:5). 2.  For example, Norbert L. Lohfink, “The Covenant Formula in Psalm 33,” in Lohfink and Zenger, The God of Israel and the Nations, 117; Pierre Auffret, “ ‘Allez, Fils, Entendez-Moi!’ Etude Structurelle du Psaume 34 et son Rapport au Psaume 33,” EgT 19 (1988): 5–31; Wilson, “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter,” 405–7. 3.  Regarding untitled Pss 10, 33, 43, and 71, Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 131, notes, “For each of these there is strong Mss evidence for combination with the ps which precedes… One is inclined to explain this phenomenon of combination as a secondary attempt to resolve the ‘problem’ presented by the presence of such ‘untitled’ pss in their MT context.” See also Wilson, “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms,” 404–8; and Anderson, “The Division and Order of the Psalms,” 228–31.

44

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Psalm 71 creates a noteworthy thematic sequence with Ps 72 and lies between Davidic Ps 70 and the “Davidizing” postscript of 72:20, about which more will be said shortly. Third, anonymous Pss 66–67 are likewise “sandwiched” between Davidic Pss 65 and 68, and show further evidence of deliberate association with their neighbors through common genre, since all four psalms have ‫ מזמור‬and ‫ שיר‬in their superscripts. Lastly, Pss 87–89 are uniquely linked via authorial attribution. The “double” superscript of Ps 88 attributes it to the Korahites like Ps 87 preceding it and to an Ezrahite like Ps 89 after it. Wilson sums up Ps 88 thus, “Perhaps the present extended s/s [= superscript] is an attempt to preserve alternate traditions about this ps… Regardless of the origin, its effect is quite clear. The first half binds Ps 88 with what precedes (the Qorahite collection) while the second half, with its use of the terms mśkyl and h’zrḥy, binds it to Ps 89 as well.”4 Book IV exhibits the lowest proportion of attributed psalms, with just three of its seventeen psalms bearing a name: Ps 90: ‫ ;למשה‬Pss 101 and 103: ‫לדוד‬. Scholars therefore rely more heavily on lexical and thematic links between psalms when exploring the editorial structure of Book IV. For example, on a synchronic reading Zenger suggests that Pss 90–92 are “Mosaic” due to common themes, and that Pss 101–106 are “Davidic” because they constitute three pairs of “twin” psalms.5 Nevertheless, the Pss 101–103 sequence reflects the same “sandwiching” technique observable with Pss 9–11, 32–33, 42–44 etc. Psalm 102 is headed, “A Prayer of one afflicted, when he is faint and pours out his complaint before YHWH,” and it would seem that editors identified this anonymous “poor man” as the “David” of the preceding and following psalms; a possibility followed up in Chapter 12. Book V has two main clusters of Davidic psalms: Pss 108–110 and Pss 138–145. Beyond these there are only five attributed psalms, and all occur in the Songs of Ascent: Davidic Pss 122, 124, 131, and 133; and Solomonic Ps 127. Like Pss 101 and 103, the Davidic Pss 122 and 124, and 131 and 133 “Davidize” their intervening psalms. This is especially clear in the latter case given Ps 132’s explicit focus on David and the Davidic covenant. But the same intent seems very probable in the case of Ps 123 too, which is attributed to David in 11QPsa where evidently it was read as a Davidic psalm.6 Otherwise Book V displays several conspicuous 4.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 165. 5.  Erich Zenger, “The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalms 90–106),” in Lohfink and Zenger, The God of Israel and the Nations, 167–68, 183–90. 6.  In 11QPsa, Ps 123’s superscript reads ‫]שיר ל[ דויד למעלות‬. The addition of David is all the more remarkable since, as Flint, “The Book of Psalms,” 456, observes,

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

45

groups of psalms recognizable either by their superscripts, as in the Songs of Ascent, or as clustered halleluiah psalms (e.g., Pss 111–117). These groups are obviously not organized by author. Uniquely, the Songs of Ascent prioritize genre over authorship! Genre One of Wilson’s great insights was to recognize that genre categories sometimes “soften” the transition between differently attributed groups except at Book divisions. Strictly speaking only Books II–III use genre to this effect, however. As noted above, Book I is essentially Davidic, and therefore has no author transitions that need softening. Similarly, Books IV and V contain far fewer attributed psalms and therefore do not create the conditions to necessitate it. Within Books II–III, however, this phenomenon occurs in the Korahite–Asaph–Davidic sequence in Pss 49–51 (all ‫ )מזמור‬and the Asaph-Korahite transition between Pss 83 and 84. Concerning the latter, all four psalms at the point of authorial transition (Pss 82–85) bear the common genre of ‫מזמור‬, with Ps 83’s superscript adding ‫שיר‬. Moreover, common genre is used to the same effect in other places besides these transitions between author groups. The ‫ שיר‬+ ‫ מזמור‬combination atop each of Pss 65–68 softens the transition through anonymous Pss 66–67, thus binding them together and “Davidizing” Pss 66–67 within David II. Psalms 87–89 provide a comparable, if unique, example. As noted earlier, Ps 88’s double authorial tradition binds it both the Korahite psalm before it and the Ezrahite psalm after it. But common genres bind these psalms together too, for Pss 87–88 share ‫ שיר מזמור‬in common while Pss 88–89 are both designated ‫משכיל‬. In respect both to authorial attribution and genre, then, Ps 88 functions as an editorial bridge between Pss 87 and 89.7 “[t]he extant superscriptions reveal little variation in comparison with the MT-Psalter,” citing only Pss 123:1 along with 145:1 as “interesting exceptions.” Given that the MT Davidizes Ps 123 through the psalms either side, it is tempting to explain the 11QPsa superscript as a secondary attempt to make its Davidic status explicit. On the other hand, MT Ps 145’s superscript differs very minimally from 11QPsa. Whereas the MT reads ‫( תהלה לדוד‬praise hymn) 11QPsa has ‫( תפלה לדויד‬thanksgiving hymn), apparently due to ‫פ‬/‫ ה‬confusion. 7.  Willgren, Formation, 181, faults Wilson’s “softening” theory, claiming, “For Wilson’s ideas to work, there must have been a scroll with a fixed order of psalms, arranged by ‘author’ designations prior to any smoothing redactional work” and that “while the ‘author’ designations, as well as the placement of these psalms were fixed, the ‘type’ designations were not.” But Wilson’s basic observations in Books I–III do not require this premise at all; simply that editors selected and arranged psalms

46

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Wilson’s theory does not explain the whole story, however. Leslie McFall observes that author groups in Book II appear sorted into subgroups of common genre as well, noting that only Book II has a sufficient variety of genres for such groupings to appear.8 McFall’s view of genre as a “sorting” principle does not satisfactorily explain exceptions like Davidic Ps 51 (‫)מזמור‬, which differs generically from the subsequent Pss 52–55 ‫ משכיל‬psalm group while agreeing in genre with the non-Davidic psalms before it. It seems, then, that both theories explain features that the other overlooks. In fact, where there is overlap they are quite compatible. For example, within McFall’s larger group of Davidic ‫ מזמור‬psalms, Pss 62–68, we find Pss 65 and 68—psalms also designated ‫—שיר‬positioned either side of anonymous ‫ שיר מזמור‬Pss 66–67. It appears, then, that in Book II genre serves both to sort psalms within author groups and to bind together psalms of different or no attribution. More questionably, McFall argues that editors concluded genre-groups with a psalm whose superscript reverses the author–genre or genre–author sequence found throughout the group in question. McFall cites Pss 19–24, 38–40, 56–60, and 75–77.9 Exceptions to this pattern are numerous, however.10 Moreover, the superscript of Ps 41 resumes the original genre– author sequence of Pss 38–39. Given the subsequent change in authorship in Ps 42 and doxology in 41:14, a far stronger case can be made that Ps 41 concludes these ‫ מזמור‬psalms—and Book I—rather than Ps 40. McFall also suggests that portions of the extant superscripts—including genre—might once have been postscripts. Editors, “imposed a uniformity of form on each Psalm, whereby all information regarding authorship, genre, instrument, tune, etc. is gathered at the head of each piece.”11 such that genre attributions soften transitions between author groups, except at book divisions. Once this is recognized, Willgren’s other objections lack force too. For example, it matters little that “Solomonic Ps 72 [is] not bound into the Davidic group with ‘type’ designations,” since 72:20 achieves that by Davidizing the psalm while changing the significance of the reference to Solomon (see below). 8.  Leslie McFall, “The Evidence for a Logical Arrangement of the Psalter,” WTJ 62 (2000), 233. The genre blocks in Book II are as follows: Pss 42, 44–45 = ‫;משכיל‬ Pss 45–46 = ‫ ;שיר‬Pss 47–51 = ‫( מזמור‬Ps 48 also ‫ ;)שיר‬Pss 52–55 = ‫ ;משכיל‬Pss 56–60 = ‫ ;מכתם‬Pss 62–68 = ‫מזמור‬, of which 65–68 are also identified as ‫שיר‬. 9.  McFall, “Evidence,” 235. 10.  Other examples of three or more psalms in sequence that are of the same or similar genre include: Pss 3–6, 29–31, 42–45 (counting 42–43 together), 47–49, 52–55, and 62–65. Several of these groups retain the same author–genre sequence throughout, while others reverse the sequence multiple times or at an earlier point in the group. 11.  McFall, “Evidence,” 240.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

47

With little more to go on than Hab 3:1–19 as a precedent of a postscript, however, this seems too speculative to entertain seriously. Moreover, as noted earlier MT editors clearly did not impose this kind of uniformity on the position of ‫ הללו יה‬in the halleluiah psalms of Books IV–V. It is, rather, the LXX that standardizes Αλληλουια as superscripts, but even this is through alternative psalm division rather than postscript relocation. Nevertheless, McFall’s speculation becomes important for how he views Pss 87–89, which presents an alternative to Wilson’s double superscript explanation. For McFall, the first part of Ps 88’s superscript (‫ )שיר מזמור לבני קרח‬was originally a postscript to Ps 87 that reverses the author–genre sequence of Pss 84–85, and 87.12 Thus, Ps 88’s original “single” superscript read ‫ ;למנצח על מחלת לענות משכיל להימן האזרחי‬the “double” tradition resulting from an error in psalm division during the Psalter’s transmission. McFall’s intriguing proposal is needlessly speculative, however, and for several reasons Wilson’s explanation is the more plausible. First, Ps 87’s “postscript” would be the only other besides 72:20 in the psalms, as McFall himself admits.13 Second, while McFall correctly recognizes that, “the term ‫ למנצח‬is not in its normal initial position” in Ps 88:1 and that “[t]his is unique in the Psalter,”14 Ps 88’s double superscript is itself very unique. In any case, according to Wilson’s double superscript tradition theory, ‫ למנצח‬does occupy its usual initial position because it constitutes the first element of the second tradition. Third, McFall claims that, “four prime witnesses agree in placing the proposed postscript in no-man’s land” between Pss 87 and 88, appealing to gaps in Leningrad Codex 19a and three other witnesses.15 The evidence from L is not impressive, however. L leaves an entire line vacant between the final verse of Ps 87 and the “first” superscript atop Ps 88, whereas Ps 88’s “second” superscript occupies its own line as is normal for the Codex. Thus, McFall’s “open section break” between the two parts of the double superscript appears due to the presence of two superscripts and nothing more. Moreover, the final portion of the “second” superscript, ‫משכיל להימן האזרחי‬, is also set off from the preceding superscriptional material by a small gap, which cautions against reading too much into the space between the two superscripts. Fourth, ‫ שיר מזמור לבני קרח‬resembles the other Korahite superscripts in every way. Even if editors did reverse the author–genre sequence in the concluding psalm of a genre group, there is no reason this could not apply to Ps 88. 12.  Beckwith, “Early History,” 8, also entertains this possibility. 13.  McFall, “Evidence,” 239. 14.  McFall, “Evidence,” 238 (italics original). 15.  McFall, “Evidence,” 239–40.

48

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

In conclusion, McFall’s account of Ps 88:1 is not compelling, and offers no serious challenge to Wilson’s theory that editors softened author transitions within Books II and Book III. The only exception is Davidic Ps 86. But its above-mentioned centrality to the Korahite group and thematic and lexical affinities with Ps 78 suggest that Ps 86 is structurally integral to Book III, the significance of which Chapter 12 explores in more detail. Other Superscriptional Elements Numerous superscripts include other elements, such as brief historical prologues and possible tunes and musical directions of various sorts. These elements are typically more sporadic than author and genre categories in their distribution, and reflect no clear editorial techniques for organizing psalms.16 These features’ distribution in the Psalter is far from even, however, and seems to reflect the different character of its books. For instance, twelve out of thirteen historical notes in the Psalter occur in Books I–II, and eight in Book II alone: Pss 3, 7, 18, and 34 (Book I), and Pss 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, and 63 (Book II).17 The thirteenth is Ps 142:1 in Book V. Their predominance in Books I–II suggests that the editor(s) who arranged these books wished to reflect a stronger historical focus on David’s life. Similarly, musical directions and tunes—whatever their precise meanings—occur mostly in the first three books, with Book II showing the highest concentration.18 Their predominance in Books I–III probably reflects a similar intention to accentuate David’s role as a psalmsinger as well as the temple musicians strongly represented in these Books (Korah, Asaph, Heman, and Ethan). ‫ הודו‬and ‫ הללו יה‬Psalms. Wilson theorizes that ‫ הודו‬psalms begin groups of psalms and ‫הללו יה‬ psalms conclude them. Observing that ‫ הללו יה‬Pss 104–106 coincide with the 106:48 doxology and conclude Book IV, Wilson recognizes three main subsequent groups in Book V: Pss 107–117, Pss 118–135, and 16.  Brevard S. Childs, “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis,” JSS 16 (1971): 137–50, attributes the historical notes to early midrashic exegesis, but does not discuss how this phenomenon might relate to the compositional history of the Psalter. 17.  Mark S. Smith, “The Theology of the Redaction of the Psalter: Some Observations,” ZAW 104 (1992): 408–12. 18.  Besides the very frequent ‫( למנצח‬Pss 4–6; 8–14; 18–22; 31; 36; 39–42; 44–47; 49; 51–62; 64–70; 75–77; 80–81; 84–85; 88; and 109), psalms with musical direction, tune notations, or both include: seven in Book I (Pss 4–6, 8–9, 12, and 22); thirteen in Book II (Pss 45–46, 53–61, 67, and 69); and seven in Book III (Pss 75–77, 80–81, 84, and 88).

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

49

Pss 136–145. Then comes the final doxological conclusion to the whole Psalter in Pss 146–150.19 On the one hand, this breakdown allows Wilson to recognize the integrity of the Songs of Ascent (Pss 120–134) as part of his second group in Book V. On the other hand, his theory implies an editorial division within the Egyptian Hallel group (Pss 113–118) because Ps 118 (‫ )הודו‬introduces Pss 118–135.20 While Wilson’s proposal concerning the concluding function of ‫ הללו יה‬psalms finds some support at Qumran and among the ancient hymnic collections, the introductory function he claims for ‫ הודו‬psalms derives from those psalms’ position after ‫ הללו יה‬psalms, as well as thematic parallels with the ‫ הללו יה‬psalm at the end of the same group.21 It remains open to question whether Wilson’s proposed division of Book V is as important as other more conspicuous groups like Pss 120–134 (Songs of Ascent) and 138–145 (Davidic). Furthermore, although this “concluding” function of ‫ הללו יה‬psalms like Ps 106 comports well with other doxological elements like Pss 106:48, Ps 106 also complicates Wilson’s interpretation of ‫ הודו‬psalms because it—like Ps 107, the opening psalm of Book V—also begins with ‫הודו‬. Indeed, Ps 106 comes up for discussion again below when examining the Psalter’s doxologies. Moreover, Snearly finds strong lexical ties that bind Ps 118 to Pss 113‒117 and Pss 135‒137 to the preceding Songs of Ascent (Pss 120‒134), deeming Wilson’s ‫הללו יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy inadequate for determining Book V’s subgroups.22 Returning to the issue of two redactions, Wilson himself recognizes that “[t]here is no clear evidence…of a functional distinction between halĕlû-yāh psalms (for closing segments) and hôdû psalms (for opening segments) in 11QPsa.”23 Therefore, the similarity of editorial technique between Books IV–V and 11QPsa is not so precise as to require more than a general comparison of arranging techniques. Already the far older evidence of the Sumerian Temple Hymns offers an ancient precedent for the closing function of doxological elements. Given that this organizational technique vastly predates the period of scribal activity at Qumran 19.  Reinhard Kratz, “Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters,” ZTK 93 (1996): 1–34, attributes similar significance to ‫ הודו‬and ‫ הללו יה‬psalms. 20.  So objects Erich Zenger, “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of the Psalms, Psalms 107–145,” JSOT 80 (1998): 87. 21.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 187–90. 22.  Snearly, The Return of the King, 109‒16 and 145‒50. 23.  Gerald H. Wilson, “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping,” CBQ 59 (1997): 448–64.

50

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

(ca. 200 BC to AD 100), such similarities as do exist between MT Books IV–V and 11QPsa are hardly remarkable. Moreover, the absence of ‫הללו יה‬ psalms in Books I–III renders these books’ dissimilarity to 11QPsa equally unremarkable. What similarities in editorial technique that do exist between 11QPsa and Books IV–V vis-à-vis the relative dissimilarities regarding Books I–III provide no reliable basis from which to adduce two editorial stages. Summary Remarks on Superscripts and Their Implications The preceding discussion suggests that the psalms themselves dictate when certain techniques are used, and that superscripts remain the primary means of arranging psalms throughout the Psalter. Redaction-historically speaking, these observations indicate that Wilson et al. exaggerate the differences between editorial techniques evidenced in Book IV–V and those of Books I–III. The differences cannot simply be explained by different (i.e., later) editorial preference, but are in large part due to the psalms themselves—that is, whether they have superscripts, and of what kind they are. Interestingly, Wilson himself approaches this conclusion. Regarding the more prominent organizational role that authorship plays in Books I–III than in Books IV–V, he states that this “is probably due to the paucity of non-Davidic authors for Pss 90–150.”24 In principle, then, Wilson recognizes that the “frozen” superscriptional material limited the extent to which authorship could play an important organizational role for Books IV–V, and that the nature of the psalms themselves accounts for the organizational techniques displayed therein. In practice, however, Wilson makes little use of this insight, accentuating the organizational differences between Books I–III and IV–V in order to argue for two redactional stages as per the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis.25 Wilson adds a further dimension to his two-stage redaction argument, namely, the significant placement of royal psalms (esp. Pss 2, 72, and 89) in Pss 2–89 vis-à-vis wisdom/torah psalms outside these psalms (i.e., Ps 1 and in Book IV–V).26 This is an opportune time to offer a brief critique of Wilson’s theory as it accounts for these features. To its credit, Wilson’s hypothesis is internally coherent to a fair extent: his two-stage theory accounts for the different editorial techniques, the DSS evidence, and the placement of royal psalms if Pss 2–89 are assumed to be an earlier edition of the Psalter. 24.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 157–58. 25.  Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter,” 73–74; and “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God,” 393. 26.  See esp. Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter,” 81.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

51

But when these factors are examined individually, support for the theory of two redactional stages appears fragile. As just noted, the different editorial techniques seem most directly a consequence of the extant superscripts scribes had to work with. Moreover, the external evidence for the Qumran Psalms Hypothesis is not compelling, especially in view of the LXX. The same ensues for Wilson’s view of royal and torah/wisdom psalms in the Psalter. Books I–III contain wisdom/torah psalms (e.g., Pss 8, 19, and 37) and Books IV–V contain royal psalms (e.g., Pss 101, 110, 132, 144, etc.), showing that royal and wisdom concerns permeate the whole Psalter. For his part, Wilson accounts for the royal psalms in Books IV–V as a “Royal Covenantal Frame” (Pss 2 and 144) enclosed by an overriding “wisdom frame” (Pss 1 and 145).27 Wilson interprets this as follows: “the shape of the canonical Psalter preserves a tense dialogue (or a dialogue in tension) between royal covenantal hopes associated with the first two-thirds of the Psalter and the wisdom counsel to trust Yhwh alone associated with the final third.”28 But it unclear why these two expressions of hope should be set against each other, or why wisdom Ps 1 provides a redactional corrective to the royal covenantal theology in Ps 2 without assuming this at the outset. Moreover, Wilson’s “royal” and “wisdom” frames seem an overly intricate way to justify these theological contrasts and privilege wisdom themes over royal ones without more substantial editorial evidence supporting the idea. The Postscript of 72:20 Wilson remarks, “Despite the existence of so may [sic.] s/ss (and one p/s) of obvious secondary origin (i.e., they do not form an integral part of the compositions they accompany, but evidence various secondary concerns), only one of these explicit statements can be said to exercise any organizational function. The exceptional case is the p/s preserved in Ps 72:20.”29 Wilson is essentially correct: 72:20 is the only direct editorial comment in the Psalter that relates to a group of psalms, and no-one disputes its importance as “editorial evidence.” There is less agreement about its significance and implications, however, and the questions involved have consequences for covenantal perspective in the Psalter. 27.  Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter,” 80–81. 28.  Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter,” 81. 29.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 139 (italics original; N.B., s/ss = superscripts, and p/s = postscript). See also Gerald H. Wilson, “The Shape of the Book of Psalms,” Int 46 (1992): 135.

52

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Wilson illustrates the broader struggle to account for 72:20 when he offers two mutually exclusive views about its place in the Psalter’s formation. In general, Wilson sees 72:20 as evidence that “Books One and Two may have combined to form an earlier collection introduced and concluded by ‘Royal’ pss, a collection which because of its high Davidic content (60 of 70 pss) might well justify the description ‘prayers of David.’ ”30 This notion leads Wilson to recognize different editorial perspectives on the Davidic covenant. Psalms 2–72, “might represent a pre-exilic collection reflecting more positively and hopefully on the fortunes of the Davidic kingship, while the extension in 73–89 modifies these hopes in light of the exilic experience.”31 Elsewhere, however, Wilson speculates that 72:20, “may be a later editorial intrusion that has disturbed the original integrity of the Elohistic Psalter.”32 Here Wilson seems to acknowledge an originally independent Elohistic Psalter (hereafter EP). But one cannot have it both ways. If 72:20 disrupted the EP’s “original integrity,” then at no time could it have marked the end of an early Psalter comprising Books I–II. Scholars generally take 72:20 (‫ )כלו תפלות דוד בן־ישי‬as a remnant of an older collection, comprising at least Pss 51–72.33 For many the significance of Ps 72 begins and ends there—a remarkable situation given the common scholarly presupposition that editors exercised considerable freedom when reshaping and extending earlier collections. If this is the case, then why would editors responsible for Pss 86, 101, 103, 108–110 etc. leave it there? Perhaps the only explanation might be that Ps 86 30.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 208; “Shaping the Psalter,” 73; “The Use of Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter,” JSOT 35 (1986): 87–89. 31.  Wilson, “The Use of Royal Psalms,” 91. 32.  Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter,” 77, who notes that “the existence of a distinctively Elohistic Psalter…complicates the issue.” 33.  For example, Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms, 344; Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:194; and John Day, Psalms, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 113, for whom 72:20 and subsequent Davidic psalms make sense only if Books I–II were once “a separate collection” from Books III–V. Willgren, Formation, 199, accounts for 72:20 differently, proposing that it “would not initially have had any greater theological significance than to mark the end of the first scroll of a collection” spanning two scrolls large enough to be divided at Ps 72 (379–80—Willgren proposes a collection approximating Pss 1–119). Most composition-historical models attribute 72:20 to earlier stages of the Psalter’s compositional history, however. More problematic is 72:20’s semantic significance for the closing psalms of Book II noted by Childs, which suggests at least some theological motivation for its placement and arguably its retention/reuse as well (see below).

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

53

was added at the final redaction as Hossfeld and Zenger hold, and that an originally Messianic Psalter (without Davidic psalms after 72:20) stood independent long enough that its contents became sacrosanct for later editors, including 72:20. But even this explanation seems selfdefeating, for the later addition of Ps 86 would itself violate the integrity of Messianic Psalter’s “sacrosanct” shape. Even the LXX’s expansionistic character offers no legitimate precedent for such scribal behavior, since it evidences only the expansion of superscripts and, where a psalm is added to the established collection—i.e., Ps 151—it appears outside it without disrupting the established sequence. When it comes to assessing 72:20’s editorial significance, then, two issues need to be distinguished: the origin of 72:20 (whether originally appended to Ps 72 within a smaller group or created for its present context), and the possibility of a new editorial meaning or function within the expanded collection. Consideration of this second, largely overlooked question yields compelling possibilities. Even if we grant that editors appended 72:20 to an earlier collection comprising Pss 51–72 or that an Asaphite editor added it to mark off those Davidic psalms within his newly expanded collection (Pss 50–83),34 it is plausible that (later) editors intended 72:20 to mark the end of the predominantly Davidic Books I–II within a greater collection. This view has the advantage of crediting 72:20 with a concluding function toward Books I–II without advocating the now unpopular view that those books constituted an earlier, discrete collection. It also suggests a badly needed rationale for why later editors would retain 72:20 from an earlier collection when they could have rid themselves of it so easily. How, then, might later editors have understood it? We noted earlier that unlike ancient interpreters, modern scholars typically steer clear of semantic explanations. Semantically, however, it is striking that David is cited in genealogical terms with the qualifier ‫בן־ישי‬. This identifies him as the “historical” David with whom YHWH made his covenant promises in 2 Sam 7. Strikingly, we find the same genealogical expression (‫ )דוד בן־ישי‬in 2 Sam 23:1, which introduces David’s final words there (‫)ואלה דברי דוד האחרנים‬. I propose, then, that editors understood 72:20 as marking the last prayer of the original, historical David ben-Jesse. Within the framework of the whole Psalter, editors may have understood this qualification to imply that subsequent Davidic psalms looked forward to a future Davidide. Editors had in mind a successor Davidic king—whether every Davidide generally or a future 34.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 4.

54

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

eschatological figure—when incorporating Davidic psalms or those that explicitly mention David (e.g., Ps 132) in the Psalter after Ps 72. Several arguments give considerable credence to this hypothesis. First, as noted earlier, twelve of the thirteen psalms bearing historical prologues occur in Books I–II, thus accentuating their historicality.35 Second, the next Davidic psalm to appear, Ps 86, is superscripted with ‫תפלה לדוד‬, precisely the same genre that 72:20 indicates are “ended.” Since Ps 86 is one of only five ‫ תפלה‬psalms in the Psalter (Pss 17, 86, 90, 102, and 142) it is almost inconceivable that editors selected a psalm superscripted ‫ תפלה לדוד‬without recognizing the equivalent phrase in 72:20 (cf. ‫ תפלות דוד‬in 72:20)36 and the “contradiction” created if one and the same David were in view in both places. ‫ תפלה‬is the only genre designation with the capacity to heighten the sense of contradiction with 72:20 unless editors understood later Davidic psalms in terms of a future David. Third, as Brevard Childs has shown, Pss 71–72 depict an aging David who hands over the throne to “Solomon.” Childs suggests that 72:20 influences the meaning of the Solomonic superscription in Ps 72:1. Rather than designate Solomon as the purported author, editors intended ‫ לשלמה‬to identify Solomon as the successor-king of Ps 72 for whom David prays.37 This finds ready support in v. 1, “Give the king (‫)למלך‬ your justice, O God, and your righteousness to the royal son (‫)לבן־מלך‬,” in which “king” is paralleled with “the royal son.” Since the superscript and postscript identify Solomon and David respectively, this identification 35.  Smith, “The Theology of the Redaction of the Psalter,” 410, surmises that “[t]he single allusion to David’s life in Book V, namely 142,1, shows that the old David is in view, but his lament in this psalm may assume a paradigmatic character.” Psalm 142:1 is also the briefest historical reference, however: “when he was in the cave” (‫)בהיותו במערה‬. That brevity amounts to a vaguer reference to the same referred to in Ps 57:1’s fuller, more explicit historical prologue. Since Ps 142 is situated at such distance from other historical note-bearing psalms, editors possibly intended to dissociate its mooring in historical David’s life in favor of an eschatological stricken shepherd as advocated by Mitchell. 36.  An athnach under ‫ תפלות‬in 72:20 disturbs the construct chain, “prayers of David,” which might be rendered, “prayers are ended. David, son of Jesse.” It is tempting to see this as the Masoretes’ effort to soften the apparent contradiction with Ps 86—indeed, such semantic alteration would resemble the Rabbinic solutions to 72:20 discussed in Chapter 2. Against this is the LXX however, which—despite having “hymns” (‫ )תהלות‬instead of “prayers” (‫ )תפלות‬apparently due to ‫ה‬/‫ פ‬confusion—puts “David son of Jesse” in the genitive case (Δαυιδ τοῦ υἱοῦ Ιεσσαι) and thus bears witness to the construct chain. 37.  Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 516.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

55

of the (new) king as the king’s son in v. 1 suggests that Solomon and his immanent reign are the focus of the prayer in Ps 72. Moreover, Ps 71 is the prayer of an aged person, fitting the picture of an elderly David about to cede the throne to his son. Throughout Ps 71 the psalmist acknowledges YHWH as his “trust” since youth and the womb (vv. 5–6) and prays not to be cast off in his old age and gray hair until he proclaims God’s might to another generation (vv. 9, 17–18). So collocated, then, Pss 71–72 introduce the theme of royal succession to the Psalter. In this light, 72:20’s identification of the historical David ben-Jesse virtually expects subsequent appearances of some other “Davidic” personage as the focus of later psalms. Ezekiel and Hosea prove that such an editorial rereading of ‫ לדוד‬is plausible, referring to an anticipated future Davidic king as simply “David.”38 This is not to suggest that the Psalter loses sight of historical David altogether, but that editors nevertheless intended 72:20 to signal a general shift of focus to a future “David” thereafter within the Psalter’s macrostructure. Of course the most common way David turns up after 72:20 is through ‫ לדוד‬superscriptions. To be clear, I do not suggest that editors understood the ‫ ל‬in ‫לדוד‬ pre- and post-Ps 72 to have a different function, as though it meant “by David” (lamed auctoris) before Ps 72, and “for” or “about David” (lamed of specification)39 after Ps 72, but that editors primarily had a different referent in mind—at least in terms of hermeneutical horizon pre- and post-Ps 72: “historical David” in Books I–II and future/eschato­ logical “David” thereafter. Nevertheless, this example shows that editors could, on occasion, exploit the ambiguity of ‫ ל‬in superscripts and ascribe another important role to these authorial attributions besides the purely organizational one discussed earlier. Editors perhaps assumed David wrote all psalms attributed ‫לדוד‬, but the editorial reuse of psalms superscripted with ‫ לדוד‬as prayers, praises, laments etc. “of/by David” signifies something beyond mere authorship: ‫ לדוד‬comes to mean “David is praying/praising here.” The point at issue pre- and post-72:20 is: which “David,” historical or future? Editors could thus understand later psalms “of David” as prayed or declared “by a future David” (as appropriate to their genre) without necessarily denying historical David as those psalms’ original author.

38.  Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–25; and Hos 3:5, which refers to “latter days” (‫באחרית‬ ‫)הימים‬. 39. See Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 108.

56

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Besides marking the end of David’s prayers, 72:20 also exerts a more immediate function on the psalms closest to it. Not only does it “Davidize” (Solomonic) Ps 72, it also establishes the Davidic identity of the anonymous aged psalmist in Ps 71. This confirms editorial intent behind the sequence described above,40 as well as the quasi-attribution of anonymous psalms via the “sandwiching” technique discussed earlier. To sum up: 72:20 is an unquestionably strong, unique instance of editorial evidence, which is more than a merely mechanical redactional remnant. Far from problematic in view of later Davidic psalms, 72:20 indicates that the editors responsible for the placement of subsequent Davidic psalms had a Davidic successor in mind and not simply historical David as an object of nostalgic reminiscence or pious mimesis. Moreover, if the semantic possibilities just explored are correct, the claim that 72:20 signals the existence of an earlier Psalter becomes far less important. 72:20 could owe its origin to an earlier collection or could have been created for its present context in a Psalter with subsequent Davidic psalms. Either way, the (new?) function and meaning of 72:20 in the Psalter just explored is clearly more significant for investigating editorial intent regarding “David” in the Psalter. Moreover, it invalidates any claim that 72:20 must evidence an earlier collection.

40.  BHS indicates many MSS that conjoin Ps 71 with its predecessor, Davidic Ps 70. If the MT Psalter conjoined them originally, then it could not be claimed that 72:20 “Davidizes” Ps 71, since it would already be part of Davidic Ps 70. The evidence favors codex Leningrad’s witness to Ps 71 as a distinct psalm, however. There are two main reasons. First, 4QPsa fragment g conjoins Ps 71 with MT Ps 38 rather than Ps 70, evidencing a tradition of joining Ps 71 to psalms superscripted with ‫ להזכיר‬since only Pss 38 and 70 fall into this category (Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 97, 131–32). This weakens the case for Ps 71’s original identification with Ps 70, and seems best explained on the assumption that Ps 70 was originally a discreet poem as in the MT. The opposite scenario—that Pss 70–71 were originally one psalm but were split somewhere in transmission—is more difficult to account for, let alone these split off verses’ attachment to MT Ps 38 in 4QPsa. Second, although the LXX overcomes the absence of a superscript for MT Ps 10 by adjoining it to the preceding psalm (perhaps because Pss 9–10 were originally one psalm), it is notable that the LXX handles Ps 70 (= MT 71) by adding a superscript with Τῷ Δαυιδ to underscore its independence from Ps 69 (= MT Ps 70), just as it adds Τῷ Δαυιδ to untitled MT Ps 33 in LXX Ps 32. Anderson, “Division and order of the Psalms,” 231, comes to the same conclusion about Ps 71.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

57

“Doublets” Within the Psalter there are three instances of near-identical psalms or psalm portions: Ps 14 ≅ Ps 53; Ps 40:14–18 ≅ Ps 70:2–6; and Pss 57:8–12 + 60:7–14 ≅ Ps 108:2–14. It is generally assumed that the doublets arose in the growth process of the Psalter, and therefore offer a window into that process. For instance, for Millard the Psalter expanded from the Elohistic Psalter—itself an earlier “Psalter”—during which Pss 14, 40:14–18, and 108 were produced as duplications of their Elohistic counterparts. Setting aside the specifics of Millard’s proposal, his argument raises possibilities about the editorial significance of the doublets, specifically the question of whether the EP represents an earlier, independent collection. The next section addresses this question more deliberately. For now we consider the doublets per se. First, literary-critical opinions differ on the direction of dependence. For instance, Kraus claims that Bernhard Duhm “clearly pointed out that the divergent readings of Psalm 53 are in all points secondary over against Psalm 14,” while Millard takes the opposite view.41 Regarding Pss 40:14–18 and 70:2–6, most scholars argue that Ps 40 was expanded to its current form through the addition of psalm material equivalent to Ps 70:2–6. For Hossfeld and Zenger this happened in the process of “a postexilic redaction of the first Davidic Psalter,” though they acknowledge a minority opinion “that 40:2–18 is an original composition whose latter portion was cut off and secondarily used as an independent psalm, namely Psalm 70.”42 Second, the preference for ‫ יהוה‬or ‫ אלהים‬in the doublets yields ambiguous data. Psalm 14 three times uses ‫ יהוה‬where Ps 53 has ‫אלהים‬, so that each part follows the nominal preference of the EP and non-EP portions of the Psalter. Similarly, Pss 40:14 and 17 have ‫ יהוה‬whereas 70:2 and 5 have ‫אלהים‬. But the reverse occurs in their final verses: the “non-Elohistic” Ps 40:18 has ‫ אלהי‬while Ps 70:6 has ‫יהוה‬. Different again, Ps 108 reflects the same six instances of ‫ אלהים‬as in Pss 57:8–12 and 60:7–14, while the equivalent 57:10 and 108:4 have ‫ אדני‬and ‫ יהוה‬respectively. These contrary examples do not reflect the characteristic editorial priorities of the EP and non-EP portions of the Psalter, making it harder to account for the doublets according to a theory of duplication within the growth process of the Psalter.

41.  Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 220; Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters, 172. Like Kraus, Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 36–39, favor Ps 53’s dependence on Ps 14. 42.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 187–88.

58

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

There is, however, another possibility besides editorial duplication: that the similar psalms had already taken shape and later editors placed them in their present context. Several observations speak for this possibility. First, a cultic origin for both psalms more reasonably explains their differences. Gerstenberger speculates that both Pss 14 and 53 “could be variants in their own right, transmitted in different circles of liturgists,”43 thus attributing their variations to liturgical context. Similarly, he defends the possibility that Ps 40 represents a unified psalm already in cultic use, claiming, “[i]ndependent use of the complaint in Psalm 70 does not preclude the existence of a genuine liturgical composition that embraces precursory thanksgiving and praise.”44 If, on the other hand, one psalm had originated from the other via literary reduplication in the process of the Psalter’s compilation, we could reasonably expect the two to correspond more precisely. Second, superscriptional evidence also suggests parallel traditions. The superscripts of Pss 57 and 60 differ greatly from Ps 108, having only ‫ לדוד‬in common.45 Given editors’ evident care to preserve existing superscripts, it is unlikely that they creatively detached Pss 57 and 60 from their superscriptional moorings, let alone invent the ‫ שיר מזמור לדוד‬superscript atop Ps 108. ‫אלהים‬/‫ יהוה‬Predominance Numerous attempts have been made to explain the so-called Elohistic Psalter. As far as our investigation of covenants is concerned, the main point at issue is whether the predominance of ‫ אלהים‬in Pss 42–83 dilutes the importance of the Psalter’s prima facie book structure. That is, do the EP psalms constitute an alternative subunit more worthy of investigation? The phenomenon of Pss 42–83’s preference for the divine epithet ‫אלהים‬ is hardly in question, having been recognized since Gesenius, Ewald, and Delitzsch.46 The novelty resides rather in how scholars explain the observation and its editorial implications.

43.  Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction, 218. 44.  Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction, 169. 45.  Psalms 57 and 60 bear the same genre (‫ )מכתם‬in contrast to Ps 108 (‫)שיר מזמור‬, and include other musical and historical notes not shared by Ps 108. 46.  For a brief history of scholarship, see Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, “The So-Called Elohistic Psalter: A New Solution for an Old Problem,” in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, ed. Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 35–51.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

59

The older opinion that the EP once stood alone persists in recent scholarship.47 The most common explanation is that the preference for ‫ אלהים‬resulted from a program of editing that replaced ‫ יהוה‬with ‫אלהים‬ in this once-isolated group of psalms. For instance, Mowinckel believed that the EP arose in a later time when scribes “shrank from pronouncing the name of God, and so the change [from ‫ יהוה‬to ‫ ]אלהים‬is linked to the use of this collection in the temple service.”48 Recent scholarship generally finds this explanation wanting, however. First, the “later period” to which Mowinckel refers is too late to explain the phenomenon. As Mitchell observes, the prevalence of ‫ יהוה‬throughout Pss 84–150 shows that not even editors responsible for the final Psalter were influenced by “Tetragrammaton reverence,” making it even less likely that the (supposedly) earlier EP editors came under that influence.49 Second, over forty instances of ‫ יהוה‬throughout Pss 42–83 speak against any kind of programmatic editing based on editorial or authorial preference for ‫אלהים‬, and as Hossfeld and Zenger observe, ‫ אדני‬was the usual replacement of choice rather than ‫אלהים‬.50 More recently scholars have suggested that a theological rationale lies behind the EP. For instance, Martin Rose dates the EP to the Persian era, at which time its editors sought to proclaim YHWH as the one God.51 Similarly, Hossfeld and Zenger attribute Pss 42–83’s Elohistic tendency to an increasingly monotheistic characterization of YHWH that spanned the pre- to postexilic eras, noting especially the interest in “name theology” that attends the raw statistical preference for ‫ אלהים‬over ‫יהוה‬.52 Other explanations presuppose that Pss 42–83 were already part of a larger Psalter. For instance, Laura Joffe argues that editors desired to limit the incidences of ‫ יהוה‬to 42 in a collection of 42 psalms commencing with the forty-second psalm.53 Joffe’s rationale is that 42 signifies disaster and divine judgment, and is a significant organizing element in ancient Near Eastern catalogues. However this rationale is evaluated, the argument 47.  For example, Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters, 169, who cites the doublets, 72:20, and the Elohistic tendency in support of the original independence of the EP, essentially echoing Mowinckel. 48.  Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:194. 49.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 70–71. 50.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 5. 51.  Rose, “Psaumes,” 570. 52.  Hossfeld and Zenger, “The So-Called Elohistic Psalter,” 42–51. 53.  Laura Joffe, “The Answer to the Meaning of Life, Universe and the Elohistic Psalter,” JSOT 27 (2002): 223–35, and “The Elohistic Psalter: What, How and Why?,” SJOT 15 (2001): 142–66.

60

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

suffers from the actual frequency of ‫יהוה‬, which is at least 44.54 David Mitchell also offers a theological explanation in his theory of an eschatological program in the Psalter, which, hints at a literary and theological explanation for the Elohistic Psalter (Pss. 42–83) in exactly its present scope and position. As in the Asaph Psalms, so in the rest of the Elohistic Psalter, the predominance of the term elohim might suggest that Israel in the initial period up until the eschatological conflict are estranged from God and under his judgment and wrath.55

Mitchell does not speculate whether editors achieved the EP’s divine name distribution by selecting “Elohistic” psalms or through a program of editing, but his rationale seems compatible with Joffe’s proposition. Leslie McFall provides a different kind of explanation, though one that need not preclude the theological motivations seen above. McFall sees the predominance of ‫ אלהים‬or ‫ יהוה‬in individual psalms as one of several sorting principles editors used. According to McFall, editors sorted Davidic and Korahite psalms into groups where ‫ יהוה‬outnumbered ‫ אלהים‬in the individual psalms (Pss 3–41 and 84–85, and 87), and groups of psalms exhibiting the reverse trend (Pss 51–72 and 42–49).56 McFall therefore views the predominance of ‫ אלהים‬or ‫ יהוה‬as an inherent characteristic of the individual psalms themselves, not the result of an editing program applied to an existing group of psalms. McFall’s view echoes that of Delitzsch, who connected the phenomenon to these psalms’ “peculiar style of composition,” and “not from the caprice of an editor.”57 We return to the question raised earlier: does the predominance of ‫אלהים‬ in Pss 42–83 indicate a literary subunit more worthy of investigation than the Psalter’s books? There are several reasons to answer this negatively. First, the above summary shows that the editorial implications of the EP are anything but clear. Although an improvement on theories of a mechanical program of editing, the kind of theological rationale for ‫ אלהים‬predominance offered by Hossfeld and Zenger and Rose do not point irresistibly to the EP as an originally independent collection from a particular historical era. In fact, these scholars’ explanations resonate

54.  Joel S. Burnett, “Forty-Two Songs for Elohim: An Ancient Near Eastern Organizing Principle in the Shaping of the Elohistic Psalter,” JSOT 31 (2006): 90 n. 32, counts 45 plus two instances of “Yah.” 55.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 299–300. 56.  McFall, “Evidence,” 228–32. 57.  Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, 1:22.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

61

better with the emphasis on YHWH’s sovereignty reflected in purportedly later editorial stages—as with Book IV’s focus on YHWH’s reign (e.g., Pss 93, 97, and 99), by which time the EP psalms would have already been incorporated at an earlier stage. In this light, the predominance of ‫ אלהים‬in 42–83 provides little basis for the EP as a once-discreet collection. Second, the supportive evidence for an independent EP is ambiguous. Millard argues for a literary-critical break after Ps 83 because he assumes that 72:20 precludes further Davidic psalms.58 But, as shown above, this assumption is not as secure as Millard supposes, and his claim for a literary break before Davidic Ps 86 is questionable at best. Millard also suggests that the doublets point to an independent EP because Pss 14, 40 and 108 are supposedly secondary to their counterparts in the EP.59 But this depends on a specific relationship of dependence between Pss 40, and 70, Pss 14 and 53, and Pss 57/60 and 108. It also assumes that those relationships arose in the compositional process of the Psalter. Even granting the latter, our earlier discussion of the doublets shows considerable disagreement about the direction of dependence. In any case, the portions of the doublets found in the EP occur within the narrower bounds of David II (Pss 51–72). If the doublets provide evidence of an earlier collection, then David II is the more obvious candidate for the “earlier group” than a broader one consisting of Pss 42–83. In general, the most we can say for Millard’s argument is that the assumption of a preexisting EP conveys a certain kind of sense to 72:20 and the doublets when understood in a particular way. But the evidence does not point irresistibly in this direction, especially when other structural markers present a more compelling case. Third, the editorial use of superscriptions discovered by Wilson continues beyond Pss 42–83 to the end of Book III, and also indicates a break after Ps 72. While it is possible that editors supplemented an existing EP to achieve this result, it leaves unanswered why, within a once independent EP, two author transitions involving Korahites (Pss 42–49), Asaph (Ps 50), and David (Ps 51–72) were softened by genre while the transition between Solomonic/Davidic Ps 72 and Asaph Ps 73 was not. Moreover, Mitchell suggests that Pss 42–89 form “the real literary unit” due to a chiastic arrangement: Korah Pss 42–49; Asaph Ps 50; David Pss 51–65, 68–70; Asaph Pss 73–83; Korah Pss 84–85, 87–88, (89).60 This view requires counting a single Asaph psalm (Ps 50) to complete the 58.  Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters, 169. 59.  Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters, 172. 60.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 71.

62

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

chiasm and overlooking psalms of other or no attribution (e.g., Davidic Ps 86). But if we set aside claims of chiasmus, there is still considerable merit in the suggestion that a second Korahite group (Pss 84–88) should— with the exception of Ps 89—round off the literary unit comprising Books II–III just as the first Korahite group had begun it. In any case, the mutually affirming evidence of the doxologies and superscriptional arrangement speaks more clearly for Pss 42–72 and Pss 73–89 as the Psalter’s intended subunits than ‫ אלהים‬predominance does for Pss 42–83. In summing up, the evidence that Pss 42–83 constitute a major editorial subunit is at best ambiguous. The balance achieved through subsequent Korahite Pss 84–85, 87–88, combined with superscriptional evidence and the doxologies at 72:18–19 and 89:53, argues more strongly for two distinct books that were consciously structured that way. Accordingly, Pss 42–83 are unlikely to have constituted an early stage with its own theological profile. Doxologies All scholars recognize the Psalter’s five-book structure to be editorially intended at some level. Some, however, view this structure as a later, somewhat superficial imposition, with the doxologies at 41:14, 72:18–19, 89:52, and 106:48 being repurposed or inserted to conclude their respective books and achieve a five-book structure analogous to the Pentateuch.61 For instance, Christoph Levin argues that the first three doxologies owe their existence to the Psalter’s growth process and that the fourth doxology was added to divide Pss 90–150 into Books IV and V.62 For Beckwith, both 72:18–19 and 106:48 were added to divide a once three-part Psalter into five books.63 Kratz entertains the possibility that a 61.  The Psalter’s doxological conclusion (Ps 145:21 and Pss 146–150) lies outside our immediate concerns here because it has little bearing on the five-part division itself. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 225–28, argues that Ps 145:21 introduces 146–150 as the Psalter’s doxological conclusion, while the older view held by, e.g., Delitzsch, Psalms, 1:15, was that Ps 150 constitutes the final doxology. More recently, Snearly, The Return of the King, 164‒68, argues that 145:21 serves as the fifth doxology with Pss 146‒150 possibly functioning as a final “Amen.” 62.  Levin, “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters.” Cf. Klaus Seybold, Introducing the Psalms, trans. R. Graeme Dunphy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990), 17–18. 63.  Beckwith, “Early History,” 6–8, bases his view on the relative shortness of Books III and IV (17 psalms each) and internal similarities between these three sections with respect to psalm titles and Halleluiah groups (Books IV–V).

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

63

later editorial effort gave rise to all four doxologies and Ps 1, giving the Psalter its Torah-like profile.64 All three scholars therefore consider the book’s structure intentional, but with caveats: the divisions marked by the doxologies are sometimes artificial (e.g., 106:48), or doxologies were intended to conclude groups of psalms other than their preceding book. In contrast to these, Wilson argues that all the doxologies occur at real junctures in the Psalter, intentionally concluding the Psalter’s books. They are not late, artificial additions, but a feature original to the arranging of psalms in the Psalter. At stake here is whether and in what sense the Psalter’s books are its true, editorially intended subunits. The issue therefore merits closer attention, focusing first on the doxologies concluding Books I–III followed by 106:48, which raises a different set of issues. Books I–III Wilson recognized that “genre softening” techniques are conspicuously absent at the Pss 41–42, 72–73, and 89–90 author transitions, suggesting that these author changes represent intentional breaks. Accordingly, the doxologies at 41:14, 72:18–19, and 89:53 conclude real sections of the Psalter. By contrast Levin connects these doxologies exclusively with their presumed redactional groups,65 so that only 41:14 intentionally concluded a group of psalms that aligns with one of the Psalter’s books (i.e., Pss 3–41). It lost its original function when Pss 3–41 were combined with 42–88 and framed by Pss 2 and 89 to create the Messianic Psalter, however.66 In arguing his case, Levin makes an important recognition in principle: the doxologies are integral to the editorial process that yielded the Psalter’s psalms sequences. He cites the doxology at 72:18–19, which precedes the 72:20 postscript, cogently arguing that this would not be the case if it were a later insertion.67 This observation comports with Wilson’s view that the doxologies belonged to their respective psalms and are not the product of later editorial insertion once the psalms sequence had become established.68 But unlike Wilson, Levin views 72:18–19 through a different redaction-historical paradigm that relates it narrowly to the “Elohistic” Davidic psalms (David II) rather than the whole of Book II. 64.  Kratz, “Die Tora Davids,” 28–30. See further Willgren, Formation, 202–43. 65.  Levin, “Entstehung,” 84. 66.  Levin, “Entstehung,” 85–86. 67.  Levin, “Entstehung,” 84–85. 68.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 184–87.

64

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Whereas Wilson’s view depends on relatively straightforward observations about the use of superscripts, Levin operates with more complex redaction-historical speculations and overlooks those same observations. Levin presumes an Asaphite redaction that extended Pss 51–72 by Pss 73–83 and marked the end of David’s prayers by adding the postscript.69 But in order to be viable, an “Asaphite redaction” cannot be so simple. First, it seems unlikely that a “Davidic” collection would end with a Solomonic prayer (Ps 72) not yet “Davidized” by 72:20. Moreover, 72:20 clearly belongs to the strong thematic sequence in Pss 71–72 discussed earlier, where an aging David (Ps 71) cedes the throne to his successor (Ps 72). These observations suggest that 72:20 already belonged to at least Pss 71–72. This would suggest, then, that 72:20 was not a product of the supposed Asaphite redaction after all, unless one credits the Asaphite redactor with adding (at least) Pss 71–72 in order to create the abovedescribed sequence. Indeed, this is Hossfeld and Zenger’s view. They attribute the present shape of David II psalms to Asaphite redactors who expanded, “the exilic collection Psalms 52–68 to form the Davidic Psalter, Psalms 51–72…insert[ing 72:20 as] a caesura between Psalms 51–72 and their own Psalms 73–83.”70 It seems, then, that one must adopt a much more complex redaction-historical paradigm like Hossfeld and Zenger’s if one is to salvage an Asaphite redaction. Moreover, it is unclear why the author-groups should be taken to indicate consecutive editorial layers in the first place, especially when Levin also entertains an EP redaction that contributes some Korahite psalms (42–49) but not those immediately following the EP (84–85, 87–88)!71 More significantly, it overlooks the superscriptional evidence reviewed above, which reflects editorial intention to bind Korahite Pss 42–49, Asaph Ps 50, and Davidic Pss 51–72 into a unit via Wilson’s “softening” technique, not to mention Pss 73–89. This suggests that Pss 42–72—Book II—is the real unit concluded by 72:18–19. In the final analysis, then, there seems to be more reason to recognize 41:14, 72:18–19, and 89:53 as doxological conclusions to the preceding books than merely some portion of them. Psalm 106:48 Wilson, Levin, Hossfeld and Zenger, Kratz, and Beckwith all agree that 106:48 intentionally divides Books IV and V. Despite this agreement, they differ on the extent to which Books IV and V constitute intentional 69.  Levin, “Entstehung,” 84. 70.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 4. 71.  Levin, “Entstehung,” 84.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

65

subunits within the Psalter. For Levin, the Book IV/V division created by 106:48 is somewhat artificial. The position of 106:48 creates a symmetry between Books I and V, which number 41 and 44 psalms respectively, while also producing a similar symmetry between Books III and IV at 17 psalms each.72 As a result he finds little reason to consider Pss 90–106 as a significant subunit of the Psalter. Zenger, on the other hand, attributes a stronger editorial integrity to Book IV because for him the Psalter already consisted of Books I–IV when Book V (and 106:48) was added.73 Wilson likewise understands Pss 90–106 as an editorially intended subunit with its own theological profile. There are several factors to this question. First, Levin is right to recognize the relative weakness of the break between Pss 106 and 107 compared with the other three book divisions.74 This is because these psalms lack authorial attribution, so change in authorship cannot play the same disjunctive role as in the other examples. As discussed above, Wilson argues that Ps 106 concludes a section because it is a halleluiah psalm, and because Ps 107’s opening ‫ הדו‬statement commences a new section. But since both Pss 106 and 107 begin with ‫ה(ו)דו ליהוה כי־טוב כי לעולם חסדו‬, some scholars see an intended sequence rather than a point of disjuncture.75 Nevertheless, an initial ‫ הללויה‬precedes the ‫ הודו‬clause in Ps 106:1 and suggests that the psalm is primarily to be recognized by this ‫הללויה‬ inclusio.76 So, although the ‫ הודו‬clause adds to the continuity between Pss 106 and 107, Ps 106 appears to exercise a concluding function after all. In addition, Paul Sanders considers Ps 107:3’s “He gathered them” (‫)קבצם‬ as an answer to Ps 106:46’s petition to YHWH to “gather us” (‫)וקבצנו‬.77 It is unclear why this should argue for Pss 106–107 as part of an original 72.  Levin, “Entstehung,” 89. 73.  Erich Zenger, “Der Psalter als Buch: Beobachtungen zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Funktion,” in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum, ed. Erich Zenger (Freiburg im Breisgau l’ANCV: Herder, 1998), 27–31. Also Klaus Koch, “Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: für Walter Beyerlin, ed. Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1994), 250. 74.  Levin, “Enstehung,” 86. 75.  For example, Sanders, “Five Books of Psalms?,” 679; and Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, 213–14. 76.  LXX shifts the Αλληλουια from the end of Ps 106 to the beginning of Ps 107, but this is a characteristic feature of the LXX as noted earlier. Syriac omits ‫הללויה‬ after the 106:48 doxology altogether. Zenger, “Der Psalter als Buch,” 29, argues that ‫ הללויה‬belongs to Ps 106. 77.  Sanders, “Five Books of Psalms?,” 679, who also cites Day, Psalms, 112.

66

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

sequence, however, for it could just as well reflect editorial intent to make Book V respond to Book VI’s closing plea. All in all, then, the connections between Pss 106 and 107 are not so strong as to preclude a deliberate break after 106:48.78 Second, 106:48 bears strong similarities to other biblical texts, leading some scholars to theories about its origins based on those intertextual relationships. Among the doxologies, 106:48’s closest parallel is 41:14, notwithstanding the latter’s contracted prepositional form ‫ מהעולם‬where 106:48 has ‫ מן־העולם‬and a double ‫ אמן‬instead of a longer final clause in 106:48 (‫)ואמר כל־העם אמן הללו־יה‬. Accordingly, Levin proposes that 106:48 was constructed from 41:14, and suggests that the latter part comes from the recurrent clause in the catalogue of curses in Deut 27:15–26.79 While the correlations are impressive, they do not explain the textual relationship involved sufficiently; for example, whether a later editor drew upon Ps 41 in its present place in the Psalter to produce these parallels, or the author of Ps 106 was responsible for them. Other scholars argue for a connection between 106:48 and 1 Chr 16:36 because they are identical except for minor differences in verb morphology in their final clauses (1 Chr 16:36 reads ‫)ויאמרו כל־העם אמן והלל ליהוה‬. For instance, Patrick Skehan has argued that 1 Chr 16 presupposes a Psalter where Ps 106:48 was already known to conclude Book IV.80 It is indeed noteworthy that 1 Chr 16:7–36 is composed of Pss 105:1–15, 96:1–13, and 106:1, 47–48, which could suggest that the Chronicler knew Book IV. Aware of the chronological implications for the Psalter’s compositional history and dating, however, Wilson prefers Sanders’ suggestion that “the combination of “floating bits of liturgical material” was a viable means of creating new pss for different situations or occasions.”81 While the dependence of 1 Chr 16:7–36 on Book IV presents a compelling scenario, Wilson’s objection cannot be ruled out. In summary, the correlations between Ps 106:48, Ps 41:14, Deut 27, and 1 Chr 16:36 suggest a relationship between these texts, but we can only speculate about its nature.

78.  Although not convinced that Wilson’s ‫הללו יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy adequately explains Book V’s structure, Snearly, The Return of the King, 109, nevertheless advocates “a literary ‘gap’ between Psalms 106‒107” on grounds such as the internal cohesion of Pss 90‒106. 79.  Levin, “Entstehung,” 88. 80.  Skehan, “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism,” 167–68. 81.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 81, quoting James A. Sanders, “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon,” McCQ 21 (1968): 287.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

67

Third, if 106:48 was original to Ps 106 when the psalm was incorporated into the Psalter, then later editorial insertion is excluded. At stake here is the extent to which Ps 106 marks a genuine point of disjuncture dividing the psalms sequences concluding Book IV from Book V, or if that division is an artificial imposition of an existing sequence (Levin). Favoring the former view and following Mowinckel, Wilson argues that Ps 106 en toto was purposefully placed at the end of Book IV to conclude it. The doxologies are “integral parts of the pss they accompany and have their origin in the liturgical milieu of the cult.”82 His main argument is that this doxology contains subsequent material, namely ‫הללו־יה‬, just as the 72:20 postscript follows the doxology at 72:18–19, suggesting that it is part of the psalm.83 Taking a different view, Zenger sees this ‫ הללו־יה‬as part of a doxological addition. Against this one might suggest the initial ‫ הללויה‬in Ps 106:1 forms an inclusio with this final ‫הללו־יה‬, supporting its and the doxology’s originality. Indeed, we noted earlier that the Psalter’s compilers organized the psalms chiefly by arranging whole psalms, rather than manipulating their compositional integrity. Given this proclivity, Wilson’s proposition seems the better suggestion, even if possibilities such as Zenger’s cannot be entirely ruled out. Moreover, other ‫ ברוך‬formulae in the Psalter make v. 48’s originality to Ps 106 very plausible: Pss 28:6; 31:22; 66:20; 68:20, 36; 119:12; 124:6; 135:21; 144:1; and perhaps 18:47. Notably, all of these occur in the body of their psalms except for Pss 66:20, 68:36, and 135:21, where ‫ ברוך‬formulae appear at the end.84 This shows that psalmists clearly employed ‫ ברוך‬formulae in their compositions. When it comes to Pss 66:20, 68:36, and 135:21—the final verses of their respective psalms— one may ask if they potentially function in a similar concluding way as 106:48. Of course Ps 66:20 and 68:38 occur within David II, where such a function is unlikely. But these examples bear minimal resemblance to the four main doxologies in any case, having only the words ‫ברוך‬ and ‫ אלהים‬in common. Psalm 135:21 offers a closer parallel, however, preserving as it does the ‫ ברוך יהוה‬formula and concluding with ‫הללו־יה‬ like 106:48—even if it lacks other terms like ‫אלהי ישראל‬, ‫עולם‬, and ‫אמן‬ 82.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 185–86, appealing to Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, 2:193. 83.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 185–86. 84.  The DSS data on these psalms is mostly inconclusive because some fragments preserve only the verse that follows the ‫ ברוך‬verse (e.g., 4QPsa I contains Ps 31:23–25, while 11QPsa IV picks up with Ps 124:7). On the other hand, 4QPsh preserves Pss 119:10–21, and 11QPsa preserves Ps 144:1–7, hence both include ‫ ברוך‬in the body of their psalm fragments.

68

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

that distinguish the four doxologies. Interestingly, Wilson’s identification of a minor break at Ps 135/136 on the basis of his ‫הללו יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomy agrees with this.85 If this is indeed the case, then Ps 135:21 offers a similar parallel to Ps 106:48 and other doxologies, for its “lesser” ‫ברוך‬ formula would occur at a correspondingly “lesser” juncture within the Psalter. Importantly, the imperative form ‫ ברכו‬occurs twice in v. 20, offering good reason to recognize the ‫ ברוך‬formula in v. 21 as part of Ps 135 rather than a later insertion, suggesting that editors selected Ps 135 with doxology included as a possible conclusion for the Songs of Ascent. Snearly argues that the impressive lexical ties between Pss 135– 137 eschew Wilson’s ‫הללו יה‬/‫ הודו‬taxonomical explanation for a break at Ps 135, however, so caution is warranted.86 At the same time, such ties make the situation at Pss 135/136 even more analogous to the situation at Pss 106/107, where a similarly strong continuity of linguistic ties exists across a ‫ ברוך‬formulation at the end of a psalm. At the least, Ps 135:21 adds weight to the view that Ps 106 was selected en toto because of v. 48’s close formal resemblance to the other major doxologies, rather than 106:48 being artificially tacked on at some later date. Finally, the internal unity of Pss 90–106 itself has a bearing on whether or not 106:48 marks a deliberate break. This of course returns us to the most important implication of the doxologies, namely, their witness to the Psalter’s books as its major subunits. Chapter 12 addresses Book IV in more detail, but here we briefly note a couple of observations that suggest Pss 90–106 form a deliberate subunit. First, the concluding function of halleluiah Pss 104–106 presupposes a larger sequence of which it is a part, and Pss 90–106 presents a good prima facie candidate. Second, mircrostructural studies identify psalm groups that align with Book IV. For example, David Howard’s analysis of the lexical and thematic connections throughout Pss 93–100 suggest deliberate editorial effort to associate at least these psalms with one another, while Zenger argues that Pss 101–106 comprise three psalm pairs.87 Third, as often noted, Book IV contains seven out of the Psalter’s eight mentions of “Moses” (90:1; 99:6; 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, and 32). These span the entire book, beginning with Ps 90’s superscript and ending with multiple mentions in the Pss 105–106 pair to form a strong thematic inclusio around Book IV.88 85.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 188–89. 86.  Snearly, The Return of the King, 145‒50. 87.  Howard, The Structure of Psalms 93–100; Zenger, “The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalms 90–106),” 183–90. 88.  Snearly, The Return of the King, 108; Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 187–88, 215.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

69

Summary Remarks on Doxologies and Their Implications From a synchronic perspective the five-book structure suggests an analogy to the Mosaic Pentateuch as observed since ancient times. Whatever its theological significance this suggests that the Psalter’s major subunits are the five books, just as many investigations into the Psalter presuppose following Wilson. But as the foregoing discussion illustrates, the issue becomes more involved from a diachronic perspective. In my view, Wilson’s analysis convincingly accounts for the Korahite–Asaph–David author-group transitions in Books I–III, making it unnecessary and even counter-intuitive to attribute these transitions to Asaphite or EP redactional layering. Perhaps even more significant is that such theories of redactional layering fail to account for the superscriptional techniques Wilson observes. Moreover, our reevaluation of the EP, 72:20, and doublets suggests that such theories of redactional layering are more speculative than necessary. Wilson’s two-stage model of the five-book structure is, of course, only a product of a “final” redaction too. But our main concern at this point has been whether or not the Psalter’s books constitute its major editorial units. Even supposing that Pss 2–89 were originally independent, their doxologies would suggest a “three-book structure” according to Wilson’s analysis, with the addition of Books IV–V increasing the number to five. Although his two-stage model is open to criticism, then, Wilson was justified in recognizing the Psalter’s “seams” as places of high editorial importance, and the covenantal references and allusions found near them merit close attention. Lexical and Thematic Connections between Psalms Scholars typically account for lexical and thematic “links” between psalms in two ways: either they originated with the individual psalms and motivated their placement, or editors created them to bind psalms together—or some combination thereof.89 Delitzsch and McFall predominantly reflect the first approach,90 whereas classical literary-critical methodologies (e.g., Lohfink, Hossfeld, and Zenger) often invoke the second kind of explanation, routinely accounting for common features as redactional glosses or additions. The degree to which editors adapted the psalms to “create” links between them is impossible to tell on the basis of 89.  Zenger, “Der Psalter als Buch,” 12, makes the same distinction between iuxtapositio as deliberate collocation and concatenatio as redactional linkage. 90.  Delitzsch, Psalms, 1:21; McFall, “Evidence.”

70

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

the text itself, however. Provided the connections are sufficiently strong or numerous they provide a basis for detecting editorial intention to associate certain psalms without these speculative explanations. That said, there is also reason to think that editors did not routinely manipulate psalms when they incorporated them into the Psalter. Wilson’s analysis suggests that editors went to considerable lengths to retain existing psalm superscripts when arranging sequences of psalms. Their use of “frozen” superscripts reflects a conscious effort to preserve traditions associated with individual psalms when adapting them to their new literary context.91 Significantly, Wilson shows that this apparently Psalter-wide phenomenon is not unique to the Psalter, but a long-established ancient Near Eastern practice.92 This raises an important implication: when psalms were “adapted to a function in a far different and later context,” as Wilson describes it, this was achieved ostensibly through placement and ordering rather than literary manipulation.93 For instance, anonymous Pss 66 and 67 have been “Davidized” without altering their superscripts. The same effect could have been achieved more simply by adding ‫לדוד‬ to the superscripts if the editor(s) responsible for the arrangement had been disposed to making such alterations. Under these circumstances it is difficult to imagine editors routinely adding redactional glosses. Nor do the parallels between 1 Chr 16:7–36 and Pss 105:1–15, 96:1–13, and 106:1, 47–48, or between the Psalter’s “doublets,” suggest that editors routinely reshaped psalms through redactional glosses. Sanders’ claim about the recombination of “floating bits of liturgical material” encountered above94 is a plausible explanation for these parallels. But it does not speak for the likelihood that editors routinely added redactional glosses at 91.  McFall, “Evidence,” 236, argues that “the compiler is arranging rather than editing the material that has come down to him.” Cf. Anderson, “Division and Order,” 226; and Beckwith, “Early History,” 10–11. 92.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 21–23, suggests a formative transmission history of the Sumerian Temple Hymn collection that spans from the time of its original compiler, Enheduanna the daughter of Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BC), to the Ur III period (end of the third century), with some hymns possibly going back to 2600 BC. 93.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 23. Wilson does not discuss in detail what he means by “adapted” here—i.e., whether only in function due to a new literary context or also in their composition. Nevertheless, concerning “individual literary compositions” incorporated into the Sumerian Temple Hymns Wilson remarks parenthetically, “each maintaining its own integrity,” suggesting the former sense of “adapted.” 94.  Sanders, “Cave 11 Surprises,” 287.

4. Internal Editorial Evidence

71

their theological whim, let alone prove that such recombination occurred during the Psalter’s compilation process. Although favoring growth by accretion, Anthony Gelston arrives at a similar conclusion: it seems overwhelmingly probable that the unit of composition in the Psalter is the individual psalm… It is evident that there was no final process of editing the Psalter, by which such duplications might have been removed, and textual inconsistencies between parallel passages ironed out. In all probability this should not be ascribed to editorial negligence, but rather to respect for texts hallowed by long usage in worship, which had already acquired a degree of sacrosanctity.95

It therefore seems best to conclude that lexical and thematic links between psalms generally reflect editorial selection of psalms rather than “redactional” manipulation of their contents. Conclusion Several important outcomes emerge from the foregoing reevaluation of internal evidence that impact our investigation of covenant relationships. First, the major editorial data at best offer ambiguous support for multistage redaction hypotheses like those of Wilson or Zenger. For instance, Zenger’s interpretation of author transitions, the Elohistic Psalter, 72:20, and so on as evidence of redactional layering ultimately seems arbitrary in the light of other observations concerning these phenomena. On closer examination, the evidence from Qumran or superscriptional evidence does not offer very strong support for Wilson’s two-stage redaction either. Diachronically speaking, Mitchell’s hypothesis of one redactional impulse behind the Psalter’s macrostructure is at least as likely as any of the alternatives. The implications for our investigation are clear: (a) it should not presuppose any one redactional model; and (b) the degree of continuity or discontinuity in editorial perspective(s) within the Psalter must remain a demonstrandum, not a methodological presupposition. Second, we are now better placed to identify editorially intended relationships between psalms in the Psalter. The specific results can be summarized as follows. Author groups play a conspicuous role in organizing psalms, both conjunctively and disjunctively. This is especially 95.  Anthony Gelston, “Editorial Arrangement in Book IV of the Psalter,” in Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Katharine J. Dell, Graham Davies, and Yee Von Koh, VTSup 135 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 165.

72

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

apparent at book divisions and where anonymous psalms are “sandwiched” between authored psalms. Genre plays a predominately conjunctive role, though one that is generally subordinate to authorship except in the Songs of Ascent. Lexical and thematic links likewise reveal conscious effort to associate psalms more closely together, depending on the strength and/ or number of the connections. 72:20 “Davidizes” the anonymous Ps 71 and Solomonic Ps 72, and demonstrates that consecutive psalms may intentionally convey an unfolding “meta-narratival” sequence. Moreover, beyond being a mere editorial relic, 72:20 likely signals an editorially intended transition from historical David to David’s successor(s) within the Psalter, suggesting also that Davidic attribution plays a greater role in the Psalter than simply to record traditional authorship. Rather, the Psalter appears designed such that these attributed psalms—in broad terms— give voice to historical David pre-Ps 72 and future/eschatological David post-Ps 72. On the other hand, it is difficult to draw more confident conclusions about the doublets owing to their small number and uncertain genesis. A similar situation ensues with the EP, though it at least suggests that similar theological emphases span Pss 42–83. Finally, we might add that editors sometimes employed concentric or chiastic structures in arranging (and therefore relating) psalms (e.g., Pss 15–24), and gave intentional shape to the Psalter in terms of its beginning and end (Pss 1–2, 146–150).

Part II A n E xp l oratory S u rv ey of C ove nantal R e fe r e n c es a n d A l l us i on s i n t he P salt e r

Chapter 5 A S u rv ey of “C oven a n t ” i n t he P salte r : I nt r od uctory M at t ers and D i r e ct R ef er en ces to Y H W H’ s ‫בר ית‬

To facilitate our study of covenant relationships, Part II surveys references and allusions to the biblical covenants throughout the Psalter. To date scholars have produced very little survey work on the theme of covenant in the Psalter, and those that exist are far from comprehensive. This is not surprising. The importance of Israel’s covenant traditions in the psalms is self-evident and requires no methodological demonstration (e.g., Pss 50, 81, 89, etc.). Moreover, earlier scholarship’s dimmer view of editorial intentionality in the canonical Psalter gave little reason to explore it as an aspect of editorial agenda. The situation has changed now that the field has widened, however, and if the Psalter’s covenant-theological contours are to be discovered and analyzed then a survey of references and allusions to the major biblical covenants is essential. Previous Surveys of “Covenant” in the Psalter Artur Weiser’s commentary on the Psalms is the most comprehensive attempt to account for the Psalter’s covenantal concerns. Consistent with earlier scholarship, however, Weiser approaches the matter with a cult-functional approach rather than analyzing the Psalter as an edited product.1 Weiser redefined Mowinckel’s annual enthronement festival in terms of a covenant renewal festival providing the original Sitz im Leben for most of the psalms,2 and saw covenantal expressions and terms like YHWH’s theophanic “shining forth” (‫ )הופיע‬in 50:2; 80:2; and 94:1 as evidence of the psalms’ use in such a festival. While such expressions

1.  Weiser, The Psalms. 2.  Weiser, The Psalms, 35.

76

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

undoubtedly evoked covenant associations for those who arranged the Psalter, their connection with a particular annual festival remains conjectural. Weiser’s covenant renewal festival therefore suffers the same weakness as Mowinckel’s: insufficient evidence for such a festival in Israel to account for the all or most of the Psalms. Samuel Terrien thus questions Weiser’s exclusive focus on an autumn festival, suggesting that “room must also be reserved for the other seasonal feasts, Massoth and Pesach, and also Shebhu‘oth, as well as a score of other public acts of worship.”3 This suggests that potential allusions should be approached without the assumption of a covenant renewal festival driving their interpretation, even if psalms like Pss 50, 81, and 95 are widely understood to have their Sitze in cultic festivals celebrating YHWH’s covenant with his people.4 While some psalms were likely used in cultic covenant renewal contexts, the issue is not as pressing as it might seem, however, since our primary interest is in later editors’ perception and literary use of those psalms rather than their original liturgical Sitze. Other attempts to survey covenant allusions in the Psalter are typically partial in nature. Hossfeld’s treatment is selective rather than heuristic or comprehensive.5 Johanna W. H. Bos’s 1977 dissertation on the Sinai covenant in the Psalter traces ‫ ברית‬in eight psalms,6 but her survey is narrowly concerned with critiquing Weiser’s project, hence whether or not ‫ ברית‬refers to the covenant-making at Sinai. The present investigation requires a much more comprehensive survey than these, however. Surveying “Covenant”: A Two-Pronged Approach The present chapter examines the term “covenant” (‫ )ברית‬in individual psalms, exploring covenantal entailments in each instance and drawing preliminary conclusions about covenant relationships as each psalm 3.  Samuel Terrien, review of Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary, JBR 4 (1963): 334. See also Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 60–61. 4.  Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 61, describes Pss 50, 81, and 95 as “the three great festival psalms in the Psalter.” Cf. Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction, 210, who views Ps 50 as postexilic. 5.  Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, “Bundestheologie im Psalter,” in Der neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente, ed. Erich Zenger (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1992), 169–76; and “Bund und Tora in den Psalmen,” in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für J. Maier, ed. H. Merk­ lein, BBB 88 (Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1993), 66–77. 6.  Johanna W. H. Bos, “Psalms and Sinai Covenant” (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1977).

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

77

allows. It thus begins to test the hypothesis set out in Chapter 1. As shown below, some psalms readily identify which of the historic covenants is in view. For example, ‫ ברית‬occurs four times in Ps 89 in plain reference to the Davidic covenant (vv. 4, 29, 35, and 40), and twice in Ps 105:8–11 regarding the Abrahamic covenant. Other cases are more subtle. For instance, contextual factors suggest that ‫ ברית‬has primarily Mosaic covenantal entailments in Pss 25, 44, 50, and 78 through allusions, for example, to Sinaitic commandments (Ps 50:17–18) or the covenantal obligation to walk in YHWH’s “way” or instruction (Pss 25:9–10 and 44:17–18), historical recollection, or echoes of the “grace formula” in Exod 34:6–7. A caveat is in order here, however, for although a given instance of ‫ ברית‬may refer most obviously to a particular biblical covenant, it does not follow that this should be its exclusive meaning there at the editorial level. Indeed, the degree of unity and conceptual overlap that editors perceived between the covenants is precisely what this survey sets out to explore. The Psalter’s allusions to biblical covenants are not limited to the term ‫ברית‬, however, for the same allusive language that qualifies ‫ברית‬ also appears in psalms lacking this word. Chapters 6–8 therefore survey different kinds of implicit “criteria” or indirect references (phrases, lexemes, formulae, themes, etc.) that recall prominent aspects of premonarchic covenants in the Psalter and examine their (re-)association with David in the Psalter, thus affording a more expansive view of the Psalter’s references and allusions to covenant. Such “criteria” are best viewed as a potential indicator of covenantal themes, not a strict condition of an allusion to a covenant, and that is how the term is used in this study. Indeed, the allusive strength of these criteria varies from instance to instance, and the results of this second part of the survey are necessarily tentative (see “Identifying Allusions” below). Sketching their distribution in this way benefits our investigation in important ways. Overall it furnishes a fuller view of the Psalter’s covenantal “landscape” by complementing the present chapter’s survey of ‫ברית‬. It also highlights psalms where multiple criteria mutually confirm their covenant-alluding force, and justifies the selection of Pss 1–2, 72:17, 86:15, 103:8, and 145:8 as texts worthy of special focus in Part III’s investigation of covenant relationships. Moreover, tracing covenant-alluding criteria enables us to examine their potential editorial importance and form preliminary—if tentative— conclusions about whether and to what extent Abrahamic and Mosaic covenantal criteria are cast in terms of “David” and the Davidic covenant. Accordingly, Chapter 6 explores “David” as YHWH’s covenant partner

78

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

par excellence by investigating allusions to the covenant formula and to YHWH’s “inheritance” (‫ )נחלה‬and “special possession” (‫)סגלה‬. Chapter 7 explores David as observer of the Mosaic covenant by examining allusions to the Shema (Deut 6:4[–7]), clustered terminology relating to covenant stipulations (‫חקים‬/‫חקות‬, ‫עדות‬, ‫מצות‬, and ‫[ משפטים‬and ‫)]פקודים‬, allusions to the Decalogue, and wisdom motifs such as “walking” in YHWH’s “way,” the “two ways,” and “the fear of YHWH,” of which Deuteronomic theology makes generous use. It concludes with an addendum on the singular forms of ‫ חק‬and ‫עדות‬, whose more commonly occurring plural forms are surveyed earlier in the chapter. Chapter 8 then traces the distribution of “Moses,” “Sinai”/“Horeb,” and allusions to the Song of the Sea (Exod 15) to explore the possibility that editors viewed David as a Moses-like singer of praise who praises God for a new Exodus-like salvation. Indeed, this possibility complements our proposal that “David” fills the traditionally Mosaic role of intercessor to renew the covenant. Then follows an examination of allusions to the gift/possessing of the land promised first in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:1, 7–8; 15:7, 16; 17:8), a promise that appears to be both “universalized” and “royalized” in the Psalter. Chapter 8 also explores David as a priestly mediator of YHWH’s blessing and a Moses-like intercessor by examining allusions to Num 6:24–26 and Deut 9:26, and David as confessor of YHWH through possible allusions to Deut 7:9–10. Chapter 8 concludes by exploring some criteria that provide important evidence for our proposal, namely, the extent to which “Servant–Lord” (‫אדון‬/‫ )עבד‬and “Father–Son” (‫בן‬/‫)אב‬ language is reserved for David and YHWH, hence his status as royal son and servant of YHWH. It also offers a brief examination of the few references to YHWH’s sworn promises (‫ )שבע ;שבועה‬in the Psalter and the extent of their association with David. Some criteria belong naturally to Chapters 9–13, and so are examined there. For example, Chapter 9 investigates allusions to Gen 12:3 and its parallels and “Abraham” because that chapter focuses on Ps 72:17’s allusion to the Abrahamic promise in Gen 12:3 within Books I–II, exploring David as an “agent of blessing” and the promised seed through which all nations would be blessed. Similarly, our main examination of allusions to the grace formula (Exod 34:6) is reserved for Chapters 10–13, which focus especially on Pss 86, 103, and 145 in Books III–V, thus exploring further the possibility of David as a Moses-like intercessor and proclaimer of YHWH’s mercy.

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

79

Identifying Allusions: Some Methodological Considerations Such survey work is inherently intertextual, for it involves identifying inner-biblical allusions to significant covenantal texts and language. Michael Fishbane’s study of inner-biblical allusion rightly urges caution when it comes to inner-biblical allusions, however, since common lexical features could be coincidental—the product of shared vocabulary or schools of thought. The recurrence of lexical features known from older biblical tradita may establish the possibility of an allusion, but stop short of proving that the author intended one.7 Fishbane’s caution has limited relevance here, however. First, whereas he investigates an author’s exegetical reuse of a traditum, the present investigation is concerned with the editorial reception and reuse of the individual psalms in which this dynamic has already occurred. It is therefore one step removed from the traditum–traditio phenomenon as Fishbane examines it. Second, rather than examine potential allusions as isolated instances of exegesis, our investigation of editorial perspective on covenant requires a survey of allusions across multiple psalms. The Psalter, its subgroups, and psalm-sequences are our “text”—not individual psalms in isolation—and frequently that “wider view” confirms the likelihood that editors perceived an allusion in a specific instance through other reinforcing allusions. Third, whereas Fishbane’s study of inner-biblical exegesis is confined to instances where a traditum has undergone some degree of discernible transformation, this investigation requires detection of covenant allusions whether or not the psalmist has significantly reshaped or redirected his received traditum. Again, this is because our object is to examine the editors’ perspective rather than that of the psalm’s author. Fourth, while a good number of covenant allusions are textual allusions (e.g., 2 Sam 7; Exod 34, etc.), our investigation is not strictly limited in this way. Some themes (e.g., promise of land, “two ways” theology, etc.) and vocabulary (e.g., ‫חסד‬, ‫אמונה‬, ‫אמת‬, and their frequent pairing) have the potential to achieve a covenantal allusion without specific or obvious dependency on any one covenantal text. As one would expect, allusions to the Mosaic covenant or its characteristics abound in the Psalter. This is not surprising given the large amount of Pentateuchal material devoted to the Mosaic covenant throughout Exodus–Deuteronomy and the increased potential for intertextuality, let alone the influence of the cult on the Psalms. In view of this, Chapters 6–8 explore criteria whose allusive potential have already been identified 7.  Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 12–13, 289.

80

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

in the course of this chapter’s study of ‫ברית‬. When it comes to spotting an allusion, it is assumed that the greater the lexical, syntactic, and/or thematic similarities between biblical texts and their possible allusions in a psalm, the stronger the allusion recognizable to editors who incorporated that psalm in the Psalter. Occasionally the survey explores psalms’ intertextual relation to specific texts (e.g., Deut 6:4–7 and 7:9–10). This is not to deny the importance of other Pentateuchal texts, especially those that contain some of the same elements. For example, an allusion to Deut 6:5’s command to “love YHWH with all your heart” might well be understood as an allusion to the similar terminology in Deut 13:4. In the final analysis, however, what matters is that the psalm in question evokes key themes or terms with strong Mosaic covenantal associations. A Question of Terminology: the “Mosaic Covenant” For several reasons we shall generally use the more inclusive term “Mosaic” rather than “Sinaitic” when referring to that covenant. First, this investigation is concerned with editorial perception of the tradition, not a historical investigation of narrower traditional strata. For their part, editors likely did not perceive any meaningful difference between the Sinaitic covenant and the second law-giving recorded in Deuteronomy, but recognized the same Mosaic covenantal reality in both. Second, Book IV includes the name of “Moses” seven times and itself raises the question of how the Davidic covenant—so focal in Books I–III—relates to its pre-monarchic counterparts. The Psalter itself therefore prompts the question of covenant relationships in broader “Mosaic” terms rather than the “Sinai covenant” narrowly conceived. Thus the term “Mosaic covenant” is appropriate for our investigation. Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter: Direct References to YHWH’s ‫ברית‬ The term ‫ ברית‬occurs 21 times in the Psalter in 13 psalms: Pss 25:10, 14; 44:17; 50:5, 16; 55:21; 74:20; 78:10, 37; 83:6; 89:4, 29, 35, 40; 103:18; 105:8, 10; 106:45; 111:5, 9; and 132:12. Of these, Pss 55:21 and 83:6 can be discounted since they either refer to a private covenant or agreement or a covenant made against YHWH by his enemies.8 8.  Paul Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and Ancient Near East (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982), 9, includes Ps 55:9 as examples of “secular berît texts.” In Ps 83:6 ten nations (vv. 7–9) “conspire with one accord; against you they make a covenant (‫)עליך ברית יכרתו‬.”

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

81

Psalm 25 Davidic Ps 25 is an acrostic prayer asking for YHWH’s forgiveness, help, and instruction. Other features that give Ps 25 its wisdom character include “fearing YHWH” introduced in v. 12 (‫)ירא יהוה‬, an emphasis on teaching and instruction (cf. ‫ יורה‬in v. 8, and ‫ למד‬in vv. 4, 5, and 9), and frequent references to YHWH’s “ways” (cf. ‫ דרך‬in vv. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12). Within Book I, Ps 25 appears to begin a cluster of psalms after the oft-noted chiastically arranged Pss 15–24, which center around torah Ps 19 and neighboring royal psalms (Pss 18, 20–21).9 This gives Ps 25 a degree of editorial prominence, as well as the theme of “YHWH’s covenant,” which itself stands out in the psalm.10 Moreover, this and the subsequent psalm, Ps 26, begin by affirming David’s trust and integrity (25:2; 26:1) as one who has, “wash[ed his] hands in innocence and go[es] about your altar” (26:6), echoing the positive picture of kingship developed in the Ps 15–24 group and its particular interest in entrance into the sanctuary (15:1; 24:3). The term ‫ ברית‬appears in Ps 25 at vv. 10 and 14, and in both places takes a 3ms suffix (‫ )בריתו‬that identifies it as YHWH’s covenant. Besides the suffix, both instances use the term without further explicit qualification, which suggests that the psalmist deems its meaning self-evident. The definite, singular form of the reference, “his covenant,” also accentuates the singularity and particularity of YHWH’s covenant and excludes any notion of a plurality of covenants within the horizon of the psalm. So what further entailments does ‫ ברית‬have in Ps 25? Verse 10 pairs ‫ בריתו‬with “his testimonies,” which YHWH’s people “keep” (‫לנצרי בריתו‬ ‫—)ועדתיו‬expressions naturally associated with the Mosaic covenant.11 Psalm 132:12 similarly parallels the term ‫ ברית‬with ‫ עדות‬with ‫—שמר‬a 9.  See, e.g., Miller, “Kingship, Torah Obedience, and Prayer”; Grant, The King as Exemplar, 73. 10.  The scope of this subsequent group could extend to the end of Book I as, e.g., Grant, The King as Exemplar, 239, seems to suggest. Alternatively, Ps 34 might conclude a subgroup of equivalent length to Pss 15–24, for it too is an acrostic and shares numerous affinities with Ps 25 (see Les D. Maloney, “Intertextual Links: Part of the Poetic Artistry within the Book I Acrostic Psalms,” RQ 49 [2007], 11–21, who explores these psalms’ intertextual links and draws attention to David Noel Freedman’s work on them). Either way, Ps 25 is the first of a group of psalms following Pss 15–24. 11.  Moses’ blessing of Levi in Deut 33:9 offers a parallel to Ps 25:10. In Deut 33:9 as in Ps 25:10 ‫ נצר‬has a masculine plural subject and ‫ ברית‬as its object )‫(כי שמרו אמרתן ובריתך ינצרו‬, whereupon 33:10 enjoins the Levites to “teach Jacob your rules (‫ )משפטיך‬and Israel your law (‫)ותורתך‬.” Otherwise, when human beings are the subject of ‫ נצר‬it most often occurs with plural object nouns like ‫( מצות‬e.g., 78:7), ‫( חקים‬e.g., Ps 105:45; 119:145), ‫( עדות‬Ps 119:2, 22) and similar terms.

82

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

semantic equivalent of ‫נצר‬, where it relates God’s expectations of David’s sons within the Davidic covenant (see below). Returning to Mosaic covenantal entailments, vv. 6–7 contain numerous terms found in Exod 34:6–7 (‫רחם‬, ‫חסד‬, ‫חטאה‬, and ‫)פשע‬.12 The psalmist pleads with YHWH to “remember your mercy (‫…)רחמיך‬and steadfast love (‫)וחסדיך‬,” and, “[r] emember not the sins (‫ )חטאות‬of my youth or my transgressions (‫)ופשעי‬.” In a similar way, Moses had taken up the terminology of the grace formula in his intercession for the Israelites in Num 14:18–19. A few verses later v. 13 declares concerning v. 12’s “man who fears YHWH” )‫(האיש ירא יהוה‬ that “his offspring shall inherit the land” (‫(וזרעו יירש ארץ‬, echoing the promise of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 15:18) taken up extensively in Deuteronomy. Then comes the second occurrence of ‫ ברית‬in 25:14. There YHWH’s covenant (‫ )בריתו‬parallels his “counsel” (‫ ;)סוד יהוה‬a term that occurs predominantly in the prophets and wisdom literature.13 25:14 reads, “The [counsel]14 of YHWH is for those who fear him (‫ )ליראיו‬and he makes known to them (‫ )להודיעם‬his covenant.” In sum, the “Davidic” praying subject of Ps 25 describes “YHWH’s covenant” in sapiental tones, with strong entailments of both Abrahamic promises and Mosaic covenantal life and obligations that appear open to application to David’s successors. Moreover, the statements about YHWH’s covenant in vv. 10 and 14 are preceded by petitions for mercy or forgiveness, suggesting that YHWH’s forgiving character is foundational to the integrity of the covenant and the psalmist’s participation in it (esp. vv. 6–7). Indeed, those petitions’ broad similarity to Moses’ intercession in Num 14 at least raises the possibility that later editors perceived Ps 25 as David praying for himself according to a model of Mosaic intercession, whose importance for the preservation and renewal of the covenant was well-established. Psalm 44 Psalm 44 is the third psalm of the Korahite group beginning Book II; the second if Pss 42–43 are counted as one psalm. As in Ps 25, ‫ ברית‬is definite in Ps 44:18—in this case due to the 2nd sg. suffix—stressing its singularity and particularity. After recalling God’s favorable dealings in former times (vv. 1–9), and lamenting his present rejection (vv. 10–17), the psalmist claims in v. 18 that, “[a]ll this has come upon us, though we 12.  ‫טוב‬, which occurs in YHWH’s 33:19, could be added here too. 13.  ‫ סוד‬occurs mostly in Jeremiah, Job, Proverbs, Psalms, and once in Genesis, Ezekiel, and Amos. 14.  ESV: “friendship.”

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

83

have not forgotten you (‫)ולא שכחנוך‬, and we have not been false to your covenant (‫)ולא־שקרנו בבריתך‬.” Indeed, Deuteronomy’s frequent warning not to “forget YHWH” or his covenant seems to stand behind the psalm in general and v. 18 in particular. In v. 19 the psalmist underscores the people’s covenantal fidelity by declaring, “Our heart has not turned back (‫)לא־נסוג אחור‬, nor have our steps departed from your way (‫)ארחך‬.”15 In v. 21 the psalmist implies the people are innocent with regard to “forgetting (‫ )שכח‬God’s name (‫”)שם‬ and worshipping “foreign gods” (‫)לאל זר‬, alluding to the commands to, “have no other gods” (Exod 20:3/Deut 5:7), and to, “not take the name of YHWH your God in vain” (Exod 20:7/Deut 5:11). Rhetorically, the psalmist protests that YHWH has rejected and disgraced the people (vv. 10–17) even though they have heeded the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. Thus, Ps 44 laments God’s apparent rejection of his people in a manner reminiscent of Ps 89, leveling no blame at the people just as Ps 89 levels no blame at the king.16 And like Ps 89 the Korahite psalmist looks to YHWH to rectify the situation in Ps 44, calling on him to “awake” and “rouse yourself” (v. 24) and “rise up” and “redeem us” (v. 27). Verses 3–4 exhibit further Mosaic covenantal entailments, acknowledging possession of the land by YHWH’s doing, not their own military power (v. 4a), thus echoing the motif of the gift of land prominent in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenantal texts (e.g., Gen 15:7; Exod 23:30; Lev 20:24; 25:24; Num 35:53; Deut 3:18; 4:14; 6:1; 7:6–7; 9:4–5 etc.). Since their success in gaining the land was God’s doing, he alone can prosper them now (vv. 5–9). As in Ps 25, then, ‫ ברית‬has predominantly Abrahamic and Mosaic covenantal entailments in Ps 44. Similarly, the definite and absolute use of ‫ ברית‬affirms the singularity of the concept of “covenant” and assumes its referent to be self-evident. Psalm 50 Psalm 50 is conspicuous by its separation from the main group of Asaph psalms (Pss 73–83) and the apparent editorial effort to smooth the transition from the Korahite and Davidic psalms either side of it. Moreover, Ps 50 and David’s penitential Ps 51 each display a special interest in offerings 15.  The verb ‫ סוג‬+ ‫ אחור‬occurs numerous times in prophetic literature in ways comparable to Ps 44:19 (cf. Isa 42:17; 50:5; 59:14; Jer 38:22; and 46:5). 16.  See below on Ps 89. Note, e.g., the common verb, “you have rejected” (‫)זנחת‬ in 44:10 and 89:39. John Goldingay, Psalms, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006–2008), 2:663, even suggests that Ps 89 is, “a heightened version of Ps. 44.”

84

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

(50:5, 7, 14, 23; 51:18–22), suggesting deliberate connection between Asaph Ps 50 and David II around this theme. It therefore stands in a place of demonstrable editorial importance. As one of the three commonly identified “festival psalms” noted earlier, Ps 50 moves from a description of theophany (vv. 1–6) to God’s address to his covenant people (vv. 7–23). The term ‫ ברית‬occurs first in v. 5, where God summons his, “faithful ones (‫)חסידי‬, who made a covenant with [him] by sacrifice (‫)כרתי בריתי עלי־זבח‬.” The second occurrence is in v. 16, where God challenges “the wicked” (‫)ולרשע‬, asking them, “What right have you to recite my statutes (‫ )חקי‬or take my covenant on your lips (‫ ”?)ותשא בריתי עלי־פיך‬Both times ‫ ברית‬has the 1st sg. suffix, highlighting the particularity of the covenant as in Pss 25 and 44.17 The parallel between ‫ חסידי‬and ‫ כרתי בריתי עלי־זבח‬in v. 5 also identifies the people closely with the sacrificial cult. More specifically, v. 5 appears to recall Exodus 24 where Moses consecrated the people with the “blood of the covenant” at Mt Sinai.18 Several other indicators within the psalm also highlight Mosaic covenantal concerns. The address in v. 7, “Hear, O my people (‫…)שמעה עמי‬I am God, your God (‫)אלהים אלהיך אנכי‬,” resembles the Shema in Deut 6:4 and the numerous instances of similar “self-introductory” formulae found throughout Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.19 Moreover, v. 18 charges the wicked with consorting with thieves and adulterers, thereby alluding to the corresponding prohibitions in the Decalogue (Exod 20:14–15; Deut 5:18–19),20 and v. 20 implies the command against false witness in Exod 20:16 despite lexical dissimilarities. Furthermore, Ps 50’s attribution to Asaph suggests its natural association with centralized worship under David and especially Solomon. Notably, v. 2 bespeaks a theophany in Zion: “Out of Zion, the perfection 17.  MS evidence from Cairo Geniza, as well as the LXX and Syriac reflect third person singular suffix in v. 5. 18.  Geoffrey W. Grogan, Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 105; Willem A. Vangemeren, Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 428. 19.  Rolf Rendtorff, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, OTS (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), 15 n. 23, credits the term “self-introductory formula” to Walter Zimmerli, who identifies it as “Ich bin Jahwe.” The formula usually uses “YHWH” (e.g., Exod 6:7, ‫אני יהוה אלהיכם‬, and some 27 other instances in Exodus–Deuteronomy, which account for the vast majority of occurrences). The resemblance is scarcely obscured by Ps 50’s use of ‫אלהים‬, especially since it occurs in the “Elohistic” portion of the Psalter. 20.  Peter Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC 19 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 366.

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

85

of beauty, God shines forth.” In this connection Jon Levenson observes that “the renewal of the Sinaitic covenant has become a liturgy of the Temple of Jerusalem.”21 For Levenson, the covenantal life begun at Sinai was not merely superseded, but vibrantly taken up at Mt Zion, which Ps 50’s divine summons powerfully demonstrates. When it comes to human kingship, however, further possibilities need to be explored than Levenson’s analysis allows, and the dissociation of Ps 50 from other Asaph psalms raises the possibility that editors deliberately associated it with the subsequent Davidic group (Pss 51–72), perhaps in order to present David or the royal office as a response to God’s summons in Ps 50. Chapter 9’s analysis of Books I–II explores this possibility and its implications for how editors understood David’s relationship to the Mosaic covenant. Psalm 74 Asaph Ps 74 laments the oppression of a scoffing enemy (vv. 18, 22–23) that has profaned YHWH’s name and defiled his sanctuary (vv. 3–8, 18). Whether or not the psalm was authored with the 587 BC destruction of the temple in view, editors living after that event could hardly avoid this association.22 Verse 20 petitions God to, “have regard for the covenant” (‫)הבט לברית‬. This definite form of ‫ ברית‬is unique in the psalms, where ‫ ברית‬normally takes a possessive suffix, leading Johanna Bos to suspect textual corruption. There are numerous precedents of ‫ ברית‬with the definite article outside the Psalter, however, particularly in regard to the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:12, 17) and in construct chains from clear Mosaic covenantal contexts: for example, “the book of the covenant” (‫ ספר הברית‬in Exod 24:7), “the blood of the covenant” (‫ דם־הברית‬in Exod 24:8), “the words of the covenant” (‫ דברי הברית‬in Exod 34:28), “the tablets of the covenant” (‫לוחת הברית‬ in Deut 9:9, 11, 15), “the ark of the covenant” (‫ ארון הברית‬in Josh 3:6, 8, 14; 4:9; 6:6), etc.23 More pertinently, Deut 7:9 describes “YHWH your God” as, “the faithful God who keeps [the] covenant (‫ )הברית‬and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations.” As in Ps 74:20, the definite form ‫ הברית‬is stated in an absolute, unqualified manner, making it possible that Ps 74:20 appeals 21.  Jon D. Levenson, Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New York: HarperCollins, 1985), 207. Similarly, Samuel Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 396. 22.  Christine D. B. Jones, “The Psalms of Asaph: A Study of the Function of a Psalm Collection” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2009), 68 and 72. 23.  Bos, “Psalms and Sinai Covenant,” 243.

86

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

to YHWH to act according to his nature as expressed in Deut 7:9. The evidence for a specific allusion to Deut 7:9 here is otherwise minimal though. On the other hand, v. 2 presents a corresponding petition to v. 20 that clarifies the horizon of Ps 74 and puts into view the covenant mediated by Moses after the Exodus. It asks God to “[r]emember your congregation, which you purchased (‫ )קנית‬of old, which you have redeemed (‫)גאלת‬ to be the tribe of your heritage…Mount Zion, where you have dwelt.” This bears striking lexical and conceptual resemblance to the Song of the Sea in Exod 15 where we find the expressions, “the people whom you have redeemed” (‫)עם־זו גאלת‬, and, “people…whom you have purchased” (‫)עם־זו קנית‬, in Exod 15:13 and 16 respectively. References to Zion in v. 2, the lament over enemies destroying everything “in the sanctuary” (‫ )בקדש‬in v. 3, and the later mention of YHWH’s sanctuary (‫ מקדשך‬24 and ‫)משכן־שמך‬ in v. 7 find further parallel in v. 17 of the Song of the Sea, where YHWH leads his people to “the mountain of your inheritance25 (‫…)בחר נחלתך‬ the sanctuary (‫…)מקדש‬which your hands have established.” Moreover, vv. 12–13 clearly recall the Exodus: God, who is “King from of old” (Exod 15:18), “divided the sea by [his] might.” Finally, the description of God’s people in v. 1 as “the sheep of your pasture” (‫ )בצאן מרעיתך‬resembles variations on the covenant formula found in Ps 95:7 and 100:3 (also Asaph Ps 79:13) to be explored further in Chapter 6. These data strongly associate “the covenant” with both God’s redemption of his people at the Exodus and Mt Zion. The covenant exists between God and his people, but the complaint and petitions of the psalm revolve around the sanctuary at Zion. As Jon Levenson’s study of Sinai and Zion also shows, the seamless shift from ‫ לברית‬to “Zion” in Ps 74 reflects an essential unity between the Mosaic covenant and Zion as its locale.26 Moreover, inasmuch as Ps 74 associates ‫ ברית‬with a blend of both Exodus and Zion motifs, it also reflects a similar convergence of themes found a little later in the Asaph group in Ps 78, whose earlier focus on the Mosaic covenant shifts to God’s election of Judah, Zion, and David. Psalm 78 At seventy-two verses long, Ps 78 is second only to Ps 119 in length, and dominates the main group of eleven Asaph psalms where it is the central psalm of the group. Psalm 78 is often described as a historical psalm 24.  Multiple MSS have the plural, “your sanctuaries,” but LXX, Vg., and Tg. witness the sg. 25.  ESV: “your own mountain.” 26.  Levenson, Sinai & Zion, 187–217.

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

87

like Pss 105 and 106, and interestingly all three contain the term ‫ברית‬. Psalm 78 presents Israel’s history as a repeating cycle of the people’s faithlessness followed by God’s mercy and intervention, and culminates with God’s election of Judah, Zion, and David (vv. 68–72). Indeed, Ps 78 seems primarily concerned with this theological pattern of Israel’s existence rather than chronological precision, and Hossfeld and Zenger’s description of the psalm as “history in poetic refraction” seems apt.27 Psalm 78’s final, positive focus on David, Zion and Judah—in contrast to the foregoing pattern of sin and rebellion—suggest that YHWH’s “election” of these (‫ בחר‬in vv. 68 and 70) is in some sense his solution to the people’s perpetual faithlessness. The sequence in vv. 68–72 narrows from tribe (Judah), to city/mountain (Zion), to sanctuary, and finally to an individual, David. Verses 70–72 then elaborate David’s vocation more fully at the psalm’s conclusion. Even within the narrower purview of this sequence, then, David is the culminating point.28 Specifically, God elected David, “to shepherd Jacob his people, Israel his inheritance (‫)נחלתו‬.” Verse 72 then concludes the psalm by identifying David’s “uprightness of heart” (‫ )כתם לבבו‬and “skillful hand” (‫ )ובתבונות כפיו‬as instrumental to David’s success in his vocational task as shepherd. All this raises important implications for covenant relationships, for it presents David/ the Davidic king as God’s solution to his people’s perennial faithlessness to the Mosaic covenant. More specifically, it suggests that he is somehow central to the renewal of the Mosaic covenant and the people’s continued status as “YHWH’s inheritance” within it. Indeed, Ps 78 places “David” in a relationship to the Mosaic covenant that coheres with Kraus’ description of the king’s central role in its maintenance/renewal (see Chapter 1). At the very least, Ps 78 presents the monarchy as the solution to Mosaic covenantal failure, rather than the Mosaic covenant as the solution to Davidic covenantal failure as Wilson’s model suggests. Indeed, both instances of ‫( ברית‬vv. 10 and 37) offer succinct statements about Israel’s unfaithfulness to YHWH in terms that primarily evoke the Mosaic covenant. Verse 10 states, “They did not keep God’s covenant, 27.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 286 (italics original). 28.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 405. Concerning the psalm’s final verses, Jones, “The Psalms of Asaph,” 89, remarks, “In some sense the verses provide great hope.” For Jones that hope consists of the inspiring memory of David rather than a restored Davidic monarchy or future Davidide, however, which aligns with her purpose to “test the thesis that the Psalms of Asaph as a collection guide the reader through the turmoil experienced by the people as a result of the exile” (Jones, “The Psalms of Asaph,” 2), and owes much to the historicizing approaches of Wilson, McCann, et al.

88

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

but refused to walk according to his law,” thereby paralleling (not) “walking according to torah” (‫ )ובתורתו מאנו ללכת‬and (not) “keeping covenant” (‫)לא שמרו ברית אלהים‬. Verse 37 similarly expresses Israel’s problem as its faithlessness regarding God’s ‫ברית‬. Their faithlessness toward the covenant (‫ )ולא נאמנו בבריתו‬is met by God’s compassionate (‫ )רחום‬and forgiving (‫ )יכפר עון‬response (v. 38) in which YHWH turns from “his anger” (‫)אפו‬. This cluster of terminology elicits YHWH’s response in Exod 34:6–7 to Israel’s breach of the Mosaic covenant, whereupon he renewed that covenant (Exod 34:10).29 Since YHWH’s choice of Judah, Zion, and David in vv. 68–72 culminates Ps 78’s “recounting” of his deeds (v. 4), the psalm assumes strong continuity between God’s forgiveness and covenant renewal in Exod 34:6–7 and his election of David as shepherd. Psalm 78’s use of ‫ עדות‬also suggests that ‫ ברית‬has primarily Mosaic covenantal associations in the psalm. According to v. 5, God “established a testimony (‫ )עדות‬in Jacob and appointed a law (‫ )ותורה‬in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children.” Verse 4 indicates that YHWH’s “praises” (‫)תהלות יהוה‬, “might” (‫)ועזוזו‬, and “the wonders that he has done” (‫ )ונפלאותיו אשר עשה‬are the substance of that command, so that ‫ עדות‬and ‫ תורה‬have to do most directly with YHWH’s acts recounted throughout the psalm. The term ‫ תורה‬thus takes a broad sense that embraces God’s creative and redemptive acts and not just the Mosaic covenantal stipulations. The psalmist invites his hearers to “[g]ive ear… to my teaching” (‫ )תורה‬and resolves to “tell to the coming generation” the “things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us” (v. 3), echoing Moses’ injunction to teach future generations in Deut 6:4–7. So while ‫ עדות‬does not refer directly to the Mosaic covenant per se, it denotes a command equivalent to that attending the great Shema, underscoring the primarily Mosaic entailments of ‫ ברית‬in the psalm. Psalm 78’s premonarchic focus prior to v. 68 also suggests the particular association of ‫ ברית‬and ‫ עדות‬in vv. 5, 10, and 37 with the Mosaic covenant. It seems clear, then, that Ps 78 employs ‫ ברית‬primarily in reference to the Mosaic covenant. Indeed, Goldingay likens the whole psalm to Moses’ song in Deut 32, describing it as “exhortation in poetic form.”30 Of most interest for our investigation is the larger context in which Ps 78 employs these references. The people keep breaking the covenant, and God keeps judging and showing mercy to sustain the covenant relationship—a cycle 29.  Similarly, Vanderzee-Pals, “God’s Moral Essence,” 106, identifies Ps 78:38 as an echo of Exod 34:6–7. 30.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:479. Similarly, Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 286, liken it to Exod 15, Deut 32, and Judg 5.

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

89

seen clearly in the Deuteronomic History (DH). The psalm culminates the cycle with the rejection of the northern tribes (vv. 65–67) and election of Judah, Zion, and David (vv. 68–72). The psalmist does not care to recount the Davidic dynasty’s subsequent “highs and lows” as the DH does, but rather accentuates David’s status as “his servant” (‫—)עבדו‬a feature that becomes especially significant for our analysis of Book III in Chapter 11. Within the horizon of Ps 78, then, YHWH’s election of Judah, Zion, and David is only positive, and the institutions of monarchy and centralized sanctuary are presented as God’s answer to this cycle. How, then, did editors understand “David.” One possibility is that editors understood 78:68–72 as a nostalgic, historical reference to the centralization of worship in Zion and election of historical David as the next—now passé—stage in dealing with his people. Grammatically, the verb sequence ‫ ינחם…וירעם‬in v. 72—a waw consecutive imperfect verb followed by a shortened imperfect verb form—can be understood as historic sequence rather than present. Nevertheless the second verb-form leaves room for its interpretation in a present, ongoing, or even future sense: “He guides them” or “will (still/yet) guide them,” etc. Disagreement in aspect within verb sequences is common in Hebrew poetry, however, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions on verb form alone. Even if editors understood the “historic” David of the past as these verbs’ ostensive referent, it does not follow that they saw no present or future implications in God’s election of “David” as founding figure for the Davidic monarchy. Indeed, such a present/future perspective seems more in keeping with Ps 78’s illustrative way of recalling history, as seen, for example, with v. 38’s general application of the echoes of Exod 34:6–7.31 The whole psalm seems less concerned with temporal sequence than it does establishing the Davidic covenant’s theological importance in relation to the Mosaic covenant that God’s people repeatedly broke. On the one hand, this echoes Levenson’s view of the close relationship between the Mosaic covenant and Zion. On the other hand, noting that the construction of the temple (v. 69) precedes David’s election (v. 70), Levenson writes, “In contrast to what we read in Samuel and Kings, Psalm 78 describes the divine choice of Zion (in the tribe of Judah) as lying before the rise of David…because to the psalmist, the essential meaning of the Temple lies in its foundation in primal times, in illo tempore, in other words, in its protological character.”32 Levenson makes 31.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 286, highlight vv. 32–39 and vv. 61–64 as portions where the psalm’s “metaphors and poetic depictions” are “not to be applied precisely to a concrete event.” 32.  Levenson, Sinai & Zion, 106.

90

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

a fair point concerning the temple’s significance,33 but we may also ask why the sequence begins with Judah and not with Zion. Indeed, Ps 78’s concluding verses suggest that there is more to the psalmist’s lack of regard for strict chronology than Levenson’s explanation can account for. We see in Ps 78:68–72 a narrowing focus from tribe (Judah) to mountain (Zion) to individual (David) that culminates with the latter. Though these all clearly go together, it is on the last, “David,” that the psalm places greatest stress. Furthermore, it is plausible if not probable that editors understood the election of Judah, Zion, and David in a more “institutional” sense that transcends the particularities of tenth century BC events and keeps in view the divine purpose for Davidic king and sanctuary in the present and future. Within the canonical Psalter, or even a hypothetical smaller collection like the EP or the larger “Messianic Psalter” (Books I–III), Ps 78’s placement after the “royal succession” themed Pss 71–72 renders it unlikely that editors understood these verses as referring exclusively to “historical David.” Rather, Ps 78’s position after Ps 72 suggests that editors saw in vv. 70–72 the institution of the monarchy and future Davidides. Such a view is also more consistent with Book III’s “present” interest in the fortunes of the monarchy, which we see clearly in Ps 89. Of course, this does not settle the question of whether Books IV–V maintain this positive view of kingship or deflect hope away from it. But these observations nevertheless raise questions about McCann’s claim that Books I–III reorient hope away from kingship much earlier than Ps 89.34 Psalm 89 Psalm 89’s placement at the end of Book III and earnest lament over YHWH’s apparent neglect of the Davidic covenant give it obvious relevance for an investigation of covenant relationships. As noted above, Wilson maintains that Ps 89 presents a crisis to which Books IV–V offer some kind of response and, notwithstanding disagreement on the nature of that response, this view enjoys considerable popularity. The following analysis examines Ps 89’s presentation of the Davidic covenant, use of ‫ברית‬, and the crisis concerning it, whereupon it also considers the psalm’s potential for editorial reuse.

33.  For his full analysis of Zion as cosmic mountain, see Levenson, Sinai and Zion, 111–36. 34.  McCann, A Theological Introduction, and “Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Psalter.”

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

91

Psalm 89’s Presentation of the Davidic Covenant. In general, scholars believe the author of Ps 89 consciously depended on Nathan’s oracle to David in 2 Sam 7. Fishbane sees Ps 89 as an example of “mantic exegesis,” which sought to preserve the validity of the oracle in a new historical situation through “subtle adjustments,” but that stretched the 2 Sam 7 source text in tendentious ways.35 On the other hand, Knut Heim suggests the “highly artistic” Ps 89 “may go beyond its source text, but it does not go against it.”36 Alternatively, Goldingay suggests neither piece bears the marks of direct dependence on the other.37 The question of direct or indirect dependence of Ps 89 on 2 Sam 7 is, however, peripheral to an investigation of Ps 89’s editorial reuse. But insofar as comparison between the texts illuminates Ps 89’s portrayal of the Davidic covenant and crisis surrounding it, it enables us to assess the psalm’s potential for such reuse. For instance, Fishbane observes that 2 Sam 7:12–15 describes the promises of an established kingdom and YHWH’s father–son relationship to the king in terms of David’s offspring (‫ זרעך אחריך‬in v. 12). Psalm 89 relates these specific promises directly to David himself, however (vv. 26–28). This difference is indeed conspicuous and mitigated only slightly by 2 Sam 7:16’s direct reference to David’s house (‫)ביתך‬, kingdom (‫)וממלכתך‬, and throne (‫)כסאך‬. Additionally, Fishbane notes that Ps 89 omits any reference to the building of YHWH’s house (cf. 2 Sam 7:13), thereby “highlighting the contemporary threat to the royal line.”38 Both observations are noteworthy, and we shall explore their possible implications for Ps 89’s editorial reuse further below. A second difference scholars perceive between the texts concerns Ps 89’s presentation of YHWH’s promises to David as “a full-blown covenant”39 using the formal expression, “to cut a covenant” (‫)כרתי ברית‬ 35.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 534, notes, “numerous tendentious changes… which go well beyond any implicit sense of the language of 2 Sam. 7” (cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 466–67). See below. 36.  Knut Heim, “The (God-)Forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and Intertextual Enquiry,” in Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 301 (italics original); Nahum M. Sarna, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 29–46. 37.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:668. 38.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 467. 39.  Heim, “The (God-)Forsaken King,” 300. Similarly, Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 467, notes that vv. 4, 35–36, 40, and 50 refer “to the prophecy in covenant-legal terms.”

92

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

in v. 4. In light of the pattern seen so far where ‫ ברית‬has predominantly Mosaic covenantal entailments, Ps 89’s presentation of YHWH’s promises to David via such explicit covenantal language is striking. Heim notes two other “developments” of Nathan’s oracle in Ps 89. First, he understands v. 26, “I will set his hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers,” as an explicit statement on “the expansion of David’s rule to a worldwide scope.”40 Indeed, Ps 72 already presents its universal vision of the royal son’s reign at the end of Book II, as seen especially in the expressions, “sea to sea” and “from the River to the ends of the earth” in v. 8. The location of both psalms at the end of their respective books suggests that the theme of universal Davidic rule was significant for the editors—at least those responsible for Book II–III—and not just Ps 89’s author. A second adaptation that Heim notes is Ps 89’s transfer of divine chastisement, “from David’s immediate successor…to the whole dynasty.”41 Indeed, Ps 89:31 uses a plural noun, “his sons” (‫)בניו‬, whereas 2 Sam 7:14 speaks in the singular. Although the shift to the plural is notable within a psalm that otherwise accentuates the singular personage of “David,” its significance is another matter. On the one hand, vv. 31–33 are as close as Ps 89 comes to expressing the theme of royal culpability so prominent in the DH. On the other hand, the move to the plural generalizes that theme and dissociates it from David per se. At most vv. 31–33 only threaten punishment for faithless incumbents of the Davidic throne; they do not make YHWH’s promises to David conditional—as vv. 34–38 make abundantly clear—let alone claim any guilt on the part of the current Davidide.42

40.  Heim, “The (God-)Forsaken King,” 299. 41.  Heim, “The (God-)Forsaken King,” 299. 42.  Jungwoo Kim, “Psalm 89: Its Biblical-Theological Contribution to the Presence of Law within the Unconditional Covenant” (Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989), 351–79, argues that the law’s function, not its mere presence, distinguishes the Davidic covenant as an “unconditional” covenant. Kim (361–62) accepts a distinction between “grant” and “treaty” types of covenant proffered by Moshe Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203, and that the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants belong to the former kind. Concerning the implications of law for a grant Kim summarizes Weinfeld: “By ‘unconditional covenant’ he means that the violation of stipulations on the part of the participants of the covenant does not annul the original grant of the suzerain, although the individual wrong-doer is to be punished.”

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

93

‫ ברית‬in Psalm 89:4, 29, 35, and 40. ‫ ברית‬occurs four times in Ps 89 (vv. 4, 29, 35, and 40); twice more than any other (Pss 25, 50, 78, 105, and 111 each have two occurrences). The first three instances occur in the first part of the psalm (vv. 1–38) and celebrate YHWH’s fidelity to his ‫ ברית‬with David. The fourth occurrence laments YHWH’s apparent rejection of his promises to David. The psalm opens with the psalmist resolving to sing of YHWH’s “steadfast love” (‫ )חסדי‬and “faithfulness” (‫)אמונתך‬, whereupon vv. 3–5 proclaim YHWH’s “steadfast love” (‫ )חסד‬to be “built up in the heavens,” before relating YHWH’s own words in v. 4: “I have made a covenant (‫ )ברית‬with my chosen one (‫ ;)לבחירי‬I have sworn to David my servant (‫)נשבעתי לדוד עבדי‬.” In v. 5 YHWH declares his Davidic covenantal promise to establish David’s seed (‫ )זרעך‬and throne (‫)כסאך‬. Thus, vv. 3–5 portray YHWH’s covenantal faithfulness (‫ )חסדי יהוה‬toward David in the same league as his faithfulness toward creation.43 ‫ ברית‬here lacks a pronominal suffix like in v. 4, but in both places it is clearly YHWH’s covenant. Indeed, v. 4, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one,” implies the story of the Davidic covenant is being told from the very beginning, focusing on YHWH’s fidelity as a solemn promise (‫)נשבעתי‬. At the editorial level, the description of David as “my chosen one” (‫ )בחירי‬in 89:4 also seems to recall Ps 78:70’s use of the cognate ‫ בחר‬in relation to David. Indeed, the way Ps 89 uses ‫ בחר‬may reflect how the psalm relates the Davidic covenant to other covenants. On the one hand, in relation to v. 20 Goldingay notes that the similar phrase, “one chosen from the people” (‫)בחור מעם‬, “underlines the fact that in Deuteronomy it was the people who were chosen.”44 Given that v. 28 also describes the Davidic king as “firstborn” (‫—)בכור‬a term normally applied to Israel (e.g., Exod 4:22; Deut 26:19; 28:1)—Goldingay generalizes that “the psalm itself applies language to the king that applies primarily to the people as a whole: they are Yhwh’s chosen, Yhwh’s firstborn.”45 If this is correct, then Ps 89’s language reflects a “royalizing” of motifs normally reserved for the people in contexts where the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants form the conceptual background; that is, the reverse of the “democratizing” theological move that scholars—including Goldingay—deem the 43.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:664, identifies the “twofold theme” of YHWH’s “sovereignty and faithfulness manifested in creation and in the Davidic covenant,” in vv. 2–5, on which vv. 6–15 and 16–38 elaborate respectively. Indeed, the combination of David’s ‫ זרע‬and ‫ כסא‬occurs again in v. 37–38 (see below). 44.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:677. 45.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:692.

94

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

standard response to the exile and loss of kingship.46 Of course, that does not preclude a later, democratizing editorial agenda, but it does indicate that such an agenda would require editors to read Ps 89 against its own grain. On the other hand, Deut 17:15 offers a closer parallel to 89:20—and by extension to v. 4 also—where YHWH will choose (‫ )בחר‬the king, “from among his brothers” (‫ מקרב אחיך‬the semantic equivalent of Ps 89:20’s ‫)מעם‬. Indeed, Ps 89:31–32 suggests conscious allusion to the “kingship law” in Deut 17 given the strong lexical and thematic resemblance to Deut 17:19–20. Verses 31–32 read: “If his children forsake my law (‫ )תורתי‬and do not walk according to my rules (‫)משפטי‬, if they violate my statutes (‫ )חקתי‬and do not keep my commandments (‫)מצותי‬.” Three of the four italicized terms occur in Deut 17:19–20, where the king is to keep “all the words of this law (‫ )חתורה הזאת‬and these statutes (‫ ”)החקים האלה‬and “not turn aside from the commandment (‫)המצוה‬.”47 It seems, then, that Ps 89 echoes the expectation of the Deuteronomic kingship law that YHWH’s chosen king should keep the Mosaic covenantal torah and stipulations.48 If so, then editors would readily recognize ‫ בחירי‬as a direct reference to YHWH’s choice of a king, making it difficult to determine to what extent editors regarded 89:31–32 as the royal application of a motif normally reserved for people and nation. In the bigger picture of Ps 89, the fortunes of people and nation are not forgotten despite the psalm’s almost exclusive focus on the king’s fate, however (note, e.g., ‫ עבדיך‬in v. 51).49 The two go together. Importantly for our purposes, Ps 89 elicits Deut 17 precisely at the point where it enjoins on the king Mosaic covenantal observance (vv. 31–32). It seems clear, then, that the king—YHWH’s chosen one—is to observe the stipulations 46.  See, e.g., John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A LiteraryTheological Commentary (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 547, concerning Isa 55:3. 47.  Kim, “Psalm 89,” 191–92, makes the same observation, adding that all four terms, “are found in 2 Kgs 17:34, 37…to give a theological explanation for the fall of the northern kingdom: Samaria was ruined and exiled because it failed to keep the conditions of the covenant it made with the LORD at Sinai (v. 38).” Moreover, he notes Mosaic covenantal texts like Deut 6:1 and 7:11, where three of the four terms occur (‫המצוה‬, ‫החקים‬, and ‫)המשפטים‬. 48.  Mays, The Lord Reigns, 125, writes, “The law of the Lord is the norm by which Davidic kings are to be judged (89:30–33).” See also Grant, The King as Exemplar, 68–69. 49.  Numerous LXX MSS and the Syriac attest the singular ‫עבדך‬, thus retaining the focus of the petition on the king.

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

95

of the Mosaic covenant; a point consistent with our hypothesis and Jamie Grant’s study of Pss 1–2, 18–19, and 118–119.50 The Aramaic Targum offers another perspective on v. 4. It replaces “Ethan the Ezrahite” in Ps 89’s superscript with “Abraham come from the east” (‫)דאברהם דאתא מן מדינחא‬, and adds ‫ לאברהם‬before ‫ בחירי‬in v. 4, identifying its referent as Abraham in addition to David “my servant.”51 From this perspective Ps 89 laments the status of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant as a unity. This elicits the question: did the Psalter’s editors so envisage the unity of biblical covenants that they also understood Ps 89’s lament over the Davidic king as effectively a lament over the Abrahamic covenant and its associated promises? The intertwined fortunes of David and people noted earlier suggests as much, as do other laments over the destruction of land and temple in Book III (e.g., Pss 74, 79, 80). Other more specific observations point in the same direction too. Already we have noted connections between Ps 89:4 and 78:70—namely the use of ‫ בחר‬and ‫ עבד‬in connection with David. At the macrostructural level Ps 105:9 also uses the same combination of ‫ כרת‬and ‫( שבע‬niphal) found in 89:4, but in reference to the Abrahamic covenant: “the covenant that he made (‫ )כרת‬with Abraham, his sworn promise (‫ )ושבועתו‬to Isaac.” The parallel is editorially noteworthy because the historical Pss 105–106 pair conclude Book IV, just as Ps 89 concludes Book III. So, if the placement of covenant-referring psalms at the conclusion of Books III and IV demonstrates editors’ interest in the biblical covenants, this consistency of language further suggests that editors recognized a convergence between the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants similar to Targum Psalms. Accordingly, Creach is right to suggest that “the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants have been conflated” in both places.52 We shall address Ps 105 in a moment. The situation becomes more intriguing, however, when we consider Ps 72:17—also the last psalm of Book II—that identifies David’s successor(s) as Abraham’s seed (see Chapter 9) and, though not using ‫בחר‬, “royalizes” Abrahamic covenantal promises. As Chapter 9 demonstrates, Ps 72 shows the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as a theological unity in which David’s successor fulfills a key promise traditionally applied to all Abraham’s “seed.” 50.  Grant, The King as Exemplar. Cf. Kim, “Psalm 89,” 371. 51.  The full verse reads, “I have cut a statute/covenant for Abraham my chosen, I have established for David my servant” (‫)גזרית קיים לאברהם בחירי קיימית לדוד עבדי‬. 52.  Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous in the Psalms, 79, further surmises that “[t]he promises once given to David have now been applied to the whole people.” Whether “democratization” or “royalization” best describes the nature of the conflation is another question, however.

96

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Thus, within the final psalms of Books II–IV (Pss 72, 89, and 105–106) “covenant” is presented as singular entity. Moreover, in Pss 72 and 89 at least, Abrahamic/Mosaic covenantal themes, obligations, promises, etc., clearly coalesce around the person or office of the Davidic king. The second and third instances of ‫( ברית‬vv. 29 and 35) occur in vv. 20– s38. This portion of the psalm reports YHWH’s promises to David via first-person discourse, with both occurrences of ‫ ברית‬sporting a 1cs suffix (‫ )בריתי‬in reference to YHWH’s original v. 4 declaration, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one.” Within this section YHWH declares his numerous commitments to David concerning his enemies (vv. 23–24), dominion (v. 26), status as YHWH’s royal son (vv. 27–28), offspring (vv. 30 and 37–38), and throne (vv. 37–38), and so enunciates the content of YHWH’s ‫ ברית‬with David seen in 2 Sam 7. This section culminates with David’s “offspring” and “throne” (‫ )וכסאו…זרעו‬in v. 37, thus recalling v. 5’s summary of YHWH’s promise to David to forever establish (‫“ )עד־עולם אכין‬your offspring…and your throne” (‫)כסאך…זרעך‬. Other individual features of YHWH’s discourse merit attention. In v. 27 YHWH says, “He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father (‫)אבי‬, my God (‫)אלי‬, and the Rock of my salvation (‫)וצור ישועתי‬.’ ” This elicits several poignant intertextual connections. First, “you are my Father” (‫)אבי אתה‬ expresses the counterpart to the adoption formula, “you are my Son” (‫בני‬ ‫ )אתה‬in Ps 2:7, and doubtless recalls it at the editorial level. Second, “you are…my God” seems a clear echo the covenant formula (see Chapter 6), which normally concerns Israel corporately. Third, “the Rock of my salvation” possibly recalls Pentateuchal songs like the Song of the Sea, where YHWH is “my salvation” (Exod 15:2), and the Song of Moses, where he is Israel’s “Rock” (‫ צור‬in Deut 32:4, 15, 18, 30–31, and 37). Whereas these pivotal Pentateuchal texts typically describe YHWH as Israel’s “God” and “Rock,” Ps 89:27 applies it to the relationship between the Davidic king and YHWH. This fits the pattern throughout the Psalter where the expressions, “my God” and “my Rock” occur almost exclusively in Davidic psalms.53

53.  Regarding “my God,” see Chapter 6’s analysis of allusions to the covenant formula. ‫צור‬/‫ צורי‬refers to YHWH as “[my] Rock” some 17 times: Pss 18:3, 32, 47; 19:15; 28:1; 31:3; 62:3, 7, 8; 71:3; 73:26; 78:35; 89:27; 92:16; 94:22; 95:1; 144:1. In all but five of these the Davidic psalmist/the king calls God his “Rock,” the exceptions being Asaph Ps 73, Asaph Ps 78:35 in which the people “remembered God their Rock,” and anonymous Pss 92, 94, and 95.

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

97

In v. 29 YHWH declares, “My steadfast love (‫ )חסדי‬I will keep for him forever (‫)לעולם אשמר־לו‬, and my covenant will stand firm for him (‫)ובריתי נאמנת לו‬.” Earlier we raised the possibility that Ps 74:20 may allude to the confession of YHWH in Deut 7:9, though the connecting points were few. By contrast, Ps 89:29 reflects the key vocabulary found in Deut 7:9, “YHWH your God is God, the faithful God (‫ )האל הנאמן‬who keeps [the] covenant and steadfast love (‫ )שמר הברית והחסד‬with those who love him and keep his commandments.” Besides employing both key nouns, ‫ ברית‬and ‫חסד‬, Ps 89:29 and Deut 7:9 use the same verbs as well: a niphal participial form of ‫ אמן‬and ‫שמר‬. Although ‫הנאמן‬/‫ נאמנת‬qualify different nouns (“my covenant” and “God” respectively), in both texts YHWH “keeps” (‫“ )שמר‬steadfast love” (‫)חסד‬. Indeed, this lexical overlap suggests that the same Deuteronomic confession of YHWH’s faithfulness to his covenant underlies Ps 89’s presentation of God’s faithfulness to the Davidic covenant. As in Ps 74, this allusion does not so much identify the covenant as underscore YHWH’s character in relation to it. Indeed, Deut 7 and Ps 89 primarily evoke “different” historical covenants. Interestingly, in his prayer at the dedication of the temple Solomon also alludes to Deut 7:9 in reference to YHWH’s promises to David (1 Kgs 8:23–26),54 and Ps 89:29 similarly appropriates to the Davidic covenant a formulaic expression of God’s faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant. The continuity and unity between covenants implied by such intertextuality is therefore theological in the truest sense; common to both is YHWH’s faithfulness and steadfast commitment to his promises. Later in v. 35 YHWH states the same commitment in the negative, “I will not violate my covenant (‫ )לא־אחלל בריתי‬or alter the word that went forth from my lips (‫)ומוצא שפתי לא אשנה‬.” In fact, the ‫ לא‬statements begin in v. 34, where—in answer to vv. 31–32’s casuistic warning of punishment for disobeying torah etc.—YHWH declares, “but I will not remove from him my steadfast love (‫ )חסדי‬or be false to my faithfulness (‫)אמונתי‬.” Within vv. 34–35, then, ‫ ברית‬and ‫ מוצא שפתי‬are parallel to ‫ אמונה‬and ‫חסד‬. YHWH’s “steadfast love” and “faithfulness” therefore relate specifically to his promises and commitments in the Davidic covenant. It is also worth noting that vv. 34–35 once again pick up three of the four key lexemes from Deut 7:9 that we observed in v. 29: ‫ברית‬, ‫חסד‬, and ‫—אמונה‬a cognate of ‫אמן‬. The negative construction of vv. 34–35 precludes inclusion of the fourth term (‫)שמר‬. In any case, the statement, “I will not remove (‫ )לא־אפיר‬my steadfast love” in v. 34,

54.  Note the same phrase ‫ שמר הברית והחסד‬in 1 Kgs 8:23.

98

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

and “I will not violate (‫ )לא־אחלל‬my covenant” in v. 35 state negatively what ‫ שמר הברית והחסד‬affirms positively in Deut 7:9. Moreover, the final clause in the protasis of vv. 31–33’s casuistic warning, “if they… do not keep my commandments” (‫ אם…ומצותי לא ישמר‬in v. 32b), creates another parallel with Deut 7:9, which states that YHWH’s faithfulness is, “with those who love him and keep his commandments” (‫)ולשמרי מצותיו‬. The intertextual links between Ps 89 and Deut 7 are therefore numerous. Nevertheless, neither Ps 89:31–33’s casuistic warning nor its allusion to texts like Deut 7:9 give any warrant to view YHWH’s commitment to the Davidic covenant as conditional, for vv. 34–35 quickly assert YHWH’s faithfulness. Whether editors understood this casuistic warning as a (very!) subtle admission of royal guilt is impossible to determine with certainty, however it is most unlikely since the psalm charges YHWH with responsibility for the current state of affairs, not the king. It is thus reasonable to conclude that “royal guilt” was not on their theological agenda in this final psalm of Book III. Psalm 89:34–35’s use of ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬as covenantal terms requires further comment, for this word pair occurs some five times in this editorially pivotal psalm (vv. 2, 3, 25, 34, and 50).55 This raises the likelihood that editors viewed this word pair with covenantal overtones elsewhere in the Psalter too (e.g., Pss 36:6; 40:11; 88:12; 92:3; 98:3; 100:5). Of course, the terms ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬are capable of wider application, as v. 3 shows when it states that YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬are displayed in the heavens (also vv. 6, 9, and 15). Even so, in v. 3 YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫“ אמונה‬in the heavens” may be more than merely illustrative of YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫אמונה‬ toward David, and refer directly to David’s throne. Indeed, vv. 37–38 conclude YHWH’s discourse by merging the dual themes of heaven/ creation and the Davidic covenant. In the process these verses liken the perpetuity of David’s throne and seed themselves—not just YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬regarding them—to the sun and the moon (‫זרעו לעולם יהיה‬ ‫)וכסאו כשמש נגדי כירח יכון עולם‬, declaring them a “faithful witness in the clouds” (‫)ועד בשחק נאמן‬.56 These verses therefore present David’s seed and throne in celestial—if somewhat enigmatic—terms, perhaps similar

55.  Similarly, Snearly, The Return of the King, 96, notes the prominence of ‫הסד‬, ‫אמן‬, and ‫ עולם‬in especially this section of Ps 89. 56.  The antecedent of “witness” (‫ )ועד‬is admittedly a little ambiguous; i.e., whether it refers to David’s throne or the heavenly bodies. However, the fact that “sun” and “moon” are similes prefixed with ‫ כ‬suggests that ‫ וכסאו‬is the more natural antecedent. Incidentally, it is possible that 89:38 intentionally casts the Davidic covenant in terms of the Noahic covenant. Despite lexical differences, “a faithful

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

99

to the universalizing vision of kingship presented by Ps 72. As such they lend weight to the view that Ps 89 proffers an eschatological view of kingship. At the least it seems clear that editors reading and reusing Ps 89 likely saw no meaningful difference between YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫אמונה‬ “in the heavens” (vv. 2–3) and his ‫ חסד‬and ‫“ אמונה‬to David” (vv. 25, 34). Obviously much depends on whether editors understood and appropriated this and the various other promises in vv. 20–38 within an interpretive framework that was historical (Wilson) or eschatological (Mitchell), or a combination of both. While the observations above do not settle that issue, they do demonstrate the plausibility of editors envisioning a future Davidide by which YHWH would again demonstrate his faithfulness affirmed in Deut 7:9. Most commentators grant this— Wilson among them—even if they hold that such hopes were redirected as the Psalter expanded. Key to that view, though, is the democratization of the Davidic covenant. Our analysis of Ps 89 and comparison with the concluding psalms of its neighboring books has so far suggested the opposite theological move, however: the royalization of traditionally Abrahamic or Mosaic covenantal entailments. The final instance of ‫ ברית‬occurs in v. 40. If the second and third occurrences of ‫ ברית‬emphatically underscore YHWH’s commitment to the Davidic covenant, this fourth occurrence accuses YHWH of forsaking it just as emphatically. Goldingay describes the shift beginning in v. 39 as an “extraordinary somersault” in which, “[l]ike Ps. 88, the psalm…takes the form of a prayer psalm and turns it inside out, though in a different way. Instead of omitting statements of faith, it emphasizes them in order to let them have their scandalous effect.”57 In v. 40 the psalmist complains to YHWH that he has, “renounced the covenant with your servant” (‫)נארתה ברית עבדך‬.” This follows immediately after v. 39’s three similarly accusatory verbs, “you have cast off (‫ )זנחת‬and rejected (‫…)ותמאס‬are full of wrath (‫ )התעברת‬against your anointed,” which underscore the grave contradiction between YHWH’s promised faithfulness and the present situation. Goldingay notes that the second of these verbs (‫ )מאס‬bites especially hard because the same term applies to YHWH’s rejection of Saul in 1 Sam 15:23 and 26,58 something YHWH has promised would not happen to David’s offspring (2 Sam 7:15). At the rhetorical level, witness in the skies” (‫ )ועד בשחק נאמן‬in v. 38 is semantically similar to Gen 9:12–14, where the “sign of the covenant” with Noah and all life (‫ )אות־הברית‬is YHWH’s bow set “in the cloud” (‫)בענן‬. 57.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:664. 58.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:685.

100

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

then, the second, third, and fourth instances of ‫ ברית‬in Ps 89 highlight the discrepancy between promise and reality, and thus form the basis Ps 89’s lament. Psalm 89’s Potential for Editorial Reuse. Already we have made some isolated observations about Ps 89’s potential for reuse, but this psalm’s importance to our investigation merits a more specific treatment of the question. Psalm 89 lends itself to reuse by editors in several important ways. First, we noted that Ps 89 amplifies the name “David” in its presentation of the Davidic covenant by directly applying YHWH’s promises to “David” himself. Whether the editors responsible for Ps 89’s placement in the Psalter had in mind a historical exile or an eschatological one, Ps 89’s heightened focus on David must have fitted their understanding of the present or future royal crisis now being lamented (vv. 39–51). YHWH’s rejection of David’s current or future descendent amounts to his unthinkable rejection of David himself to whom YHWH had made sure promises (vv. 2–5, [6–38]). Future Davidides are, for all intents and purposes, “David” himself to whom YHWH promised his eternal fidelity. This conclusion is congruent with our proposition regarding editors’ understanding of “David” after Ps 72 in the Psalter: historical David is not lost to view, but a new David is primarily the subject of the psalm’s lament. Second, Ps 89’s silence about the building of the temple has implications for its reuse at the editorial level. Psalms 74 and 79 compensate for this “omission” within Book III, reflecting obvious editorial concern for the sanctuary through these psalms’ lament over its destruction. Fishbane’s observation about Ps 89 is nevertheless important, for Ps 89’s narrowed focus on the apparent failure of the Davidic line suggests that the editors responsible for Ps 89 at Book III’s conclusion viewed it as the most pressing theological problem within it. Indeed, Book III’s lament shifts from the destruction of the sanctuary in Pss 74 and 79 to the rejection of the king in Ps 89, which corresponds to Ps 78:68–72’s narrowing sequence in God’s election of Judah, Zion and sanctuary, and finally David. This could offer a clue as to how Book III’s editors understood David’s relationship to the temple: “David” is in some sense foundational to its purpose, just as he was to its original construction as reflected in the Chronicler’s account magnifying David’s role in the design of the temple (1 Chr 22; 28:11–21; 2 Chr 2–5). Scholarly opinion varies as to whether restoration of the monarchy was a key concern of the Chronicler, or whether he accentuated David’s role in its design only

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

101

to validate a postexilic temple theocracy.59 For the editors of Book III, however, Ps 89’s placement at its climax leaves no doubt that the crisis is not over until “David” rules once more. This could suggest that, from the editors’ perspective, God’s restoration of “David” is necessary for the temple to fulfill its divine purpose; namely, reconciliation between God and his people through priestly mediation. Accordingly, our proposal that the expected “David” would have an intercessory role in covenant renewal provides a fitting explanation of how the king might bring the temple’s purpose to fulfillment: he, like Moses, intercedes for them and YHWH restores them. At the very least, Book III plainly yearns for the restoration of both “temple” and “king,” the latter receiving special focus in Ps 89. Third, Ps 89 lays responsibility for the Davidic covenantal crisis squarely at YHWH’s feet and makes no accusation of royal guilt. As noted earlier, this is remarkable given that both the DH and Chronicles do precisely that throughout their historiographies. In light of this silence, Ps 89’s affiliations with Deut 17 make it possible to view the king according to the ideal set forth in Deut 17. As Creach states, “Psalm 89 does not indict the king for any wrongdoing, and does not call monarchy as an institution into question.”60 The nearest the psalm comes to the topic of royal culpability is YHWH’s casuistic warning in vv. 31–33 discussed above, but it stops short of any report of the king’s guilt. Any royal guilt must be inferred from historical circumstance and assume that editors appropriated the psalm with the historical exile in mind rather than an eschatological one. If editors intended Ps 89 to be read against the backdrop of the Judean kings’ culpability, there are no clear signs of it in the psalm itself. Nevertheless, Chapter 11’s discussion of Book III also takes this question of royal culpability into account. But if editors read Ps 89 against a future-oriented rather than purely historical background,61 Ps 89’s silence about any actual guilt on the part of the king opens up the 59.  See, e.g., A. M. Brunet, “La théologie du Chroniste: Théocratie et Messianisme,” in Sacra Pagina: Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica, I, ed. J. Coppens, A. Descamps, and E. Massaux, BETL, 12 (Gembloux: Duculot, 1959), 384–97; David N. Freedman, “The Chronicler’s Purpose,” CBQ 23 (1961): 436–42; James D. Newsome Jr., “Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purposes,” CBQ 44 (1982): 25–44. 60.  Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous, 106, who suggests this is true of the whole Psalter. 61.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 255, and “Lord, Remember David,” 527.

102

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

possibility that they envisaged a Davidic king who does not fall short of the Deut 17 ideal. Fourth, the psalmist’s questions and petitions to YHWH in vv. 47–52 provide some parameters for what may be inferred about Ps 89’s editorial reuse. Verse 47 asks, “How long (‫ )עד־מה‬YHWH? Will you hide yourself forever? How long will your wrath burn like fire?,” and v. 50 asks directly, “where is your steadfast love (‫ )חסדיך‬of old, which by your faithfulness you swore to David (‫ ”?)נשבעת לדוד באמונתך‬These are deeply anguished questions, to be sure, but they nevertheless do not despair of YHWH’s promises.62 They instead recall YHWH’s promises to David and seem to expect that YHWH must come good concerning them at some point. In consequence, any theory of editorial agenda that sees Ps 89 as sounding the failure of the Davidic covenant must finally reinterpret these questions either as pleas that have fallen on deaf ears or as a non-serious rhetorical devices. Indeed, while Wilson contends that editors of the earlier Psalter (Pss 2–89) still held out hope for Davidic restoration expressed especially in Ps 89’s pleas for deliverance, his view that subsequent editors sought to “redirect the hopes of the reader away from an earthly Davidic kingdom to the kingship of Yahweh,” requires that these editors radically altered Ps 89’s function within the Psalter.63 Psalm 89 becomes merely an editorial signpost for a failed Davidic covenant, rather than a serious plea for YHWH to keep his promises. On its own terms, however, Ps 89 does not sound the death knell of the Davidic covenant but stresses its perpetuity, and Wilson’s theory must read Ps 89 uncomfortably against its grain.64 Psalm 103 Psalm 103 begins and ends with a summons to “bless YHWH,” first addressing “my soul” in vv. 1–2 (‫ )ברכי נפשי‬and later YHWH’s “angels,” “mighty ones,” “hosts,” “ministers,” “works,” and “my soul” once more in vv. 20–22 (‫)ברכו…ברכו נפשי‬. Between this inclusio the body of 62.  So Snearly, The Return of the King, 97‒98. On the other hand, Hutchinson, “A New-Covenant Slogan in the Old Testament,” 106, states, “Books 4 and 5 are designed to respond to the despair of Book 3—and in particular the despair at the end of Psalm 89.” 63.  Wilson, “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God,” 392. 64.  Kim, “Psalm 89,” 74, and 366–69, cites the seven-fold use of ‫ עולם‬to describe YHWH’s promises to David (vv. 2, 3, 5, 29, 37, 38, and 50). Against Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Steadfast House: What Was David Promised in 2 Sam 7:11b–16?,” HUCA 34 (1963): 71–82, who objects that “immutability” and “unconditionality” are Western concepts foreign to the term ‫עולם‬, Kim draws attention to Ps 89’s association of ‫ עולם‬with the heavens (v. 30b), and the sun and moon (v. 37b).

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

103

the psalm praises YHWH’s forgiveness and mercy, and Hossfeld and Zenger are justified in designating it a thanksgiving song with a hymnic character.65 The only other Davidic psalm in Book IV besides Ps 101, Ps 103 thus presents David invoking his own soul, angels, hosts, and so on, to “bless YHWH” because of YHWH’s compassion and mercy. The psalm refers explicitly to YHWH’s covenant in v. 18, where YHWH’s eternal “steadfast love” (‫ )וחסד יהוה‬just mentioned in v. 17 is, “to those who keep his covenant (‫ )לשמרי בריתו‬and remember to do his commandments.” Once again, ‫ ברית‬primarily elicits the Mosaic covenant, whose observance entails, “remembering to do his precepts.” The term “precepts” (‫ )פקודים‬occurs at Pss 19:9, 103:18, 111:7, and a further 21 times in Ps 119. These other contexts extol the joyfulness and trustworthiness of YHWH’s “precepts.”66 In Ps 103:18 ‫ פקדיו‬is the object of the coordinated verbal sequence “remember” and “do” (‫ זכר‬and ‫)עשה‬. Although these verbal roots are rarely paired in this way, we do find an example in Num 15:39–40 (with ‫)מצות‬, where the Mosaic covenant is clearly in view. The psalm thus evokes the Mosaic covenant as something to be kept, but in terms that underscore the joy and pleasantness of doing so (cf. Ps 119). Moreover, the psalm sets this in the greater context of YHWH’s compassion and grace toward sinners (vv. 3–5, 8–13). The quotation from Exod 34:6 in v. 8 is especially noteworthy because it recalls YHWH’s renewal of the Sinaitic covenant after the golden calf incident. The psalm thus evokes YHWH’s renewal of the covenant because of his grace and mercy in order to proclaim YHWH’s compassion and mercy as a present reality. Chapter 12 explores this important allusion further and its implications for covenant relationships. Psalm 105 The paired historical Pss 105 and 106 conclude Book IV by recounting Israel’s history and interpreting it theologically. Whereas Ps 106 accentuates the people’s faithlessness toward YHWH, Ps 105 relates YHWH’s “wondrous works,” “miracles,” and “the judgments he uttered” (v. 5). The history spans the period from YHWH’s covenantal promise of the land spoken first to the patriarchs (vv. 5–11) to his fulfillment of that promise (vv. 42–45), while the intervening sections relate YHWH’s constant protection and provision during Israel’s descent to Egypt, the Exodus, and their wilderness wanderings (vv. 12–41). Indeed, the historical timeframe 65.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 31. 66.  In Ps 19:9 “the precepts of YHWH (‫ )פקודי יהוה‬are upright, gladdening the heart,” and paralleled with YHWH’s commandment (‫)מצות יהוה‬. YHWH’s precepts are “trustworthy” (‫ )נאמנים‬in Ps 111:7, and similarly celebrated throughout Ps 119.

104

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

of Pss 105–106 embraces the pre-monarchic period. Psalm 105 also accounts for three of the Psalter’s four mentions of “Abraham” (vv. 6, 9, and 42), the fourth being found in Ps 47:9. ‫ ברית‬occurs in vv. 8 and 10 where it refers directly to the Abrahamic covenant. Verse 8 declares that YHWH, “remembers his covenant (‫)בריתו‬ forever,” whereupon vv. 9–10 qualify it as the covenant, “he made with Abraham, his sworn promise (‫ )שבועתו‬to Isaac, which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute (‫)חק‬, to Israel as an everlasting covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬.” Verse 8 therefore parallels “his covenant” (‫ )בריתו‬with “the word that he commanded” (‫)דבר צוה‬, “sworn promise” (‫)שבועה‬, and “statute” (‫ )חק‬as functional equivalents. What is more, these other terms underscore the promissory character of the Abrahamic covenant, whose essential content is, according to v. 11, YHWH’s promise, “[t]o you I will give the land of Canaan as your portion for an inheritance.” While it is possible that all four terms—‫חק‬, ‫דבר צוה‬, ‫ברית‬, and ‫—שבועה‬refer narrowly to that promise in Ps 105:11, the phrase “sworn promise to Isaac” (‫ )ושבועתו לישחק‬in v. 9 echoes Gen 26:3–4, where YHWH’s ‫ שבועה‬to Isaac entails the promise of many descendants and blessing for all nations through Isaac’s seed. This suggests that Ps 105:5–11 embraces the promises of Abrahamic covenant more broadly, and not just the gift of land. ‫ דבר‬appears again near the end of Ps 105 in v. 42, where it denotes YHWH’s “holy promise” to Abraham and is the object of YHWH’s “remembering” (‫)זכר‬, like ‫ ברית‬in v. 8. Then v. 44 recalls v. 11 as a promise fulfilled: “he gave them the lands of the nations.” Interestingly, v. 44 broadens the promise by referring to “the lands of nations” rather than “the land of Canaan” (v. 11). Significantly, v. 45 relates YHWH’s purpose in terms that elicit the Mosaic covenant: “that they might keep his statutes (‫ )ישמרו חקיו‬and observe his laws (‫)ותורתיו ינצרו‬.” The psalmist thus assumes an essential theological unity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Moreover, its editorial pairing with Ps 106 to conclude Book IV accentuates the historical continuity of the Abrahamic covenant with the later Mosaic covenant.67 Psalm 106 Like Ps 78, Ps 106 recounts the people’s cyclical unfaithfulness to YHWH. The psalm concludes by affirming that YHWH, “looked upon their distress…heard their cry,” and, “[f]or their sake…remembered his covenant (‫ ”)ויזכר להם בריתו‬in vv. 44–45. The rest of the verse, “and 67.  The explicit mention of “Moses his servant (‫ ”)עבד‬and “Aaron whom he had chosen (‫ ”)בחר‬in Ps 105:26 also suggests historical continuity, for Abraham and Jacob are described by such terms earlier in v. 6.

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

105

relented according to the abundance of his steadfast love (‫)וינחם כרב חסדו‬,” echoes the grace formula (‫ ורב־חסד‬in Exod 34:6) and Moses’ petition that YHWH “relent (‫ )נחם‬from this disaster against your people” in Exod 32:12 followed by YHWH’s compliance in 32:14. As in Ps 103, then, Ps 106 recalls YHWH’s ‫ ברית‬by recollecting his merciful renewal of the covenant at Sinai. Moreover, midway through the psalm’s recapitulation of the people’s infidelity the golden calf incident is explicitly recalled in vv. 19–23. YHWH’s gracious renewal of the covenant at Horeb is not confined to v. 45 but permeates Ps 106 more widely. Already in vv. 6–7 the psalmist confesses the sins of the people by employing key terminology from Exod 34:6–7, “Both we and our fathers have sinned (‫ ;)חטאנו‬we have committed iniquity (‫ ;)העוינו‬we have done wickedness. Our fathers, when they were in Egypt, did not consider your wondrous works; they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love (‫)רב חסדיך‬, but rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea.” Importantly, the psalmist confesses his own generation’s solidarity with their fathers’ breach of the Mosaic covenant (‫חטאנו‬ ‫)עם־אבותינו‬. For editors appropriating it, Ps 106 provides a confession of guilt and plea for grace on behalf of the present generation, not merely a nostalgic reminiscence of YHWH’s past ways before the monarchy. As in other psalms, then, v. 45 speaks of “covenant” as a singular entity, without explicit qualification. Since Pss 105–106 are clearly a pair, editors apparently recognized ‫ ברית‬in v. 45 as the patriarchal covenant already referred to in Ps 105:5 and 8, with later rebellious generations in focus. Confirming this, “he remembered his covenant” (‫)ויזכר להם בריתו‬ in 106:45 recalls, “he remembers his covenant forever” (‫)זכר לעולם בריתו‬ in Ps 105:8, creating a thematic inclusio near the beginning and end of this historical psalm pair. But by evoking the Mosaic covenantal context through the Exod 32–34 parallels just discussed, the psalm presupposes a seamless continuity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic “covenants” and regards them as essentially one and the same. Indeed, the psalm’s final petition, “Save us, YHWH our God” (‫)הושיענו יהוה אלהינו‬, uses language reminiscent of the covenant formula found in both Abrahamic and Mosaic covenantal contexts. The Pss 105–106 pair thus confirms the continuity between Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants observed in our separate analysis of Ps 105, and regards them as one covenant of YHWH established with Abraham and graciously sustained and renewed at Horeb. At the same time, Ps 105:45 also effectively equates ‫ ברית‬with YHWH’s promises rather than the Mosaic covenantal stipulations, for YHWH “remembering his covenant” can only refer to his promised commitment to his people. The Mosaic covenant may be bi-lateral, but in the story of its preservation and renewal only YHWH’s promise counts for anything.

106

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

The contemporary nature of Ps 106’s confession noted above has important implications for its editorial reuse. The psalm’s premonarchic focus means that Book IV concludes by highlighting the people’s infidelity to YHWH as the major threat to the covenant. The psalm engages its readers to identify with “our fathers,” removing the monarchic era from view and with it any whiff of royal culpability. Psalm 89 offered a consistent view on this point, attributing the present lamentable circumstances to YHWH’s inaction rather than to royal fault. Indeed, since both psalms conclude their respective books and address their respective covenants directly, to ask the question of how editors understood the shift of focus from the Davidic covenant in Ps 89 to its premonarchic counterparts in Pss 105–106 is effectively to ask about the relationship between them. As noted, Wilson sees Book IV as the editors’ answer to the “problem” of failed royal covenantal theology, its solution being to accentuate YHWH’s reign instead of David’s. Rather than herald premonarchic life in the Mosaic era as the solution, however, Book IV’s concluding psalms draw attention to it as the problem! The people’s faithlessness to YHWH’s covenant is the reason for the crisis, which can only be overcome by YHWH’s mercy. If the king is indeed the focal point of YHWH’s solution to the people’s covenantal faithlessness in Book III—as the above analysis of Ps 78 suggested—then both the pressing nature of Ps 89’s lament and Ps 106’s dogged focus on the people’s infidelity find ready explanation. The message of Books III–IV would seem to be this: the people have sinned, but their hope lies in the return of “David,” through whom YHWH will mercifully renew the covenant as in days of old. Part III’s analysis of Books III and IV will test the plausibility of this explanation further, assessing “David’s” prominence in those books and examining their portrayal of him. Psalm 111 Like Ps 25, Ps 111 is an acrostic poem with obvious wisdom concerns that draws in several covenant-related themes. ‫ ברית‬occurs in its ‫ י‬colon in v. 5b (‫ ;יזכר לעולם בריתו‬cf. Ps 106:45) and its ‫ צ‬colon in v. 9b (‫)צוה־לעולם בריתו‬. Both instances emphasize the enduring nature of YHWH’s covenant, asserting that YHWH both “remembers” (‫ )זכר‬and “has commanded” (‫)צוה‬ his covenant “forever” (‫)לעולם‬. Furthermore, the “fear of YHWH” stands in close proximity to both instances of ‫ ליראיו( ברית‬in v. 5a and ‫יראת יהוה‬ in v. 10a), providing another point of similarity with Ps 25 (esp. vv. 10, 12, and 14)68 and a common theme with Ps 112:1 with which it is paired. 68.  Maloney, “Intertextual Links,” 14, notes that the Psalter’s acrostics are evenly divided between Books I and V, citing Gottwald’s suggestion that the final editors

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

107

Once again, ‫ ברית‬takes a 3rd sg. suffix to denote YHWH’s covenant, with no explicit qualification regarding which historic covenant is in view. All the same, some of its cola draw on phrases and language known from Mosaic covenantal contexts. First, in the ‫ ח‬colon of v. 4 the speaker confesses that “YHWH is gracious and compassionate” (‫חנון ורחום‬ ‫—)יהוה‬a distinctive word-pair from Exod 34:6. Yet again this key OT text is associated directly with ‫ ברית‬in the Psalms. Indeed, most commentators recognize vv. 4–6 as an allusion to the exodus and conquest.69 The same word-pair, ‫חנון ורחום‬, occurs in Ps 112:4’s ‫ ח‬colon as well, underscoring the prominence of YHWH’s gracious and compassionate nature for this acrostic pair. Like Ps 103, Ps 111 recalls YHWH’s self-disclosure to Moses on Mt Sinai after the golden calf incident (Exod 32–34), and it is the psalmist who proclaims YHWH’s nature rather than YHWH himself as in Exod 34. Since YHWH’s gracious and compassionate nature proves the basis for covenantal renewal in Exod 34, the allusion to the grace formula in v. 4 apparently praises YHWH for sustaining/renewing the covenant. Verse 5, “he remembers his covenant forever,” confirms this, as does the similar statement in v. 9. Indeed, this appears to be the reason that Ps 111 can use the adverbial term ‫ לעולם‬in vv. 5b and 9b at all: YHWH “remembers” and “has commanded” his covenant forever because it is in his gracious nature to renew it. Whether this allusion to Exod 34:6 identifies ‫ ברית‬in vv. 5 and 9 as the Mosaic covenant in a narrow sense is another question, however. Editors conceivably understood these references to “his covenant” in broader terms that embrace the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants consistent with what we have seen elsewhere (e.g., Pss 105–106). Indeed, several implicit criteria suggest both Abrahamic and Mosaic covenantal entailments. Verse 6 echoes YHWH’s promise to give the land as an inheritance (cf. Ps 105:11): “He has shown his people the power of his works, in giving them the inheritance of the nations (‫)נחלת גוים‬,” echoing Ps 2:8’s way of expressing the promise (‫)ואתנה גוים נחלתך‬. may have intended Book V’s acrostics as “balancing counterparts” to those in Book I; see Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 537. The above similarities between Pss 25 and 111 underscore this sense of symmetry. 69.  Psalm 111’s terse style notwithstanding, most commentators recognize vv. 4–6 as references to YHWH’s historic “wonders” in the exodus and land-giving: Goldingay, Psalms 3:305; Grogan, Psalms, 186; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 164; Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, WBC 21 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 125.

108

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Moreover, the expression ‫ בכל־לבב‬the ‫ א‬colon in v. 1 recalls the similar expression in Deut 6:5, where the people of Israel are commanded, “You shall love (‫ )אהב‬YHWH your God with all your heart (‫)בכל־לבבך‬.” This suggests that the speaker of Ps 111 in some sense embodies the obedience for which Moses calls as he offers his heartfelt praise of YHWH throughout the poem. Yet the anonymity of the first-person speaker of the ‫ א‬colon (‫ )אודה‬raises intriguing possibilities about the speaker’s identity, especially in light of Pss 111–112 placement after Davidic Pss 108–110. Indeed, Chapter 13’s analysis of Book V suggests that editors deliberately collocated these psalms so that “David” would be understood as the one declaring YHWH’s faithfulness to his covenant—a possibility that well resonates with our thesis. Psalm 132 Psalm 132 recalls the Davidic covenant, mentioning David three times in the body of the psalm (vv. 1, 11, and 17) and celebrating the ark as YHWH’s “resting place” (vv. 6–10) and Zion. Verse 13, “For YHWH has chosen Zion (‫…)כי־בחר יהוה בציון‬his dwelling place,” echoes the election of Zion in 78:68 and follows directly from vv. 11–12’s report of YHWH’s sworn promise to David (‫)נשבע־יהוה לדוד אמת‬, much as 78:68–72 pairs Zion’s election closely with David’s. The psalm then describes Zion as YHWH’s eternal resting place (‫ )מנוחתי עדי־עד‬in v. 14, where YHWH provides for and blesses his people, priests, and so on (vv. 15–16), causes “a horn to sprout for David,” erects a “lamp for [his] anointed (‫)למשיחי‬,” and gives victory over his enemies (vv. 17–18). David and Zion thus come together in Ps 132 in a positive way like in Ps 78, precluding any idea that temple theology constitutes a theological alternative to royalty. Although the psalm’s obvious focus is the Davidic covenant, ‫ ברית‬in v. 12 seems to embrace both the Mosaic and Davidic covenants. Verse 12 reads, “If your sons keep my covenant (‫ )בריתי‬and my testimonies that I shall teach them (‫)ועדתי זו אלמדם‬, their sons also forever shall sit on your throne.” The parallelism between ‫ ברית‬and ‫ ועדתי זו אלמדם‬suggests that ‫ ברית‬may refer specifically to the Mosaic covenantal stipulations or torah that the king was to keep according to Deut 17 and implied in the warnings of 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 89:31–33.70 If this is correct, then v. 12 witnesses directly to an aspect of how the psalmist, at least, viewed the relationship between the Davidic and Mosaic covenants: YHWH expects the Davidic king to keep the Mosaic torah. 70.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 466 n. 17, understands Ps 132:11–12 as a “nomistic revision” of the oracle in 2 Sam 7:12–16, apparently seeing v. 12 as an embellishment of 2 Sam 7:14, “when he commits iniquity” (‫)אשר בהעותו‬.

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

109

The text of v. 12 merits closer scrutiny, however, for ‫ וְ ֵעד ִֹתי‬is ambiguously pointed. Koehler and Baumgartner observe that this pointing, “leaves open the choice between sg. ‫דּותי‬ ִ ‫ ֵע‬and pl. ‫—”עד ַֹתי‬a ֵ confusion attested in the MS evidence as well.71 This ambiguity could reflect a corresponding uncertainty about the referent of ‫ בריתי‬with which it is paralleled, although it is impossible to say if only later copyists or the editors responsible for Ps 132’s placement in the Psalter experienced this uncertainty. Indeed, these two options raise different translational possibilities that potentially alter how v. 12’s reference to ‫ ברית‬was understood. On the one hand, reading the plural ‫ ֵעד ַֹתי‬yields “my testimonies” as the ESV has it (above), thus qualifying ‫ בריתי‬via possible reference to Mosaic covenantal stipulations as something to be kept (‫ )שמר‬by David’s sons. On this reading the latter half of v. 12 further elaborates ‫ בריתי‬in terms of the Mosaic covenantal stipulations or commands. As stated above, this would mean that v. 12 more directly reflects Deut 17’s command that the king keep torah, with the psalm highlighting royal obedience to the Mosaic covenantal stipulations as the connecting point between the Davidic and Mosaic covenants. Put another way, the Davidic covenant is still chiefly in view, but it entails royal obedience to the Mosaic covenant as the king rules the nation. On the other hand, reading the singular ‫דּותי‬ ִ ‫ֵע‬ yields “my testimony/covenant,” making it a potential synonym for ‫בריתי‬ and a second reference to the Davidic covenant. Thus the covenant itself becomes that which YHWH “teaches” (‫)אלמדם‬. This reading would seem to lessen v. 12’s focus on the Mosaic covenantal stipulations and commands per se in comparison to the plural reading of ‫עד ַֹתי‬. ֵ As seen earlier, however, Ps 25:10 parallels ‫ בריתו‬with the plural ‫ועדתיו‬ as the dual object of “keep” (‫)לנצרי‬, a semantic equivalent of ‫שמר‬, and this would seem to tip the scale in favor of the plural in Ps 132 also. In either case, though, Ps 132 expects future Davidic monarchs to keep (‫ )אם־ישמרו‬YHWH’s teaching (cf. ‫)זו אלמדם‬, and in this respect reflects the same expectation in Deut 17. As Fishbane observes, compared to 2 Sam 7, Ps 132 accentuates the conditionality of Davidic rulers’ reigns on their keeping YHWH’s teaching. In 2 Sam 7:14 YHWH will “discipline” David’s seed (‫ )זרעך‬with the rod of men, “when he commits iniquity” (‫)בהעותו‬, though YHWH’s “steadfast love will not depart from him” 71.  HALOT: 790. 11QPsa VI has a plenary form ‫)?עדּות =( ועדוותי‬ ֵ which may suggest the Qumran scribes understood the sg. On the other hand, LXX has the pl. τὰ μαρτύριά μου ταῦτα (reading ‫ זה‬for ‫ זו‬with 11QPsa and a MS from Cairo Geniza). The Vg. has “et testimonia mea” (pl.), while Jerome’s Hebrew Latin (Versio Hebraica Hieronymi) reads “et testificationem meum” (sg.).

110

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

(‫)וחסדי לא־יסור ממנו‬. On the other hand, Ps 132:12 implies that the reign of David’s descendants (‫ )בניך‬depends upon them keeping “my covenant etc.” (‫)בריתי ועדתי זו אלמדם‬. It is perhaps even more significant, however, that Ps 132:12 expresses the conditionality positively: “If your sons keep my covenant…etc.” David’s heirs are not simply to avoid breaking YHWH’s commands as in 2 Sam 7:14 or Ps 89:31–33, they are actively to keep his covenant and testimony/testimonies. In contrast to Book III, Book V bears a stronger Davidic stamp on it and is dominated by thanksgiving and liturgical collections that celebrate YHWH’s salvation. In view of “David’s” resurgence in this final Book of the Psalter, it is possible editors understood Ps 132:12’s positive way of expressing its 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 89:31–33 parallels as a condition met by the “David” of Book V. Such a “David” fits our hypothesis and is at least consistent with the general silence regarding any royal culpability uncovered so far in Books III–V. Accordingly, subsequent chapters will also investigate whether and how the Psalms present “David” as keeper of torah. Conclusion Our survey of ‫ ברית‬yields several important observations. First, ‫ברית‬ only occurs in the singular, usually with a pronominal suffix identifying it as YHWH’s covenant. Its definiteness in each context underscores the singularity of YHWH’s covenant. Nowhere do the above psalms emphasize a plurality of covenants. Second, though Pss 89 and 105 qualify ‫ ברית‬by direct reference to “David” or “Abraham,” the remaining psalms containing ‫ ברית‬expect that its meaning is self-evident, and implicit contextual factors frequently suggest that Mosaic or Sinaitic covenantal concerns are primary. At face value these two observations suggest a potential tension between the singularity and specificity of the covenant(s). But the psalms themselves seem completely unaware of any such tension. With apparent ease the Psalms allude to historically distinct covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David, and at the same time speak of “YHWH’s covenant” as a singular concept. This suggests that the unity of the covenants is in some sense a theological unity undergirded by a historical continuity, prompting the question of where their theological unity lies. Indeed, the above survey has yielded some numerous clues that lend weight to our hypothesis that the covenants’ theological unity lies in their common fulfilment through a future Davidic king. Among the more significant observations are the lack of royal culpability vis-à-vis Israel’s cyclical infidelity, “David” as God’s answer to that unfaithfulness

5. A Survey of “Covenant” in the Psalter

111

(Pss 78, 89, 132), the implied relationship between “David” and Judah/ Zion/sanctuary (Pss 50[?], 78, 132), and the common association between ‫ ברית‬and the “grace formula” in Exod 34:6–7 (Pss 25, 89, 105–106, 111–112). Moreover, where ‫ ברית‬psalms offer a discernible perspective on covenant relationships they evidence a theological “royalization” of the Abrahamic/Mosaic covenants rather than a “democratization” of the Davidic covenant.

Chapter 6 D av i d a s Y H WH ’ s F a i t h f u l C ove nant P artne r

As observed in the previous chapter, the Psalms always refer to YHWH’s “covenant” in the singular. At the same time, contextual factors frequently clarify the particular covenantal entailments of ‫ ברית‬in specific instances, usually by means of intertextuality with other covenantal texts of significance. For example, ‫ ברית‬denotes specifically Mosaic, Davidic, and Abrahamic covenantal promises/obligations in Pss 50, 89, and 105 respectively. But such intertextual clues—“criteria” in the sense discussed in Chapter 5—also occur in psalms lacking ‫ ברית‬where they potentially elicit those covenantal entailments as well. In order to proffer a fuller view of the Psalter’s covenant allusions the next three chapters survey these criteria across the Psalter, taking the opportunity to explore whether and to what extent individual criteria coalesce around the Davidic kingship. Beyond their primarily heuristic purpose, then, Chapters 6–8 also begin to test the proposal advanced in Chapter 1. David as YHWH’s Covenant Partner From as early as Ps 2:2 the Psalter clearly accentuates the relationship between YHWH and his anointed. At the same time the covenant relationship between God and the people remains an important focal point throughout. We see this explicitly in psalms like Pss 50, 78, 81, and 105–106, while others evoke the relationship between YHWH and Israel more implicitly. For instance, that relationship is expressed in biblical and especially Pentateuchal texts via the covenant formula and the description of YHWH’s people as his “inheritance” (‫ )נחלה‬or “possession” (‫)סגלה‬. Such language also turns up in the Psalter. Already the previous chapter observed, for example, the covenant formula and the YHWH’s “inheritance” (‫ )נחלה‬featured among the covenantal entailments of ‫ ברית‬in Pss 74, 89, and 106. While a fuller analysis of these psalms’ function in the Psalter must wait until Part III, we may fruitfully explore these criteria. Does the Psalter reapply expressions and terminology that normally

6. David as YHWH’s Faithful Covenant Partner

113

denote the YHWH-people relationship to David? Put another way, does the Psalter reflect a pattern of royalizing terminology normally reserved for the relationship between YHWH and the people, thereby accentuating David as covenant partner par excellence? The Covenant Formula’s Appearance and Use in the Old Testament The covenant formula describes the relationship between God and his people realized through the covenant seen, for example, in Exod 6:7, “I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God.” Moreover, Rolf Rendtorff shows that the term ‫ ברית‬is often “indissolubly linked” with the covenant formula, as illustrated by four “highly important instances” in Genesis–Leviticus (Gen 17:7 Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12, 45), but also in many other places from Abrahamic, Mosaic, and even “new covenant” contexts: Deut 4:20; 7:6; 29:11; Jer 11:4; 31:31–34; 32:36–40; Ezek 34:24; 37:23, 27; and 2 Kgs 11:17.1 Rendtorff thus describes the formula as “an exposition of what the word berît means.”2 Rendtorff proposes three basic forms of the formula as it appears in the Pentateuch: Formula A, “to be God to you” (‫ ;)להיות לך לאלהים‬Formula B, “to be to me a people” (‫ ;)להיות לי לעם‬and Formula C combining these (‫ להיות לך לאלהים‬+ ‫)להיות לי לעם‬. While scholars have often regarded only the third, bilateral expression as the true form, with Formulas A and B “half” formulae,3 Rendtorff argues convincingly that all three forms are legitimate instantiations of the formula, and that the theological priorities of their contexts readily explain the choice of one form or the other.4 While all three forms follow a similar syntactical pattern—that is, the verb “to be” (‫ )היה‬and double ‫ל‬, Rendtorff’s list of the formula’s occurrences shows even more variation as well. For instance, the verb ‫היה‬ sometimes gives way to another verb.5 Pronominal suffixes on the ‫ ל‬also vary in person and number according to literary context.6 Qualifiers such 1.  Rendtorff, Covenant Formula, 43–45. 2.  Rendtorff, Covenant Formula, 88. 3.  Rendtorff, Covenant Formula, 12–13. 4.  Formula A predominates in Genesis to Leviticus, where God’s promise to “be your God” is accented more strongly, while Formula B occurs mostly in Deuteronomic contexts emphasizing Israel’s demarcation from all other nations. 5.  E.g., ‫( לקח‬Exod 6:7); ‫( קום‬Deut 28:9; 29:12); ‫( עשה‬1 Sam 12:22); and ‫כון‬ (2 Sam 7:24). In Deut 7:6 and 14:2, ‫ היה‬is preceded by ‫בחר‬. 6.  Rendtorff, Covenant Formula, 93–94, tabulates ‫ להיות ל‬formulae in the OT. The distribution of pronominal suffixes for ‫( ל‬taken possessively) is as follows: ‫ ל‬+ suffix qualifying ‫( לאלהים‬i.e., from Formulas A and C) include: “your (sg.) God” (‫ )לך‬three times (Gen 17:7b [adding ‫ ;]ולזרעך אחריך‬Deut 26:17; and 29:12);

114

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

as ‫סגלה‬,7 ‫קדוש‬,8 and ‫ישראל‬9 also appear with ‫עם‬. Importantly, none of these variations jeopardize these instances of the formula as legitimate, recognizable examples. Still looking outside the Psalter, otherwise “strict” formulations sometimes use possessive pronominal suffixes appended directly to ‫אלהים‬ or ‫עם‬. For example, Lev 11:44–45; 25:38; 26:12–13, and Num 15:41 combine the regular form of the covenant formula ‫ להיות לכם לאלהים‬with the synonymous ‫( אני יהוה אלהיכם‬cf. Lev 26:44–45; Deut 7:6).10 In these and other instances, ‫ אלהים‬or ‫ עם‬plus pronominal suffix states as present fact the God–people relationship articulated by the classic forms of covenant formula.11 In light of this flexibility the Psalter seems to allude to the covenant formula more commonly than is often recognized, as will become apparent. But to what extent does its distribution reflect a particular focus on David as YHWH’s covenant partner?  

David and the Covenant Formula in the Psalms Norbert Lohfink provides a useful starting point by identifying three places that allude to the covenant formula, “with a high degree of certainty”; namely, Pss 33:12; 95:7; and 100:3.12 Psalm 33:12 reads, “Blessed is “your (pl.) God” (‫ )לכם‬ten times (Exod 6:7; Lev 11:45; 22:33; 25:38; 26:12; Num 15:41; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 30:22; and Ezek 36:28); and “their God” (‫ )להם‬thirteen times (Gen 17:8b; Exod 29:45; Lev 26:45; 2 Sam 7:24; Jer 24:7; 31:33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 34:24; 37:23, 27; and Zech 8:8). Jer 31:1 has a 3rd pl. noun equivalent, ‫לכל משפחות ישראל‬. ‫ ל‬+ suffix qualifying ‫( לעם‬i.e., from Formulas B and C) include: “my people” (‫ )לי‬sixteen times (Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 13:11; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27; and Zech 8:8); “your people” (‫ )לך‬once (2 Sam 7:24); and “his people” (‫ )לו‬seven times (Deut 4:20; 7:6; 14:2; 26:19; 28:9; 29:12; and 1 Sam 12:22). Deuteronomy 27:9 and 2 Kgs 11:17 have a 3rd sg. equivalent, ‫ליהוה‬, with Deut 27:9 adding ‫אלהיך‬. 7.  Deut 7:6; 14:2; and 26:18. 8.  Deut 28:9 (cf. 26:19). 9.  2 Sam 7:24. 10.  Rendtorff, Covenant Formula, 47, notes that the covenant formula is frequently associated with the “self-introductory formula” (‫)כי אני יהוה‬. 11.  Other examples include: 1 Sam 12:22, which prefaces ‫ לעם‬with its semantic equivalent ‫ ;עמו‬2 Sam 7:24, which prefaces ‫ לך לעם‬with ‫ ;עמך‬Deut 7:6, 14:2, 27:9, and 28:9, where ‫ יהוה אלהיך‬is the implied counterpart to ‫ להיות לו לעם‬and replaces its strict formulaic equivalent; and Deut 26:17–19 and 29:11–12 where ‫יהוה אלהיך‬ accompanies its formulaic equivalent. 12.  Lohfink, “The Covenant Formula in Psalm 33,” 87.

6. David as YHWH’s Faithful Covenant Partner

115

the nation whose God is YHWH, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!” (‫)אשרי הגוי אשר־יהוה אלהיו העם בחר לנחלה לו‬. Psalm 95:7 reads, “For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand” (‫)כי הוא אלהינו ואנחנו עם מרעיתו וצאן ידו‬. And Ps 100:3 reads, “Know that YHWH, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture” (‫דעו כי־יהוה הוא אלהים‬ ‫)הוא־עשנו ולא אנחנו עמו וצאן מרעיתו‬. Lohfink apparently singles out these three cases because they reflect— or nearly reflect—the full “bilateral” form (Formula C). But Rendtorff’s analysis indicates that instances of so-called half-formulae (Formulae A and B) in the Psalms also count as allusions to the formula, and these turn out to be quite numerous. Moreover, Pss 95:7 and 100:3 display little or nothing of the ‫ היה‬plus double ‫ ל‬syntax, instead favoring a simple, verbless subject–complement syntax (e.g., ‫עמו ;הוא אלהינו‬/‫)ואנחנו עם‬.13 Yet Lohfink—correctly in my view—counts them as strong allusions to the formula. This squares well with the variation observed above. Looking wider, Pss 68:21 and 99:8 bear syntactical resemblance to the classic covenant formula. Psalm 99 recalls God’s history with his people in the time of Moses and Aaron, and in v. 8 the psalmist remembers, “you were a forgiving God to them” (‫)אל נשא היית להם‬, thus replicating the ‫ היה‬+ possessive ‫ ל‬with ‫ אל‬from Formula A, and arguably alluding to Exod 34:6–7 in view of ‫נשא‬. Editors at all familiar with Israel’s great covenantal traditions would surely recognize the stock covenant formulaic language here. In Ps 68:21 the Davidic psalmist declares, “Our God is a God of salvation” (‫)האל לנו אל למושעות‬, whose subject–complement structure and combination of ‫ אל‬with ‫ לנו‬also resemble covenant formula syntax. Moreover, the following colon sports a double ‫ ל‬used possessively of YHWH: “And to YHWH, the Lord, belong deliverances from death” (‫)וליהוה אדני למות תוצאות‬. Psalm 68:21 thus exhibits an equivalent overall structure to that of the full bilateral covenant formula but with exodus/ deliverance language at the fore (cf. the Sinai and wilderness references in vv. 8–9). While any direct reference to “people” (‫ )עם‬is missing in the second colon these lexemes seem to evoke the people’s status as a “brought out” people in any case—that is, the primary historical background for the Mosaic covenant (cf. Exod 20:2). In contrast to 99:8, however, David is not recalling historical events but proclaiming “our God” and his saving work as a present reality. 13.  In Ps 95:7 ‫ עם‬is unsuffixed, but the Syriac and Targum suggest the 3rd sg. suffix. In Ps 100:3 ‫ ולא‬precedes ‫ואנחנו עמו‬, but the Qere reads ‫“( לו‬we are his”), thus partially reflecting the normal covenant formula syntax.

116

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

As we look further, the Psalter alludes to Formula B just once according to the data tabulated in Appendix A. In Asaph Ps 79:13 the psalmist declares, “But we your people (‫)ואנחנו עמך‬, the sheep of your pasture, will give thanks to you forever.” This combination of covenant formulaic language with the pastoral motif already appeared in two of Lohfink’s parade examples, Pss 95 and 100, suggesting that Ps 79:13 also reflects the covenant formula. Incidentally, the preceding two psalms conclude with the pastoral motif as well (cf. ‫ צאן‬in 77:21 and ‫ רעה‬in 78:72), evidencing a deliberate editorial move to group Pss 77–79 at the center of the Asaph group (see Chapter 11). Allusions to Formula A are more frequent, with the most common sporting the 1st sg. possessive suffix: ‫אלי‬/‫אל(ו)הי‬. “YHWH is/you are my God” occurs nine times: Pss 18:3; 22:11; 31:15; 63:2; 86:2; 89:27; 118:28; 140:7; 143:10.14 Of course, by addressing YHWH thus the psalmist declares his relationship to YHWH in terms of the First Commandment (cf. Exod 20:2) at one and the same time as the covenant formula. Such ambiguity is not surprising given their overlapping theological concerns and common covenantal context. Psalm 56:10 also utilizes Formula A syntax more weakly. Similarly, in Ps 56:10 the Davidic psalmist declares, “This I know, that God is for me (‫)כי־אלהים לי‬,” using ‫ ל‬instead of a possessive suffix (with ‫ אלהים‬as subject). While we could quibble over whether the ‫ ל‬should be understood as a ‫ ל‬of advantage or possession typical of the formula, such grammatical hair-splitting is unlikely to obscure these examples as recognizable—if somewhat dimmer—allusions. Counting Ps 56:10, nine of the ten psalms alluding to Formula A are either Davidic or place these words in “David’s” mouth—that is, Ps 89:27, where YHWH declares, “He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, etc.’ ” (‫)הוא יקראני אבי אתה אלי‬. Meanwhile Ps 118 may be quasi-royal at the editorial level in any case, as noted earlier. Thus the claim, “YHWH is/You are my God,” is almost exclusively made by “David” in the Psalter. This is consistent with our proposal that editors viewed “David” as the quintessential covenant partner of YHWH. Moreover, in Ps 86:2, “David” describes himself in terms that suggests his covenant fidelity to YHWH—“I am godly/faithful” (‫)חסיד אני‬. It may also be significant that every instance except for Ps 18:3 has “you” as subject (i.e., ‫ אלי אתה‬or equivalent) in prayerful address to God. Many of these have the character of lament (e.g., 22:11; 31:15; 63:2; 140:7), with “David” appealing to his covenant relationship with YHWH as he petitions YHWH for help. 14.  Cf. similar confessions in Isa 25:1 and Jer 31:18.

6. David as YHWH’s Faithful Covenant Partner

117

On the other hand, the three instances of Formula A with a 1st pl. suffix (‫—)אלהינו‬Pss 48:15; 95:7; 105:7—take the form of a confession or creed: “He (‫הוא‬/‫ )זה‬is [YHWH] our God.” A fourth example, Davidic Ps 124:1–2, also falls into this 1st pl. category. Even though the ESV translates ‫לולי יהוה שהיה לנו‬, “If it had not been YHWH who was on our side,” the ‫ היה‬+ ‫ ל‬syntax once again resembles the covenant formula. ‬To these we can possibly add Ps 46:2, where the Korahite psalmist declares that, “God is to us (‫)לנו‬15 a refuge and strength.” As with 56:10, the initial ‫ אלהים לנו‬resembles the covenant formula syntactically to a recognizable extent (cf. similar syntactical use of ‫ לנו‬in vv. 8 and 12). These examples make it clear the proper covenantal relationship between God and his people persists as a vital interest of the Psalter. As the Appendix shows, instances reflecting Formula A with the 2nd per. suffix (‫ )אלהיך‬and 3rd per. suffix (‫ )אלהיו‬are much rarer. “I (‫ )אנכי‬am God/YHWH your God (‫ ”)אלהיך‬occurs twice in the Psalter, both times in the so-called festival psalms, Pss 50:7 and 81:1, where YHWH addresses his people. These correspond closely to the way God addresses his people in the Pentateuch.16 We find ‫ אלהיו‬in Ps 33:12 noted by Lohfink, and once more in Davidic Ps 144:15, where the 3rd sg. suffix refers to YHWH’s people: “Blessed are the people (‫ )העם‬whose God is YHWH!” (‫)אלהיו‬. In fact, 33:12a and 144:15b are virtually identical,17 suggesting that Ps 144:15 alludes to the covenant formula just as strongly as 33:12. And since Ps 33 is sandwiched between Davidic psalms, editors ensured that “David” speaks both these near-identical pronouncements of blessing on the people “whose God is YHWH.” These data permit some tentative conclusions. If it is correct to speak of a “royalization” of the covenant formula in the Psalter, it is clearly not at the expense of the corporate identity of God’s people. Nevertheless, the Psalter strongly underscores David’s relationship to YHWH (Ps 89:27; cf. Ps 2:7), and it is principally David who addresses YHWH in covenant formulaic terms. Given that David also declares YHWH’s people “blessed” (Pss 33 and 144), then it is certainly conceivable that editors credited the

15.  ESV: “our.” 16.  The self-introductory formula, “I am YHWH your/their God” (‫אני יהוה‬ ‫אלהיכם‬/‫)אלהיהם‬, commonly occurs with the covenant formula: e.g., Exod 29:45–46; Lev 11:44–45; 26:12–13; 26:44–45 (cf. ‫ וידעת כי־יהוה אלהיך הוא האלהים‬in Deut 7:9 and the covenant formulaic language in the preceding verses). 17.  They differ only in their respective (synonymous!) nouns (‫הגוי‬/‫ )העם‬and the form of the relative particle (‫אשר‬/‫)ש‬. A few MSS even conform 33:12 to 144:15 in this latter respect.

118

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

people’s status in these psalms to David’s ministrations—his intercessions—as YHWH’s covenant partner. Finally, ‫אלהים‬/‫ אל‬or ‫ עם‬often appear suffixed in addresses to YHWH or statements about him, so that individual terms such as ‫אל(ו)הי‬, ‫אלי‬, ‫אלהינו‬, ‫אלהיך‬, ‫אלהיכם‬, ‫אלהיו‬, and ‫ אלהיהם‬likely allude to the covenant formula by evoking the relationship it expresses. Although very numerous these suffixed forms permit some general observations.18 Especially noteworthy is how often the 1st sg. possessive form, “my God,” occurs in direct address in the vocative. If we discount the textually uncertain 18:29, Table 2 in the Appendix identifies 32 occurrences of ‫ אל(ו)הי‬or ‫ אלי‬as direct address to God. Twenty-six of these are found on David’s lips (just over 81%). Of the remaining six psalms, Pss 104:1 and 118:28 potentially have Davidic associations at the editorial level, bringing the figure up over 87%. Thus, it is principally David who addresses YHWH as “my God.” The proportion of Davidic or Davidized psalms is lower, however, when we consider the thirteen places where psalmists refer to “my God” in third person discourse rather than direct address.19 Five of the thirteen (again discounting 18:29) are clearly Davidic, with Pss 104 and 119 possibly so at the editorial level. Similarly, 1st pl. form “our God” (‫ )אלהינו‬occurs predominantly in statements about God and are distributed broadly across Davidic, Korahite, and anonymous psalms.20 Similar allusive potential also applies to ‫עמי‬, ‫עמך‬, and ‫עמו‬. The 1st per. suffixed form (‫ )עמי‬occurs in God’s address to “hear, my people” in Pss 50:7 and 81:9, and twice more in Ps 81:12 and 14. The covenantal context of both psalms is clear. The 2nd sg. suffixed form (‫ )עמך‬predictably occurs in prayerful address to God. Five of its fifteen instances occur in Davidic or Davidized psalms: David announces YHWH’s blessing upon “your people” (Pss 3:9), petitions YHWH to save them (28:9), laments God’s harsh imposition upon them (60:5), recalls God’s deliverance at the exodus (68:8), and proclaims his wish that “the royal son…judge your people with righteousness” (72:2). The remaining nine instances in non-Davidic psalms either use ‫ עמך‬in complaints or petitions (44:13; 77:16, 21; 80:5; 83:4; 85:7, and 94:14), when recalling YHWH’s forgiveness (85:3), or when anticipating his favor (106:4). These other nine instances of ‫עמך‬ 18.  See Appendix. 19.  See Appendix Table 2. 20.  The 25 instances in Appendix Table 2 occur in some six Davidic/Davidized psalms (18, 20, 40, 66, 67, and 122), two Korahite psalms (44 and 48), one Mosaic (90), one Asaph (50), and ten anonymous psalms (92, 94, 98, 99, 113, 115, 116, 123, 135, and 147).

6. David as YHWH’s Faithful Covenant Partner

119

are concentrated mainly in Asaph and Korahite psalms in Books II–III, and consequently David is not alone in praying for God’s people in the Psalter. The remaining Pss 94 and 106 are anonymous psalms from Book IV explored further in Chapter 12. Finally, besides the covenant formula in 100:3, the 3rd per. suffixed form (‫ )עמו‬occurs exclusively in statements about YHWH’s people as one would expect. Interestingly, in Pss 78:62, 71 and 94:14 ‫ עמו‬parallels ‫נחלתו‬, next to be addressed. In summary, once we recognize the variations of the covenant formula elsewhere in the OT, there turn out to be many more allusions of varying strengths beyond Lohfink’s three examples. Many of these take the form of a nominal sentence whereby the psalmist states the fact of his or others’ relationship to God (e.g., “You are my God”), while other weaker allusions include simple vocatives that evoke the same relational reality (e.g., “my God”). The discovery of note here is that “David” is predominantly the “me/my” in view, giving the overall impression that he is a or even the primary covenant partner of YHWH in the Psalter. Insofar as these expressions evoke the covenant relationship described by the formula, these data suggest its royalization rather than a democratizing agenda. Nevertheless, the Psalter clearly applies the formula to the people too; a fact most obviously seen in with the suffixed forms ‫עמי‬, ‫עמך‬, and ‫עמו‬. How that relationship is restored or maintained, however, is a question for later chapters. The People as YHWH’s “Inheritance”/“Possession” and YHWH as “Portion” Besides the formulae just examined, Moses describes the people as “YHWH’s inheritance” (‫ )נחלה‬and his “portion” (‫ )חלק‬in Deut 4, 9, and 32. Still other texts describe them as his “possession” (‫ )סגלה‬in conjunction with the covenant formula, notably Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; 14:2; and 26:18. All three terms are echoed in the Psalter, albeit only once in the case of ‫ סגלה‬in Ps 135:4, “For YHWH has chosen (‫ )בחר‬Jacob for himself, Israel as his own possession (‫)לסגלתו‬,” declaring why YHWH should be praised (vv. 1–3). Psalm 135 thus praises YHWH because he has chosen “his people” for his own possession (‫)סגלה‬. The term ‫ נחלה‬can apply to land in the Pentateuch, but Deuteronomy also uses it to describe Jacob/Israel as YHWH’s “inheritance.” These contexts often have in view both the covenant relationship and Moses’ intercessory role in restoring that relationship. For example, Deut 4:20 connects it with ‫ עם‬within the covenant formula, “to be a people of his own inheritance” (‫)להיות לו לעם נחלה‬. In Deut 9:25–29 Moses recalls his

120

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

intercession for the people after their rebellion narrated in Exod 17 and Num 11. The terms ‫ עם‬and ‫ נחלה‬appear in apposition with second person singular possessive suffixes and are the basis for Moses’ intercession. In vv. 26 and 29 Moses prays, “do not destroy your people and your heritage (‫)עמך ונהלתך‬, whom you have redeemed through your greatness… For they are your people and your heritage (‫)והם עמך ונהלתך‬, whom you brought out…etc.” Similarly, Moses’ song in Deut 32 describes the people as his “portion” (‫ )חלק‬and “allotted inheritance” (‫ )חבל נחלתו‬in v. 9. Thus several Pentateuchal texts clearly connect YHWH’s people as his “inheritance” with the covenant relationship and its restoration through Moses’ intercession. ‬ Turning to the Psalter, the people are YHWH’s “inheritance” (‫ )נחלה‬in Pss 28:9; 33:12;21 78:62, 71; 94:5, 14; and 106:40 (cf. 106:5). The case can be made that nearly all these entail the notion of intercession at the editorial level. Davidic Ps 28 is intercessory in function22 and reminiscent of Deut 9 when the psalmist prays in the final verse, “save your people (‫ )עמך‬and bless your heritage (‫ !)נחלתך‬Be their shepherd and carry them forever.” Anonymous Ps 94 is similar in this regard. Verse 5 employs the ‫נחלה‬/‫עם‬ parallel in a prayer for YHWH’s people, whom the wicked (‫ )רשעים‬are crushing. Verse 14 later affirms YHWH’s faithfulness to his “people” and “heritage.” The cycle of sin, judgment, and intercession typified by Deut 9 and the events it recalls also lies in the background of Ps 78:62 and 71, where ‫עם‬ and ‫ נחלה‬again occur in parallel. However, in keeping with Chapter 6’s discussion of Ps 78, the traditionally Mosaic coloration of intercession gives way to an emphasis on David at the end of the psalm. In v. 62 God, “gave his people over to the sword” (‫)ויסגר לחרב עמו‬, and, “vented his wrath on his heritage” (‫)ובנחלת התעבר‬. But in vv. 70–71 God chose (‫ )בחר‬David and took him from looking after sheep, “to shepherd Jacob his people, Israel his inheritance” (‫)לרעות ביעקב עמו ובישראל נחלתו‬. So these verses place David in the role of “shepherding” (‫ )רעה‬and “guiding” (‫ נחה‬in v. 72) YHWH’s people/heritage as Moses had done. Indeed, the contrast between the deployment of the ‫נחלה‬/‫ עם‬parallel in v. 62 and in v. 71 is striking, as God’s “people”/“inheritance” move from 21.  See the above discussion of the covenant formula. Psalm 33:12b, “the people whom he has chosen as his heritage” (‫)העם בחר לנחלה לו‬, closely resembles Deut 4:20, “to be a people of his own inheritance” (‫—)להיות לו לעם נחלה‬their different verbs constituting the only substantial difference between them. 22.  See, e.g., Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 339.

6. David as YHWH’s Faithful Covenant Partner

121

wrath to being shepherded by David. It is therefore very plausible that editors familiar with Deut 9:25–29 and the famous events related there would recognize David’s instrumentality in restoring the proper covenant relationship between God and his people. Since Ps 77:20 concludes with clear reference to Moses’ and Aaron’s leadership, “You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron,” it seems likely that editors read Ps 78:62 and 71 in terms of David taking over Moses’ leadership role. All this suggests that David assumes the Mosaic roles of leader and intercessor, through which Israel regain their proper vocation as YHWH’s people and heritage. In Ps 106:4–5 the psalmist petitions YHWH to “remember” (‫ )זכר‬and “help” (‫ )פקד‬him,23 “that I may look upon the prosperity of your chosen ones (‫)בחיריך‬,…rejoice in the gladness of your nation (‫)גויך‬,24…[and] glory with your inheritance (‫)נחלתך‬.” Later v. 40 reports YHWH’s anger “against his people (‫ ”)בעמו‬and that “he abhorred his heritage (‫)נחלתו‬.” Meanwhile the theme of intercession turns up explicitly in Ps 106:23’s historical recollection of Moses as YHWH’s “chosen one” (‫ )בחירו‬who, “stood in the breach before him (‫)עמד בפרץ לפניו‬, to turn away his wrath from destroying them (‫ ”)מהשחית‬after the golden calf incident (vv. 19–22).25 This raises a couple of possibilities. Editors may have used Ps 106 to express the hope/expectation of an intercessor, or perhaps they intended Ps 106 to function as an act of intercession through the petitions we find in v. 47. Chapter 12 pursues this latter possibility further. ‬ Finally, we may observe that ‫ נחלה‬couples with ‫ חלק‬in Ps 16:5–6 to describe YHWH: “YHWH is my chosen portion (‫ )מנת־חלקי‬and my cup… indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance (‫)נחלת שפרה‬.” While this pairing is idiomatic,26 it rarely applies to YHWH except to describe his relationship to priests or Levites. YHWH is Aaron’s “portion and inheritance” in Num 18:20. Similarly, in Deut 10:9 YHWH is Levi’s “inheritance” (‫ )יהוה הוא נחלתו‬who otherwise, “has no portion or inheritance (‫)חלק ונחלה‬

23.  The MT reads ‫זכרני‬, but numerous Greek and Syriac MSS witness the 1st pl. suffix, perhaps due to the 1st pl. in v. 47’s petition to “save us” (‫ )הושיענו‬and “gather us” (‫)וקבצנו‬. 24.  “Your nation” is omitted in the Syriac tradition. 25.  Borger, “Moses in the Fourth Book of the Psalter,” 144, notes that the expression “in the breach” (‫ )בפרץ‬otherwise occurs only in Ezek 22:30, where it is also used to describe “an intercessory figure.” 26.  E.g., Gen 31:14; Deut 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:1; Josh 18:7 19:9; 2 Sam 20:1; 1 Kgs 12:16; Job 20:29; 27:13; 31:2; and 2 Chr 10:16.

122

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

with his brothers.”27 Accordingly, in Davidic Ps 16:5–6 the psalmist appropriates to himself language that elsewhere describes YHWH’s relationship to priests or Levites. These priestly overtones in Ps 16, while subtle, are very much at home within the chiastically arranged Pss 15–24 subgroup, which centers around kingship and torah psalms (Pss 18–21) and is enclosed by entrance liturgies (Pss 15 and 24). Moreover, of the Psalter’s six occurrences of ‫ חלק‬we next find it in the following psalm,28 Ps 17:14, in reference to “men” (‫ )מתים‬whose portion is in some sense “of the world” or “in this life” (‫)חלקם בחיים‬. These observations suggest that the editorial motivation for juxtaposing Pss 16 and 17 involved an effort to differentiate a priestly David from worldly people. Indeed, other psalms suggest a priestly role for David too and will be explored in later chapters.29 Otherwise ‫ חלק‬occurs four other times without ‫נחלה‬, and in three of these the psalmist addresses YHWH/God as “my portion” (‫)חלקי‬: Asaph Ps 73:26—himself among the Levitical courses; (quasi-Davidic?) Ps 119:57; and Davidic Ps 142:6.30 To sum up, ‫ סגלה‬and ‫ נחלה‬evoke the relationship expressed in the covenant formula (when the latter does not denote land). When it is the people who are YHWH’s ‫ נחלה‬rather than an individual like David, the context is usually one of judgment or intercession for them as in Deut 9:25–29. When YHWH is ‫ חלק‬and/or ‫נחלה‬, these terms predominantly describe YHWH’s relationship with the Davidic psalmist/king, apparently appropriating priestly/Levitical connotations to the royal office (esp. Ps 16). This positive focus on David’s relationship with YHWH comports well with our earlier analysis of covenant formulaic language in the Psalter. Conclusion The foregoing analysis of covenant formula alluding language confirms the Psalter’s interest in the people’s proper vocation as YHWH’s covenant partners. At the same time the Psalter has a tendency to “royalize” this language. The Psalter’s strongest allusions to the covenant formula are typically found on the lips of David, and it is chiefly David who addresses 27.  Also Josh 18:7, where the Levites have no “portion” (‫)חלק‬, because, “the priesthood of YHWH is his/their inheritance” (‫)כי כהנת יהוה נחלתו‬. Jeremiah 10:16 and 51:19 also pair these terms, though with mixed reference: YHWH is Jacob’s portion (‫ )חלק יעקב‬while Israel is the tribe of YHWH’s inheritance (‫)שבט נחלתו‬. 28.  ‫ חלק‬occurs in Pss 16:5; 17:14; 50:18; 73:26; 119:57; and 142:6. 29.  See, e.g., Wilson, “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God,” 403. 30.  The remaining instance, 50:18, applies the term to adulterers.

6. David as YHWH’s Faithful Covenant Partner

123

YHWH as “my God” in prayer. Similarly, the terms “inheritance” (‫)נחלה‬ and “possession” (‫ )סגלה‬often refer to the people in the Psalter as seen also in Mosaic covenantal contexts from the Pentateuch. Yet these references are also mostly intercessory in character as the psalmist appeals to YHWH on the people’s behalf (Pss 28, 78, 94, and 106). In some cases David either offers the intercession (Ps 28) or is otherwise instrumental in God’s restoration of his ‫( נחלה‬Ps 78). Finally, in Davidic Pss 16 and 142 (and quasi-Davidic 119:57) YHWH is the psalmist’s “portion” (‫)חלק‬ and/or “inheritance” (‫)נחלה‬. The psalmist thus describes his relationship to YHWH in terms normally reserved for priests and Levites in the Pentateuch. While not decisive on their own, these observations lend credence to an editorial interest in the king as an intercessor, supporting the corroborating evidence that will emerge throughout the remaining chapters.

Chapter 7 D av i d a s K eep er of t h e M osai c C ove nant

No psalm makes so profound or sustained a lament over David as Ps 89. Yet Chapter 5’s analysis of Ps 89 also repudiated any notion of royal culpability within that psalm. Moreover, the Psalter’s most explicit confessions of royal guilt in Davidic psalms come prior to Ps 72 where David “son of Jesse” is the predominant focus (Pss 32, 38, and 51; cf. 25:18), not post-72:20 where the focus sharpens upon a “new David.”1 These observations support Grant’s understanding of the king as an “exemplar” of torah-piety.2 Yet the implications of Grant’s thesis may extend further, for in modelling torah-piety the king thereby fulfills Mosaic covenantal obligations in contrast to the people who have not. To test whether that picture holds, the following survey offers a more thorough examination of allusions to Mosaic covenantal obligations: possible intertextual allusions to the Shema, clustered terminology denoting YHWH’s Mosaic covenantal commands (‫חקים‬/‫;מצות ;עדות ;חקות‬ ‫)משפטים ;פקודים‬, allusions to specific Decalogue commands, and the themes of (walking) YHWH’s way and the fear of YHWH. An addendum examines singular usages of “statute” (‫)חק‬, and “testimony” (‫)עדות‬, whose plural forms are treated earlier and which appear in psalms bearing a strong covenantal focus. David and the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4[–7]) Several ‫ ברית‬psalms surveyed in Chapter 5 also contained allusions to the Shema and commands immediately following (Deut 6:4–7). These allu­ sions included the appeal, “Hear, O my people” (50:7), and the expression, “with all my heart” (111:1)—criteria that turn up in other 1.  After Ps 72, two penitential psalms are attributed to David (Ps 143) or Davidized (Ps 102). Of these Ps 143:2 comes closest to such an admission via the generality, “for all flesh (‫ )כל־חי‬is not in the right (‫ )לא־יצדק‬before you” (my translation). 2.  Grant, The King as Exemplar.

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

125

psalms lacking ‫ברית‬. Other psalms also make YHWH the object of ‫אהב‬ in possible allusion to the command, “love (‫ )ואהבת‬YHWH your God with all your heart (‫…)בכל־לבבך‬etc.,” in 6:5 and throughout Deuteronomy.3 Scholars since William L. Moran have recognized the strong covenantal connotations of ‫ אהב‬in divine–human relationship contexts. Moran sums up the meaning of ‫ אהב‬in Deuteronomy thus: to love God is, in answer to a unique claim (6,4), to be loyal to him (11,1.22; 30,20), to walk in his ways (10,12; 11,22; 19,9; 30,16), to keep his commandments (10,12; 11,1.22; 19,9), to do them (11,22; 19,9), to heed them or his voice (11,13; 30,16), to serve him (10,12; 11,1.13). It is, in brief, a love defined by and pledged in the covenant—a covenantal love.4‬

Additionally, a few probable echoes of Deut 6:7’s injunction to repeat “these words” (v. 6) to future generations also warrant attention. “Hear, O Israel” (‫)שמע‬ Besides Ps 50, God enjoins his people to “Hear!” in Ps 81:9 with the words, “Hear, O my people” (‫)שמע עמי‬, later declaring in v. 12, “my people did not listen to my voice” (‫)ולא־שמע עמי לקולי‬. The intervening vv. 10–11 repeat the command to have no “strange god” (‫ )אל זר‬nor worship a “foreign god” (‫—)אל נכר‬reminiscent of the Decalogue—and declare, “I am YHWH your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt” (cf. Exod 6:2, 6, 8; 29:46; Lev 11:44; 26:13).5 Psalm 81’s allusion to Deut 6:4 is therefore confirmed by these other strong Mosaic covenantal features. In addition to the divine address in 50:7 and 81:9, psalmists sometimes enjoin people to “hear” (imperative) similar to the Shema: Pss 34:12, 49:2, and 66:16. Psalm 34 is Davidic, while the anonymous Ps 66 reflects editorial effort to Davidize it (see Chapter 4). Moreover, Wilson’s observation that editors sought to smooth the transition through Korahite Ps 49, Asaph Ps 50, and Davidic Ps 51 suggests they intended it to be read in sequence. In Chapter 9 I argue that the David II group (Pss 51–72) presents David as chief responder to Ps 50’s covenantal summons and commands. If this is the case, it follows also that Book II accentuates David’s role as one who heeds Korahite Ps 49:2’s (and Asaph Ps 50:7’s) Shema-like injunctions to the people. 3.  See also Deut 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:4; 19:9; 30:6, 16, and 20. 4.  William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 78. 5.  See also Rendtorff, Covenant Formula, 47–49.

126

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Naturally enough ‫ שמע‬frequently occurs in other non-imperative moods too. Although such instances are not functional equivalents to Deut 6:4’s command, the term nevertheless presents another helpful entry point for exploring the relationships between God, king, and people in the Psalter. We may ask, for instance, how frequently people or the king “hear” or “do not hear” YHWH in the Psalter; that is, whether the Shema is heeded or spurned. Indeed, God is “(not) heard” or something conceptually similar in Pss 48:9; 62:12; 81:12, 14; 85:9; 106:25; and 143:8. To these we may add Korahite Ps 44:2 and Asaph Ps 78:3, “things that we have heard (‫…)שמענו‬that our fathers have told us (‫)ספרו־לנו‬,” also echoing Deut 6:7’s injunction to teach future generations. Besides this last example, two of the above psalms are Davidic (Pss 62 and 143). Moreover, Ps 62:12 testifies to God’s omnipotence in keeping with YHWH’s singularity and exclusivity expressed in the Shema: “Once God has spoken, twice I have heard (‫)שמעתי‬6…that power belongs to God.” In Ps 143:8, David petitions YHWH, “Let me hear (‫…)השמיעני‬your steadfast love,” whereupon he affirms his trust in YHWH.7 When it comes to people “hearing” or “not hearing” we get a mixed picture. For example, Ps 48:9, “As we have heard (‫)שמענו‬, so have we seen,” celebrates Zion and God’s presence there, later enjoining people to, “Walk about Zion…that you may tell the next generation that this is God, our God (‫ )אלהינו‬forever and ever” in vv. 13–14 (cf. Ps 44). In another Korahite psalm, Ps 85:9, the psalmist desires to “hear (‫ )אשמעה‬what God YHWH will speak,” issuing a warning that the people “not turn back to folly.” As we have seen with Pss 81:12 and 14, however, in 106:25 the people did “not listen/obey.” Though few and of varying allusive strength these data nevertheless fit the emerging picture of popular rather than royal culpability. Sometimes psalmists direct the same imperative verb found in the Shema, “hear” (‫ שמע‬or ‫)שמעה‬, to YHWH as the implied subject of “hearing”: Pss 4:2; 17:1, 6; 27:7; 28:2; 30:11; 39:13; 54:4; 61:2; 64:2; 84:9; 102:2; 119:149; 130:2; and 143:1. Despite having a singular imperative form of ‫ שמע‬these clearly do not offer functional parallels to Deut 6:4 like Pss 50 and 81, but their lexical similitude to the Shema raises the possibility that editors understood them as a petitionary “play” on it, a kind of role-reversal in which the psalmist calls on YHWH to remain faithful to the covenant relationship, befitting the reciprocity of the relationship

6.  Hebrew witnesses also attest the plural. 7.  Davidic Ps 34:3 enjoins the humble to “hear (‫ )ישמעו‬and be glad.”

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

127

reflected in the full, bilateral form of the covenant formula. Most of these psalms are Davidic or Davidized (e.g., Ps 102), indicating that David characteristically calls to YHWH to “hear” and act. To whom does God “listen” in the Psalter, then? Instances of ‫שמע‬ where YHWH “hears” the psalmist reveal a strong pattern of YHWH “hearing” David’s or Davidized prayers. The psalmist declares that YHWH has heard (‫ )שמע‬my voice (‫)קול‬, pleas for mercy (‫)תחנונים‬, prayer (‫)תפלה‬, “word” (‫)אמרה‬, “when he cried out” (‫קרא‬/‫—)צעק‬or a combination thereof—some fifteen times in thirteen psalms: Pss 4:4; 5:4; 6:9, 10; 18:7; 22:25; 28:6; 31:23; 34:7; 40:2; 55:18,8 20; 61:6;9 66:19; and 116:1. Fourteen out of these fifteen instances are in Davidic or Davidized psalms, indicating that God “hears” David more than any other individual psalmist and harmonizing with the previous chapter’s picture of David as YHWH’s covenant partner par excellence. What is more, in Davidized Ps 66:18–19 the psalmist affirms both YHWH’s listening to him and his personal disdain for iniquity: “If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened (‫)לא ישמע אדני‬.10 But truly God has listened (‫ ;)אכן שמע אלהים‬he has attended to the voice of my prayer.” The picture comes into even sharper focus when we observe psalms in which God “hears” his people: 69:34; 78:21, 59; 102:21; and 145:19. In 69:34, 102:21, and 145:19 the psalmist numbers himself among the “poor,” “prisoners,” “God-fearers,” et al. whom YHWH hears. In 69:34 God hears “the needy” (‫ )אביונים‬but in v. 30 the psalmist identifies with them as one “afflicted and in pain” (‫)עני וכואב‬. Similarly, in 102:21, God “hear[s] the groans (‫ )אסיר‬of prisoners,” but already the superscript has identified the psalm as “a prayer of one afflicted (‫)תפלה לעני‬,” whereupon he enjoins YHWH to “Hear my prayer” (‫ )שמעה תפלתי‬in v. 2. Again God hears those who fear him (‫ )יראיו‬in 145:19, but in vv. 1–2 the psalmist identifies with them too. Each of these psalms is Davidic or Davidized (Ps 102; see Chapter 12), as the king consistently identifies with the faithful in keeping with proposals by Grant and Creach.11 By contrast, when God “hears” his pre-monarchic people in Ps 78:21 and 59 they are grumbling and rebelling against him and God responds with divine wrath.

8.  A Hebrew MS and the Syriac witness a 1st sg. form in v. 18. 9.  God “has heard” the psalmist’s vow (‫ )שמעת לנדרי‬in 61:6, which opens with his petition to God, “hear (‫ )שמעה‬my cry” in v. 2 noted earlier. 10.  The Syriac witnesses the 2nd pers. (‫ תושיעני‬instead of ‫)ישמע‬. 11.  Grant, The King as Exemplar; Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous.

128

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

In summary, the festival Pss 50 and 81 offer the strongest allusions to the Shema, and both psalms highlight the people’s failure to listen to YHWH. Although the evidence for recognizable allusions to the Shema is not as strong in the other instances of ‫ שמע‬surveyed above, the picture agrees with that of the previous chapter. It is predominantly David who calls on YHWH to “hear,” is “heard” by YHWH, and who in turn “listens” to YHWH. Moreover, once again royal culpability is absent or very understated, while the people are “heard” grumbling and incur God’s wrath. You shall love YHWH your God with all your heart (Deuteronomy 6:5) Immediately following the Shema is the great command in Deut 6:5, “Love (‫ )אהב‬YHWH your God with all your heart (‫”)בכל־לבבך‬. The following exploration of ‫ אהב‬and ‫לבבי‬/‫ בכל־לבי‬examines cases with the strongest allusive potential. “Love” (‫)אהב‬. Psalm 31:24 reiterates the essential command of Deut 6:5 by commanding the faithful (‫ )כל־חסידיו‬to “Love YHWH” (‫)אהבו את־יהוה‬, resembling Deut 7:9–10 also in this and other features (see Chapter 8). Notably, it is David who commands YHWH’s saints to love him as Moses had done in Deut 6:5. Other psalms reflect Deut 6:5 with participial or perfect forms of ‫אהב‬: Pss 97:10, “you who love YHWH” (‫;)אהבי יהוה‬12 145:20, “YHWH preserves all who love him (‫)את־כל־אהביו‬,” and probably Ps 116:1’s unique profession of love for God, “I love” (‫)אהבתי‬.13 So, while the command in Ps 31:24 most strongly echoes Deut 6:5, Pss 97, 145, and 116 apparently evoke the covenant relationship in terms reminiscent of Deut 6:5.14 Two of these are Davidic (Pss 31 and 145). Moreover, Chapter 12.  Psalm 97:10 also describes those who love YHWH as “faithful ones” (‫;חסידיו‬ cf. Ps 31:24). 13.  Although lacking a direct object, scholars generally agree that YHWH is the implied direct object. See, e.g., Goldingay, Psalms, 3:339; Allen, Psalms 101–150, 151; and Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 384–85. 14.  ‫ אהב‬often takes other objects associated with YHWH in the Psalter, such as his name (Pss 5:12; 69:37; and 119:132), his “salvation” (40:17/70:5), “the habitation of [his] house” (26:8)—all occurring in Davidic psalms, and his “commandments,” “torah,” “testimonies,” “promise,” and “precepts” some eleven times throughout Ps 119. Indeed, Deut 7:9; 11:1, 22; 19:9; 30:16 explicitly connect “loving YHWH” with keeping his commands, torah etc., so these expressions in Ps 119 enact Mosaic covenantal piety according to Deut 6:5. Otherwise, YHWH is the stated or implied subject of ‫ אהב‬in some eight psalms, whose covenantal entailments are evident in, e.g., Pss 47:5; 78:68; 87:2, and 146:8, where YHWH loves “Jacob,” “Zion,” “the righteous,” etc.

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

129

8 argues that, at the editorial level, YHWH’s “son” and “servant” (v. 16) is the Davidic king. If correct, David echoes this key command of the torah in all but one of these psalms. “With All (Your) Heart.” Besides Ps 111:1, the expression “with my whole heart” (‫לבבי‬/‫ )בכל־לבי‬occurs in Pss 9:2, 86:12, 119:10, and 138:1, and unsuffixed (i.e., “with [the] whole heart”) a further four times in Ps 119 (vv. 34, 58, 69, and 145). The allusion to Deut 6:5 is especially strong in Ps 119, whose meditation on torah enacts Deut 6:6’s command, “these words…shall be on your heart.” The others are Davidic psalms, where “all [my] heart” qualifies “I will praise you/YHWH” (‫ )אודה‬to describe the psalmist’s whole-hearted devotion to YHWH. Without examining all the one-hundred plus instances of “heart” in the Psalter, prepositional phrases comprised of ‫לבב‬/‫ לב‬+ ‫ ב‬also demonstrate allusive potential when qualifying the psalmist’s devotion to YHWH, even if weakened somewhat by their omission of “all” (‫)כל‬. These include Davidic Pss 4:5, 15:2, 37:31, and anonymous 125:4. In the latter three instances the psalmist instructs others to exercise faithful devotion to YHWH “in heart” or approves of those that do.15 Several other Davidic psalms with ‫לבב‬/‫ לב‬merit brief mention. Torah Ps 19 reflects the same piety as Ps 119 and Ps 37:31, “the law of his God is in his heart” (‫)תורת אלהיו בלבו‬. The psalmist desires that “meditation of [his] heart” (‫ )והגיון לבי‬be acceptable in your sight, YHWH” (19:15). Also instructive is how “heart” shows up in Ps 78. In v. 18 the people “tested God in their heart,” but the psalm ends with v. 72’s positive description of David who, “shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart (‫)כתם לבבו‬.”16 A similar phrase also affirms this positive picture of royalty in Davidic Ps 101:2, where the king vows to, “ponder the way that is blameless…I walk in the integrity of my heart (‫)בתם־לבבי‬.”17 In each case David embodies this aspect of the Shema in the Psalter. Teach the Next Generation (Deuteronomy 6:7) The command, “teach/repeat [these words] diligently to your children” (‫)ושננתם לבניך‬, is not repeated in the OT, but semantic equivalents occur quite frequently in the Psalter: Pss 22:31, “it shall be told (‫…)יספר‬to the coming generation (‫ ;”)לדור‬Ps 45:18, “I will cause your name to be 15.  Psalm 40:11 uses “in my heart” (‫ )בתוך לבי‬in a different sense, and Ps 84:6 is textually uncertain. 16.  ESV: “with upright heart.” 17.  ESV: “with integrity of heart.” Cf. Ps 119:7, “I will praise you with an upright heart (‫)בישר לבב‬.”

130

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

remembered (‫ )אזכירה‬in all generations (‫ ;”)בכל־דר ודר‬48:14–15, “that you may tell (‫ )תספרו‬the next generation )‫ (לדור אחרון‬that this is God, our God forever and ever” (noted above); 71:18, “until I proclaim (‫)אגיד‬ your might to another generation (‫ ;”)לדור‬79:13, “from generation to generation (‫ )לדר ודר‬we will recount your praise (‫ ;”)נספר‬89:2, “with my mouth I will make known (‫ )אודיע‬your faithfulness to all generations (‫ ;”)לדר ודר‬102:19, “Let this be recorded (‫ )תכתב‬for a generation to come (‫ ;”)לדור אחרון‬and 145:4, “One generation (‫ )דור לדור‬shall commend (‫ )ישבח‬your works to another, and shall declare (‫ )יגידו‬your mighty acts.” These instances suggest that this theme largely coalesces around the figure of David. Half of them are Davidic or Davidized (Pss 22, 71, 102, and 145), so that David reiterates the basic injunction of Deut 6:5. Indeed, in Ps 71 an aging Davidic speaker determines to proclaim God’s might to future generations (v. 18), whereupon follows his prayer for his successor in Ps 72 (see Chapter 4). Meanwhile both Pss 45 and 89 are royal psalms. Interestingly, in Ps 45:18 the psalmist’s resolve to “cause your name (‫ )שמך‬to be remembered” refers at face value to the royal groom whose sons will rule “in all the earth” (v. 17).18 Similarly, in Ps 89:2 the psalmist will make known YHWH’s “faithfulness” to David “to all generations.” The same expression (‫ )לדר ודור‬is soon repeated in v. 5, where YHWH “will build [David’s] throne for all generations.” Thus YHWH’s sure promises to David are the substance of the psalmist’s proclamation to future generations. Although Zion is the object of proclamation in 48:14, Pss 45–48 interweave royal Ps 45, kingship of YHWH Ps 47, and Zion Pss 46 and 48 (see Chapter 9). Accordingly, its possible allusion to Deut 6:5 appears editorially linked with that in Ps 45:18, thereby proclaiming YHWH’s faithfulness to both king and Zion to future generations. This leaves Ps 79:13, in which, “we your people, the sheep of your pasture…will recount (‫ )נספר‬your praise,” thus resuming the pastoral motif already applied to David at the end of the preceding psalm (78:72; cf. 80:1). Accordingly, most of the Psalter’s possible echoes of Deut 6:7 gravitate around David, whether he instructs future generations or YHWH’s faithfulness to him constitutes the substance of the proclamation. Summary By addressing the imperative “hear” (‫ )שמע‬to the people, the festival Pss 50 and 81 provide the strongest allusions to Deut 6:4. Both psalms also contain veiled or explicit accusations of the people’s unfaithfulness 18.  This is the natural antecedent for ‫ שמך‬in the psalm. See Goldingay, Psalms, 2:62; and Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 340, who additionally appears open to ‫ שמך‬as a reference to God’s name according to common idiom.

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

131

(50:[7–8,] 16–22; 81:12–14); a point reinforced by Ps 106:25. Beyond these our survey identified similar injunctions to “hear” in Pss 34, 49, 66, observing that David voices it in Pss 34 and 66 while at the editorial level appears to respond to similar injunctions in Pss 49 and festival Ps 50 via the David II group (see Chapter 9). Examination of other instances of ‫ שמע‬also proved instructive. David accounts for approximately threequarters of the petitions to YHWH to “hear” (‫ )שמע‬and, correspondingly, in almost every instance where YHWH/God is subject of ‫( שמע‬indicative), God “hears” David. Likewise, of three occasions when individual psalmists “hear” YHWH or aspire to doing so, most of the time it is David (62:12; 143:8; cf. 85:9). These data confirm the impression that David is the Psalter’s foremost petitioner, lending further credence to an intercessory role in the Psalter’s theology of kingship. While Ps 31 alone repeats Deut 6:5’s imperative to “love (‫ )אהב‬YHWH your God,” Pss 97, 145, and probably 116 allude to the command indirectly, with David/the king predominantly the one voicing it. The Psalter also associates the “with [my] whole heart” (‫בכל־לבי‬/‫ )לבבי‬aspect of Deut 6:5’s command primarily—if not entirely—with David who embodies this quality. Indeed, allusions to Deut 6:5 predominate in Davidic Psalms, stressing the king’s uprightness of heart (e.g., Pss 78:72 and 101:2). Similarly, allusions to Deut 6:7’s command to teach the next generation often show either that David speaks it or that the proclamation consists of YHWH’s promises to him. Notably, the psalms identified above include the first and last psalms of the final Davidic group, Pss 138 and 145, underscoring the importance of Deut 6:5 as a David-related theme in the Psalter. It also occurs in Pss 78 and 86—two structurally central psalms in Book III that reflect a common interest in David as YHWH’s servant (see Chapters 4 and 11). In summary, as a whole the Psalter associates the Shema with “David.” David praises YHWH “with [his] whole heart” (Pss 9:2; 86:12; 138:1), but God confronts the people for grumbling and not “listening” (Pss 50; 78:5–67; 81:12, 14). Other Criteria Denoting Faithfulness to the Mosaic Covenant Having explored these allusions to the Shema and its associated commands, our survey expands the picture by examining other criteria that evoke the people’s normal obligations under the Mosaic covenant. These include clustered terminology such as “statutes,” “commands,” “judgments,” and so on, allusions to specific commands from the Decalogue, and the wisdom motifs of YHWH’s way, the “two ways,” and the “fear of YHWH.”

132

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Clustered Terms Relating to Covenantal Stipulations Helmer Ringgren observes that ‫חקים‬/‫חקות‬, ‫עדות‬, ‫מצות‬, and ‫משפטים‬ frequently occur in combination in Deuteronomy and the DH in reference to the whole Mosaic law (‫)תורה‬, without necessarily stressing distinctive meanings for each term.19 Similarly, for Grant, these terms (and ‫ יראה‬in Ps 19:10) reflect “the holistic nature of torah being referred to in the Psalter, including all the different types of legal text and much more.”20 Moreover, these terms’ Mosaic covenantal connotations are unmistakable when grouped together, for we find similarly clustered terminology throughout Exodus, Leviticus, and especially Deuteronomy.21 While such clusters also occur in patriarchal narrative settings (e.g., Gen 26:5) they are more normally associated with Mosaic instruction. Editors encountering such combinations in the Psalms are therefore likely to have recognized them in terms of the Mosaic covenantal commands by which God regulated Israel’s moral and ritual/worship life. Accordingly, the following survey explores psalms that contain more than one of these terms in their plural form. This is not to deny these terms’ distinctive meanings or their capacity to evoke the Mosaic covenant individually,22 but rather to recognize the greater lexical overlap that exists with the Pentateuchal texts when these terms occur in combination. Strictly speaking, ‫ פקודים‬is unique to the Psalter. Grant suggests that ‫ פקודים‬is a poetic equivalent of ‫חקים‬.23 The term ‫ תורה‬deserves special attention given its normal Mosaic connotations. Moreover, ‫ חק‬and ‫עדות‬ occur in the singular as functional equivalents for “covenant” a few times, and so are addressed separately in an Addendum at the end of this chapter. Not surprisingly, Ps 119 accounts for most of these word clusters. Several terms occur exactly 22 times—an average of one for each 19.  H. Ringgren, “‫ ָח ַקק‬ḥāqaq; ‫ ָח ָקה‬ḥāqâ; ‫ חֹק‬ḥōq; ‫ ֻח ָּקה‬ḥuqqâ,” TDOT 5:145. 20.  Grant, The King as Exemplar, 100. 21.  E.g., Exod 18:20; Lev 26:46; Deut 4:1; 5:1; 6:1; 7:11; 11:32; 12:1; 17:19; 26:16; etc. 22.  According to Ringgren, TDOT 5:143, ‫ חק‬commonly refers to cultic ordinance and ‫ משפט‬to civil ordinances. See also John W. Kleinig, Leviticus, ConcC (St. Louis: Concordia, 2003), 2, who describes specific nuances for ‫מצות‬, ‫חקות‬, ‫משפטים‬, and ‫ תורה‬in Leviticus. 23.  Grant, The King as Exemplar, 158. Pointed as a (construct) qal pass. ptc. ‫קּודי‬ ֵ ‫ְפ‬ appears in the Pentateuch where it refers to “appointed” or “listed” people, occurring frequently in censuses (e.g., Num 1–4, 26; Exod 30:13–14); cf. Num 31:14 and 48, where it denotes military leaders, and Exod 38:13 (tabernacle personnel). In the Psalter, however, the (normally suffixed) noun means “instructions” or “procedures,” and is pointed, e.g., ‫פ ֻק ֶדיָך‬/‫יָך‬ ִ ‫ּקּוד‬ ֶ ‫פ‬. ִ

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

133

eight-verse alphabetical strophe in the psalm. ‫חקים‬/‫ חקות‬and ‫ עדות‬each occur 22 times and always have a singular suffix identifying them as YHWH’s, notwithstanding one singular instance of ‫ עדות‬in v. 88 lacking a suffix.24 ‫ מצות‬occurs 21 times and once in singular form (v. 96), totaling 22 times overall—all but one sporting the pronominal suffix.25 ‫פקודים‬ occurs 20 times,26 while ‫ משפטים‬occurs 16 times in construct chains or with a pronominal suffix referring to YHWH, plus seven times in the singular for a total of 23 times.27 ‫ תורה‬deviates the most from this pattern with 25 occurrences.28 Outside Ps 119, these terms occur only a handful of times. ‫חקות‬/‫( חקים‬pl.) occurs five more times: Pss 18:23; 50:16; 89:32; 105:45; and 147:19. The singular ‫ חק‬occurs in Pss 2:7; 81:5; 99:7; and 148:6 (see Addendum). Similarly, we find ‫( עדות‬pl.) four other times outside Ps 119 in Pss 25:10 (paired with ‫)ברית‬, 78:56, 93:5, 99:7—five if 132:12 is included—and always with a pronominal suffix identifying them as YHWH’s testimonies. The singular ‫ עדות‬occurs in Pss 19:8; 78:5; 81:6; and 122:4 when referring to YHWH’s testimony (see Addendum). ‫מצות‬ (pl.) occurs only three other times besides Ps 119: Pss 78:7; 89:32; and 112:1; the singular ‫ מצוה‬also appearing in Ps 19:9. Likewise ‫( פקודים‬pl.) occurs in only three other psalms: Pss 19:9; 103:18; and 111:7. ‫משפטים‬ occurs in ten psalms: Pss 10:5; 18:23; 19:10; 48:12; 72:1; 89:31; 97:8; 103:6; 105:5, 7; and 147:19–20 (plus some 30 times in the singular). ‫ תורה‬is always singular and occurs in Pss 1:2; 19:8; 37:31; 40:9; 78:1, 5, 24.  ‫חקות‬/‫ חקים‬occurs in vv. 5, 8, 12, 16, 23, 26, 33, 48, 54, 64, 68, 71, 80, 83, 112, 117, 118, 124, 135, 145, 155, and 171; ‫ עדות‬occurs in vv. 2, 14, 22, 24, 31, 36, 46, 59, 79, 95, 99, 111, 119, 125, 129, 138, 144, 146, 152, 157, 167, and 168. 25.  The exception is the construct chain ‫ מצות אלהי‬in v. 115, which identifies them as YHWH’s commandments. Otherwise ‫ מצות‬occurs in vv. 6, 10, 19, 21, 32, 35, 47, 48, 60, 66, 73, 86, 98, 115, 127, 131, 143, 151, 166, 172, and 176. The related verb, ‫צוה‬, takes one of the other terms surveyed here as its object in Pss 7:7; 78:5; 105:8; 119:4, and 138. 26.  ‫ פקודים‬occurs in vv. 4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, and 173. 27.  The pl. (‫ )משפטים‬occurs in vv. 7, 13, 20, 30, 39, 52, 62, 75, 91, 102, 106, 108, 120, 137, 156, and 164. The sg. (‫ )משפט‬occurs in vv. 43, 84, 121, 132, 149, 160, and 175. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 180, counts 22. Any Mosaic covenantal connotations attaching to the sg. form of ‫ משפט‬are only apparent from its context in Ps 119, for its 30 other instances in the Psalter tend to reflect a more general meaning of “judgment” (cf. “‫מ ְשׁ ָּפט‬,” ִ BDB: 1048; HALOT: 651). 28.  ‫ תורה‬occurs in vv. 1, 18, 29, 34, 44, 51, 53, 55, 61, 70, 72, 77, 85, 92, 97, 109, 113, 126, 136, 142, 150, 153, 163, 165, and 174.

134

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

10; 89:31; 94:12; and 105:45. Finally, two other terms occur in similar quantity in Ps 119 as functional synonyms for ‫תורה‬, namely, ‫דבר‬/‫דברים‬ and ‫אמרה‬.29 These appear in numerous other psalms too, sometimes with conspicuous covenantal entailments.30 Several observations bear making. First, discounting Ps 119, these terms commonly occur in psalms containing ‫ברית‬. Three out of five psalms containing the plural ‫חקות‬/‫ חקים‬occur in such psalms. A similar situation ensues for the other nouns surveyed: for ‫( עדות‬pl.), two out of four were ‫ ברית‬psalms (three out of five, if Ps 132:12 is included); for ‫( מצות‬pl.), two out of the three psalms; for ‫פקודים‬, two out of three; for ‫( משפטים‬pl.), three out of the ten; and for ‫תורה‬, three out of eight were also ‫ ברית‬psalms (half the actual instances of ‫)תורה‬. In view of these statistics editors very likely understood these terms within the conceptual framework of “covenant” in other psalms also. Indeed, when we look beyond ‫ ברית‬psalms, several combine two or more of these terms reminiscent of Mosaic covenantal texts in the Pentateuch. Torah Ps 19:8–10 clusters ‫תורה‬, ‫פקודים‬, ‫משפטים‬, as well as ‫( עדות‬sg.) and ‫( מצוה‬sg.).31 Strikingly, in the preceding royal Ps 18:23 we read, “For all his rules (‫ )כל־משפטיו‬were before me, and his statutes (‫ )וחקתיו‬I did not put away from me.” Faithfulness toward YHWH’s statutes, instruction, and so on, was evidently very important to the editors who so collocated Pss 18 and 19.32 Other clusters are Pss 81:5–6 (‫חק‬, ‫עדות‬, and ‫ ;)משפט‬Ps 99:7 (‫ חק‬and ‫ ;)עדתיו‬and 147:19 (‫חקים‬ and ‫משפטים‬, plus ‫)דבר‬. 29.  Allen, Psalms 101–150, 180. Allen counts 24 instances of ‫דבר‬/‫ דברים‬and 20 cases of ‫ אמרה‬in Ps 119. 30. Psalms referring to YHWH’s “word(s)” (‫ )דבר‬are: Pss 17:4; 33:4, 6; 56:5, 11; 105:8, 19, 27, 28, 42; 106:12, 24; 107:20; 130:5; 145:5; and 147:19; and ‫ אמרה‬are: Pss 12:7; 18:31; and 105:19. Historical Pss 105–106 account for eight of these, paralleling ‫ דבר‬with ‫( ברית‬105:8). Notwithstanding variant readings regarding number, 147:19 parallels “his word(s)” with “his statutes and rules” (‫)חקיו ומשפטיו‬, as noted below. Of the remaining, Pss 12:7 and 17:4 potentially refer to Mosaic covenantal commands. Psalm 12:7 explicitly contrasts YHWH’s “pure words” (‫אמרות יהוה‬ ‫ )אמרות טהרות‬with those of liars and flatterers (cf. vv. 3–5), with “pure,” conceivably evoking Mosaic ritual instruction in Exodus and Leviticus where ‫ טהור‬frequently refers to ritual purity. Similarly in 17:4 the Davidic psalmist declares, “by the word of your lips (‫ )בדבר שפתיך‬I have avoided the ways (‫ )ארחות‬of the violent,” contrasting God’s word with the “ways” of the wicked (cf. vv. 9 and 13). 31.  Psalm 19:10 includes a sixth term, ‫—יראה‬i.e., “the fear of YHWH” (‫—)יראת יהוה‬examined below. 32.  Grant, The King as Exemplar, 81–83 makes a similar point, citing James L. Mays, Psalms, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 92–93, and J. Clinton McCann Jr., The Book of Psalms, NIB 4 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 748.

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

135

Apart from Ps 119, then, eight psalms combine two or more of these terms in relatively strong allusions to the Mosaic covenantal stipulations: Pss 18, 19, 78, 81*, 89, 99*, 105, and 147 (* indicating instances where the sg. of ‫ חק‬or ‫ עדות‬combines with another term to produce a cluster).33 At least half of these psalms clearly have David in view, and directly or indirectly present the king as observing the covenant and its stipulations. This is especially strong in Pss 18–19, which are central to the Pss 15–24 group. Psalm 78’s positive focus on David after the people’s breach of the Mosaic covenant (vv. 10, 56) presents a consistent view (see Chapter 5), as does Ps 89’s use of these terms to describe the king’s obligations in the covenant (vv. 31–32) without any accusations of royal guilt. When it comes to anonymous Ps 147:19, however, any Davidic associations must be inferred from the preceding Davidic Pss 138–145 group that introduce the Psalter’s final doxology in Pss 146–150. Although Ps 147 concludes its calls to praise (vv. 1, 7, 12) by highlighting Israel’s uniqueness as the only nation to whom YHWH has made known “his word…statutes and rules,” Chapter 13 argues that YHWH’s gracious renewal of the covenant announced by David is the fundamental reason for such praise. If correct, then 147:19–20 would seem to praise YHWH for the covenant’s continuing validity and renewal already declared by David. In summary, although only a few psalms outside Ps 119 combine ‫חקים‬/‫חקות‬, ‫עדות‬, ‫מצות‬, ‫פקודים‬, ‫משפטים‬, almost half of them seem to entail royal obedience to Mosaic covenantal stipulations/instruction in some way (esp. Pss 18–19, 78, and 89). References to ‫תורה‬ As seen above, the term ‫ תורה‬has unmistakable Mosaic covenantal entailments in Pss 19, 78, 89, 105, and 119, often combining with other terms for covenant stipulations. It remains, then, to explore its other instances in Pss 1:2; 37:31; 40:9; and 94:12. Psalm 1:2 reads, “but his delight is in the law (‫ )תורה‬of YHWH, and on his law (‫ )תורה‬he meditates day and night.” It is sometimes suggested that the editor(s) responsible for Ps 1’s placement intended ‫ תורה‬here as a reference to the Psalter itself, whose five-book structure is analogous to the Pentateuch. Whatever merit this suggestion has, the Psalter–Pentateuch analogy is only possible once we recognize this term’s normal association with the Mosaic Torah.34 More 33.  Another weaker example of a cluster is Ps 103, which has ‫ משפטים‬and ‫פקודים‬ separated by some twelve verses (vv. 6 and 18). On the other hand, the covenantal entailments of the latter are clear from v. 18: “to those who keep his covenant (‫)בריתו‬ and remember to do his commandments (‫( ”)פקדיו‬see Chapter 5). 34.  See, e.g., McCann, A Theological Introduction, 27.

136

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

significant for identifying its entailments, however, is the oft-noted intertextuality between Ps 1, Deut 17, and Josh 1. Indeed, Ps 1’s description of the righteous man closely resembles Moses’ charge to Joshua in Josh 1:8 and the Deuteronomic kingship law in Deut 17:19,35 where ‫תורה‬ clearly relates to Mosaic covenantal commands. Psalm 1:2, “and on his law he meditates day and night” (‫)ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה‬, unmistakably resembles Josh 1:8’s command to “meditate on” the book of the torah “day and night” (‫)והגית בו יומם ולילה‬. This intertextual connection suggests that ‫ תורה‬primarily evoked Mosaic instruction for the editor(s) responsible for its placement in the Psalter (see Chapter 14’s fuller discussion of Ps 1). The other three psalms with ‫( תורה‬Pss 37:31; 40:9; 94:12) provide similar contexts to Ps 1 in some respects. Like Ps 1, Ps 37 explicitly contrasts the “righteous” and the “wicked” (cf. 1:6 and 37:32), having a strong wisdom and didactic character.36 Psalm 40:9 also has significant points in common with Ps 1. There at the center of the psalm the psalmist declares, “I delight (‫ )חפצתי‬to do your will, O my God; your law (‫)ותורתך‬ is within my heart.” This use of ‫ חפץ‬and ‫ תורה‬in the first person reflects the same attitude of delight toward torah as 1:2. Psalm 40:5’s macarism, “Blessed (‫ )אשרי‬is the man who makes YHWH his trust,” creates another conspicuous likeness with the ‫ אשרי‬saying of Ps 1:1–2. Moreover, Pss 37 and 40 are both Davidic psalms from Book I, while Ps 1’s collocation with royal Ps 2 suggests the royalization of its “blessed man” (see Chapter 14). Psalm 94, too, shares strong similarities to these psalms and—unless one holds that Ps 1 was not yet part of the Psalter when Ps 94 was incorporated—the editor(s) responsible for incorporating it could scarcely miss the affinities between it and Pss 1, 37, and 40. Psalm 94:12 begins with a “blessed” statement strongly reminiscent of Ps 1 (and Ps 40), “Blessed (‫ )אשרי‬is the man whom you discipline, O YHWH, and whom you teach out of your law (‫)תורה‬.” Verses 13–15 then continue by contrasting the “wicked” (‫ )רשע‬with “his people” and “his heritage,” who are further described as the “righteous” (‫ )צדק‬to whom “justice (‫ )משפט‬will return.” Such terms are also found in Ps 1:5, where “the wicked (‫ )רשעים‬will not stand in the judgment (‫)במשפט‬,” and throughout Ps 37, where the righteous/wicked contrast predominates more than in any other psalm. 35.  Grant, The King as Exemplar, 46–48, 66–69; Mays, The Lord Reigns, 129. 36.  See, e.g., Mays, The Lord Reigns, 129. Psalm 1’s first and last words (‫ )אשרי…תאבד‬constitute a shortened acrostic, presenting another similarity with acrostic Ps 37.

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

137

Besides ‫’תורה‬s normal association with Moses, then, the similarities that Pss 37:31, 40:9, and 94:12 share with Ps 1 suggest that editors recognized the same Mosaic entailments for ‫ תורה‬in all these contexts. Two of these psalms are Davidic. David instructs about the virtues of the torah-observing righteous in Ps 37, and himself delights in it in Ps 40. Even in the case of anonymous Ps 94 in Book IV, where Davidic psalms are comparatively rare, the king soon comes into view in Pss 101–103, perhaps—at the editorial level—identifying the king as v. 12’s “blessed man” whom YHWH “teach[es] out of his law.” Chapter 12 examines Book IV further. Allusions to Specific Commands of the Decalogue Chapter 5’s survey of ‫ ברית‬identified allusions to several commandments from the Decalogue in Ps 44:21 (against foreign gods and misuse of YHWH’s name) and Ps 50:18 (against theft, adultery, and false witness). These allusions further identity the covenant people as either faithful to the covenant stipulations (Ps 44) or unfaithful to them (Ps 50). Psalms 15 and 24 merit particular attention because they stipulate who may dwell in YHWH’s house and ascend his holy hill (cf. 15:1 and 24:3) at each end of the Pss 15–24 group. Within Ps 15’s extended answer, v. 3 broadly reflects the concern for one’s neighbor seen throughout Exod 20:13–17/Deut 5:17–21, alluding most directly to the commandment about false witness (Exod 20:16/Deut 5:20): “who does not slander (‫ )לא־רגל‬with his tongue and does no evil (‫ )רעה‬to his neighbor.” The similarity to the Pentateuchal command is semantic, with little lexical overlap (cf. ‫ לא־תענה…עד שקר‬in Exod 20:16). Psalm 24 is a different story, however. Goldingay observes parallels between Ps 24:4’s answer, “He who has clean hands )‫ (נקי כפים‬and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false (‫ )לא־נשא לשוא נפשי‬and does not swear deceitfully (‫)ולא נשבע למרמה‬,” and commands from the Decalogue.37 These include Exod 20:7’s command not to “lift” YHWH’s name “to vanity” (‫ )לא תשא…לשוא‬and Deut 5:20 regarding false witness, which prefers “vanity” (‫ )שוא‬over Exod 20:16’s “lie” (‫)שקר‬.38 Furthermore, Goldingay understands ‫ נקי כפים‬as “hands that are not covered in blood” and thus innocent of responsibility for another’s death (cf. Exod 20:13), and draws 37.  Goldingay, Psalms, 1:359. 38.  Contrast ESV’s “false witness” in both Exod 20:16 and Deut 5:20. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms, 3 vols., AB 16–17A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965–70), 1:151, translates ‫ לשוא‬in 24:4 as “to an idol.” If correct, the whole phrase would allude to the command regarding YHWH’s name and the accompanying prohibition of idols.

138

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

comparison with Exod 21:28, Josh 2:17–20, 2 Sam 3:28, and 14:9, where bloodguilt is clearly in view. Psalm 24:4’s allusion to multiple commands and strong lexical and syntactic agreement with Exod 20:7 thus elicit the Mosaic covenant. Since Pss 15–24 center around the king who praises YHWH’s torah (Pss 18–21), it seems clear that editors understood the worthy entrant into the sanctuary as the king who keeps YHWH’s commands. Psalms 16, 78, 97, 106, 115, and 135 all seem to allude to the commandments about “other gods” (‫ )אלהים אחרים‬and idolatry (‫)פסל‬. Davidic Ps 16:4, “The sorrows of those who run after another god (‫ )אחר‬shall multiply,” appears to echo ‫ אלהים אחרים‬from Exod 20:3/Deut 5:7, and differentiates the psalmist from such people. Historical Ps 78’s report in v. 58 that the people “moved [God] to jealousy with their idols (‫ ”)ובפסיליהם יקניאוהו‬strongly recalls YHWH as a “jealous God” (‫)אל קנא‬ from Exod 5:5/Deut 5:9. Similarly, Ps 97:7, “All worshipers of images (‫ )פסל‬are put to shame,” appears to echo Exod 20:4–6’s prohibition against crafting and worshiping an idol (cf. Deut 5:8–11). Other psalms make similar references to idolatry, especially historical Ps 106:36–38, and the anti-idol polemics in 115:4–8 and 135:15–18, though they use a different term for “idol,” ‫עצב‬, and “the work of human hands” (‫)מעשה ידי אדם‬. Finally, Dahood believes that several instances of ‫שוא‬ should be translated as “idol.” By his reckoning, the psalmist declares his rejection of idol worship in Davidic Pss 26:4 and 31:7, and in 119:37.39 In each case the psalmist distances himself from idolatry and expresses his trust in YHWH or loyalty to him.40 Allusions to other commandments appear sporadically throughout the Psalter. Davidic Ps 139:20 replicates key vocabulary from Exod 20:7/ Deut 5:11: “your enemies take your name in vain” (so ESV; Heb. ‫נשא‬ ‫)לשוא עריך‬. As a “song for the Sabbath,” Ps 92 presupposes the command to keep the Sabbath in Exod 20:8/Deut 5:12. Psalm 94:6’s complaint against the “wicked” who “kill (‫ )הרג‬the widow and the sojourner, and murder (‫ )רצח‬the fatherless” reflects Exod 20:13/Deut 5:17’s command against murder (‫)רצח‬. Since Ps 94 contrasts “the wicked” in vv. 3–7 with the man “whom you teach out of your law (‫)תורה‬, Yah” (v. 12) and “his people” and “heritage” (v. 14), editors are unlikely to have 39.  Dahood, Psalms, 1:162, 188; 3:178. Also 24:4 (see previous note). 40.  Other possibilities turn up in the Psalms. Goldingay, Psalms, 1:120, e.g., believes that the implicit contrast between “my glory” (‫ )כבודי‬and “vanity” (‫)ריק‬/“lie” (‫ )כזב‬in Ps 4:3 contrasts YHWH and other gods, while Dahood, Psalms, 3:297, translates ‫ שוא‬in Ps 139:20 as “vanities,” but ‫( דמים‬v. 19) and ‫( מזמה‬v. 20) as “idols” and “figurine” respectively.

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

139

read “murder” in v. 6 without the Mosaic commandment in view, the breaking of which disqualifies “the wicked” from being YHWH’s people in the psalm.41 Further examples include Pss 12:3 and 144:8 and 11, which may allude to Deut 5:20’s command against false witness (‫)שוא‬, and Ps 27:12 to the equivalent command in Exod 20:16. Psalm 12:3 has two key terms in common with Deut 5:20, “Everyone utters lies (‫ )שוא‬to his neighbor (‫)רעהו‬.” Meanwhile Ps 144:8 uses Exod 20:16’s term for “lie” (‫ )שקר‬and Deut 5:20’s equivalent (‫)שוא‬: “whose mouths speak lies (‫ )שוא‬and whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood (‫)שקר‬.” Similarly, in Ps 27:12 the psalmist complains that “false witnesses (‫ )עדי־שקר‬have risen against me.” The same commandment also seems to lie behind Ps 41:7–8: “he utters empty words (‫…)שוא‬when he goes out, he tells it abroad. All who hate me whisper together about me…etc.” Finally, Ps 51’s superscript alludes to David’s adultery with Bathsheba and, though not mentioned explicitly, his murder of Uriah by extension (2 Sam 11). There was no sacrificial atonement available for such sins (cf. Lev 20:10). Through this allusion in the superscript, then, the whole thought world of penitential Ps 51 broadly presupposes the Mosaic covenant, befitting its location after Ps 50, which, incidentally, makes the only reference to “adultery” (‫ )נאף‬in the Psalter (v. 18).42 Notably, Pss 12, 27, 51, and 144 are all Davidic and either distance the Davidic psalmist from those who practice lawbreaking or, in the case of Ps 51, present historical David as an exemplar of repentance. In summary, we find potential allusions to specific commands from the Decalogue scattered throughout the Psalter: Pss 12, 15, 16, 24, 31, 41, 44, 50, 51, 78, 92, 94, 97, 106, 115, 135, and 144. The strongest allusions appear in psalms that either evoke more than one commandment (e.g., Pss 24, 44, 50), provide historical context that highlights the specifically covenantal significance of the command (Pss 78 and 106), or correspond closely to the command lexically/syntactically (e.g., Pss 41, 139, 144). This even distribution throughout the Psalter further evidences 41.  ‫ רצח‬occurs once again in Ps 62:4, which asks, “How long will all of you attack a man to batter (‫ )רצח‬him…?” (so ESV). 42.  Another key term from the Decalogue, “thief” (‫)גנב‬, also occurs only in Ps 50:18 mentioned above. Within the Psalter, “desire” (‫ ;חמד‬cf. Exod 20:17/Deut 5:21) does not usually carry the negative sense of “coveting.” God’s word is “to be desired” in Ps 19:11 and God “desires” Zion in Ps 68:17. On the other hand, Ps 39:12 reads, “You consume like a moth what is dear to him (‫)חמודו‬.” The pass. ptc. could mean “coveted things,” in light of the mention of “guilt” (‫ )עון‬earlier in v. 12 and “transgression” (‫ )פשע‬in v. 9.

140

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

the Psalter’s pervasive interest in the Mosaic covenant. Although these instances do not permit strong conclusions, approximately half of them are Davidic, and some offer considerable support for our proposal. The entrance liturgies Pss 15 and 24 seem deliberately placed to identify the torah-keeping king as one worthy to enter YHWH’s sanctuary. Psalm 51 reflects historical David’s adultery and murder, but, as Chapter 10 argues, its location at the head of the David II collection after Asaph Ps 50 appears to showcase even historical David—that conscience-struck “founding father” of the Davidic covenant—as the quintessential covenant partner of YHWH. This would seem to emphasize continuity between historical David and the future Davidide(s) to which the Psalter’s primary focus seems to shift after Ps 72 (see Chapter 4). Walking in YHWH’s Way and Fearing Him As demonstrated below, the Pentateuch—especially the book of Deuteronomy—generously employs the wisdom themes of the “two ways” and the “fear of YHWH” when eliciting Israel’s proper covenantal response of faith and obedience to YHWH. These themes also turn up quite extensively in the Psalter, and surveying them enables us to assess the extent to which David characteristically embodies these qualities. There is another benefit to examining these themes too. As noted earlier, Wilson’s two-stage redaction theory tends to play off royal covenantal theology against wisdom concerns. Wilson bases his assessment mainly on the placement of certain psalms to achieve “royal covenantal frames” and “wisdom frames.”43 Viewing the actual distribution of major wisdom themes allows us to test the plausibility of Wilson’s delineations of these thematic concerns in the Psalter. The Covenantal Entailments of “Two Ways” and the “Fear of YHWH.” The term “way” (‫ )דרך‬occurs some 48 times in Deuteronomy, often recalling YHWH’s saving acts towards Israel. However, Moses also describes their covenantal obligation to keep YHWH’s commands by walking in his “way(s)” throughout Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 8:6; 9:12, 16; 10:12; 11:22, etc.). He sets before Israel “two ways” in Deut 30, declaring in v. 15, “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,” describing in vv. 16–17 what would happen if they should “walk in his ways” (‫ דרך‬+ ‫)הלך‬, on the one hand, or “turn away” (‫)פנה‬, on the other. Deuteronomy further describes performing YHWH’s commands as the people’s “righteousness” (‫ צדקה‬in 6:25; cf. 24:13), while also warning against misplaced confidence in one’s own righteousness (9:4–6). 43.  Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter.”

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

141

As “the beginning of wisdom” in the OT, “the fear of YHWH” goes hand in hand with avoiding evil and keeping God’s commands (e.g., Prov 1:7; 9:10; Job 28:28; Eccl 12:13). It also applies to the mosaic covenantal relationship in key places in the Pentateuch. For example, the verbal root ‫ ירא‬occurs twice in Exod 20:20 immediately after the Sinai theophany and commandments, first in Moses’ initial words, “do not be afraid” (‫)אל־תיראו‬, then to explain why God has spoken thus: “to test you, that the fear of him (‫ )יראתו‬may be before you, that you may not sin.” “Fearing YHWH” (‫ )ירא‬also turns up in Deut 4:10; 5:29; 6:2, 13, 24; 8:6; 10:12, 20; 13:5, 11; 17:13, 19; 19:20; 21:21; 28:58; 31:12–13. Some of these contexts clearly connect it with “walking in YHWH’s way” noted above, for example, Deut 8:6, which calls on Israel to “keep the commandments (‫ )מצות‬of YHWH…by walking in his ways (‫ )ללכת בדרכיו‬and by fearing him (‫)וליראה אתו‬.”44 In others it relates directly to keeping YHWH’s commands and defines what “righteousness” looks like for Israel (e.g., Deut 6:24–25; cf. Deut 6:2, 13; 4:10; and 10:12). Clearly, the Pentateuch applies these wisdom motifs to the covenantal life for which God has redeemed his people.45 Psalm 1: Wisdom Themes with Mosaic Covenantal Entailments. Psalm 1 is an obvious place to start. Its allusions to Josh 1:8 and the kingship law in Deut 17 noted earlier already suggests that the opening psalm of the Psalter reflects the thought-world of the Mosaic covenant. Psalm 1 also explicitly contrasts the “way of the righteous” (‫ )דרך צדיקים‬and the “way of the wicked” (‫)ודרך רשעים‬. YHWH “knows” (‫ )ידע‬the way of the righteous, who delight (‫ )חפץ‬in YHWH’s torah (‫ )תורה‬and meditate on (‫ )הגה‬it day and night (v. 2). Moreover, Ps 2:11–12’s exhortation to “kings” to “be wise” (‫)השכילו‬, “serve YHWH with fear (‫)ביראה‬,” and, “[k]iss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way (‫)ותאבדו דרך‬,” both resumes the “way” theology of Ps 1 and introduces “the fear of YHWH” theme. Indeed, scholars commonly view ‫ אבד‬and ‫ דרך‬in 1:6 and 2:12 as one of several features that bind Pss 1 and 2 together, 44.  R. Van Leeuwen, The Book of Proverbs: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 33. In many cases these contexts also include injunctions to “serve” (‫ )עבד‬YHWH and/or keep his commands. 45.  See, e.g., Roland E. Murphy, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 17, who marks the similarity of Prov 4 with Deuteronomic preaching; and Jamie A. Grant, “Wisdom and Covenant: Revisiting Zimmerli,” EuroJTh 12 (2003): 103–11, who critiques Walter Zimmerli’s view that wisdom, “has no relation to the history between God and Israel.”

142

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

demonstrating editors’ particular thematic interest in the perishing “way of the wicked.”46 Given the book of Deuteronomy’s generous use of “the fear of YHWH” and “way” motifs and Ps 1’s obvious application of the same, editors likely understood these characteristically “wisdom” motifs with these covenantal entailments. Accordingly, it is worthwhile identifying psalms that speak of “YHWH’s way(s)” in reference to the people’s proper covenantal response, psalms that state or imply the contrasting ways of the “righteous” and the “wicked,” and psalms that evoke the “fear of YHWH” motif. YHWH’s Way(s). As in Deuteronomy, “YHWH’s way” or “ways” can, of course, refer directly to YHWH’s beneficence toward his people. For example, Ps 103:7 parallels “his ways” made known to Moses with “his acts” (‫)עלילותיו‬, putting YHWH’s salvific work primarily in view. Other similar instances include Pss 67:3; 77:14; 85:14; 138:5; and 145:17. For our present purposes, however, we seek those instances that primarily evoke how people are to “walk” as prescribed by the Mosaic covenant, cognizant that the distinction may in some cases be a somewhat artificial one; for example, YHWH causes his people to walk “in a straight way” (‫ ;בדרך ישרה‬cf. Isa 40:3) in a context of deliverance in Ps 107:7. Positively, YHWH’s ways are “made straight” (hiphil ‫ )ישר‬in Ps 5:9, “[to be] kept” (‫ )שמר‬in Pss 18:22 and 37:34, taught (‫ירה‬/‫ )למד‬in Pss 25:4; 27:11; 51:15; and 86:11, and called “blessed” in Ps 128:1. Negatively, YHWH’s ways are “not known” (‫ )ידע‬in 95:10, nor “walked in” (‫ )הלך‬in 81:14. Notwithstanding some textual difficulties,47 the psalmist in Ps 5:9 petitions YHWH to “make your way (‫ )דרכך‬straight before me,” which is paralleled by the psalmist’s petition, “Lead me…in your righteousness (‫)בצדקתך‬,” and suggests that YHWH’s way is a “way of righteousness.” The psalmist’s promise to “bow down toward your holy temple in the fear of you (‫ ”)ביראתך‬in v. 8 further associates YHWH’s “way of righteousness” with “the fear of YHWH” in the worship context, thus bringing together several Mosaic covenantal criteria. Moreover, vv. 5–7 precede these expressions by describing YHWH’s disdain for the “wicked” (‫)רשע‬, “evil” (‫)רע‬, “all evildoers” (‫)כל־פעלי און‬, and so on, whereupon vv. 8–9 46.  E.g., Grant, The King as Exemplar, 62; McCann, A Theological Introduction, 42; Creach, Yahweh as Refuge, 77–80. See Chapter 14. 47.  The Vulgate, e.g., reverses the final two personal suffixes in v. 9 to read: “make my way straight before you.”

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

143

shift focus to the psalmist (cf. ‫ ואני‬in v. 8). Thus vv. 5–9 implicitly contrast YHWH’s “way of righteousness” observed by the psalmist and “their” wicked ways. The Davidic psalmist of Ps 37:34 instructs others, “Wait for YHWH and keep his way (‫)ושמר דרכו‬, and he will exalt you to inherit the land; you will look on when the wicked (‫ )רשעים‬are cut off.” The righteous/ wicked contrast dominates the entire psalm: ‫צדיק‬/‫ צדיקים‬occurs nine times (vv. 12, 16, 17, 21, 25, 29, 30, 32, 39); ‫רשע‬/‫ רשעים‬occurs thirteen times (vv. 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40); and ‫ דרך‬appears five times (vv. 5, 7, 14, 23, 34), variously denoting the way of the unrighteous or of the righteous.48 Moreover, the combination of the two-way motif and “inheriting the land”—itself a well-established theme in Ps 37 (vv. 3–4, 9, 11)49—in v. 34 mirrors the connection between observing YHWH’s commands and inheriting the land in Deut 28. The two-way motif bears strong Mosaic covenantal entailments in Ps 37. Similarly, in Davidic Ps 18:22, the psalmist claims, “I have kept the ways of YHWH )‫(דרכי יהוה‬.” The following verse makes it clear that “keeping YHWH’s ways” involves proper orientation with respect to his instruction in the Mosaic covenant: “For all his rules (‫ )כל־משפטיו‬were before me, and his statutes (‫ )וחקתיו‬I did not put away from me” (v. 23). Moreover, throughout vv. 21–27 the psalmist contrasts his “righteousness” (cf. ‫ כצדקי‬in vv. 21 and 25) with his avoidance of wickedness (cf. ‫ ולא־רשעתי‬in v. 22). Although preferring the noun ‫ צדק‬and verb ‫ רשע‬over the substantive adjectives ‫ צדיק‬and ‫רשע‬, the same two-way motif clearly underlies the psalmist’s claims in Ps 18 as in Ps 37. In Davidic Pss 25, 27, and 86 the psalmist desires to learn YHWH’s way. We already noted the strong Mosaic covenantal entailments of ‫ ברית‬in Ps 25:10. Earlier in v. 4 the psalmist petitions YHWH, “Make me to know (‫ )הודיעני‬your ways (‫)דרכיך‬, O YHWH; teach me your paths (‫)ארחותיך‬.” These terms are repeated in vv. 8–10, where YHWH “instructs sinners in the way (‫ ”)בדרך‬and “teaches the humble his way (‫)דרכו‬.” YHWH’s “paths (‫…)ארחות‬are steadfast love and faithfulness, for those who keep his covenant (‫ )לנצרי בריתו‬and his testimonies.” YHWH’s faithfulness is clearly in view here alongside the psalmist’s desire to keep YHWH’s ways. Similarly, Ps 27:11 petitions YHWH to “[t]each me your way” (‫)הורני יהוה דרכך‬, and if our earlier suggestion that v. 12 48.  Contrast, e.g., the “one who prospers in his way (‫ ”)דרכו‬and “carries out evil devices” (‫ )עשה מזמות‬in v. 7 and “those whose way is upright” (‫ )ישרי־דרך‬in v. 14. 49.  Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 408, sees these two elements as central to the Ps 37’s essential message.

144

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

alludes to the command against false witness is correct, then editors likely connected “your way” with Mosaic instruction. Of course, the threat posed by “adversaries” and “false witnesses” in v. 12 occasion the psalmist’s petition, and “your way” likely includes YHWH’s manner of dealing with them and saving him. But the psalmist’s desire to learn YHWH’s way and the “level”/“just” path (‫ )בארח מישור‬also sets him apart from their slandering ways, suggesting his desire for YHWH to instruct him in a God-pleasing life as he trusts in YHWH. Psalm 86:11 repeats 27:11’s petition, “Teach me your way” (‫)הורני יהוה דרכך‬,50 adding, “that I may walk (‫ )הלך‬in your truth; unite my heart to fear (‫ )יראה‬your name.” On the other hand, David vows to “teach transgressors your way(s) (‫”)דרכיך‬51 in Ps 51:15. In view of Ps 51’s penitential character, YHWH’s way(s) seem(s) to embrace both his forgiveness toward sinners and the path he calls them to walk in the covenant. Turning to the non-Davidic psalms listed here, the macarism in Ps 128:1 combines several wisdom or Deuteronomic features: “Blessed (‫ )אשרי‬is everyone who fears (‫ )ירא‬YHWH, who walks in his ways (‫)ההלך בדרכיו‬.” By contrast, Pss 81 and 95 employ the “way” motif to underscore the people’s infidelity within the covenant. Psalm 95:10 cites YHWH’s description of the wilderness-wandering generation, “They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways (‫—”)והם לא־ידעו דרכי‬the Meribah incident recalled a little earlier in v. 8. By stressing their infidelity, 95:10 seems primarily to recall the ways YHWH had set before them in the covenant. On the other hand, it is possible that “my ways” in 95:10 refers to YHWH’s provision for the Israelites in a general sense as well. Either way, Ps 95 employs the motif of “YHWH’s way” to evoke the people’s faithlessness and mistrust of YHWH. Similarly, in 81:14 God says, “Oh, that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways!” Given our earlier discussion of Ps 81 v. 14 clearly operates within the thought-world of Deuteronomic theology and the Mosaic covenant. Though lacking ‫דרך‬, Ps 78:10 similarly evokes the “way” motif when it reports that the Ephraimites, “did not keep God’s covenant, but refused to walk according to his law” (see Chapter 5). Having surveyed Pss 5, 18, 25, 27, 37, 51, 81, 86, 95, and 128, a few observations stand out. Seventy percent of these psalms are Davidic and imply that the psalmist is committed to “YHWH’s way.” Moreover, two of the three non-Davidic psalms just surveyed lament the people’s failure to walk in YHWH’s way(s), recollecting the premonarchic Meribah incident 50.  A few MSS have pl. ‫דרכיך‬. 51.  Some Syriac MSS witness a sg. noun.

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

145

in direct didactic address to the people (81:8; 95:8; plus 78:10!). We thus see a qualitative difference in the way these themes are applied to David and people: whereas “David” loves YHWH’s way, the people are known for departing from it and therefore summoned to walk in it. The Contrasting Way(s) of the Righteous and the Wicked. Besides the psalms already mentioned in our survey, others reflect the theology of “two ways” by employing ‫ דרך‬and/or ‫ הלך‬terminology while contrasting the “ways” of the righteous and wicked in some way. These include Pss 10:5; 12:9; 15:2–5; 26:3–5; 32:8–11; 36:5; 39:2; 49:14; 50:22–23; 68:3–4, 22; 82:5; 84:8, 12; 101:2, 6; 119:1 (et al.); 125:3–5; 139:24; and 146:9. Among the strongest examples are Pss 32, 101, 119, and 146. In Ps 32:8 the psalmist says, “I will instruct you and teach you (‫ )ירה‬in the way (‫ )בדרך‬you should go (‫)הלך‬,” whereupon follows the warning not to be like a horse or mule (v. 9). Verses 10–11 then contrast “the wicked” (‫)רשע‬ with “the one who trusts in YHWH,” and commands the “righteous” (‫ )צדיקים‬and “upright in heart” (‫ )כל־ישרי־לב‬to rejoice. In royal Ps 101:2 the Davidic psalmist, “will ponder the way that is blameless (‫)בדרך תמים‬,” and “walk with integrity of heart” (‫)אתהלך בתם־לבבי‬, commending those doing likewise in v. 6 and vowing to destroy “all the wicked in the land” (‫ )כל־רשעי־ארץ‬in v. 8. Similarly, in Ps 119 the psalmist opens by pronouncing, “Blessed are those whose way is blameless (‫)תמימי־דרך‬, who walk (‫ )הלך‬in the law of YHWH” (v. 1), and refers repeatedly to the “way” of YHWH’s testimonies, commandments, statutes, and so on, while rejecting false ways (e.g., ‫ דרך־שקר‬in v. 29). In Ps 146:8–9 YHWH “loves the righteous (‫ ”)צדיקים‬but “the way of the wicked he brings to ruin” (‫)ודרך רשעים יעות‬, replicating the same basic contrast in Ps 1:6 at the beginning of the Psalter. Psalm 146—the first psalm of the Psalter’s final halleluiah group (Pss 146–150)—thus affirms this original claim of Ps 1 concerning the righteous and wicked.52 Davidic Pss 15, 26, 39, and 139 also contrast the right “way” or right “walking” with the wicked or the “grievous way,” as does Asaph Ps 50 discussed in our earlier survey of ‫ברית‬. Psalm 15:2–5 came up in our discussion of allusions to the Decalogue (see above), and here we note that the worthy entrant into God’s tent (v. 1), “walks blamelessly and does what is right” (‫)הולך תמים ופעל צדק‬, and, “honors those who fear YHWH (‫)יראי יהוה‬.” Psalm 26 contrasts sitting (‫ )ישב‬with the wicked (vv. 4–5) with walking (‫ )הלך‬in integrity (v. 1) and in “walk[ing] in your faithfulness” (‫ והתהלכתי באמתך‬in v. 3). Like Ps 15, cultic language in vv. 6–7 suggests that such “walking” entails participation in worship 52.  See, e.g., Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous, 82.

146

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

regulated by the Mosaic covenant. Indeed, since the hithpael of ‫הלך‬ normally means “to walk about,”53 v. 3 likely has in mind the same “walking” as v. 6: “I go around your altar” (‫)ואסבבה את־מזבחך‬. Psalm 26 thus appears to contrast right participation in worship according to its Mosaic institution with the assembly of the wicked, and so on, in vv. 4–5. Psalm 26 also shows striking similarities to Ps 1 in its presentation of the two-way motif, using all three verbs—“walk” (‫)הלך‬, “stand” (‫)עמד‬, and “sit” (‫—)ישב‬found in Ps 1:1. In vv. 1 and 3 the psalmist declares, “I have walked (‫ )הלך‬in my integrity…and I walk (‫ )הלך‬in your faithfulness.” In vv. 4–5 he does not sit (‫ )ישב‬with “men of falsehood,” hates the “assembly of evildoers” (‫)קהל מרעים‬, and “will not sit (‫ )ישב‬with the wicked (‫)רשעים‬.” Then, in v. 11, the psalmist again resolves to “walk (‫ )הלך‬in my integrity,” and in v. 12 declares, “[m]y foot (‫ )עמד‬stands on level ground.” In Ps 39:2 the psalmist says, “I will guard my ways (‫…)דרכי‬so long as the wicked (‫ )רשע‬are in my presence,” while the final verse of Ps 139 invites YHWH to “see if there be any grievous way (‫ )דרך־עצב‬in me,” and petitions YHWH to “lead me in the way everlasting” (v. 24). Asaph Ps 50:22–23 concludes the psalm with a warning to those “who forget God” lest he “tear [them] apart,” but the “one who orders his way rightly (‫ ”)ושם דרך‬will be shown God’s salvation.54 Others of the psalms listed above speak directly about the “way” (‫)דרך‬ of the wicked or how they “walk” (‫)הלך‬, contrasting it more subtly with the righteous/upright, the poor, or the psalmist himself: Pss 10:5; 12:9; 36:5; 49:14; 68:22; 82:4–5; 84:8–12; and 125:3–4. Psalm 10 bemoans the prospering “way” of the wicked (v. 5), who is boastful and renounces YHWH etc. (vv. 2–4, 13), calling YHWH to rescue the poor and afflicted for whom he works justice (vv. 12, 17–18). Since the Psalter frequently associates the poor with the righteous and those who take refuge in YHWH,55 the contrasting ways of the wicked and righteous appear to lie behind Ps 10. Psalm 68:22 implies a similar contrast within the thoughtworld of Ps 68 when it declares, “God will strike…the hairy crown of him who walks in his guilty ways (‫)מתהלך באשמיו‬,” and earlier vv. 3–4 contrast the joy of the righteous with the destruction (‫ )אבד‬of the wicked (cf. Ps 1:6).

53. “‫ה ַל‬,” ָ BDB: 235. 54.  Some LXX and Syriac MSS read “there” (‫ )ושׁם‬instead of “set/ordered” (‫)ושׂם‬ suggesting shin/sin confusion. The BHS editors suggest ‫ותם‬, citing similar expressions in Prov 10:29 and 13:6, though the same or similar witnesses vary in those texts too. 55.  See Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous, 18–29. Note, e.g., Pss 14:6; 18:28; 25:16; 34:7; 35:10; etc.

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

147

Asaph Ps 82:4–5 prays for the rescue of the weak and needy from the wicked, describing the latter as “walk[ing] about (‫ )יתהלכו‬in darkness.” In Korahite Ps 84:11 the psalmist prefers being “in the house of my God” over dwelling “in the tents of wickedness” (‫ )באהלי־רשע‬because YHWH withholds no good thing, “from those who walk uprightly” (‫)להלכים בתמים‬, thus implying a contrast of ways. Interestingly, the same combination of lexemes also occurs in YHWH’s charge to Abraham in Gen 17:1, “walk before me, and be blameless” (‫)התהלך לפני והיה תמים‬. Earlier in vv. 6 and 8 those whose hearts are the “highways (‫ )מסלות‬to Zion”56 go (‫“ )הלך‬from strength to strength.” Psalm 12:9 laments, “On every side the wicked prowl” (‫סביב רשעים‬ ‫)יתהלכון‬. This verbal combination might refer to a literal “walking about,” but the metaphorical walking characteristic of the wicked seems close to view in light of the psalm’s complaint against ungodly flattery, oppression of the needy, and so on (vv. 3–6). Psalm 36:2–5 describe the wicked who “sets himself in a way (‫ )דרך‬that is not good” (v. 5), but the psalm ends by asking YHWH to “continue your steadfast love to those who know you (‫)לידעיך‬, and your righteousness to the upright of heart (‫)לישרי־לב‬,” and not to let “the hand of the wicked (‫ )רשעים‬drive me away” (v. 12). Psalm 49:11 draws the common contrast between wise and fool to state their common fate: “even the wise (‫ )חכמים‬die; the fool (‫ )כסיל‬and the stupid alike must perish…etc.”. Shortly after v. 14 invokes “way” theology, describing their way (‫ )דרכם‬as one of foolish confidence (‫)כסל‬. Psalm 125 presents another recognizable case of the two ways motif. In v. 3, “the scepter of wickedness (‫)שבט הרשע‬57 shall not rest on the land allotted to the righteous.” The psalmist then prays that YHWH do good to “those who are good” and those “upright in their hearts” (‫ )ולישרי בלבותם‬in v. 4, and declares in v. 5 that “those who turn aside to their crooked ways (‫ )עקלקלותם‬YHWH will lead away (‫ )יוליכם‬with evildoers.” Although the hiphil refers directly to divine judgment, the psalmist’s choice of ‫הלך‬ in combination with the wicked/upright contrast strengthens a possible allusion to the two ways. Although most of these psalms refer directly to one of the “two ways,” their use of such language (‫דרך‬, ‫הלך‬, ‫רשע‬, etc.) reflect the same contours of thought seen in the two-way motif. Given the obvious editorial 56.  ESV adds “to Zion,” apparently due to the mention of Zion in v. 8 (cf. Isa 40:3). The LXX has “ascents” (ἀνβάσεις = ‫)מעלות‬, but Symmachus reflects the Hebrew, albeit sg. (τῆς τρίβου σου, “your path”). 57.  A few MSS of Symmachus read “the scepter of the wicked (‫”)ה ָרשָׁע‬ ָ rather than the MT’s ‫( ָה ֶר ַשע‬cf. LXX: τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν).

148

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

significance of the opening psalm, the latest editors of the Psalter almost certainly recognized the same pattern of thought in these psalms as in Ps 1:6. A couple of observations are noteworthy. First, two-thirds of the psalms just examined—Pss 10, 12, 15, 26, 32, 36, 39, 49, 50, 82, 84, 101, 119, 125, 139, and 146—occur in Books I–III, indicating that the two-way motif predominates in the earlier part of the Psalter and not just Books IV–V where Wilson finds his wisdom “frames” (see Chapter 4). Second, just over half of these are attributed to David (nine out of sixteen), suggesting that the two-way motif coalesces around David to a significant extent. Moreover, the association of this and similar wisdom/ Deuteronomic themes with David broadens when we consider the editorial use of non-Davidic psalms. For instance, if Chapter 9’s contention that David II (Pss 51–72) presents David as chief responder to Asaph Ps 50’s covenantal summons and commands is correct, it also follows that Book II puts the spotlight on David as one who “orders his way” rightly in response to 50:24. The same implication emerged in our discussion of allusions to the Shema in Korahite Ps 49:2 and Asaph Ps 50:7. The Righteous and the Wicked. Still other psalms contrast “the righteous”/“right­eousness” and “the wicked”/“wickedness” more generally, but without making explicit mention of “way” or “walking”: Pss 7:9–10; 9:5–6 (17–18);58 11:2–7; 31:18–19; 34:16–22; 45:8; 55:4, 20, 23; 58:4, 11–12; 75:5, 9–11; 92:8–13; 94:3, 12–15, 21–23; 97:10–12; 104:33– 35;59 106:3, 6 (et al.); 112:6, 9–10; 140:2–5, 9, 13–14; and 141:4–5, 10. A few observations may be made here. First, several psalms also utilize the theme of “the fear of YHWH” (‫)יראת יהוה‬, thus underscoring their wisdom character and affinity with Deuteronomic language and theology. Psalm 34 is a good example. Verse 10 exhorts YHWH’s “saints” (‫)קדשיו‬ to “fear YHWH” (‫)יראו את־יהוה‬, whereupon v. 12 continues, “Come, O children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of YHWH (‫”)יראת יהוה‬ (cf. Prov 8). Verse 15 then contrasts “evil” and “good” (‫ רע‬and ‫)טוב‬, and in vv. 16–17 YHWH’s eyes are “on the righteous (‫)צדיקים‬,” but his face is, “against those who do evil (‫)בעשי רע‬.” The “afflictions of the righteous 58.  Ps 9:5–6 contrasts YHWH’s treatment of the righteous and the wicked in terms reminiscent of Ps 1:6. In Ps 9:5 YHWH gives “righteous judgment” (‫)שופט צדק‬ from his throne but the Targum has a definite substantive adjective ‫)הצדיק =( זכאה‬, “judging the righteous,” while v. 6 declares, “you have made the wicked perish (‫)אבדת רשע‬.” 59.  The end of Ps 104 contrasts the psalmist’s present and future joy toward YHWH (vv. 33–34) with the destruction of the wicked: “Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked (‫ )רשעים‬be no more” (v. 35).

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

149

(‫ ”)צדיק‬are many in v. 20, but “[a]ffliction will slay the wicked (‫ ”)רשע‬in v. 22. Clearly, Ps 34’s exhortation to “fear YHWH” consistently contrasts the “righteous” and the “wicked.” This vocabulary is similarly configured in Ps 55. In v. 4 the psalmist petitions God for help from “the oppression of the wicked (‫)רשע‬,” who according to v. 20 “do not fear (‫ )ירא‬God” and in spite of whom God “will never permit the righteous (‫ )צדיק‬to be moved” (v. 23). (Psalm 68, discussed earlier, concludes with the “fear of YHWH” theme too: “Awesome [‫ ]נורא‬is God from his sanctuary.”) Thus, both Davidic psalms, Pss 34 and 55 (plus Ps 68), connect “the fear of the Lord” with the two-way motif and the covenantal overtones implied therein, further justifying a fuller exploration of “the fear of the Lord” as a Mosaic covenantal theme (see below). Second, as noted in passing from time to time, some of these resemble Ps 1 with its two-way motif. In Ps 92:7–10 the psalmist declares that YHWH’s enemies “shall perish” (‫ )אבד‬after describing the “wicked” (‫ )רשעים‬as grass. By contrast, vv. 13–16 liken the “righteous” (‫ )צדיק‬to a palm tree and cedar, “planted (‫ )שתולים‬in the house of YHWH,” echoing the planted-tree motif in Ps 1:3 (cf. ‫)כעץ שתול‬. Psalm 94:12–15, which stands in relatively close proximity, also resembles Ps 1, as noted earlier. Psalm 112 begins by praising the virtues of the “righteous” (cf. ‫ צדיק‬in 112:4 and 6) in strikingly similar terms to Ps 1, also incorporating “the fear of YHWH” theme just discussed. Verse 1 states, “Blessed is the man (‫ )אשרי־איש‬who fears (‫ )ירא‬YHWH, who greatly delights (‫ )חפץ‬in his commandments,” just as Ps 1’s righteous man delights in YHWH’s torah. This comes on the heels of the final verse of Ps 111 with which it is paired, stating, “The fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it60 have a good understanding” (v. 10). Shortly before that we read in 111:9 that YHWH’s name is “feared” (‫)ונורא שמו‬. Psalm 112:10 itself also concludes in a similar way to Ps 1: “the desire of the wicked (‫ )רשעים‬will perish (‫ ”!)אבד‬These wisdom/Deuteronomic themes clearly help bind the Pss 111–112 acrostic pair together. So whatever the process by which Pss 26, 92, 94, and 112 arrived at their canonical place in the Psalter, they share significant points in common with Ps 1, whose “righteous man” scholars commonly identify as YHWH’s Anointed in Ps 2 (see Chapter 14). 60.  The ESV follows the Syriac, Hieronymus, and LXX (πᾶσι τοῖς ποιοῦσιν αὐτήν), which witness the f. sg. suffix, so that v. 10’s “all who practice it” refers to the “fear of YHWH.” However, the MT has 3rd m. pl. suffix (‫)לכל־עשיהם‬, perhaps referring to “all his precepts” (‫ )כל־פקודיו‬from v. 7. Understood thus, 111:10 and 112:1 practically say the same thing: that to “fear YHWH” is to do/delight in his precepts/commands.

150

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Third, that so many psalms structure their thought around the differing ways and/or fates of the righteous and the wicked suggests that the two-way motif is somewhat programmatic for the Psalms. Accordingly, editors conceivably understood other mentions of the righteous or wicked in terms of this contrast. For example, of the terms just explored Ps 3 uses only “wicked” (‫ )רשעים‬in v. 8. But since this describes the psalmist’s enemy within his lament, the psalm clearly recognizes at least two camps: one to which the psalmist belongs (cf. “your people” [‫ ]עמך‬in v. 9), and “the wicked.”61 Nevertheless, the point will not be pushed here, in keeping with our methodological assumption that greater lexical/thematic overlap renders a stronger allusion. Finally, the distribution and attribution of these psalms is noteworthy. Nine of these 17 psalms fall in Books I–III, supporting earlier evidence that wisdom themes predominate in this first part of the Psalter. Moreover, nine of them are also Davidic and distributed across the whole Psalter, which likewise reflects the pattern already observed throughout our study of wisdom/Deuteronomic themes. Fear of YHWH. It remains to follow up other instances of “the fear of the Lord” motif. From time to time we have noted this theme in the psalms explored above: 5:8; 34:10, 12; 55:20; 68:36; 111:9–10; 112:1; 128:1 (cf. 2:11). The noun ‫ יראה‬occurs a few other times with YHWH the implied object: Pss 19:10; 90:11; and 119:38. We have already noted the rich torah language of Pss 19:8–10 and 119. Psalm 90 is the only psalm attributed to Moses, so editors likely understood v. 11—“Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you (‫—”?)וכיראתך‬with the Mosaic covenant close in the background (cf. Exod 20:20). The verb ‫ ירא‬often means “fear” in a general sense or fear of enemies in the Psalter, but in numerous places it relates specifically to fear of YHWH/God, his name, deeds, and so on. Besides those psalms where we have already identified this motif, “YHWH” is feared in: Pss 33:8; 40:4; 47:3; 52:8;62 67:8; 76:8, 9(?), 13; 89:8; 96:4; 130:4, and possibly 72:5.63 YHWH’s/God’s “awesome deeds” appear to be in view in 64:10(?); 65:6, 61.  Other comparable examples include, e.g., Ps 14:4–5; 22:17; and 64:3, 11. 62.  Here the “righteous” (‫“ )צדיקים‬see and fear.” Moreover, in v. 10 the psalmist then likens himself to “a green olive tree in the house of God,” thus employing a simile like that in Ps 1:3 (see Chapter 14). 63.  Psalm 72’s focus on the king could suggest that “May they fear you” (‫)ייראוך‬ refers to the king; i.e., a royal application of an idiom normally applied to YHWH in keeping with Ps 72’s universalized vision of kingship (see Chapter 9). On the other hand, the psalm usually denotes the king via 3rd person suffixes, so the 2nd person

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

151

9(?); 66:3, 5; 106:22; 139:14(?), and 145:6. YHWH’s “name” is feared in Pss 86:11; 99:3; 102:16. And YHWH’s “word(s)” or “judgments” are feared in Pss 119:38, 63, 120. Many of these examples employ the niphal participle ‫נוראות‬/‫( נורא‬i.e., those in Pss 47, 65–66, 68, 76, 89, 96, 99, 106, 111, 139, 145), and the connection to “fear of YHWH” is thus mainly lexical/conceptual. These data permit a few observations. First, “fear of YHWH” arises in psalms that our survey has identified in relation to Mosaic covenantal motifs (Pss 86, 111, 112, and 119) or ‫ ברית‬itself (Pss 89 and 111), suggesting editors likely perceived Mosaic covenantal entailments in its other instances too. Second, a number of these psalms fall at most “seams” of the Psalter (Pss 2, 72, 89, 90, 106), with others exhibiting signs of deliberate editorial placement (e.g., Pss 86, 111–112, 119—see Part I), confirming the importance of the theme to editors. Third, the vast majority of psalms are (quasi-)Davidic or royal and display the king commending/ teaching the fear of YHWH or exemplifying it: Pss 5, 15, 19, 33, 34, 40, 52, 55, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 86, 89, 102, and 139. To these could be added Ps 119, whose psalmist Grant understands as royal, and Pss 111–112, which Zenger identifies closely with the David in Pss 108–110. Summary. Wilson believes the addition of Books IV–V to complete the MT Psalter was “shaped by the concerns of wisdom.”64 But the “earlier” segment (Pss 2–89) is saturated with these themes as well. This suggests Wilson may have overdrawn his contrast between the “royal-covenantal” and “wisdom” frames he finds in the Psalter. Strikingly, Davidic or “Davidized” anonymous psalms in the first half of the Psalter account for most of the data just surveyed, often reflecting deliberate editorial effort to associate them with David. David exemplifies and teaches YHWH’s way and the fear of YHWH.65 Our findings also accord well with Creach’s conclusions about David and the righteous. After noting that Pss 1–2, “orient the reader to the nature of the righteous person and the plight of the righteous in relation to the wicked,” Creach proposes that the “association of…[Pss 3–41]…with David gives a Davidic cast to the whole Psalter and presents David as representative of the righteous who cry out to God.”66 here likely signals a reference to God as the psalmist’s primary audience (see v. 1). On the other hand, the LXX reads “may he endure” (καὶ συμπαραμενεῖ [= ‫)]ויאריך‬, reading the kaph as part of the verbal root ‫ ארך‬and retaining the 3rd person. 64.  Wilson, “Shaping the Psalter,” 80. 65.  See also Barber, Singing in the Reign, 73–74. 66.  Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous, 59.

152

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Conclusion The foregoing examination of allusions to the Shema, clustered terminology denoting YHWH’s Mosaic covenantal commands, specific commands of the Decalogue, and themes of YHWH’s way and the fear of YHWH show that they gravitate substantially around David. Approximately half of the Psalter’s psalms are attributed to David or are “Davidized” in the MT, but many of these criteria occur predominantly or exclusively in Davidic psalms. At the editorial level, “David” exhibits whole-hearted devotion to YHWH as per Deut 6:5, and “listens” to YHWH in contradistinction to the people (Pss 81 and 106). The possibility that petitionary uses of the imperative, “hear,” might also invoke the reciprocal covenantal relationship yielded similar results: it is mostly David who petitions YHWH to “hear” and YHWH in turn “hears” David. On the other hand, God “hears” the people in unfavorable ways—for example, their grumbling in Ps 78. Similarly, allusions to God’s commandments, statutes, judgments, and so on, as well as specific commands from the Decalogue bear out the picture proposed by Grant of a king devoted to torah. Meanwhile Pss 50 and 81 reprimand the people for their faithlessness toward YHWH. The absence of royal culpability in Ps 89, noted in Chapter 5, then, turns out to be no anomaly in the Psalter, but fits a greater pattern seen especially in the last three books, where explicit acknowledgments of personal, royal guilt are lacking in contrast to the oft-unfaithful people (e.g., Pss 78, 105).67 Chapter 4’s investigation of 72:20’s editorial significance is therefore very pertinent, for it indicates that—after Book I–II’s predominant focus on historical David son of Jesse—a future Davidic successor takes center stage within the theological agenda of the Psalter. By suggesting that this future David is faithful to the covenant, the present chapter’s survey builds on that picture. Addendum: ‫ חק‬and ‫ עדות‬in Their Singular Forms When examining clustered terms relating to covenantal stipulations, we observed that ‫( חק‬sg.) meant “decree” in Ps 105:8, paralleling ‫דבר‬ and ‫ ברית‬in reference to the Abrahamic covenant.68 ‫ חק‬and the singular noun ‫“( עדות‬testimony”) potentially function as alternative terms for 67.  See Chapters 11–13. 68.  Similarly, ‫ חק‬parallels ‫ ברית‬in Num 18:19; Josh 24:25; Isa 24:5, and 1 Chr 16:17 (= Ps 105:10).

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

153

“covenant” elsewhere too.69 Indeed, Kalluveettil argues that the singular ‫ עדות‬functions as a virtual synonym for covenant in several instances (e.g., 2 Kg 11:12).70 This addendum offers a brief survey of such instances in the Psalter. There are four relevant instances of ‫חק‬: Pss 2:7; 81:5; 99:7; and 148:6. (A fifth, Ps 94:20, refers to an unjust statute rather than YHWH’s). As noted above, singular ‫ עדות‬occurs in Pss 19:8; 78:5; 81:6; and 122:4 (not counting the superscripts to Pss 60 and 80). In Ps 2:7 ‫ חק‬refers to YHWH’s actual words to his anointed, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you,” following shortly after v. 2’s pairing of YHWH and “his anointed” (‫)משיחו‬. Thus ‫ חק‬denotes a central promise of the Davidic covenant (cf. 2 Sam 7:14). Given Pss 1–2’s introductory function, the Davidic covenant—specifically the YHWH–king relationship at its heart—is clearly a central concern of the Psalter. In Asaph Ps 81:5–6 we read, “For it is a statute (‫ )חק‬for Israel, a rule (‫ )משפט‬of the God of Jacob. He made it a decree (‫ )עדות‬in Joseph when he went out over the land of Egypt.” Here ‫חק‬, ‫עדות‬, and ‫משפט‬ form a cluster typical of their plural forms explored above. In Ps 81, however, these terms refer most directly to the singular command to keep the feast day (cf. vv. 2–4). But, as we have seen, Ps 81’s allusion to Deut 6:4 in vv. 9 and 12 and the Decalogue in vv. 10–11 make this feast day’s Mosaic covenantal overtones clear, and ‫ חק‬and ‫( עדות‬and ‫ )משפט‬effectively command participation in Mosaic covenantal liturgical life. In Ps 99:7 ‫ חק‬parallels ‫ עדתיו‬as the dual object of “they kept” (‫)שמרו‬. YHWH gave “his priests” and those “who called on his name” (v. 6) this statute whose stipulations (i.e., ‫ )עדתיו‬they were to keep, giving some cause to understand ‫ חק‬as a functional synonym for ‫ברית‬. Psalm 99’s liturgical context (vv. 1–5) and identification of Moses, Aaron, and Samuel (v. 6) recall the pre-monarchic era and suggest that ‫ חק‬here especially entails liturgical instruction from the Mosaic covenant. Psalm 148:6 presents an interesting case that deserves greater attention. The ESV translates Ps 148:6, “And he established them (‫—”)ויעמידם‬i.e., sun, moon, stars, etc.—“forever and ever (‫ ;)לעד לעולם‬he gave a decree (‫)חק‬, and it shall not pass away (‫)יעבור‬.” Translated thus, ‫ חק‬refers to YHWH’s creational decree or “covenant” with the heavenly bodies 69.  H. Ringgren, “‫ ָח ַקק‬ḥāqaq,” TDOT 5:139–47, observes that in most cases ‫חק‬ indicates a “statute” or “ordinance” initiated by the superior party but takes different concrete meanings depending on context. 70.  Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 31.

154

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

(vv. 3–4; cf. Gen 1:6–8, 14–19; Jer 33:20) and effectively restates v. 5b, “For he commanded and they were created.”71 On the other hand, several factors suggest that editors—even the original author—saw ‫ חק‬referring to a covenant to which heavenly bodies bear witness just as heaven and earth bore witness to the Mosaic covenant (Deut 4:26; 30:19). Although ‫ לעד לעולם‬can be rendered “forever and ever,” it can also be read: “He established them as a witness forever.” We find a similar expression in Isa 30:8 (‫)לעד עד־עולם‬, where it clearly means “as a witness forever” rather than “forever and ever.” Looking to other instances in the Psalter where ‫ עולם‬and ‫ עד‬are paired, only in 111:8 does ‫ לעד לעולם‬clearly mean “forever and ever.”72 When these terms are linked by the conjunction as two temporal adverbs, however, they appear in the reverse order and often lack ‫( ל‬i.e., ‫)]ל[עולם ועד‬.73 Moreover, Ps 105:10 provides a close syntactical parallel to 148:6a: “which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute” (‫)ויעמידה ליעקב לחק‬. Like 148:6, 105:10 has the hiphil74 of ‫ עמד‬with appropriate objective suffix followed by a double ‫ל‬, but makes ‫ חק‬the object of ‫( ל‬of product) where 148:6 prefixes ‫ ל‬to ‫עד‬. In view of this syntactical equivalence and the appearance of ‫ חק‬in the second part of Ps 148:6, Ps 105:10 offers quite a strong parallel discernible to editors as both psalms occupy places of editorial significance. The historic Pss 105–106 pair concludes Book IV and Ps 148 is the central psalm of the concluding 146–150 group. If ‫עד‬ means “witness” in v. 6, then in Ps 148:3–6 the psalmist calls the heavenly bodies to “praise him” as eternal “witnesses” to YHWH’s ‫חק‬, or covenant now universalized. Psalm 148’s similarities to another prominently placed psalm, Ps 89, likewise suggests that editors understood ‫ חק‬this way in Ps 148. These similarities also suggest that 148:6’s “eternal statute” relates to the king at the editorial level, perhaps recalling YHWH’s ‫ חק‬in Ps 2:7. Psalm 89:37–38 uses the same celestial and “witness” language, comparing David’s throne with the sun and moon as a “witness” in a similar way

71.  Most commentators understand ‫ חק‬as God’s creational command to the heavenly bodies, e.g., Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1975), 524–25; Goldingay, Psalms, 3:731; and Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 630, 636–37. 72.  YHWH’s “works” and “precepts” are eternally established. 73.  Cf. Pss 9:6; 10:16; 21:5; 45:7, 18; 48:15; 52:10; 104:5; 119:44; and 145:1, 2, 21. 74.  The two other places where ‫ עמד‬occurs in the hiphil (18:34 and 30:8) show little syntactical or lexical resemblance to 105:10 and 148:6.

7. David as Keeper of the Mosaic Covenant

155

proposed for Ps 148:6. Moreover, just as Ps 148:14 declares that YHWH “has raised up (‫ )וירם‬a horn (‫ )קרן‬for his people,”75 so Ps 89 speaks of “our horn” (v. 18) and “David’s “horn” (v. 25) being “exalted” (‫)רום‬. The Psalter’s other instances of ‫ קרן‬suggest the same royal connotations, for when not denoting the wicked,76 ‫ קרן‬occurs predominantly in royal psalms (e.g., 18:3; 89:18, 25; 132:17; the plural in [quasi-royal?] 118:27 refers to the altar).77 Given the oft-noted editorial importance of royal psalms, editors likely understood 148:14 in relation to the Davidic king or kingdom, suggesting that Ps 148:14 recalls the twofold appearance of ‫ קרן‬in Ps 89.78 In light of these connections, the “statute” (‫ )חק‬to praise YHWH’s name in 148:6 appears closely connected to the “royal horn” YHWH raises up (v. 14), whose royal sonship was announced at the beginning of the Psalter (2:7). Three of the four instances of ‫( עדות‬sg.) are accounted for above (78:5; 81:6; and Pss 19:8). This leaves Davidic Ps 122:4, where ‫עדות לישראל‬ refers to the decree that “the tribes of Yah” (‫ )שבטי־יה‬ascend Jerusalem to praise YHWH’s name, amounting to a liturgically oriented command similar to Ps 81:6.79 But whereas Ps 81 has conspicuous Mosaic covenantal elements, Ps 122 accentuates the Davidic throne. Verse 5 states, “There (‫ )כי שמה‬thrones for judgment were set, the thrones of the house of David.” Whether ‫ כי‬is causal or emphatic, the Davidic throne occasions the praise of YHWH’s name in Jerusalem. To sum up: ‫ חק‬refers to a core promise of the Davidic covenant in Ps 2, and in Ps 81 ‫חק‬, ‫עדות‬, and ‫ משפט‬all express YHWH’s command to keep a feast with strong Mosaic covenantal entailments. Similarly, ‫חק‬ seems to refer to the Mosaic covenant in Ps 99, while in Ps 148:6 there are

75.  Cf. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 639, who see this as “the reason for and content of the praise Israel is to sing.” 76.  For example, Pss 22:22 and 75:5, 6, 11. 77.  ‫ קרן‬turns up also in 92:11, where ‫ קרני‬is the psalmist’s “horn,” and 112:9, where ‫ קרנו‬belongs to the “blessed man” who fears YHWH. Even these instances have possible royal overtones. Zenger identifies Ps 112’s “blessed man” as “David” from the preceding Davidic Pss 108–110 (see Chapter 13). Regarding Ps 92:11, see Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 282–84. 78.  Grogan, Psalms, 228, sees a probable allusion to “the messianic hope of a powerful king (cf. 132:17).” Most commentators understand v. 14 as YHWH’s bestowal of dignity and power on Israel only in a general way; see, e.g., Goldingay, Psalms, 3:734; Terrien, The Psalms, 921; and Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 638–39. 79.  Notwithstanding the variant in 11QPsa, which has “congregation of Israel” (‫ ;עדת ישראל‬cf. ἐκκλησία in Symmachus).

156

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

compelling reasons to conclude that editors understood ‫ חק‬as YHWH’s covenant in a broad—even universal—sense established by “David.” Finally, Ps 122 connects it most obviously with thanksgiving in Jerusalem and the house of David.

Chapter 8 D av i d a s N ew M ose s

Part III argues inter alia that the Psalter presents David as a Moses-like intercessor. The present chapter builds on the previous survey work to explore the plausibility of this idea. We may note, for example, that in the Pentateuch Moses’ intercessory role is set within the broader context of the exodus/Sinai/land-giving. But how do these themes emerge in the Psalter? Do they coalesce around David, and does the Psalter similarly situate “David” within the broader context of a new exodus-like salvation? The idea of a typological relationship between Moses and David in postexilic OT literature is not new. Dale Allison argues convincingly that another postexilic work, 1–2 Chronicles, assumes precisely this and, if correct, shows that an editorial perspective on David as a “new Moses” in the Psalter is very plausible. After noting several points of similarity between Moses and David,1 Allison cites 1 Chr 22:6–13, where David charges Solomon to build the temple, pointing out numerous similarities that cast David in a Mosaic mold. Allison writes: The venerable king told Solomon that God would be with him (v. 11), enjoined him to keep the law (v. 12), reminded him that keeping the law would bring prosperity (v. 13), and entreated him to be strong and of good courage, and not to be afraid or dismayed (v. 13). All this irresistibly recalls the commissioning stories in Deuteronomy 31 and Joshua 1. According to these, Moses, near the end of his days, along with God told Joshua that God would be with him (Deut. 31:8, 23; Josh. 1:5), enjoined him to keep the law

1.  Dale C. Allison Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1993), 35–36, notes that both Moses and David were shepherds, both called “man of God” (‫)איש־האלהים‬, and both applauded for doing right in YHWH’s eyes with specific exceptions (Moses’ Meribah incident in Num 20 and the matter of Uriah the Hittite [1 Kgs 15:5] related in 2 Sam 11). Allison observes that although comparison of Moses and David is scarce in Rabbinic literature besides the Midrash on Ps 1:1, in 1 Chronicles “David plays the part of Moses.”

158

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (Josh. 1:7–8), reminded him that keeping the law would bring prosperity (Josh. 1:8), and entreated him to be strong and of good courage, and not be afraid or dismayed (Deut. 31:7–8, 23; Josh 1:9).2

For Allison these similarities signal more than the Chronicler’s intent to model Solomon after Joshua; they also reflect a conscious interest in David as a Moses-like figure. Here Allison turns to 1 Chron 28:11–19, where David gives Solomon the pattern (‫ )תבנית‬for the temple and furnishings. Noting its dependence on Exod 25–31 (cf. ‫ תבנית‬in Exod 25:9), Allison observes, “[j]ust as Moses was directly given by God the plans for the tabernacle, so too David; and just as Moses handed on the plans to Bezalel (Exod. 31:3; 35:30–35), similarly did David hand on the plans he received to Solomon.”3 Since Exod 25 has Bezalel in view and not Joshua, the Chronicler’s Moses/David comparison goes beyond simply establishing Solomon as the legitimate “Joshua-like” Davidic successor; the Chronicler has cast David with “a Mosaic type authority” and, Allison suspects, was “eager to prove David nobody’s inferior.”4 That postexilic editors of the Psalter should take a similar perspective is very much within the realms of possibility. So what of the Psalter per se? Is David presented as a “new Moses” there too? While that question is taken up in Part III’s analysis of the grace formula in Books III–V, the present chapter’s survey work conducts an important preliminary step, for it shows that Moses and Moses-related events frequently turn up in ways that elicit this very question. One obvious criterion is the name “Moses.” It is widely recognized that seven of the Psalter’s eight mentions of “Moses” occur in Book IV; the remaining instance being Ps 77:21 (Book III).5 James Borger concludes that Book IV’s recollections of Moses accentuate his intercessory role,6 which raises the editorial question of how Book IV appropriates this emphasis on Mosaic intercession. Chapter 13 addresses that question 2.  Allison, The New Moses, 37. Allison, 38, observes further parallels: “the sequence of a private commissioning of Solomon followed by a public commissioning, found in 1 Chronicles 22 and 28” with Joshua’s commissioning etc. in Deut 31:14–15 and Josh 1, and notes that, “the association of the concept of rest with Solomon and the building of the temple (1 Chron 22:9) depends upon the Book of Joshua, where rest is the prerequisite for the assembling of the tent of meeting at Shiloh (see esp. Josh 11:23 and 18:1).” 3.  Allison, The New Moses, 39. 4.  Allison, The New Moses, 39. 5.  Psalms 90:1; 99:6 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, and 32. 6.  Borger, “Moses in the Fourth Book of the Psalter,” 173–74.

8. David as New Moses

159

more directly by analyzing Book IV’s appropriation of Pss 101–103 and exploring the possibility that editors envisioned a Davidic intercessor in this classically Mosaic role. Even a cursory look at the Psalter shows that some significantly placed psalms explicitly recall the exodus (and sometimes the land-giving also). Psalm 89:9–10 recalls God’s “mighty arm” and crushing of “Rahab” as it laments the cast-off king at the end of Book III,7 and several Asaph psalms and the historical psalms (78, 105–106) make generous reference to the exodus.8 Indeed, when petitioning God or instructing the people about his salvation psalmists frequently recall the exodus, attesting its importance as the major redemptive event in Israel’s memory also in the Psalter. This chapter first explores allusions to the “Song of the Sea” (Exod 15), Sinai/Horeb, and the land-giving, and their possible association with David/the king, testing how plausible it is that the exodus/land-giving serves as a paradigm of YHWH’s salvation by his “servant” David. The survey then explores the characterization of David in certain other respects consistent with such a paradigm and in preparation for Part III’s more extensive analysis: David as “Aaron-like” mediator of blessing (Num 6:24–27) and Mosaic intercessor (Deut 9:26), confessor of YHWH the faithful God (Deut 7:9–10), and royal servant and son of YHWH. The chapter concludes with a brief survey of YHWH’s “sworn” promises in the Psalter. The Song of the Sea, Sinai/Horeb, and God’s Gift of the Land The Song of the Sea Although numerous psalms recall the exodus and wilderness wanderings, possible allusions to the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1–18) in Pss 33, 40, 96, 98, 144, and 149 raise important possibilities for our investigation. Moses’ Pentateuchal songs relate the exodus and closely accompany his renewal of the covenant and final address to the tribes in Deuteronomy. Exodus 15:1 follows the sea-crossing in ch. 14, recording that Moses “sang this song” (‫ )ישיר…השירה הזאת‬whereupon it begins, “I will sing” (‫)אשירה‬. Deuteronomy 31:30 similarly introduces Moses’ song in ch. 32, announcing that he “spoke the words of this song (‫)השירה הזאת‬.”

7.  Cf. “‫ר ַהב‬,” ַ BDB: 758; “‫ר ַהב‬,” ַ TWOT: 834). YHWH’s “arm” (‫ )זרוע‬is the oft-cited instrument of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt (e.g., Exod 6:6 and 15:16). 8.  Psalms 74:12–13; 77:12–20; 78:12–13, 43–53; 80:9–12; 81:5–8, 11; 105:23– 45; 106:7–33 (vv. 34–46 relate the Israelites’ faithlessness in the land).

160

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Among the psalms that contain the imperative, “sing [to YHWH],” Pss 33:3, 96:1[–2], 98:1, and 149:1 specifically call for a new song to YHWH (‫)שירו…שיר חדש‬.9 This same command appears in Isa 42:10 in Isaiah’s “Book of Comfort” (Isa 40–55), which recalls exodus themes as it announces YHWH’s new exodus-like salvation for his exiled people.10 This comes shortly after announcing the central figure in YHWH’s new exodus (besides Cyrus) in the first “Servant Song” (vv. 1–6). Indeed, scholars have demonstrated various lexical, theological, and phraseological similarities between Isa 40–55 and Book IV that imply a relationship between them, suggesting that the “new songs” in Pss 96 and 98 may envision a new exodus as in Isaiah.11 What is more, within the Pss 93–99 group—to which Wilson attributes great editorial importance—Pss 96 and 98, with their calls for a “new song,” are interspersed between the “YHWH reigns” psalms (Pss 93, 97, 99; cf. ‫ יהוה ימלך לעלם ועד‬in Exod 15:18) and themselves accentuate YHWH’s reign (96:10; 98:6). These psalms also feature God’s “right hand” and/or his “salvation” amid “the nations” (96:2; 98:1–3), adding to the list of striking affinities between them and Moses’ “Song of the Sea,” which celebrates YHWH’s salvation, right hand, kingship, and the international reputation God won for himself (e.g., Exod 15:2, 6, 14, 18).12 Additionally, Pss 96 and 98 highlight themes that resonate well with the first exodus and YHWH’s purpose of bringing them to Sinai to worship him: God’s judgment over the nations and earth (Pss 96:10, 13; cf. 99:4), “his marvelous works among all the peoples” (96:3), denunciation of idols/gods of the nations (96:4–5), and a call to worship in the sanctuary/ mountain seen in 96:6–9, 99:9, and entrance Pss 95 and 100. Moreover, Ps 99:6–8 explicitly recalls Moses and Aaron, the pillar of cloud, and YHWH’s forgiveness.13 These similarities to Exod 15 throughout Pss 93–100 can hardly be coincidental, especially given their editorial unity

9.  Other psalms containing the imperative of ‫ שיר‬are Pss 68:5, 33; and 105:2. 10.  E.g., 43:13–19 and 51:9–12, and YHWH’s call to “go out” in 48:20–21 and 52:10–12. 11.  See, e.g., Jerome F. D. Creach, “The Shape of Book Four of the Psalter and the Shape of Second Isaiah,” JSOT 80 (1998): 63–76. 12.  J. Clinton McCann Jr., The Book of Psalms, NIB (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 1072–73, writes, “[e]very major item of vocabulary recalls Exodus 15,” identifying such similarities between Ps 98 and Exod 15. 13.  Similarly, McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 75–76, 133–34, 151–52, 293–94, sees conscious allusions to the Song of the Sea in Pss 93, 98, and 99, as does Barber, Singing in the Reign, 121–24.

8. David as New Moses

161

in Book IV.14 It would seem, then, that within Pss 93–100 editors have collocated psalms whose individual allusions to the exodus and Moses’ song combine to recall those themes more comprehensively—a kind of cumulative or combinational concatenation. Outside the Pss 93–100 group, Pss 33:3 and 149:1 employ the imperative, “sing a new song” too. Psalm 33 is anonymous but has been Davidized within Book I. David calls for this “new song” by editorial design. Psalm 149 is the penultimate psalm of the great Laudate that concludes the Psalter, and which David introduces in 145:21 (see Chapter 2). Both situations therefore reflect editorial intent to make “David” the one who announces this “new song”; a leader of praise to YHWH as Moses had been (Exod 15). Moreover, the term “new song” appears two more times in the Psalter, and both times David is its singer. In Davidic Ps 40:4, David says that YHWH has “put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God,” and in Davidic Ps 144:9 announces, “I will sing a new song to you, O God.” A few other psalms contain strong echoes. In Davidic Ps 59:17–18 the psalmist says, “I will sing of your strength (‫…)ואני אשיר עזך‬O my Strength (‫)עזי‬.” Similarly, the Song of the Sea opens with “I will sing to YHWH” (‫ )אשירה ליהוה‬whereupon “Yah” is called “my strength” (‫ )עזי‬in v. 2. Psalm 118:14 exactly replicates Exod 15:2a, “Yah is my strength and my song, he has become my salvation” (‫עזי וזמרת יה‬ ‫)ויהי־לי לישועה‬, v. 21 repeating the latter part in the second person, “you… have become my salvation” (‫)ותהי־לי לישועה‬.15 Psalm 118 concludes the Egyptian Hallel group containing other allusions to the exodus. Davidic Ps 140:8, “O YHWH, my Lord, the strength of my salvation (‫)עז ישועתי‬,” employs nouns from Exod 15:2a to address YHWH—albeit in a construct chain. These examples allow a few general observations. First, allusions to the Song of the Sea are not purely “historic,” nostalgic recollection of deliverance from the Egyptian slavery in the Psalter, but are applied to psalmists’ present circumstances. Psalmists recognize YHWH as “my strength and my salvation” and presuppose a fundamental continuity between their current experience and relationship to YHWH and Israel’s experience of YHWH’s redemption at the exodus.‬ Second, most of these are Davidic or Davidized, placing the “new song” on David’s lips (Pss 33, 59, 140; cf. Pss 118 and 149).

14.  Howard, The Structure of Psalms 93–100. 15.  Cf. Mays, The Lord Reigns, 140–41; and Vangemeren, Psalms, 854.

162

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Moreover, Pss 118, 140, and 149 also show that allusions to the Song of the Sea become increasingly prominent in Book V and the Psalter overall. This suggests that they are an important factor for understanding how the Pss 93–99(100) group relates to the wider context of the Psalter, which Part III examines further. Other incidences of the verb “to sing” (‫ )שיר‬in the indicative may or may not allude to the Song of the Sea. Nevertheless, its distribution seems to confirm that David is the preeminent “singer” of the Psalter and the one who calls on others to sing God’s praise. The qal imperfect occurs fourteen times. Nine of these are singular, “I will sing,” of which seven are in Davidic psalms (Pss 13:6; 27:6; 57:8; 59:17 [see above]; 101:1; 108:2; and 144:9). In an eighth instance, Ps 89:1, Ethan the Ezrahite sings of YHWH’s steadfast love for David. The remaining instance is Ps 104:33, which Zenger believes is quasi-Davidic by association with Ps 103. The verb occurs five other times with a plural subject. David declares, “We will sing and praise your power” in 21:14, but in Ps 137:4 “we”—that is, the people—cannot sing the songs of Zion while in a foreign land. Psalm 106:12 is the one time in the Psalter where the people are reported to have “sung” YHWH’s praise for his deliverance at the exodus, referring to the Song of the Sea, but v. 13 reports that “they soon forgot (‫)שכח‬ his works.” Finally, David declares “they will sing” in Ps 65:14 and Ps 138:5, referring to the “meadows” and “valleys” and the “kings of the earth” respectively. These data suggest that David is the preeminent “leadsinger” of YHWH’s praise in the Psalter, without whom the people fail to sing any enduring song of praise. “Sinai” (‫ )סיני‬and “Horeb” (‫)חרב‬ “Sinai” occurs twice in Davidic Ps 68. According to the MT, v. 9 declares, “the earth quaked, the heavens poured down rain, before God, the One of Sinai (‫)זה סיני‬,16 before God, the God of Israel (‫)מפני אלהים אלהי ישראל‬.” Allowing for Ps 68’s preference for ‫ אלהים‬over ‫יהוה‬, identical phrases appear in Deborah’s song in Judg 5:5, “The mountains quaked before YHWH, the One of Sinai (‫)זה סיני‬, before YHWH, the God of Israel (‫)מפני יהוה אלהי ישראל‬.”17 This is one of several phraseological similarities between Ps 68 and Judg 5.18 Sinai occurs again in v. 18 answering 16.  Cf. Dahood, Psalms, 2:139, who rejects speculations that ‫ זה סיני‬is a gloss. 17.  My translation. ESV: “even Sinai before [YHWH], the God of Israel.” 18.  Others include “division of the spoil” (‫ )שלל תחלק‬in Ps 68:13 (cf. ‫יחלקו שלל‬ in v. 30), “among the sheepfolds” (‫ )בין שפתים‬in v. 14 (cf. ‫ בין המשפתים‬in Judg 5:16), and the praise of Benjamin, Zebulun, and Naphtali in v. 28 (cf. Judg 5:14, 18).

8. David as New Moses

163

v. 17’s question to the mountains of Bashan, “Why do you look with hatred, O many-peaked mountain, at the mount that God desired for his abode (‫)ההר חמד אלהים לשבתו‬, yes, where YHWH will dwell forever (‫ ?)ישכן לנצח‬The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, thousands upon thousands; the Lord is among them; Sinai is now in the sanctuary (‫)סיני בקדש‬.” Here the psalmist explicitly recognizes the transference of God’s abode from Sinai to the sanctuary in Zion. Others take ‫בקדש‬ to mean “in holiness” rather than “in the sanctuary,” but in either case vv. 25–27 envision a procession into the sanctuary, which v. 30 identifies as the temple in Jerusalem.19 Since Zion is a prominent theme throughout the Psalter editors likely recognized this movement from Sinai to Zion.20 This transference from Sinai to Zion has obvious cultic importance in Israel’s history, but also draws the Mosaic covenant into the orbit of Davidic rule in a manner consistent with Ps 78’s shift of focus from premonarchic Israel’s life under the Mosaic covenant to God’s election of Judah, Zion, and David in vv. 68–72. “Horeb” occurs only once in Ps 106:19 to recall the golden calf incident, a moment emblematic of the people’s covenantal faithlessness. The Gift of the Land As Chapter 5 showed, Ps 105 recalls the Abrahamic covenant and presupposes historical continuity with the later Mosaic covenant (cf. vv. 26 and 45) with which it shares important characteristics. Principal among them are the gift of the land and Israel’s status as a people belonging to YHWH. The promise of land is first made to Abraham in Gen 15:7 (cf. 12:1) and confirmed by Isaac to Jacob in Gen 28:4. In each case YHWH “gives” (‫ )נתן‬the “land” (‫“ )ארץ‬to possess” (‫ )ירש‬it. Thereafter Exod 34:24, Lev 20:24, and many places throughout Numbers and Deuteronomy repeat the theme via the verb ‫ ירש‬and/or ‫נתן‬, often describing the land as the people’s “inheritance” (‫)נחלה‬.21

19.  Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1990), 166, e.g., notes that “into the holy place” (i.e., “sanctuary”) is the most common rendering of ‫ בקדש‬in v. 18. Cf. Goldingay, Psalms, 3:324, 328–29. 20.  See Gillingham, “The Zion Tradition,” who traces this important motif in the Psalter. McCann, A Theological Introduction, 147–49, sees a similar move from Sinai to Zion in Ps 48. Similarly, Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 165, view vv. 18–19 as the “ascent of the Sinai God to his throne on Zion.” 21.  E.g., Num 14:24; 16:14; 18:20–24; Deut 1:21; 2:24; 3:18, 20; 5:31–33; 6:1, 18; and many others. Numerous contexts cast it as a command (e.g., Deut 1:8) or as an accomplished fact (e.g., Deut 3:12).

164

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Rather than examine each of the Psalter’s 190 instances of ‫ארץ‬, the following survey traces instances where ‫ ארץ‬is the object of ‫ ירש‬and/ or ‫נתן‬. Several psalms unmistakably allude to God’s promise of land: Ps 2:8; 25:13; 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34; 44:3–4; 69:36; 105:11, 44; 111:6; 135:12; 136:21–22.22 As noted in Chapter 5, there exists significant lexical overlap between ‫ ברית‬psalms about this theme, for both Pss 105 and 111 share ‫נתן‬, ‫גוים‬, ‫ נחלה‬terminology. Psalm 2:8 is especially noteworthy because it presents the Abrahamic/Mosaic promise within a universal horizon and applies it to the Davidic king. YHWH says to him, “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage (‫)ואתנה גוים נחלתך‬, and the ends of the earth (‫ )אפסי־ארץ‬your possession.” Thus, YHWH will give (‫ )נתן‬not merely “the land,” but the whole world and its nations as the king’s inheritance. Psalms 135:12 resembles Ps 2:8 in terminology: “and [he] gave their land as a heritage, a heritage to his people Israel” (‫)ונתן ארצם נחלה נחלה לישראל עמו‬. This is repeated almost identically in Ps 136:21–22, where God “gave their land as a heritage” (‫ונתן ארצם‬ ‫…)לנחלה‬a heritage to Israel his servant (‫)נחלה לישראל עבדו‬.” Further similarities between 135:10–12 and 136:17–22 on this theme contribute to the concatenation between these psalms, and reflect editorial interest in Israel’s inheriting the land of defeated kings and nations.23 Thus, Pss 105, 111, 135, and 136 all identify Israel/YHWH’s people as those to whom YHWH “gave their land.” On Wilson’s account of the Psalter’s composition history, these psalms might suggest that editors responsible for Books IV–V replaced the earlier universalized promise to the king (cf. Pss 2:8 and 72) with a “democratized” view whereby the people become the beneficiaries of the promise. There is, however, a qualitative difference in the way these psalms utilize this theme compared with Ps 2. In Ps 2:8 YHWH invites the king to “ask of me etc.” On face value, this invitation is the means by which Israel’s historic, pre-exilic possession of land would be realized, now on a universal scale. Significantly, it is the king who is to “ask of me,” making him central—even instrumental—in the realization of that promise (see Chapter 14). On the other hand, when Pss 105, 111, 135, and 136 relate the promise of land they usually do so in the context of historical reflection, thereby exemplifying YHWH’s power and his faithfulness to his people 22.  Psalm 115:16, which contrasts heaven as YHWH’s realm and the “earth” (‫ )הארץ‬as his “gift” (‫ )נתן‬to humanity, possibly has the (universalized) promise in the background. 23.  In 135:10 and 136:17–18 YHWH “strikes” (‫ )נכה‬and “kills kings” (‫ מלכים‬+ ‫)הרג‬, while 135:11 and 136:19–20 recall the kings Sihon and Og.

8. David as New Moses

165

(cf. 105:1–2; 111:4–6; 135:5–6; 136:4).24 If the people finally “inherit the earth” in the Psalter, these data give little reason to think it comes at the expense of the king within a program of democratization. Interestingly, apart from Ps 105:44 noted above, instances where ‫ארץ‬ is the object of ‫ ירש‬are confined to Books I–II: Pss 25, 37, 44, and 69.25 Wisdom Pss 25 and 37 are both Davidic and utilize this theme in didactic discourse. In the instruction of Ps 37, “those who wait for YHWH” (‫ וקוי יהוה‬in v. 9), “the meek” (‫ וענוים‬in v. 11), “those blessed by YHWH” (‫ מברכיו‬in v. 22),26 and the “righteous” (‫ צדיקים‬in v. 29) will “inherit the land.” Furthermore, in v. 34 David counsels, “Wait for YHWH and keep his way (‫)ושמר דרכו‬, and he will exalt you to inherit the land.” Likewise in Ps 25:12–13 it is the “man who fears YHWH” (‫ )האיש ירא יהוה‬whose “offspring” (‫ )זרע‬will inherit land. But Ps 25’s location after Pss 15–24 suggests that editors may have viewed the God-fearing man and his seed as royal for, as noted earlier, that psalm group’s concentric arrangement accentuates the king (Pss 18, 20–21) who extols torah and meditates on it (Ps 19), thus qualifying to enter God’s sanctuary (Pss 15 and 24). If this God-fearing man and his “seed” are indeed royal, then it presents a picture commensurate with that suggested by Ps 72, where David prays for his successor through whom other Abrahamic covenantal promises would be realized (see Chapters 4 and 9). While many of the Psalter’s other references to “the land” may have the Abrahamic promise in the background too, those surveyed above explicitly reiterate the promise itself through a combination of key terms.27 Otherwise, it is also valuable to note that “land” (‫ )ארץ‬is universalized in the Psalter. Expressions like “all the earth” (‫ )כל־הארץ‬and “the ends of the earth” (‫אפסי־ארץ‬/‫ )קצה‬occur very frequently and—perhaps surprisingly— especially in the first two books of the Psalter.28 24.  Psalm 111 is the most subtly “historic” of these four psalms, alluding more vaguely to the exodus (v. 4), manna/quail (v. 5a), and land-giving (v. 6) to proclaim YHWH’s ongoing covenant faithfulness (v. 5b). 25.  Conversely, in Ps 83:13 enemies would dispossess God’s pastures. 26.  LXX has οἱ εὐλογοῦντες αὐτόν, suggesting it be pointed as a piel (i.e., active): “those who bless him” (‫)מ ָב ְר ָכיו‬. ְ 27.  Concerning the remaining two instances (Pss 44 and 69): Ps 44:3–4 reflects historically on the conquest, while Ps 69:36–37 speak of “Zion” and “the cities of Judah” being inhabited (‫ )ישב‬and possessed (‫ )ירש‬as “the offspring of his servants” (‫ )וזרע עבדיו‬and “those who love his name” (‫“ )ואהבי שמו‬inherit” (‫ )נחל‬it. 28.  ‫ כל־הארץ‬occurs in Pss 8, 19, 33, 47, 48, 57, 66, 72, 96, 97, 98, 100, 105, and 108; ‫אפסי־ארץ‬/‫ קצה‬occurs in Pss 2, 46, 48, 59, 61, 72, 135. Psalms 22:28; 65:6; 67:8; and 98:3 combine both expressions (see below).

166

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

We shall limit discussion to a few instances with other notable entailments. In Davidic Ps 22:28, “All the ends of the earth (‫)כל־אפסי־ארץ‬ shall remember and turn to YHWH” is followed by the reference to “all the families of the nations” (‫—)כל־משפחות גוים‬likely an allusion to Gen 12:1–3. Here the expression “all the ends of the earth” appears to universalize the promise to Abraham in a manner comparable to Ps 2:8, which universalizes the land motif via ‫ אפסי־ארץ‬language. Davidic Ps 67:8, “let all the ends of the earth (‫ )כל־אפסי־ארץ‬fear him (‫)ירא‬,” uses this expression too, combining in one jussive clause the essence of Ps 2:8 and 11.29 At the editorial level Book II’s concluding psalm amplifies this theme, employing this terminology to describe the royal son’s universal dominion in v. 8, “May he have dominion…from the River to the ends of the earth (‫)עד־אפסי־ארץ‬.” In light of the homage that “all kings” and “all nations” ought to pay the king in v. 11, Ps 72 clearly echoes these central concerns from Ps 2 also. Consequently Pss 2 and 72 enclose Books I–II with the universal rule of YHWH’s king and the subjection of all kings and nations, and Wilson was surely right to note these royal psalms’ editorial importance. These data clearly present the Psalter’s universalized vision/promise of land with strong royal entailments. Summary The exodus and land-giving are clearly very prominent themes in the book of Psalms. Besides explicit recollections of the exodus, allusions to the Song of the Sea and land-giving often presuppose a new reactualization of God’s mighty acts and promises. That is, God’s rescue of his people and gift of the land serve as a theological paradigm for his future exodus-like restoration of his people and universal rule over all nations. Moreover, the king is often focal in realizing these divine acts and promises. Psalms 33, 59, 118, 140, and 149’s allusions to Exod 15’s Song of the Sea were especially noteworthy here, for in some measure they reactualize the Song and its associated exodus traditions and suggest that “David” has a prominent role in announcing it. This further justifies Chapter 12’s exploration of Pss 93–100—together with their strong allusions to the Song of the Sea—and what role “David” might have via Pss 101–103. Finally, allusions to the land-giving yielded similar conclusions, as David is frequently the one recalling this promise, applying it futuristically.

29.  Cf. Pss 76:13 and 102:16.

8. David as New Moses

167

David as Aaron-like Mediator of YHWH’s Blessing and Moses-like Intercessor: Intertextual Allusions to Numbers 6:24–27 and Deuteronomy 9:26 My proposal that the anticipated Davidic king would mediate God’s blessing and intercede for the people attributes to him functions inherent to the priesthood. Already Davidic Ps 110:4 strongly suggests a priestly dimension to the royal office when YHWH famously “swears” concerning “David’s lord” (‫)לאדני‬, “You are a priest (‫ )כהן‬forever after the order of Melchizedek (‫)מלכי־צדק‬.”30 Part III explores this aspect of the proposal more fully by examining the Psalter’s allusions to Gen 12:3 in Ps 72 and to Exod 34:6 in Pss 86, 103, and 145. But allusions to the Aaronic Blessing (Num 6:24–26) and Moses’ intercessory petition in Deut 9:26 also turn up in the Psalter, whose distribution and editorial significance are worth exploring. Deuteronomy 9:26 In Deut 9:26 Moses recalls how he prayed to YHWH for the people after they provoked his anger and rebelled at Taberah, Massah, Kibrothhattaavah and Kadesh-barnea (vv. 22–24). Moses relates his intercession in v. 26 thus, “O Lord YHWH, do not destroy your people and your heritage (‫)אל־תשחת עמך ונחלתך‬, whom you have redeemed through your greatness, whom you have brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand etc.” The superscripts of four psalms reproduce the essence of Moses’ intercessory petition (‫)אל־תשחת‬. ‫ אל־תשחת‬likely denotes a tune, but that three of them are consecutive (Pss 57–59) and share identical superscriptional information suggests further editorial significance (the fourth, Ps 75, differs in other details). Indeed, Pss 57–59 are part of a larger group of Davidic miktams spanning Pss 56–60. In keeping with various principles of organization by superscriptional data (see Chapter 4), the editor(s) of Book II evidently grouped Pss 57–59 together according to a third principle of organization after authorship and genre. The intercessory character of the petition “destroy not” (‫ )אל־תשחת‬in Deut 9:26 raises a pertinent question: did editors intend to accentuate David’s intercessory role by grouping Pss 57–59 together in this way?

30.  The appeal to Melchizedek in v. 4 and militaristic imagery and reference to YHWH’s “right hand” in v. 1 (cf. vv. 5–7) indicate a royal figure. Regarding priestly and royal “messianic” figures in later literature, see, e.g., A. J. B. Higgins, “Priest and Messiah,” VT 3 (1958): 321–36. Later in life Wilson acknowledged the possibility of an anticipated priestly messiah in the Psalter (see Chapter 1).

168

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

As a group, Davidic Pss 57–59 and Asaph Ps 75 display some notable characteristics. First, all of Ps 57 and a good deal of Ps 59 constitute an earnest prayer for YHWH’s deliverance (Ps 59:2–8, esp. ‫ הצילני‬in vv. 2, and 3). Clearly these psalms are petitionary in nature as the psalmist prays chiefly for himself (note the use of 1st sg. throughout Ps 57 and in 59:2–4). At first blush, then, these psalms do not appear intercessory. But Pss 57–59 and 75 collectively demonstrate a more general concern for God’s judgment as vindication for the righteous. In fact two of the three, Pss 58 and 59, broaden their horizon beyond the fortunes of the individual psalmist by expecting God’s judgment to be universally acknowledged. Psalms 58 and 59 even invoke God’s judgment on the nations in a manner reminiscent of Ps 2. Psalm 58 begins with a charge against the “gods” or rulers of miscarrying justice and doing violence, and ends with the expectation that “mankind” (‫ )אדם‬will say, “Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God who judges on earth.” Between these statements Ps 58 petitions God to punish the wicked (v. 7), expecting that the righteous (sg.), “will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked” (v. 11). Psalm 59:6 similarly petitions God to “punish all the nations” (‫)לפקד כל־הגוים‬, which is variously repeated in vv. 12–14, “that they may know that God rules over Jacob to the ends of the earth.” In both psalms, then, the psalmist goes well beyond a narrow interest in praying for himself. Psalm 75, too, is concerned with God’s judgment on a worldwide scale (vv. 3–4 and 8–9). Moreover, quite apart from its superscript, Ps 59 gives cause to understand the psalmist as a royal figure who owns his nation’s problems as his own problem,31 and so effectively prays on their behalf. First, v. 9, “But you, O YHWH, laugh at them (‫ ;)תשחק־למו‬you hold all the nations in derision (‫)תלעג לכל־גוים‬,” is strongly reminiscent of Ps 2:4. At the editorial level, then, Ps 59 evokes Ps 2’s vision of the supremacy of YHWH and his ‫ משיח‬over the nations, rather than being preoccupied with purely personal enemies. Indeed, Ps 59:6 already identifies the Davidic psalmist’s enemies as national rather than personal as he urges God to punish the nations. Second, “Kill them not” (‫ )אל־תהרגם‬in v. 12 is semantically similar to ‫ אל־תשחת‬in the superscript and Deut 9:26, and 31.  Since vv. 7–8 seem to envisage a siege, Steven J. L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms, JSOTSup 44 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), 123, questions whether Ps 59 should be read as an individual psalm at all. In any case the question of Ps 59’s classification—whether individual or communal—is somewhat moot for our purposes, for if the psalmist is royal it follows that the welfare of the people he rules goes hand in hand with his own (cf. Ps 89).

8. David as New Moses

169

may offer clues as to how editors understood the superscript. Notably the psalmist does not apply this petition to himself (i.e., “do not kill/destroy me”), but to his enemies, so that they may serve as an “object lesson” for the people: “Kill them not, lest my people forget (‫)פן־ישכחו עמי‬.”32 Given ‫ אל־תשחת‬in Ps 59’s superscript, it is possible that the semantic equivalent ‫ אל־תהרגם‬in v. 12 alludes to Moses’ petition subversively: whereas Moses had prayed that YHWH not destroy the people (but forgive them), David prays that he not destroy the enemies “lest my people forget.” In any case, the psalmist’s purview is clearly national rather than purely personal, so that editors plausibly viewed Ps 59’s Davidic psalmist in a similar intercessory role to Moses. Numbers 6:24–27 The clearest allusion to the Aaronic blessing in Num 6 occurs in Ps 67:2, “May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face to shine upon us” (‫)אלהים יחננו ויברכנו יאר פניו אתנו‬, whereupon vv. 7–8 extend the allusion via the acclamation, “God has blessed us.”33 The psalmist thus both invokes God’s blessing and announces its reality. In Asaph Ps 80 allusions to the Aaronic blessing are connected with God’s anticipated intervention amid the desolations wrought by enemies against YHWH’s “vine” (vv. 9–18). Three times the psalm petitions God to “restore us” (‫)השיבנו‬, each time adding, “let your face shine (‫)והאר פניך‬, that we may be saved!” (vv. 4, 8, and 20). Moreover, v. 18 petitions YHWH to empower “the man of your right hand” (‫ )איש ימינך‬and the “son of man” (‫ )בן־אדם‬whom he has “made strong for [himself]” (cf. v. 16). If editors took this to refer to the king as seems natural (cf. ‫ לימיני‬in Ps 110:1), then Ps 80’s three-fold petition seems to expect God’s salvation and “shining face” through the agency of the king in some way. Similar petitions occur in Ps 31:17, “Make your face shine on your servant” (‫)האירה פניך על־עבדך‬, and the near-identical expression in Ps 119:135 (‫)פניך האר בעבדך‬, where ‫ עבד‬denotes the psalmist each time. Psalm 31 is Davidic, while the discussion of ‫ עבד‬below suggests that at the editorial level Ps 119’s psalmist is also royal. Indeed, numerous commentators

32.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:219, considers this “for the spiritual benefit of Israel.” 33.  See, e.g., Vangemeren, Psalms, 510. Grogan, Psalms, 123–24, sees Ps 67’s universal purview as a reflection of God’s Abrahamic promises in Gen 12 in addition to the priestly blessing in Num 6:24–27. Terrien, The Psalms, 483, recognizes a functional difference between Ps 67 and Num 6:24–27, since the former is not crafted for performance by a cult official. Nonetheless the literary allusion to Num 6 is unmistakable.

170

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

identify the speaker of Ps 118 as a royal figure, or at least one who speaks on behalf of the people.34 Next door to Ps 119, Ps 118:26–27 proclaims, “Blessed (‫ )ברוך‬is he who comes in the name of YHWH! We bless you (‫ )ברך‬from the house of YHWH. YHWH is God, and he has made his light to shine upon us (‫)ויאר לנו‬.” The subsequent command to “[b]ind the festal sacrifice” clarifies the liturgical context, suggesting that vv. 26–27 consciously echo the Aaronic blessing. Davidic Ps 20 may offer a further allusion also. Although lacking these key terms, vv. 2–4 employ a series of jussives with cultic entailments in a manner reminiscent of Num 6:24–26. Verse 2 also invokes the protection of “the name of the God of Jacob” (‫)שם אלהי יעקב‬, perhaps recalling God’s promise in Num 6:27 to put his name on the Israelites by means of the priestly blessing in Num 6:24–26. Clearly a blessing of some kind, this royal psalm pairs with royal Ps 21 to affirm God’s favor on the king (20:7; 21:2–8). Whether the king blesses, is blessed, or both, these psalms again affirm the king’s importance as a petitioner to whom God listens (20:5–6; 21:5). Another potential allusion is Ps 129:8, “The blessing of YHWH be upon you! We bless you (‫ )ברך‬in the name of YHWH (‫)בשם יהוה‬.” Dahood and Goldingay see a traditional harvest festival greeting in the background.35 Thus, Davidic Ps 31 and Ps 67, Asaph Ps 80, and Pss 118 and 119 allude to the Aaronic blessing in a recognizable way, to which Davidic Ps 20 and anonymous Ps 129 can perhaps be added. This survey shows that “David” predominantly invokes the Aaronic blessing upon “us” (Ps 67), himself (Ps 31; cf. Ps 119), or is somehow connected with its realization (Ps 80). While this pool of examples is small, it shows that Ps 110 is not alone in connecting David with priesthood—an association to which Pss 15–24 already point, and which Ps 20, discussed above, reinforces. Our proposal that the Psalter presents “David” as instrumental in YHWH’s fulfilling his Abrahamic covenantal promise to bless all nations is therefore very plausible. It is also intriguing that Pss 118–119 are among this handful of psalms, suggesting another reason for their juxtaposition in addition to those offered by Grant.36 The most explicit example, anonymous Ps 67,

34.  Goldingay, Psalms, 3:354; Dahood, Psalms, 3:155–56; and Allen, Psalms 101–150, 165, who describes it as a “royal song of thanksgiving for military victory… set in the context of a processional liturgy.” 35.  Dahood, Psalms, 3:233; Goldingay, Psalms, 3:519. 36.  Grant, The King as Exemplar, 179, counts ‫ אור‬among several significant lexical links between Pss 118 and 119, comparing 118:27 especially with 119:105 and 130 and acknowledging the parallel in v. 135.

8. David as New Moses

171

is “sandwiched” within the David II group, and editors evidently sought to associate it with David. Nor is Ps 67’s allusion to Num 6 merely a peripheral concern, for the theme of blessing forms an inclusio about the psalm. Psalm 67’s Davidization therefore suggests conscious effort to cast David specifically as an invoker of YHWH’s blessing. David as Confessor of YHWH the Faithful God: Allusions to Deuteronomy 7:9–10 In Deut 7:9–10 Moses employs a distinctive constellation of terms to confess YHWH, “the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love” (‫ )האל הנאמן שמר הברית והחסד‬and “repays…those who hate him” (‫)ומשלם לשנאיו‬. Chapter 5 detected likely allusions to Deut 7:9 in Ps 89:29, 34–35, and a weaker possibility in Ps 74:20. Beyond these no other psalms combine a sufficient number of key terms from Deut 7:9 to yield a solid allusion. However, the word-pair ‫ חסד‬and ‫“( אמונה‬steadfast love” and “faithfulness”) combine two important lexemes from Deut 7:9 in their formulaic way. It is therefore possible that editors encountering ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬in parallel or conjoined by waw would recognize in this word-pair the distinctive confession of YHWH’s faithfulness to the covenant in Deut 7:9. For although ‫ חסד‬is common in the OT, the description of YHWH as ‫ האל הנאמן‬is virtually unique to Deut 7:9. Isaiah 49:7 is the only other passage that directly describes YHWH by the niphal participle “faithful,” but within a relative clause (‫)יהוה אשר נאמן‬. Moreover, the combination of the lexemes ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמן‬in direct description of YHWH is unique to Deut 7:9 outside the Psalter’s stock combination of ‫ חסד‬and ‫אמונה‬.37 In the Psalter ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬closely parallel each other eight times: Pss 36:6; 88:12; 89:2, 3, 34, 50; 92:3; 100:5, to which we could add Pss 33:4–5, 40:11; 119:75–76 (and more distantly in vv. 86–88; cf. 143:1, 12). They are also joined by waw in Pss 89:25 and 98:3. Psalm 89 accounts for a large chunk of these, where YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬relate specifically to his sure promises to David. Psalm 88:12 can be added to these examples as an instance of concatenation, especially given its editorial association 37.  Jeremiah 42:5 combines the niphal ptc. ‫ נאמן‬with ‫( אמת‬rather than ‫ )חסד‬in calling YHWH a “true and faithful witness” (‫)עד אמת ונאמן‬. In Ps 19:8 YHWH’s “testimony” (‫ )עדות‬is “faithful” (‫)נאמנה‬. Elsewhere ‫ נאמן‬qualifies human beings or related entities: Abraham’s heart (Neh 9:8), Moses (Num 12:7), Samuel (1 Sam 2:35; 3:20), David (1 Sam 22:14), and David’s house (1 Sam 25:28; cf. 1 Kgs 11:38 and 2 Sam 7:16).

172

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

with Ps 89 (see Chapter 4). In Ps 36 David, “servant of YHWH” (v. 1), declares YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬and bases his petitions for “those who know you” (‫ )לידעיך‬and “the upright of heart” (‫ )לישרי־לב‬on such divine characteristics (v. 11). In Davidic Pss 33 and 40 these terms appear among a cluster of other parallel terms. In Ps 33:4–5 the psalmist pairs them with YHWH’s uprightness (‫ )ישר‬and justice (‫)ומשפט‬. In 40:10–11 the psalmist says he has declared YHWH’s “righteousness” (‫)צדקתך‬,38 “faithfulness” (‫)אמונתך‬, “deliverance” (‫)ותשועתך‬, and “steadfast love” (‫)חסדך‬. ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬also occur close together in Ps 119:75–76 as the psalmist trusts in YHWH for comfort amid his afflictions. Finally, these terms are used in syntactically identical prepositional phrases at the beginning and end of Davidic Ps 143. The psalmist opens with a petition to YHWH, “In your faithfulness (‫ )באמנתך‬answer me,” and ends confident that “in your steadfast love (‫ )ובחסדך‬you [i.e., YHWH] will cut off my enemies” in v. 12. The remaining three instances occur in Book IV. In Ps 98’s “new song” these terms praise God’s faithfulness in saving his people. YHWH remembers his ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬toward Israel as he makes universally known (vv. 2–3) his salvation and righteousness by “[h]is right hand and his holy arm” (v. 1)—terms reminiscent of the Song of the Sea, as noted earlier. Similarly, Deut 7:9’s confession of YHWH follows directly from v. 8’s recollection of the first exodus! It seems, then, that Ps 98 celebrates YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬to evoke God’s covenant faithfulness and praise his restorative exodus-like redemption of his people. We also find ‫חסד‬ and ‫ אמונה‬a few psalms earlier in Ps 92’s “Sabbath Song,” which declares it good to proclaim YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬daily (92:2–3), and in the entrance liturgy of Ps 100 where YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמונה‬endure forever/ to all generations. Though Pss 90–100 do not directly focus attention on David, its collocation beside the Davidic group Pss 101–103 (104–106) suggest editors may have viewed “David” as instrumental to its new exodus vision (see Chapter 12). Deuteronomy 7:10 confesses another dimension of YHWH’s response: he “repays to their face those who hate him (‫)לשנאיו אל־פניו‬.” A very similar warning occurs in Exod 20:5 and Deut 5:9, God “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children…of those who hate me (‫)לשנאי‬.”39 In a similar way Pss 68, 81, 83, and 139 employ the participial form 38.  ESV: “deliverance.” 39.  These are the Pentateuch’s only other instances of the qal ptc. of ‫ שנא‬with a suffix referring to YHWH. All three contexts also contrast this with God’s grace “to a thousand (generations)” (cf. ‫ לאלף דור‬in Deut 7:9 and ‫ לאלפים‬in Exod 20:6/Deut 5:10).

8. David as New Moses

173

of ‫ שנא‬with YHWH as the object of hatred: ‫ משנאיו‬in 68:2; ‫משנאי יהוה‬ in 81:16; ‫ משנאיך‬in 83:3 and 139:21. Psalm 81 has strong Mosaic covenantal entailments as seen above, and its claim in v. 16, “[t]hose who hate YHWH would cringe toward him” (‫)משנאי יהוה יכחשו־לו‬, hints at the divine reprisal affirmed in Deut 7:10 and Exod 20:5/Deut 5:9. Davidic Ps 68:2 echoes this even more clearly when the psalmist declares, “God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him (‫ ”!)וינוסו משנאיו מפניו‬Thus, Davidic Ps 68 offers the strongest parallel of the four. In Davidic Ps 139:21 the psalmist sides with YHWH against the wicked who hate him (cf. vv. 19–20), “Do I not hate those who hate you, O YHWH?” (‫—)הלוא־משנאיך יהוה אשנא‬a picture consistent with Ps 2’s depiction of YHWH and his anointed against whom the nations conspire (2:2; cf. vv. 11–12). Finally, Pss 31 and 62—also Davidic psalms—may echo the confession in Deut 7:9–10.40 The concluding verse of Ps 62 declares that ‫ חסד‬belongs to God because (‫“ )כי‬you will render (‫ )תשלם‬to a man according to his work.” The causal connection between YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬and his reprisal (‫ )שלם‬in Ps 62:13 reflects a subtle difference in meaning from Deut 7:9–10. Whereas Deut 7 reserves YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬for “those who love him etc.” and his reprisal (‫ )משלם‬for “those who hate him,” Ps 62 connects YHWH’s ‫ חסד‬more immediately with his reprisal. Nevertheless, Ps 62:13’s clear association of YHWH’s reprisal (‫ )שלם‬with his ‫ חסד‬creates a recognizable echo of Deut 7:9–10 and its confession of God’s faithfulness. Psalm 31:24 makes a similar confession to that of Deut 7:9–10 while also alluding to the Shema (see Chapter 7). Psalm 31:24 reads, “Love (‫ )אהבו‬YHWH, all you his saints (‫ !)כל־חסידיו‬YHWH preserves the faithful (‫ )אמונים‬but abundantly repays (‫ )ומשלם‬the one who acts in pride.” By the terms ‫חסיד‬ and ‫ אמן‬in v. 24 Ps 31 again employs key lexemes from Deut 7:9, though they differ in form (cf. ‫ חסד‬and ‫ הנאמן‬in Deut 7:9) and refer to YHWH’s people rather than qualities of YHWH himself. But like Deut 7:9–10 (and Exod 20:5–6/Deut 5:9) Ps 31:24 confesses the same two-fold response of YHWH to humanity and expresses YHWH’s reprisal via the same piel participle ‫ משלם‬found in Deut 7:10 (but not Exod 20:5–6/Deut 5:9, which use the verb ‫)פקד‬. The allusion is shored up by its command that YHWH’s people “love (‫ )אהבו‬YHWH,” not just because it evokes the Shema but also because Deut 7:9’s “those who love him” (‫ )לאהביו‬employs the same terminology (cf. Deut 5:10).

40.  ‫ שלם‬occurs some 17 times in the Psalter. All but Pss 31 and 62 have a human subject, most often in the context of fulfilling vows (see Chapter 9).

174

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

In summary, Ps 89 contains the clearest allusions to Deut 7:9’s confession of YHWH’s faithfulness, but perceptible allusions also turn up in Pss 31, 36, 62, 92, 98, and 100. Of course, these allusions to Deut 7:9 primarily describe YHWH himself as he relates to his covenant people, rather than an attribute of the covenant itself. Psalmists proclaim YHWH as one faithful to his covenant and in repaying the wicked. This also means that Deut 7:9 lends itself to application beyond its Mosaic covenantal moorings and, significantly, throughout Ps 89 we find YHWH faithful to the Davidic covenant in steadfast love (cf. 1 Kgs 8:23–26). Moreover, Book IV’s praise of YHWH’s faithful and steadfast love toward Israel (98:3) raises the question of David’s role with respect to it; a question explored further in Chapter 12. Finally, allusions to YHWH’s reprisal toward his haters (Deut 7:10) are divided evenly between Davidic psalms (68 and 139) and Asaph psalms (81 and 83). Though not confined to Davidic psalms, the Psalter nevertheless associates Deut 7:9–10 specifically with David, who echoes Deut 7’s confession of YHWH (Pss 31:34; 36:6; 62:12), aligns himself with YHWH (Ps 139), and is the beneficiary of God’s faithfulness (Ps 89). David as Royal Servant and Son of YHWH The characterization of the king as YHWH’s “servant” and “son” is very prominent in the Psalter. David is YHWH’s “servant” in Pss 18:1 and 78:70 and his “son” in Pss 2:7, 12 and 89:27—places of notable editorial significance. This, along with these terms’ covenantal entailments, justify further exploration. The Servant-Lord (‫אדון‬/‫ )עבד‬Relationship According to Paul Kalluveettil, ‫ אדון‬and ‫ עבד‬terminology evokes the covenantal relationship between suzerain and vassal.41 Of its thirteen occurrences in the Psalter, ‫ אדון‬has the first person plural possessive suffix four times in unambiguous reference to YHWH as “our lord” (‫)אדנינו‬: Pss 8:2, 10; 135:5; and 147:5.42 If Kalluveettil is correct, these instances evoke the covenantal relationship between YHWH and his people. To these we could perhaps add Ps 114:7, which parallels ‫ אדון‬with “the God of Jacob” (‫)אלוה יעקב‬, and Ps 123:2, which cites the relationship between 41.  Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 66–79, 119–22, 186–97. 42.  Other suffixed instances of ‫ אדון‬include Ps 45:12, which refers to the king as “your lord” (‫ )אדניך‬when addressing the “daughter” mentioned in v. 11, and Ps 110:1 (‫)נאם יהוה לאדני‬, where YHWH addresses the king, the psalmist’s ‫אדון‬.

8. David as New Moses

175

“servants” (‫ )עבדים‬and “their masters” (‫ )אדוניהם‬as a simile for the people’s dependence on YHWH. Other instances of ‫ אדון‬convey YHWH’s superiority without accentuating the covenant relationship per se.43 The term ‫ עבד‬also likely implies a covenant relationship. ‫ עבד‬occurs 57 times in the Psalter, often as a self-referential term as psalmists call themselves “your servant.”44 Moreover, ‫ עבד‬very clearly describes David in covenantal relationship to YHWH in Ps 89:2–4, where YHWH’s ‫חסד‬ relates to David’s status as YHWH’s servant. Given its editorial prominence in the Psalter, Ps 89’s identification of David as YHWH’s ‫ עבד‬and its covenantal entailments there suggests that editors likely had the David–YHWH covenantal relationship in view when other psalms identify David as “servant of YHWH”; that is, when “David” and ‫ עבד‬appear together in the body or superscript of a psalm (e.g., Pss 18:1; 78:70), or when the psalmist is described as “YHWH’s servant” via ‫ עבד‬with the appropriate pronominal suffix in Davidic psalms. Accordingly, Pss 18:1; 19:12, 14; 27:9; 31:17; 35:27; 36:1; 69:18; 78:70; 86:2, 4, 16; 89:4, 21, 40; 109:28; 132:10; 143:2, 12; and 144:10 evoke the covenantal relationship between YHWH and David when describing David as “YHWH’s servant.” Interestingly, in Ps 143:12 just observed for its Deut 7:9 language, “David” confidently declares, “And in your steadfast love (‫ )חסד‬you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant (‫)כי אני עבדך‬.” Here “David” seems to anticipate YHWH fulfilling his promise of “rest from all your enemies” in 2 Sam 7:11; a vision presupposed by Ps 2 at the beginning of the Psalter as well (cf. vv. 7–9). Notably, this expectation is based on his relationship to YHWH as his ‫עבד‬. 43.  The superlative “Lord of lords” (‫ )אדני האדנים‬in Ps 136:3 accentuates YHWH’s superiority without further clues pointing specifically to the covenantal relationship beyond the term itself. This also appears to be the case for Ps 97:5, “the Lord of all the earth” (‫)אדון כל־הארץ‬. 44.  Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 67, describes the term ‫ עבד‬and “the covenant of vassalage” as “inseparable.” Scholarly opinion varies on the extent to which psalmists use ‫ עבד‬terminology to obligate YHWH under the terms of the covenant. Edward J. Bridge, “Loyalty, Dependency and Status with YHWH: The Use of ‘bd in the Psalms,” VT 59 (2009): 377, e.g., maintains that “the psalms in which ‫ עבד‬appears do not emphasize any obligation for YHWH to answer favourably, except maybe in Pss 86:16 and 143:12,” rather seeing an “emotional” argument at work via ‫עבד‬. On the other hand, John H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (London: Student Christian Movement, 1976), 149–50, and Goldingay, Psalms, 2:513 and 621, identify psalms that emphasize YHWH’s commitment to David while describing him as YHWH’s ‫( עבד‬e.g., Pss 78:70; 86:2).

176

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Concerning the remaining instances of ‫ עבד‬in non-Davidic psalms, several observations bear making. First, ‫ עבדך‬occurs in Ps 116:16 and thirteen times in Ps 119 as a self-reference to the anonymous psalmists: vv. 17, 23, 38, 49, 65, 76, 84, 122, 124, 125, 135, 140, and 176. In fact, this is the only second person singular suffixed noun to function this way in Ps 119. Davidic Ps 86 uses ‫ עבדך‬this way three times too. Verse 2 pairs the plea “save your servant” (‫ )הושע עבדך‬with “you are my God” (‫)אתה אלהי‬, and v. 4 connects ‫ עבדך‬with ‫אדני‬. Twice, then, Ps 86 expresses both sides of the covenant relationship: YHWH is “my God” (‫ )אלהי‬and “my lord” (‫ )אדני‬while the Davidic psalmist is “your servant” (‫)עבדך‬. That “your servant” refers to “David” so often in the Psalter suggests that ‫עבדך‬ denotes a royal figure in Ps 119 at the editorial level too, giving further reason to accept Grant’s proposal regarding the royal identity of the “I” in that psalm. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the second longest psalm, Ps 78, culminates with David as YHWH’s “servant” (‫)עבדו‬. Psalm 78’s length and centrality to the Asaph group resembles Ps 119 central place and dominant length in Book V (see Chapter 13). Second, Abraham is YHWH’s ‫ עבד‬twice in historical Ps 105 (vv. 6 and 42), where its covenantal entailments are clear (see Chapter 5). The same psalm also identifies Moses as YHWH’s ‫( עבד‬Ps 105:26; cf. Deut 34:5), paralleling it with “Aaron, whom he had chosen (‫)בחר‬.” This mention of Aaron and the signs they performed “in the land of Ham” (v. 27) highlights their role as agents through whom YHWH rescued the people from Egypt (vv. 27–38) and fed them in the wilderness (vv. 39–41). ‫ עבד‬is therefore more than just an honorific title there; it recalls their historical roles as agents of God’s salvation and provision. It should not be surprising, then, if a similar agency extended to the preeminent ‫ עבד‬of YHWH in the Psalter, David. Finally, ‫ עבד‬appears 17 times in the plural (Pss 34:23; 69:37; 79:2, 10; 89:51; 90:13, 16; 102:15, 29; 105:25; 113:1; 119:91; 123:2; 134:1; 135:1, 9, 14), always in reference to God’s people (‫ עבדו‬in Ps 136:22 refers to Israel collectively). ‫ עבדים‬reflects the people’s relationship to YHWH, so these instances primarily evoke the Abrahamic/Mosaic covenantal identity of YHWH’s worshipping people. Yet they give little reason to think that the people replace David as the “servant of YHWH” within some democratizing agenda, as often suggested for Isa 55:3–5 (cf. ‫ עבדי יהוה‬in 54:17).45 45.  So, e.g., Tucker, “Democratization and the Language of the Poor in Psalms 2–89,” 164–65, and Otto Eissfeldt, “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1–5,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (New York: Harper, 1962), 196–207; cf. Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55, 547. On the other hand, Joseph Blenkinsopp,

8. David as New Moses

177

As noted, Ps 105:25 describes YHWH’s people as “his servants” (‫)בעבדיו‬ right before the mention of Moses “his servant,” where the relationship between the many and the one cannot involve any such displacement. On the contrary, YHWH delivers and provides for his servants through his servant—a dynamic equally plausible for the relationship between David as “servant” and the people as “servants” (cf. Ps 89:51). Chapter 11’s investigation of Book III takes this up further. Father–Son The Psalter’s use of another epithet, YHWH’s “son” (‫)בן‬, is consistent with this. The OT also applies father–son formulaic language (‫אב‬/‫ )בן‬to relationships besides that between a god and a king, notably Exod 4:23 where YHWH refers to Israel as “my son” (‫ )בני‬rather than an individual king (cf. Hos 11:1).46 Yet the Psalter’s appropriation of the father–son motif reflects a predominant if not exclusive interest in the king as YHWH’s son. This is most obvious in Pss 2 and 89’s appropriation of 2 Sam 7:14. ‫ אב‬occurs 19 times, most often in plural references to ancestors. Likewise, most of the Psalter’s 103 instances of ‫ בן‬denote “children” in a general sense, or in familial relationships (e.g., ‫ בני אמי‬in 69:9), idioms like “son of man” (‫)בן־אנוש ;בני אדם‬, gentilic expressions (e.g., ‫ בני־יעקב ויוסף‬in 77:16, or ‫ בני־אפרים‬in 78:9), authorial attributions to the Korahites (‫)לבני־קרח‬, and so on. Instances where ‫ בן‬or ‫ אב‬potentially entail a “father–son” relationship between YHWH and another person or people include: Pss 2:7; 68:6; 73:15; 80:16, 18; 86:16; 89:27; 116:16; and perhaps 147:13 and the simile in 103:13.47 Isaiah 40–55: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven: Doubleday, 2002), 370, suggests that Eissfeldt’s interpretation “goes some way beyond what the author says,” raising the difficulty of why the author would use the analogy of YHWH’s commitment to David if not persuaded of its permanence. Appealing to this supposed theological move in Isa 55, Tucker, “Democratization,” 172–73, thinks the plural ‫ עבדיך‬in Ps 89:51 signals a democratization of Davidic covenantal promises to the poor. As Tucker rightly observes, “[i]n v. 50 [= MT 51] it is the ‫ עבדיך‬who are taunted, in verse 51 [= MT 52] it is the ‫משׁיח‬.” A natural reading of vv. 51–52 suggests both king (‫ )משיח‬and people (‫ )עבדיך‬are in view, their fortunes intertwined (see Chapter 5). Nevertheless Tucker suggests that, “[a]lthough ‫ משׁיח‬appears in the singular, it should probably be read in light of the plural, ‫עבדיך‬, found in v. 50” (= MT 51). But this goes against the grain of Ps 89’s sustained focus on the king, and to reread ‫ משיח‬as a metonym for the people seems to me forced. 46.  LXX has τὸν λαόν μου in Exod 4:23 and τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ in Hos 11:1. 47.  Perhaps another example is “sons of the Most High” (‫ )בני עליון‬in 82:6 (cf. “sons of gods” [‫ ]בני אלים‬in 29:1 and 89:7).

178

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

In Ps 2:7 YHWH declares to the king (vv. 2, 6), “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” (‫)בני אתה אני היום ילדתיך‬, which is clearly covenantal in character.48 Psalm 2:7 identifies this declaration as YHWH’s ‫“( חק‬decree”)—a functional synonym for (the Davidic) “covenant” in this context, and indeed the allusion to Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 7:14, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”—whose double ‫ ל‬syntax follows that of the covenant formula—is unmistakable. But whereas YHWH applies the promise of “father–son” relationship to David’s seed in Nathan’s oracle, in Ps 2:7 YHWH declares it to the royal addressee directly. It thus alludes to this Davidic covenantal promise in a manner suggesting its immediate fulfillment with that royal addressee.49 Psalm 89:27 offers an analogous combination: “You are my Father (‫)אבי אתה‬, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.” Here YHWH reports the king’s declaration of the formula (‫ )אבי אתה‬and invocation of the covenant formula in the process (‫ ;אלי‬see Chapter 6).50 Kalluveettil also raises the possibility that Ps 116:16 combines the “ser­vant” and “son” formulae: “O YHWH, I am your servant (‫ ;)עבדך‬I am your servant, the son of your maidservant/your faithful son (‫)בן־אמתך‬.”51 This possibility becomes more compelling in light of editorial evidence, for the Psalter’s application of both ‫ עבד‬and ‫ בן‬to David occurs in very prominent places as we have seen: centrally located Pss 78 and 86, and Ps 89 at Book III’s end. Especially poignant here is David’s selfidentification in Ps 86:16, which uses the same paired terms as 116:5: “your servant” (‫ )לעבדך‬and “the son of your maidservant/your faithful son” (‫)בן־אמתך‬. The implications are significant, for if Ps 116 picks up Pss 86 and 89’s dual identification of the king as YHWH’s son and servant, then editors plausibly understood the king living out various (Mosaic!) covenantal realities in Ps 116; that is, the king “loves YHWH” (v. 1), 48.  Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 130. 49.  Cult-functionally speaking, Ps 2’s probable use in coronation ceremonies explains why YHWH should address the king directly as his son. The (pre-exilic) king being anointed is David’s seed and instantiates the fulfillment of the promise in his generation. But this does not satisfactorily explain Ps 2’s prominence in the Psalter as a postexilic literary product, where the royal addressee, “my son,” must apply to “David” in some larger sense than any one particular pre-exilic Davidic successor. 50.  Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 130, identifies Isa 63:16 and 64:8 and as other examples of this declaration formula spoken directly to God. 51.  Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 134 n. 82, notes the disputed nature of Dahood’s rendering of ‫ בן־אמתך‬as “your faithful son,” and apparently favors the more usual translation, “the son of your maidservant” (so ESV). The lexical pairing of ‫ אבד‬and ‫ בן‬remains conspicuous on either rendering, however.

8. David as New Moses

179

declares him “gracious,” “righteous,” and “merciful” (v. 5), “lift[s] up the cup of salvation and call[s] on the name of YHWH” (vv. 13, 17), “will offer…the sacrifice of thanksgiving” (v. 17), and “will pay [his] vows to YHWH” (v. 18). The remaining instances (Pss 73:15; 80:16, 18; and 147:13) also merit brief comment. While lamenting the prosperity of the wicked, in Ps 73:15 the psalmist refers positively to God’s people as “the generation of your children” (‫)דור בניך‬. Psalm 80 similarly laments God’s destruction of his “vineyard” (esp. vv. 13–19). Verse 16 petitions God to look upon the “son (‫ )בן‬whom you made strong for yourself,” whereupon v. 18’s parallel petition follows: “let your hand be upon the man of your right hand (‫)איש ימינך‬, the son of man (‫ )בן־אדם‬whom you have made strong for yourself!” Taking the psalm in isolation, it is possible to understand these verses as referring to the people in view of the vine motif in v. 15 and the psalm’s petition to “restore us” (‫ השיבנו‬in vv. 4, 8, 20; cf. also “Jacob,” “servants,” and first person plural pronouns in 79:7–9, 13). But a couple of reasons make it likelier that editors had both people and king in view in 80:15–18. First, the singularity of ‫ איש ימינך‬in v. 18 more naturally evokes a royal individual. Second, at the editorial level David has recently received very prominent attention in 78:70–72. Like in Ps 89, then, the fates of both king and people seem bound together in Ps 80:15–18, and that “son” therefore applies to “David” in this context as well. Turning to Ps 147, v. 13 declares, “he blesses (‫ )ברך‬your children (‫ )בניך‬within you” (i.e., Zion) among the reasons to “praise YHWH” (v. 12). ‫ בניך‬clearly refers to the people here, stating as fact the promise of divine blessing to “Zion’s children.” At the editorial level, however, the psalm seems likely to praise God for realizing the specifically Abrahamic promise of blessing to the nations. Indeed, as Part III shows, there is a pattern of universalizing Abrahamic promises in the Psalter (e.g., Ps 72:17), emphasizing the nations as beneficiaries of its promises (e.g., Ps 47:9–10; see Chapter 9). Moreover, the theme of “sonship to Zion” comes up earlier in Korah Ps 87, identifying foreign nations as children of Zion. Psalm 87:4 lists several foreign nations who “know” YHWH, including Egypt (‫)רהב‬, Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, and Cush, whereupon “of Zion it shall be said” that “[t]his one and that one were born in her (‫( ”)ילד־בה‬v. 5; cf. v. 6). Though placed at some distance from Ps 147, Ps 87 demonstrates that the nations’ new status as Zion’s children is an already established way that the Psalter describes the inclusion of the nations, suggesting that Ps 147:13 praises YHWH for realizing his promise to bless all nations in Zion in the final Pss 146–150 group. The theme of Zion’s children

180

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

turns up again two psalms later in Ps 149:2, where it seems to refer more narrowly to YHWH’s people and is followed by the theme of punishment against foreign nations and kings (vv. 7–9) reminiscent of Ps 2.52 Summary As terms that denote a relationship to YHWH, the epithets “son” and “servant” apply principally to David, and our findings confirm the Psalter’s interest in the father–son relationship between God and king in 2 Sam 7:14 (esp. Pss 2 and 89, and probably Ps 116 also). We also saw that David is “servant of YHWH” throughout Book III (Pss 78; 86; 89). But the status of God’s people as “servants” and the nations as “children of Zion” is not lost to view, for the fortunes of king and people(s) belong together. These data also comport well with earlier findings, especially David’s prominence as the primary covenant partner of YHWH. YHWH’s Sworn (‫ )שבע‬Promises The noun ‫ שבועה‬occurs only in Ps 105:9 in reference to the Abrahamic covenant confirmed to Isaac and Jacob. The cognate verb ‫ שבע‬is most often used of people rather than YHWH.53 The picture becomes more interesting where YHWH is the subject. In Ps 95:10 YHWH swears in his anger not to allow the wilderness generation to enter his rest (cf. Num 32:13), but the remaining cases where YHWH is subject of ‫ שבע‬reflect his commitment to the Davidic covenant. In Ps 89 all three instances of ‫שבע‬ relate to YHWH’s promises to David (vv. 4, 16, and 50). In Ps 110 YHWH “swears” to David, “You are priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (v. 4), thus uniting royal and priestly theological concerns in the person of the king. The verb occurs twice in Ps 132 with different subjects. In v. 2 David swears “to YHWH” and vows (‫ )נדר‬not to rest until he has found a “place” for YHWH and “resting place” for the Mighty One of Jacob. Later, in v. 11, YHWH swears to David that he will establish his seed upon the throne. This reciprocation of subjects strongly resembles the 52.  Cf. Derek E. Wittman, “Let Us Cast Off Their Ropes from Us: The Editorial Significance of the Portrayal of Foreign Nations in Psalms 2 and 149,” in deClaissé-Walford, ed., The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms, 53–69. 53.  Psalm 63:12 refers to “all who swear by” God or the king (‫ ;)כל־הנשבע בו‬the referent of the 3rd sg. suffix being ambiguous. In Pss 15:4 and 24:4 the subject of ‫שבע‬ is one who may approach YHWH’s sanctuary/hill (cf. 15:1 and 24:3); likely a royal figure (see above). Similarly, in Ps 119:106 the psalmist swears to keep YHWH’s “righteous rules.” ‫ שבע‬is used in a negative sense in Ps 102:9, where the Davidized psalmist suffers taunts from enemies who “swear against me.”

8. David as New Moses

181

situation in 2 Sam 7:2 and 11, where David’s resolve to build YHWH a house gives way to YHWH’s promising to establish David’s house. These instances of ‫ שבע‬in royal psalms underscore the importance of YHWH’s sworn promises to David in Book V, and suggest a hopeful answer to the agonized question in Ps 89:50, “where is your steadfast love of old, which by your faithfulness you swore to David?” Nor are there obvious signs of “democratization” in Ps 132 that might suggest editors understood David in some figurative sense. On the contrary, the promise of royal succession is central to YHWH’s oath (v. 12) and the psalm concludes with the promise of vindication for David—“YHWH’s anointed”—against his enemies.54 Conclusion The first part of this chapter explored allusions to the “Song of the Sea” (Exod 15), Sinai/Horeb, and the land-giving, and their association with David/the king. Besides the “new songs” found in the Pss 93–100 group (96 and 99), our survey found that it was predominantly if not exclusively David who calls for a “new song” (Pss 33, and 149) or sings one (Pss 40 and 144). Examination of other allusions to the Song reflected a similar concentration in Davidic and quasi-royal psalms (Pss 59, 118, 140). That seven out of the Psalter’s nine instances of “I will sing” occur on the lips of David corroborates this pattern and suggests that David is “lead singer” in the Psalter. The survey of the land-giving theme explored some of the ten psalms in which land is “given” (‫ )נתן‬or “inherited” (‫)ירש‬, noting that David affirms this promise emphatically in Pss 25 and 37. We also observed that “inheriting the land” and universal expressions like “all the earth” and “the ends of the earth” occur throughout the Psalter and especially in Books I–II. Moreover, whereas psalms like Pss 105, 135, and 136 recall the historical land-giving, David usually applies the motif as a present or future promise to those who fear YHWH, as seen clearly in Pss 25 and 37. The latter part of the chapter then explored the characterization of David in other respects consistent with our proposal. While the data were fewer, Pss 67 and 110—and perhaps Ps 20—suggested a “priestly” 54.  Though less conclusive, instances of ‫ בחר‬and cognates (‫—)בחיר‬i.e., “election”—also demonstrate David’s prominence as God’s “chosen,” and suggest that “David”/Zion are integral to the people’s/“Jacob’s” continued status as YHWH’s elect, not that David’s election is democratized. ‫ בחר‬occurs with YHWH as (implied) subject in Pss 33:12; 47:5; 65:5; 78:67–68, 70; 89:20; 105:26; 132:13; and 135:4. As with YHWH’s “oath,” Ps 132 seems to preclude such a democratizing agenda.

182

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

David who brings blessing to others. Possible allusions to Deut 9:26 in the superscripts of Pss 57–59 further suggested editorial intent to ascribe a Moses-like intercessory role to David. Our study of allusions to Deut 7:9–10 observed that the strongest allusion, Ps 89, affirms God’s faithfulness to David. Furthermore, Davidic psalms account for a good number of those psalms that celebrate God’s “steadfast love and faithfulness” (‫ חסד‬and ‫ )אמונה‬or announce God’s reprisal against those who hate him (‫)שנאי‬. Finally, the Psalter evidences an obvious editorial effort to present David as YHWH’s “son” and “servant.” All these observations provide helpful background for subsequent chapters’ investigations of “David” as an agent of blessing and Moses-like intercessor.

Part III P s a l m s 72:17, 86:15, 103 :8, and 145:8 i n t h ei r P s a l m a n d B ook C ont e xts , a nd P s a l m s 1–2 a s a n I nt r oducti on to t h e P s a lte r

Chapter 9 P s a l m 72:17 i n B ook II

Having examined ‫ ברית‬psalms and explored significant covenantal criteria in Part II, we are now better placed to test the proposal further by examining the editorial use of Pss 72:17, 86:15, 103:8, and 145:8 in their book contexts. This chapter examines Ps 72:17 in Book II, mindful that editors likely intended Ps 72 as a conclusion to the whole of Books I–II. Psalm 72:17 in its Psalm Context Psalm 72:17 reads, “May his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun! May people/all nations be blessed in him, all nations/ they call him blessed!”1 The editorial placement and Davidization of Solomonic Ps 72 discussed in Chapter 4 indicates that David prays for Solomon. Thus v. 17 declares the fulfillment of key Abrahamic covenantal promises through David’s son and successor. Moreover, only the doxology (vv. 18–19) and postscript (v. 20) follow it, making v. 17 the final element in the body of Ps 72. Book II’s concluding psalm therefore culminates with the royalization of two major Abrahamic covenantal promises: the promise of a “great name” (itself applied to David in 2 Sam 7:9) and the promise of blessing for “all the families of the earth” through the king (cf. Gen 12:2–3). Before addressing its book context, then, we shall further explore the intertextual relationship between v. 17 and its source texts in Genesis. Psalm 72:17 and the Abrahamic Covenantal Promise of Blessing to All Nations The Hebrew of Ps 72:17 reads: ‫יהי שמו לעולם לפני־שמש ינין שמו ויתברכו בו‬ ‫כל־גוים יאשרוהו‬. This bears very strong resemblance to Abrahamic covenantal texts in Gen 12, 22, and 26. Genesis 12:3b reads, “and in you

1.  See below regarding translation issues.

186

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (‫)ונברכו בך כל משפחת האדמה‬, and Gen 22:18 and 26:4 reiterate the promise, “and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (‫)והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ‬. Notwithstanding a few variations, Ps 72:17b, “May they (all nations) be blessed/bless themselves in him,2 (May) all nations call him blessed” (‫)ויתברכו בו כל־גוים יאשרוהו‬, reproduces the major lexical and syntactical features found in Gen 12:3 and reflects its reiterations in Gen 22:18 and 26:4 even more closely. There is a verb of “blessing” (‫)ברך‬, followed by instrumental ‫( ב‬or agent), and “all (‫ )כל‬nations/families (‫משפחת‬/‫)גוים‬.” 72:17’s preference for the hithpael form of ‫ ברך‬and for ‫ גוים‬over ‫משפחת‬ corresponds more closely to the reiterations of the promise in Gen 22:18 and 26:4, which otherwise read “by your seed” (‫)בזרעך‬. Thus the major difference between 72:17 and these reiterations is the object of the preposition ‫ב‬, which in 72:17 returns to a singular pronominal suffix (‫ )בו‬as it had been in Gen 12:3 (‫)בך‬. In Ps 72, however, the suffix refers to the royal figure for whom David prays. In accordance with Masoretic accenting in poetic texts, the ole veyored marks the major division in the verse. So divided, the first colon highlights the king’s “name” (‫)שם‬, “May his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun!” (‫)יהי שמו לעולם לפני־שמש ינין שמו‬, while the second highlights the theme of blessing as just noted. This division also makes sense of structural considerations, since the twice-occurring ‫ שמו‬brackets the first colon, while the semantic equivalents ‫ ברך‬and ‫ אשר‬similarly bracket the second.3 An athnach under “in him” (‫ )בו‬would suggest another subdivision within the second half of v. 17, associating “all nations” (‫ )כל־גוים‬with the verb after it (‫ )יאשרוהו‬rather than preceding it (‫)ויתברכו‬, and lessening the syntactic resemblance to the Genesis texts where “the nations” (or equivalent) is the subject of ‫ברך‬. The ESV and NKJV reflect this syntax by providing a subject for ‫ ויתברכו‬and making “all nations” the subject of ‫יאשרוהו‬. On the other hand, the NIV and NRSV better preserve the 2.  Benjamin Noonan, “Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations: A Re-examination of the Niphal and Hitpael of ‫ ברך‬in the Patriarchal Narratives,” HS 51 (2010): 73–93, favors “be blessed” rather than “bless themselves.” Noonan (93) concludes, “Whereas the medio-passive Niphal is not specific as to the role of the subject in the action, instead only noting that the subject was blessed, the Hitpael specifically denotes the nations’ active role in seeking the patriarchs’ blessing… The difference between the Niphal and Hitpael of ‫ ברך‬is thus one of focus, but even though their nuances are different, both stems reflect the same paradigm of blessing mediation rather than blessing utterance.” 3.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 207.

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

187

allusion to the Genesis texts, making “all nations” the subject of “be blessed” (‫ )ברך‬instead.4 If we disregard the athnach—a feature much later than the consonantal text in any case, the subject ‫ כל־גוים‬connects more naturally with ‫ ויתברכו‬than with ‫ יאשרוהו‬so that ‫ כל־גוים‬provides both verbs with their actual or implied subject: “all nations” will “be blessed” (‫ )ויתברכו‬and “they” will “call him blessed” (‫)יאשרוהו‬. In any case, the strong lexical resemblance to Gen 22:18 and 26:4 puts an allusion beyond doubt, also making it likely that editors perceived the same syntactical relationship between ‫( כל־גוים‬or its Genesis equivalent) and ‫ ויתברכו‬as in the Genesis texts.5 Most important for our purposes, however, is the substitution of ‫זרעך‬, “your seed,” in Gen 22:18 and 26:4 with the third person masculine singular suffix on ‫ ב‬in Ps 72:17. This pronominal suffix identifies the king as the agent, avenue, or cause of blessing for “all nations,”6 returning to a singular pronoun (‫)בו‬. Once broadened from Abraham (‫ )בך‬in Gen 12:3 to his “seed” (‫ )זרעך‬in Gen 22:18 and 26:4, the agent of blessing for all nations narrows once more to David’s royal successor (‫ )בו‬in Ps 72.7 Psalm 72:17 in Psalm 72 The traditional interpretation of Ps 72 as a “messianic” psalm has been challenged in the wake of history of religions studies,8 in view of similar “wishes for blessing” upon the king discovered in other ancient Near Eastern sources.9 One could object that correlations to other ancient Near Eastern examples do not preclude a messianic dimension in Israel. In any case our primary concern with Ps 72’s editorial function (rather than hypothetical Sitz im Leben) sets us on a similar trajectory to scholars 4.  ESV reads, “May people be blessed in him, all nations call him blessed,” and NKJV, “And men shall be blessed in Him; All nations shall call Him blessed.” Cf. NIV: “All nations will‌be blessed t‌hrough‌him, ‌and they will‌call him blessed,‌” and NRSV, “May all nations‌be blessed in him…etc.” 5.  The LXX adds “all the tribes of the earth” (πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς) after ‫ויתברכו בו‬. Admittedly this means they associated ‫ כל־גוים‬with ‫יאשרוהו‬, but it also proves that that they recognized the allusion to the Abrahamic covenantal promise in any case! Indeed, πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ more nearly approximates ‫ כל משפחת‬and mirrors the LXX’s own translation of Gen 12:3, making the allusion even more explicit. 6.  Roland E. Clements, Abraham and David: Genesis XV and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1967), 59. 7.  Psalm 72:17’s allusion to the Abrahamic covenantal promise may in part explain Paul’s discussion of “seed” as a singular in Gal 3. 8.  See, e.g., Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 204–5. 9.  Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 80–81; cf. Goldingay, Psalms, 2:393; Tate, Psalms 51–100, 222.

188

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

like Kraus who, while shunning a straightforward adoption of Ps 72 as a messianic psalm, writes, “it is beyond doubt that Psalm 72 speaks about the king of salvation in a manner that provides an impulse for more intensive thought.”10 Indeed, most recent studies of the editing of the Psalter agree that the messianism Kraus sees budding in Ps 72 comes to bloom in the hands of the editors. Moreover, like numerous scholars Kraus also describes it as an “intercession.”11 Verse 17 is clearly important within the thought-world of Ps 72; it is the culmination of the preceding sequence of jussive clauses by which David has been praying for his son and successor (vv. 2–11, 15–17).12 These verses elaborate on v. 1’s opening petition that God give (‫ )תן‬the king his “justice” (‫ )משפטיך‬and “righteousness” (‫)וצדקתך‬. While scholars differ in their structural analyses, a good number recognize vv. 15–17 as a discrete strophe concluding the psalm.13 For instance, Hossfeld and Zenger follow Janowski’s suggestion that the king’s advocacy for the poor in vv. 12–14 parallels his role of “judging” in vv. 2–4. According to them, the subsequent sections, vv. 15–17 and vv. 5–7, also parallel each other by proclaiming the king as “a mediator of divine blessing, whose rule is salvifically worked out in nature.”14 Hossfeld and Zenger claim that: the theme of fruitfulness of the earth that is common to the sections in vv. 5–7 and 15–17 is intensified, inasmuch as vv. 5–7 contain the motif of the rain that waters the earth and the beginnings of growth, while in vv. 15–17 a positively unimaginable fruitfulness is evoked by the image of the grain fields ripe for the harvest and that of the eternally fertile name of the king.15 10.  Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 81. 11.  Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 76. 12.  On vv. 12–14 see below. 13.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:381, analyzes the psalm under three sections, vv. 1–7, 8–14, and 15–17; Grogan, Psalms, 132–33, four sections: vv. 1–7, 8–11, 12–14, and 15–17; and Craig C. Broyles, Psalms NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 295, three sections, but divides them differently from Goldingay (vv. 1–3, 4–11, and 12–17). For an incisive critique of Zenger’s proposal of three redactional stages for Ps 72 spanning the seventh century, the Persian period, and the Hellenistic period, see Gianni Barbiero, “The Risks of a Fragmented Reading of the Psalms: Psalm 72 as a Case in Point,” ZAW 119 (2007): 67–91. 14.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 207, citing Bernd Janowski, Stellvertretung: Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Grundbegriff, SBS 165 (Stuttgart; Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997), 48–49 (emphasis original). 15.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 207. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 81, writes, “The singer of Psalm 72 beholds a king who reigns and helps as the God of Israel did and does according to the witness of the OT.”

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

189

This view of the king as the conduit of divine blessing embraces the Abrahamic promise of land and associated Mosaic covenantal promises concerning its fruitfulness. But whereas the Mosaic covenant makes that fruitfulness contingent on the people’s faithfulness (Deut 7:13; 28:11; cf. 11:17), Ps 72 puts the focus entirely on the king who is to act justly. The Davidic covenantal expectation that the king be faithful (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 89:31–33; 132:11–12) is the key to the fruitfulness of the land. Moreover, Ps 72 already works with a universalized view of “land” (rather than the land of Canaan narrowly), for the middle section of the psalm, vv. 8–11, highlights the theme of land on a magnified scale as seen, for example, in v. 8: “May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” (‫)וירד מים עד־ים ומנהר עד־אפסי־ארץ‬.16 The same prepositional phrases occur in Zech 9:10 to describe the domain of the king who humbly comes to Zion/Jerusalem bringing salvation, speaking peace to nations, and so on. All of this suggests that the king is instrumental in a greater, more universal fulfilment of Abrahamic covenantal promises. In fact, Ps 72 appropriates most if not all the major Abrahamic promises to the king: a great name (v. 17a), to be blessed and God’s agent of blessing (v. 17b), land (vv. 8–11), and, given the universal scope of the kingdom and vassalage of foreign kings (vv. 8–11), perhaps also the promise of becoming a great nation from which kings and nations will come (cf. Gen 12:2; 15:5; 17:5–6). Furthermore, this picture is consistent with the universalization of “land” in the Psalter (see Chapter 8), as well as the subjugation of nations under Davidic rule in royal psalms like Pss 2 and 110, and Ps 47 where it is cast in distinctly Abrahamic terms (see below). Nevertheless, Ps 72 is light on militaristic imagery and instead accentuates the king’s role in establishing justice for the poor (vv. 2–4 and 12–14), which, for Goldingay, derives from God’s nature as rescuer and restorer.17 But most importantly for our purposes Ps 72 culminates with the promise of mediated blessing to the nations as Gen 12:1–3 does. Now, however, the promise is realized through the king (v. 17), so that Kraus even describes him as “the universal bearer of God’s blessing.”18

16.  See, e.g., Kidner, Psalms 1–72, 275; Goldingay, Psalms, 2:388. 17.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:389–90. See also Walter Houston, “The King’s Preferential Option for the Poor: Rhetoric, Ideology and Ethics in Psalm 72,” BibInt 7 (1999): 341–67. 18.  Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 80.

190

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Psalm 72 as Royal Intercession for a Royal Successor The editorial reuse of Ps 72 discussed in Chapter 4 presupposes two royal figures: the prayed-for royal son, “Solomon,” and the praying subject identified at the editorial level as (historical) David (72:20). Walter Houston suggests that the rhetoric of Ps 72 is ambiguous as to “whether it is a prayer or a prophecy.”19 Arguably it is both, but the opening second person imperative, “Give,” suggests that at least the former is the case, as Kraus suggests (see above). Whatever label we give it, the editors’ Davidization of Ps 72 shows their intent to depict (historical) David praying for someone besides himself. The idea that David intercedes has obvious relevance to this investigation. Other questions concerning the royal son (72:1) are especially interesting, however. For instance, what expectations surround the prayedfor king? In light of the preceding discussion, the psalm expects God’s promises to Abraham to be realized through the king on a universal scale. We may also ask who—at the editorial level—“Solomon” (v. 1) is for whom David prays. It might be suggested that only historical Solomon is in view. If so, then Book II would end with a nostalgic look back to the “golden days” of David and Solomon, which quickly unravel as Pss 73–74 lament the prosperity of the wicked (Ps 73) and the destruction of the sanctuary (Ps 74). But Ps 72 lacks the historical and recitative character of other psalms that actually do function that way (e.g., historical Pss 78, 105, 106). Furthermore, in line with Wilson’s observations about the placement of royal Pss 2 and 72 (and Ps 89) at the Psalter’s seams, editors likely associated the “royal son” (‫ )בן־מלך‬in 72:1 with Ps 2’s description of the king as YHWH’s son in Ps 2:2 and 11, suggesting that they saw more to Ps 72’s universalizing language than a hyperbolic description of Solomon’s historical reign. At the editorial level, then, ‫ לשלמה‬seems to look beyond historical Solomon to future kingship. At the very least, Ps 72 places royal succession beyond the Davidic era squarely on the Psalter’s agenda, setting the stage for a shift of focus from the founding figure of the Davidic covenant to future kingship. Furthermore, given Solomon’s historic role as temple builder, it is possible that (post-)exilic editors understood Ps 72’s idealized future Davidide also in Solomonic tones as one who would restore the cult. “House-building” does, after all, reemerge as the opening theme of Solomonic Ps 127 in Book V.

19.  Houston, “The King’s Preferential Option for the Poor,” 344.

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

191

Psalm 72 in the Context of Book(s I–)II As Wilson points out, Ps 72 occupies an unquestioned place of importance as the final psalm of Book II, and it remains to examine its place in Book II more closely. Given the strong Abrahamic covenantal allusions in Ps 72, the following analysis begins by surveying major allusions to the Abrahamic covenant in the Psalter, which turn out to be quite significant in Books I–II and underscore their importance in Ps 72. Then follows an examination of the major Korahite and Davidic groupings that comprise Book II, mindful that Books I–II exhibit a strong focus on “historical David” (see Chapter 4). Major Allusions to the Abrahamic Covenant in the Psalter and Their Occurrences in Books I–II The strongest criteria for Abrahamic covenantal allusions are direct references to “Abraham,” and intertextual allusions to the promises of many descendants and blessing for all nations (cf. Gen 12:2–3; 15:5–7, 18–21; 17:1–8). The following briefly identifies their incidence in the Psalter overall, paying special attention to Book II in preparation for exploration of Ps 72 in the context of Book II. Abraham. “Abraham” is mentioned by name in Ps 105:8 (see Chapter 5). Psalm 47:10 provides the Psalter’s other mention: “The princes of the peoples gather as the people of the God of Abraham,” where the “princes of the peoples” apparently share the same covenantal status as Abraham’s descendants. 47:10 thus envisions the eschatological realization of God’s kingship over all the nations, not just Israel,20 and this “kingship of YHWH” psalm anticipates the adoption of foreign peoples as God’s people. Psalm 72:9–11 and 17 clearly evoke the same idea, but with specific focus on David’s royal successor. As argued below, the royalization of this promise in Ps 72 is already reflected in the arrangement 20.  Vangemeren, Psalms, 413–14, recognizes a strong prophetic and eschatological character to Ps 47. Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 470, raises the question whether ‫ אלהי אברהם‬evokes the promises of Gen 12:1–3 and 22:18. Dahood, Psalms, 1:283, 286–87, takes a different approach to v. 10, understanding ‫ נדיבי עמים נאספו‬as a vocative and translating ‫ עם אלהי אברהם‬as “The God of Abraham is the Strong One.” But Dahood also takes the following clause ‫ כי לאלהים מגני־ארץ‬to read, “truly God is Suzerain of the earth,” seeing there an echo of Gen 15:1 where he also translates ‫ מגן‬as “suzerain”: “Fear not, Abraham [sic], I am your Suzerain…who will reward you…very greatly” (Psalms, 1:16–18). If correct, this strengthens the allusion to the Abrahamic covenant in 47:10.

192

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

of the Korahite group (Pss 42–49) more broadly. This group associates divine and Davidic kingship very deliberately and anticipates Ps 72’s vision of nations paying tribute to David’s successor. Other Intertextual Allusions to Genesis 12:3; 22:18; and 26:4. Psalm 22:28 speaks of “all the families of the nations” (‫ )כל־משפחות גוים‬offering a discernible allusion to “all the families of the earth” (‫)כל משפחת האדמה‬ in Gen 12:3. Although Ps 22:28 replaces Gen 12:3’s ‫ האדמה‬with ‫גוים‬, we noted earlier that Gen 22:18 and 26:4 also vary their terminology from 12:3 at the same point: “all the nations of the earth” (‫)כל גויי הארץ‬. Despite its unique construction Ps 22:28 only uses lexemes from these formulations and retains the universal thrust characteristic of this Abrahamic promise (‫)כל‬. The result is an expression strongly reminiscent of Gen 12:3 and its reiterations. Significantly, Ps 22:28–29 employs this allusion to anticipate the same idea present in Ps 72:9–11 and 17, but more directly in terms of divine kingship: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to YHWH, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to YHWH, and he rules over the nations.” Indeed, 72:11 and 17 apparently reflect the same vision cast more specifically in terms of the Davidic kingship as a reflection of God’s rule and justice (see above). A second allusion is found in Ps 37:22, which connects blessing and cursing (‫קלל‬/‫ )ברך‬with possession of the land: “for those blessed by YHWH shall inherit the land, but those cursed by him shall be cut off” (‫ ;כי מברכיו יירשו ארץ ומקלליו יכרתו‬cf. also ‫ יירשו־ארץ‬in vv. 9 and 29). Possession of the land proceeds from YHWH’s blessing, and “cutting off” from his cursing. Of course, Ps 37:22 does not promise YHWH’s blessing and cursing toward those who bless and curse Abram in the same way as Gen 12:3. Nevertheless, the two pual participles ‫“( ְמב ָֹר ָכיו‬those blessed by him”) and ‫“( ְמ ֻק ָל ָליו‬those cursed by him”) and the theme of land-possession evoke the Abrahamic promises in Gen 12:3a and 15:7 quite clearly, even though Gen 12:3 reserves ‫ ארר‬for the divine curse and employs ‫ קלל‬for those who curse Abram. The verbal parallels are even stronger in the LXX, which has οἱ εὐλογοῦντες αὐτόν and οἱ δὲ καταρώμενοι αὐτόν and presumes piel (active) participles ‫ ְמ ָב ְר ָכיו‬and ‫ּומ ַק ְל ָליו‬ ְ like in Gen 12:3 (‫ ְמ ָב ְר ֶכיָך‬and ‫)ּומ ַק ֶּל ְלָך‬. ְ On this LXX reading, possession of the land or being “cut off” are the reward or punishment for “those who bless/curse him (αὐτόν)” Who, then, do these participles’ third person singular suffixes denote? Pointed as puals in the MT, “him” most naturally indicates YHWH: “those blessed/cursed by [YHWH].” But if editors read the unpointed text as piels

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

193

(cf. LXX), the natural antecedent is “the righteous” (δίκαιος/‫ )צדיק‬just mentioned in v. 21. Given the allusion to Gen 12:3, it seems likely that the LXX scribes understood this “righteous” (‫ )צדיק‬as an Abraham-like “righteous” person (cf. Gen 15:6), whose “blessers” YHWH rewards with possession of the land and whose “cursers” he “cuts off.” Understood thus, Ps 37:21b–22 echoes the same theological concerns found in Gen 12:3 and 15:6–7; namely, Abraham’s faith and “righteousness” (‫)צדקה‬, YHWH’s promise of land, and divine blessing for those who bless Abraham. While space precludes a fuller examination of Ps 37:21–22 as a possible example of inner-biblical exegesis,21 these connecting points with Gen 12:3 and 15:6–7 raise compelling possibilities. So if piel forms are preferred in Ps 37:22, others are blessed with “inheriting the land” or cursed by being “cut off” depending on their relationship to the Abraham-like “righteous.” Read in isolation the “righteous” in Ps 37 could be any child of Abraham, but Ps 37’s context in Books I–II suggests editors identified the righteous in terms of kingship. Indeed, in Ps 2:10–12 the fate of “kings” is similarly dependent on their relationship to the royal son (see Chapter 14), while in Ps 72:17 the nations are blessed through the king, as noted earlier. Closer to Ps 37, the Pss 15–24 arrangement likewise suggests that editors were disposed toward seeing the ‫ צדיק‬as a royal figure. Clearly Ps 72’s focus on the king as agent of God’s blessing for the nations is no afterthought to the theology of Books I–II. As we look outside Books I–II, Pss 96 and 107 also offer recognizable allusions to Gen 12:3 and its reiterations. The command in Ps 96:7, “Ascribe to YHWH, O families of the peoples (‫)משפחות עמים‬,” employs similar familial language to Gen 12:3 (cf. ‫ משפחות גוים‬in 22:28 discussed above). Although Ps 96:7 lacks “all” (‫)כל‬, v. 9’s “all the earth” (‫ )כל־הארץ‬shows that this “new song” (v. 1) envisions YHWH’s universal sovereignty 21.  See Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. The themes of bless­ ing/curse and land-possession remain a continuing focus of the Mosaic covenant as well (e.g., Deut 28). In the Psalter the verb ‫ ברך‬occurs some 74 times, mostly used in praise directed to YHWH as, e.g., an imperative with YHWH as object (e.g., Ps 135:19–21) or as the qal passive participle found in doxologies (‫)ברוך־יהוה‬. Numerous other psalms make YHWH or Elohim the subject of ‫ברך‬, but usually show fewer signs that identify them with other covenantal texts, though Ps 67:2, 7–8 is a clear exception (see Chapter 8). Psalm 5:13 perhaps echoes the God’s Abrahamic promises when it states, “For you bless the righteous (‫)צדיק‬, O YHWH”; similarly Ps 109:28, “Let them curse (‫)קלל‬, but you will bless (‫ ”!)ברך‬Otherwise the expectation that YHWH will bless his people, Zion, etc. persists strongly into Book V (e.g., Pss 115:12–13; 128:4–5; 132:15; 147:13).

194

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

and the nations joining in his praise. Psalm 107:38 declares, “By his blessing they multiply greatly” (‫)ויברכם וירבו מאד‬, echoing the Abrahamic promises of blessing and fruitfulness in becoming a great nation within Ps 107’s broader proclamation of YHWH’s redemption and ingathering of his people. This allusion directly follows v. 37’s focus on sowing, planting, and a fruitful yield, thereby connecting fertility and blessing (cf. Ps 72:16–17). As Chapter 13 shows, Ps 107’s collocation with the Davidic group 108–110 associates these promises with the king just as 72 had done. At both the end of Book II and beginning of Book V, then, the king is closely associated with—if not instrumental in—the realization of Abrahamic covenantal promises. Other References to (the God of) the Patriarchs. As noted above, Ps 47:10 identifies YHWH as “the God of Abraham” (‫)אלהי אברהם‬, bringing the people’s (and foreigners’) Abrahamic covenantal status into focus. Expressions like “the God (‫אלוה‬/‫אל‬/‫ )אלהי‬of Israel” or “Jacob” also occur numerous times throughout the Psalter. Granted that “Israel” and “Jacob” frequently function as gentilic identifiers, these expressions nevertheless draw attention to the relationship between YHWH and the patriarch named in them. To some extent they recall introductory formulae like “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (e.g., Exod 3:6, 15–16; 4:5)—hence the patriarchal covenant—in a manner analogous to covenant formula allusions via expressions like “my/his/your God” (see Chapter 6).22 “The God of Jacob” (‫אלהי יעקב‬/‫אלוה‬/‫ )אל‬is therefore distributed quite broadly, occurring in two Korahite psalms (46:8, 12; 84:9), three Asaph psalms (75:10; 76:7; 81:2, 5), Davidic Ps 20:2, and anonymous Pss 94:7; 114:7; and 146:5.23 Almost half of the occurrences of ‫אלהי ישראל‬/‫ אל‬occur in three of the four major doxologies, Pss 41:14, 72:18, and 106:48, with the rest confined to Davidic psalms in Book II (59:6; 68:9, 36; and 69:7).

22.  Outside the construct chain, “the God of Israel/Jacob,” the patriarchal names “Jacob” and “Israel” occur over one hundred times in the bodies of psalms, while “Isaac” occurs only once in Ps 105:9 where the Abrahamic covenant is clearly in view. In most cases “Jacob” and “Israel” take their simple gentilic sense, amounting to a weak covenantal allusion at best. The same cannot be said of “David,” however, which has no usual gentilic sense like “Jacob/Israel” that might give it an alternative primary significance. Even when historical David is specifically in view (e.g., 72:20 or superscriptional historical notes) the royal office and its covenantal dimensions can hardly be far from view. 23.  Equivalent to these expressions are ‫( אביר יעקב‬only in Ps 132:2 and 5) and ‫( קדוש ישראל‬in Pss 78:41 and 89:19—both prominent psalms in Book III).

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

195

Apart from the doxologies, then, only David identifies YHWH as “the God of Israel.” This is intriguing given that “Israel” is the new name given to Jacob when YHWH renewed the Abrahamic covenantal promises with him in Gen 35:10–12. The expression seems to presuppose that the proper covenantal relationship between God and Israel is intact, and its confinement to Davidic psalms is consistent with my proposal that the king has a central, restorative role regarding that relationship. Summing Up: Abrahamic Covenantal Allusions in the Psalter. Psalms 105:8–11, 72:17, and 47:10 offer the strongest allusions to the Abrahamic covenant, while Pss 22, 37, 47, 96, and 107 also have significant allusive potential. Several of these psalms occur at or near the Psalter’s “seams” (Pss 72, 105, 107), confirming editors’ considerable interest in the Abrahamic covenant and its associated promises. Most occur in Davidic or Davidized psalms (Pss 22, 37, 72) or appear in psalms editorially associated with David/kingship (Pss 47, 105, and 107).24 Furthermore, half of these psalms are in Books I–II (Pss 22, 37, 47, 72). Clearly a prominent theme in the early part of the Psalter, the Abrahamic covenant and fulfilment of its promises reaches a climax in Ps 72. Psalm 72 and Korah I (42–49) Broadly speaking Book II is constructed from the Korah I group (Pss 42–49) and David II (Pss 51–72), between which lies Asaph Ps 50. In Chapter 4 we agreed with Wilson that editors used genre to soften transitions between differently authored psalm groups within the Psalter’s books. Although Pss 49, 50, and 51 differ in authorial attribution (Korahite, of Asaph, and Davidic respectively), the transition between them is softened by their common genre (‫)מזמור‬. Nevertheless, the separation of Ps 50 from the main group of Asaph Psalms (73–83) is a highly conspicuous editorial feature of the Psalter. Accordingly, the following investigation of Book II comprises an initial analysis of the Korah I group, followed by the David II group with particular attention to how it relates to Ps 50. The first Korahite group begins with Pss 42–43’s longing to meet God in festal procession to the house of God (42:5) amid enemy taunts (42:4) and apparently at some distance from Jerusalem (42:7). This is followed by Ps 44’s lament over God’s rejection of “us” (v. 10), where God has “sold” his people (v. 13) and made them a byword and a disgrace among the peoples (vv. 14–17). For both McCann and Mitchell these psalms 24.  See below regarding Ps 47 and Chapter 12 regarding Ps 105. Psalm 107’s relationship with Pss 108–110 is addressed further in Chapter 13.

196

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

reflect Israel in exile, though they differ on whether the exile is historical or eschatological.25 The group ends with Ps 49’s universal call to “wisdom and understanding” (vv. 4, 21), warning about the vanity of wealth and might, and repudiating misplaced hope in them. Between these lies royal Ps 45, Zion Ps 46, kingship of YHWH Ps 47, and Zion Ps 48. McCann interprets the Korahite arrangement to mean that “the traditional hope embodied in the royal psalms, Zion songs and enthronement songs is modified and reoriented by the literary context,”26 agreeing with Wilson that wisdom themes trump royal covenantal theology. If that is the case, however, it is odd that an enthronement psalm like Ps 47 should be woven among royal and Zion psalms, for according to Wilson and McCann Book IV uses enthronement psalms (Pss 97 and 99) to contrast YHWH’s rule with David’s. Here in Pss 45–48, however, Davidic rule and YHWH’s kingship seem to go together. This is especially apparent within Ps 45, whose famous crux interpretum, vv. 7–8, appears to merge the identities of king and God and their respective “thrones”: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions…etc.” Notwithstanding the difficulty of this text, editors very likely perceived a close relationship between Davidic and divine kings in this psalm (cf. Ps 2). These verses move seamlessly from addressing “God” to addressing the king.27 Likewise, the Pss 45–48 sequence interweaves Pss 45 and 47—where Davidic kingship and divine kingship are focal—and two Zion Pss (46 and 48), suggesting that editors shared Ps 45:7–8’s view of a close relationship between divine and human kingship. Rather than reorienting hope away from royal covenantal theology, then, Pss 45–48 package Davidic king, Zion, and divine kingship together. If other, later editors were responsible for Books IV–V and played off divine and human kingship against each other, they would have had to do so against the grain of this Korahite arrangement. Moreover, the concluding Ps 72 does not suggest a diminished role of kingship in addressing exile or exile-like circumstances—whether historical or 25.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 250; and McCann, “Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter,” 93–107. 26.  McCann, “Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter,” 102. 27.  See discussion in Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 246–48. Mitchell argues that v. 7 addresses the king, and sees Ps 45 as a Messianic psalm, drawing on early Rabbinic and NT interpretation in support.

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

197

eschatological. It instead sharpens the focus on the royal office as God’s means of bringing blessing to the nations who gather before God in homage (cf. 47:10). Besides this, it bears asking what other collective entailments these Korahite psalms produce by virtue of their arrangement, and what Pss 50–72 indicate about the place of kingship vis-à-vis YHWH’s summons to his covenant people in Ps 50 explored earlier in Chapter 5. Korah I and the Song of the Sea? Regarding the first question, other features in the Korah I group suggest that the editors responsible interpreted the present or foreshadowed exilic crisis as a new Egyptian-like slavery with the hope of a new exodus. Chapter 8’s survey of criteria alluding to the Song of the Sea discovered in Pss 93–100 an editorially achieved accumulation of Exod 15 themes and intertextual elements in what might be called “cumulative” or “combinational” concatenation. A similar situation ensues with this Korahite group, which draws together major themes from Moses’ Song of the Sea even if we find no explicit mentions of a specifically “new song” in the group. That said, just before Korah I, toward the end of Book I, David declares in Ps 40:4, “He put a new song (‫ )שיר חדש‬in my mouth,” followed by mention of YHWH’s song in the first Korahite psalm (42:9). Other features within Korah I also combine to produce a strong resemblance to the Song of the Sea. For instance, the refrain in Pss 42–43 repeatedly addresses God as “my salvation and my God” (‫)ישועה פני ואלהי‬ reminiscent of Exod 15:2. Then follows Ps 44, whose lament expresses the crisis to which subsequent Korah I psalms apparently respond. This psalm calls for God to act on behalf of his people as he had done in the exodus and land-giving.28 Verses 2–4 recall God’s deeds in “days of old” (‫ )בימי קדם‬when God freed his afflicted people by his “right hand and [his] arm (‫)ימינך וזרועך‬, and the light of [his] face.” After complaining that God has “rejected us and disgraced us” (‫ זנחת‬in 44:10; cf. 74:1 and 89:39), Ps 44 then calls on God to “awake” (‫ )עורה‬in a manner comparable to Isa 51:9’s call to YHWH to enact a new exodus from Babylon, “Awake, awake (‫)עורי עורי‬, put on strength, O arm (‫ )זרוע‬of YHWH; awake, as in days of old (‫)כימי קדם‬.” Moreover, Ps 44:13, “You have sold your people” (‫)תמכר־עמך‬, expresses the precise opposite of Exod 15:16’s description of the Israelites as “the people…whom you have purchased” (‫)עם־זו קנית‬, and its final petition, “Redeem us” (‫)ופדנו‬, offers a positive parallel to 28.  Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 250. Barber, Singing in the Reign, 93–98, makes similar observations.

198

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Exod 15:13’s earlier description of them as “the people whom you have redeemed” (‫)עם־זו גאלת‬, notwithstanding the different verb.29 Psalm 44 thus couches its lament and petition in language resembling Exod 15’s praise of God’s salvation, asking God to respond to the present crisis as he had in the exodus. Korahite Pss 46–48 combine to display further hallmarks of the Song of the Sea. Psalm 47 proclaims God’s reign as king in vv. 7–9 (cf. Pss 93, 97, 99). Yet Ps 47 is “sandwiched” between two Zion psalms, Pss 46 and 48, connecting the proclamation of divine kingship with the sanctuary. Likewise Exod 15:18 proclaims YHWH’s reign directly after the Song anticipates that YHWH will bring the people to the sanctuary (‫ )מקדש‬as “the place…for [his] abode” (‫ )מכון לשבתך‬in v. 17. Nestled within these psalms we also find royal Ps 45. Several factors suggest that the king plays a central if not instrumental role in relation to the “new exodus” salvation envisioned in this group. First, Ps 45 begins the 45–48 sequence that immediately follows Ps 44’s lament. The positive tone of Pss 45–48 suggests that these psalms answer that lament, immediately directing attention to the royal figure praised in Ps 45. The editors responsible for Pss 45–48 apparently viewed the Davidic king as an integral and primary part in the (new-)exodus theology of Korah I. Second, in Ps 45:3 God “blesses” (‫ )ברך‬the king forever because “grace is poured upon [his] lips (‫)בשפתותיך‬.” Psalm 45:3 thus connects divine blessing specifically with the king’s speech. Meanwhile the next major author group, David II, accentuates David’s role as praise-giver (see below). Book II’s editors therefore may have understood 45:3 in relation to David’s praise-giving, perhaps as a parallel to Moses’ praise of YHWH after the exodus in view of the exodus motifs explored above. Third, the very first word David utters in the David II collection, Ps 51:3, is the cognate verb of “grace” (‫ )חן‬poured on the king’s lips in 45:3. Psalm 51:3 reads, “be gracious/have mercy on me” (‫)חנני‬. Within Book II, then, Ps 45’s praise of the king seems directed to “David,” who speaks throughout the David II group rounding out the book. Moreover, 51:3 produces key lexemes from the grace formula: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love (‫)כחסדך‬, according to your abundant mercy (‫ )כרב רחמיך‬blot out my transgressions (‫)פשעי‬.” From a macro-structural perspective, this seems to anticipate the Psalter’s characteristic association of David with the grace formula, whose fullest iterations are also found on “David’s lips” (see Chapters 1 29.  ‫ פדה‬turns up in Exod 13:13 and 15 in reference to Israelites’ redeeming their firstborn, itself predicated on YHWH’s saving work in the exodus (cf. vv. 14–15).

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

199

and 10–13). In view of this pattern, Books III–V deviate little from the picture created by Pss 45 and 51, notwithstanding a general shift in focus from historical David to his successor(s) after Ps 72. David II (51–72): David as Exemplar and Fulfiller of YHWH’s Summons in Psalm 50 As noted in Chapter 5, Ps 50 moves from a description of divine theophany to God’s address to his covenant people in vv. 7–23. We have also observed that Ps 50’s dislocation from the main Asaph group (73–83) is one the more conspicuous editorial features of the MT Psalter that calls for explanation. To that end we flagged the possibility that editors deliberately sought to follow Ps 50 with the subsequent Davidic group (Pss 51–72), presenting David/the royal office as Book II’s response to that divine summons. The oft-noted thematic connections in regard to “sacrifice” between Pss 50 and 51 indeed suggest a deliberate connection. Scholars often explain 51:20–21 as a later editorial gloss given an apparent shift in attitude toward the sacrificial system from disparagement (v. 18) to approval (v. 21).30 It may be questioned, however, whether such an attitudinal shift is real or perceived. Read in light of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah as per Ps 51’s superscript, v. 18, “For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering,” is most simply explained as an acknowledgment that the sacrificial system made no provision for sins of that gravity, rather than a general criticism of the sacrificial system. Understood thus, the resumption of pleasing burnt offerings in v. 21 does not “correct” an earlier view so much as anticipate the right relationship between God and Israel drawing from God’s forgiveness of the king (cf. 2 Sam 12:13). In any case, there can be little question that the common emphasis on sacrifice in Pss 50–51 reflects editorial intent to connect David II with Ps 50’s theophanic address to the people and its call for right sacrifice.31

30.  Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 500, writes, “It has been recognized a long time that… vv. 18–19 [= vv. 20–21]…is a later accretion which corrects the thoughts about offerings in v. 15 in a striking way and inserts a time-conditioned plea: to build the walls of Jerusalem.” Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 18, agree that vv. 20–21 are an addition to the “primary psalm” (vv. 13–19), seeing v. 20 as an editor’s “plea for the eschatological restoration of the city of God” and part of “a more broadly applied redaction… whose program is developed most fully in the final Hallel (cf. Psalm 147).” 31.  Jones, “The Psalms of Asaph,” 137.

200

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

The possibility that David II group showcases David responding to Ps 50’s Mosaic covenantal summons has clear relevance to the question of covenant relationships. It would also help explain why Ps 50 is located in Book II at some distance from the main Asaph group in Book III (Pss 73–83). Indeed, David II picks up key features of Ps 50 that indicate just such a relationship between it and Ps 50. The heart of God’s address to “my people” in Ps 50 is the series of commands in vv. 14–15, “Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving (‫)תודה‬, and perform your vows to the Most High (‫)ושלם לעליון נדריך‬, and call upon me (‫ )וקראני‬in the day of trouble (‫ ;)ביום צרה‬I will deliver you (‫)אחלצך‬, and you shall glorify me (‫)ותכבדני‬.” Significantly, Book II depicts David responding to the main commands here. Calling Upon God in Trouble. In view of its superscript Ps 51’s lament presents historical David calling upon God in his day of trouble. Right away David does what God calls his covenant people to do in 50:15a. As Hossfeld and Zenger put it, “What the God of the theophany in Psalm 50 demands, the person praying the following Psalm 51 promises, as is evident especially in vv. 18–19.”32 We may also observe that YHWH answering (‫ )ענה‬the king “in the day of trouble” (‫ )ביום צרה‬arises earlier in Books I–II in royal Ps 20:1, “May YHWH answer you in the day of trouble” (‫ ;יענך יהוה ביום צרה‬cf. 20:10). Books I–II thus seem to anticipate Ps 51’s depiction of David fulfilling this aspect of Ps 50’s summons. Also significant for our investigation is how David does this. Psalm 51’s opening call to YHWH to “be gracious” (‫ )חנני‬is predicated on YHWH’s “steadfast love” (‫ )חסד‬and “abundant mercy” (‫ )רחמים‬in v. 3—terms reminiscent from the grace formula in Exod 34:6. The grace formula’s fuller quotations in Davidic Pss 86:15; 103:8; and 145:8 demonstrate not just its importance to (later?) editors but also its specific association with David. These observations further suggest that a “Davidic” appropriation of the grace formula and its theology influenced the Psalter’s construction from its earliest to latest stages, however multilayered a redactionhistorical model one may hold. Some closer parallels between Pss 50–51 and later quotations of the grace formula are worth noting too: the major elements of Ps 50:15’s charge broadly correspond to the three rhetorical purposes for which Pss 86, 103, and 145 use the grace formula. As the next chapters explore further, in Ps 86 “David” invokes the grace formula as he petitions YHWH for help (cf. “call on me on the day of trouble”). In Ps 103 “David” 32.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 24.

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

201

employs it to proclaim YHWH’s gracious and merciful character in forgiving sins (cf. “I will deliver you”). And in Ps 145 “David” invokes it once more as the essential reason to thank and praise YHWH (cf. “you shall glorify me”). Synchronically speaking, the correlation of these details in conjunction with Ps 51’s grace formulaic language reveals a deeper congruence between later books’ diverse appropriation of the formula and this earlier part of the Psalter. At the least, by presenting “David” as fulfiller of God’s Mosaic-covenantal summons in Ps 50, Book II foreshadows the greater trajectory of the Psalter and its placement of the grace formula exclusively on David’s lips (see Chapters 10–13). Fulfilling Vows. A second observation shows editorial intent to cast David as the one who fulfills YHWH’s charge in 50:14–15. In Ps 50:14b God commands his people to “perform your vows (‫ )ושלם…נדריך‬to the Most High.” Within the Psalter, the expression, “to fulfill vows” (‫ נדר‬+ ‫)שלם‬ occurs in Pss 22:26; 50:14; 56:13; 61:9 (cf. v. 6); 65:2; 66:13; 76:12; and 116:14, 18. Notably, all but three of these psalms are from Book II. Besides Ps 50:14, the Davidic psalmist personally vows to “pay my vows” three times (Pss 56, 61, 66) in Book II and once declares that vows will be paid to God (Ps 65). In fact, Ps 66 is anonymous but has been Davidized and collocated with Ps 65, another of these psalms containing ‫ נדר‬+ ‫שלם‬. There can be little doubt, then, that the editors of Book II sought to associate the theme of fulfilling vows specifically with David, and not simply the original authors of the psalms in question. Accordingly, Book II presents David as the preeminent vow-fulfiller in response to God’s covenantal charge to his people in Asaph Ps 50:14. Only three psalms listed above occur outside Book II: Davidic Ps 22, Asaph Ps 76, and anonymous 116. Asaph Ps 76:12a, “Make your vows to YHWH your God and perform them” (‫)נדרו ושלמו ליהוה אלהיכם‬, echoes the same basic command in Asaph Ps 50:14. Interestingly, 76:2 uses the divine name YHWH even though it falls in the EP group. In Ps 116 the anonymous psalmist personally promises to fulfill his vows like in Pss 22, 56, 61, and 66. Psalm 116 is part of the Egyptian Hallel group located after the Davidic group 108–110 (111–112?) in Book V, raising the possibility that editors viewed the psalmist as royal, particularly in view of Ps 110’s royal and priestly figure. Indeed, Chapter 8’s survey of “son” and “servant” also pointed to this likelihood. Moreover, Ps 116 vividly mirrors Ps 50:14–15. In addition to declaring, “I will pay my vows to YHWH (‫ )נדרי ליהוה אשלם‬in the presence of all his people” in v. 14, the psalmist promises in v. 17, “I will offer to you the sacrifice

202

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

of thanksgiving” (‫)לך־אזבח זבח תודה‬, and twice declares, “I will… call upon (‫ )אקרא‬the name of YHWH” (vv. 13, 17; cf. v. 4). If editors indeed viewed Ps 116’s psalmist as royal, these similarities to Ps 50 look remarkably like the same editorial move to cast the king in these roles that we find in David II. At the editorial level, then, Ps 116 appears to build on Books I–II’s view of a priest-king who performs his vows and offers thanksgiving on behalf of the people. On the other hand, to infer from Ps 116 a democratizing agenda that shifts focus away from the king must read against the grain of these parallels. Offering Sacrifices of Thanksgiving. Another important element in Ps 50:14–15’s summons is the command to offer thanksgiving offerings. To what extent does David II (and the rest of the Psalter) depict David as offerer of thanksgiving (offerings)? Besides Ps 50:14 and 23, “sacrifices of thanksgiving” (‫ זבח‬+ ‫ )תודה‬occur in Pss 107:22 and 116:17 as clear allusions to the thanksgiving offering. Both these psalms and their association with the Davidic group in Pss 108–110 came up in earlier discussions in this and the previous chapter, and Chapter 13 further examines these psalms’ place in Book V. Psalm 54:8 also expresses the same reality: “With a freewill offering I will sacrifice to you (‫ ;)בנדבה אזבחה־לך‬I will give thanks (‫ )אודה‬to your name, O YHWH, for it is good.” As in Pss 107 and 116, the sacrificial connotations of ‫ תודה‬are obvious in Ps 54, presenting David as one fulfilling this aspect of Ps 50’s summons within Book II. Although the Psalter is a literary product, it does not follow that the editors who appropriated psalms with thanksgiving offering allusions should cease to view the thanksgiving offering as a central reality of its hopes concerning God’s people and the king, as scholars sometimes imply.33 ‫ תודה‬occurs without ‫ זבח‬in 26:7; 42:5; 56:13; 69:31; 95:2; 100:1, 4; and 147:7. Since ‫ תודה‬means “thanksgiving” or “praise,”34 it might be asked whether editors had the sacrifice also in view. Several factors suggest they would have, however. In the Pentateuch ‫ תודה‬occurs only in Lev 7:12–15 and 22:29 and always with the noun ‫זבח‬, where it describes the “peace offerings (‫ )שלמים‬for thanksgiving.”35 This suggests that 33.  Harry P. Nasuti, “The Editing of the Psalter and the Ongoing Use of the Psalms: Gerald Wilson and the Question of Canon,” in deClaissé-Walford, ed., The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms, 13–19, rightly cautions against an overly narrow view of the Psalter’s literary function as an object of meditation. 34. “‫ּתֹודה‬,” ָ HALOT: 1695; “‫ּתֹודה‬,” ָ BDB: 392. 35.  ‫ זבח‬and ‫ תודה‬are paired in some later biblical literature too, e.g., 2 Chr 29:31 (‫ )זבחים ותודות‬and 2 Chr 33:16 (‫)זבחי שלמים ותודה‬.

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

203

‫ תודה‬normally entails sacrifice, even if psalms that use ‫ ידה‬vocabulary accentuate the element of singing.36 Analysis of these seven psalms tends to support this also. Psalm 26:6 clearly locates thanksgiving at “your altar” (‫)מזבחך‬, even though v. 7 accentuates the vocal aspect of thanksgiving (‫)לשמע בקול תודה‬.37 Similarly, Ps 56:13 parallels rendering thanks (‫ )אשלם תודת לך‬with performing vows (‫ )נדריך‬like Ps 50:14; both seeming to evoke the votive offerings of Lev 7 and 22.38 Although Ps 95:2 parallels ‫ תודה‬most directly with “songs” (‫ )זמרות‬and Ps 100:4 parallels it with “praise” (‫ ;תהלה‬cf. ‫ הודו־לו‬in v. 4b), both psalms summon worshippers “before YHWH” in terms consistent with Leviticus’ ritual instruction. Psalm 95 urges hearers to “come” (‫)לכו‬, further urging, “Let us come into his presence with thanksgiving” (‫)נקדמה פניו בתודה‬, and, “Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before YHWH, our Maker (‫ ”!)לפני־יהוה עשנו‬Albeit a common prepositional phrase, “before YHWH” (‫ )לפני יהוה‬has strong liturgical connotations and is used this way throughout Leviticus. Psalm 100 similarly summons the people to “[c]ome into his presence/before him” (‫)באו לפניו‬, and “[e]nter his gates with thanksgiving [offering]” (‫)באו שעריו בתודה‬. In 42:5 the psalmist reminisces how he would once lead the procession “to the house of God (‫ )בית אלהים‬with glad shouts and songs of praise/ thanksgiving (‫)בקול־רנה ותודה‬, a multitude keeping festival (‫)המון חוגג‬.” In v. 3 the psalmist asks, “When shall I come (‫ )אבוא‬and appear before God (‫ ”?)פני אלהים‬As in Pss 95 and 100, then, the combination of ‫תודה‬ with “coming before God/YHWH” has Israel’s liturgical life in view; one enters the temple courtyard to offer thanksgiving offerings. Notably, the related verb ‫ ידה‬occurs in the latter part of these psalms’ threefold refrain as well: “for I shall again praise him (‫)אודנו‬, my salvation and my God” (42:6–7, 12; 43:5). ‫ ידה‬occurs a fourth time in 43:4 in what appears at first blush to be musical praise, “I will praise you (‫ )ואודך‬with the lyre,” but before that the psalmist “will go to the altar of God (‫)מזבח אלהים‬.” It is therefore likely that editors associated ‫ ידה‬throughout Pss 42–43 with the celebration of the thanksgiving offering. On first reading Ps 69:31 seems to distance ‫ תודה‬from offerings, for it parallels this term with “song” (‫)שיר‬, whereupon v. 32 makes a comparative statement, “This will please YHWH more than an ox or a 36.  So Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms, 11. 37.  Cf. Goldingay, Psalms, 1:384. 38.  About one third of the Pentateuch’s thirty-plus instances of ‫( נדר‬and/or ‫ )נדבה‬relate to votive offerings: Lev 7:16; 22:18, 21, 23; 23:38; Num 15:3, 8; 29:39; Deut 12:11, 17, 26.

204

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

bull (‫ )משור פר‬with horns and hoofs.”39 Yet even here it is probably too simplistic to conclude that “thanksgiving” and “song” are purely vocal, since “ox or bull”—or “ox-bull”—suggests a specific kind of offering as the point of contrast, not offerings in general. Indeed, ‫פר‬, “young bull,” is reserved almost exclusively for sin offerings and never used for thanksgiving offerings. If editors understood v. 32 to be about sin offerings, then presumably they would perceive a contrast between sin offerings, on the one hand, and thanksgiving song with accompanying offering, on the other (cf. Ps 50:7–15).40 In any case, Goldingay and Dahood are surely right to see wordplay between ‫ שיר‬and ‫שור‬.41 Finally, Ps 147:7 is more difficult to assess because it associates ‫ תודה‬most directly with singing (‫ ענה‬and ‫ )זמר‬without further qualification. Besides Ps 50, then, clear allusions to the thanksgiving sacrifice turn up via ‫תודה‬/‫ ידה‬and ‫ זבח‬in Pss 54:8, 107:22, and 116:17, while ‫ תודה‬likely entails sacrifice also in Pss 26:7; 42:5; 56:13; 95:2; 100:1, 4, and possibly 69:31 and 147:7.‬A relatively high concentration of these are in David II (Pss 54, 56, and 69), suggesting that David takes up the summons of Ps 50:14–15. Consistent with our study of “fulfilling vows,” then, this distribution suggests that editors associated David with the thanksgiving offering and viewed him as the chief fulfiller of Ps 50’s summons also in this respect. Beyond Book II, Ps 26 is also Davidic, while the entrance liturgies Pss 95 and 100 are followed by Davidic Pss 101–103, where “David” appears to be instrumental in bringing about the vision of Pss 93–100 (see Chapter 12). The editorial connection between Davidic Ps 145 and the final Halleluiah group suggests something similar for Ps 147. Korah I and David II. This brief survey of ‫ תודה‬may also offer clues about how David II relates to Korah I. Indeed, Pss 56 and 69 seem to take up Pss 42–43’s yearning to praise (‫ )ידה‬God where, in the context of lament, David resolves to fulfill his vows and offer thanksgiving sacrifices in 39.  Cf. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 64. Goldingay, Psalms, 2:353, suggests that the psalmist was not making a general comparison of sacrificial offerings and vocal thanksgiving, but praised the latter because he had no access to the temple. 40.  In most of its ten occurrences in Leviticus ‫ שור‬has peace offerings clearly in view (4:10; 9:4, 18, 19; cf. 17:3; 22:23, 27, and 28), and probably also in 7:13. However, ‫ פר‬is a sin offering in each of its 29 occurrences in Lev 4, 8, and 16 and a burnt offering one other time in 23:18. The question arises, then, whether ‫משור פר‬ refers to one animal given the lack of conjunction, or two. For Goldingay, Psalms, 2:353, these terms refer to the same animal via parallelism. Dahood, Psalms, 2:165, sees the ‫ מ‬in ‫ משור‬doing double duty for ‫פר‬, likewise suggesting parallelism. 41.  Goldingay, Psalms, 2:353; Dahood, Psalms, 2:165.

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

205

view of God’s anticipated or experienced deliverance (56:13–14; 69:31). Inasmuch as Pss 42–43’s thirsting for God and Ps 44’s lament over exile set the agenda of Book II, these Davidic psalms seem to funnel the lament through David as chief intercessor, while also depicting him as the predominant fulfiller of vows and giver of thanks. Another observation points in the same direction. The petitionary section of Ps 44, vv. 24–27, asks, “Why do you hide your face?,” thereby complaining that God has withdrawn his blessing. As noted in Chapter 8, however, the strongest allusion to the Aaronic blessing in the Psalter is found in Davidic Ps 67, by which Book II responds to Ps 44’s lament in precisely this respect. Psalm 67 invokes God’s blessing—that he would “make his to face shine upon us” (v. 2)—wherein all nations would know God’s (exodus-like?) way and salvation (v. 3). Then, by a series of jussives, the psalmist urges the nations to “praise” him and “be glad and sing for joy” (vv. 4–6). And whereas Ps 44 lamented that God had scattered his people and made them a byword “among the nations” (‫;בגוים‬ cf. vv. 12 and 15), in Ps 67 the nations are drawn into the praise of God. Within Book II, then, David appears to answer Ps 44’s lament over the destruction wrought by enemy nations by announcing God’s blessing to his people, through which the nations would themselves be blessed as per the Abrahamic covenant. All these themes are echoed strongly in Ps 72’s portrayal of David’s royal successor as one who brings blessing to the nations. Conclusion In Ps 72 an aging David prays for his son and successor, through whom God would realize his Abrahamic covenantal promises—particularly the promises of blessing for the nations and land on a universalized scale. As we trace the royal psalms at the seams of Books I–III highlighted by Wilson, the depiction of the king in Ps 72 lies somewhere between the militarily victorious king of Ps 2 and the king who is “poor and needy” in Ps 86:1 (cf. also Ps 89 and the Davidized “prayer of one afflicted” in Ps 102). This view of the king reflects the broader picture just seen in Book II, where the David II group appears to answer Asaph Ps 50’s summons and Korah I’s lament preceding it. Moreover, we saw that the Korah I group already offers its own initial response to the lament in Ps 44 via the combined themes of Zion/the sanctuary, YHWH’s divine kingship, and the king in Pss 45–48. We further observed that this group reflects the theological contours of the exodus and Moses’ Song of the Sea, and appears to answer the exile—be it historical or eschatological—with the picture of YHWH and the king as a joint force like in Ps 2.

206

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

The David II group follows Korah I in the same vein. David II presents David as the responder to Asaph Ps 50’s summons to his “faithful ones, who made a covenant with me by sacrifice” (v. 5). David calls upon YHWH in his trouble (51:3), and promises to fulfill his vows (56:13; 61:6, 9; 65:2; and 66:13) and make thanksgiving offerings (54:8). Thus Book II presents David in the role of God’s covenant partner, doing what Israel is summoned to do according to Ps 50. David also invokes blessing upon the people (Ps 67), through which the nations learn God’s way and salvation. It would appear, then, that the historical David and the covenant he represents fulfill God’s expectations for his covenant people, while also announcing and anticipating the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenantal promises through a Davidic successor in Ps 72. Indeed, Ps 72:17’s picture of David’s successor as an agent of blessing to the nations strikes a strongly concordant note with Book I–II’s allusions to Abrahamic covenantal promises (e.g., Pss 22, 37, 47). Finally, we observed that David’s opening words in 51:3 echo the key terms of the grace formula. In passing we also noted that the different rhetorical uses of the grace formula in Pss 86, 103, and 145 broadly correspond to 50:15’s commands and promises as a possible blueprint for how YHWH’s people/faithful covenant partner ought to respond to the faithful God. Accordingly, Book II affirms the Psalter’s particular association of David with the grace formula, and may provide a theological pattern for its threefold quotation in Books III–V. Addendum: “Give thanks” (‫ )ידה‬and the Psalter As observed earlier, editors likely understood the term ‫ תודה‬also with sacrifice in view, not just the vocal element of thanksgiving. This possibility likely extends to the verb ‫“( ידה‬to give thanks, confess”), which occurs frequently in the Psalter via the formula, “Give thanks (‫ )הודו‬to YHWH for he is good; for his steadfast love (‫ )חסדו‬endures forever.” This formula occurs very prominently in Books IV–V—in Pss 106:1; 107:1; 118:1, 29; and 136:1—while similar formulae turn up in 105:1; 107:8, 15, 21, 31; 136:2, 3, and 26. Gunkel draws attention to the formula in Jer 33:11,42 where worshipers will sing it amid thanksgiving offerings at the temple when God restores Jerusalem, Judah, and so on (vv. 10–13). This cultic association can hardly have been far from editors’ minds when incorporating psalms bearing this formula. 42.  Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms, 11. Cf. Hutchinson, “A New-Covenant Slogan in the Old Testament,” 101–105.

9. Psalm 72:17 in Book II

207

The formula’s prominence in Book V is therefore theologically very significant,43 for it addresses the call of Ps 50:14 quite directly as it proclaims YHWH’s steadfast love as an eternal reality. Moreover, just as David appears to be “lead singer” of praise in the Psalter and the primary fulfiller of Ps 50’s covenantal summons, psalms bearing the ‫הודו‬ formula find close editorial association with “David.” Indeed, our analysis of Books IV–V in Chapters 12 and 13 further explores the possible relationship between the king and YHWH’s praise, steadfast love, and so on. Altogether ‫ ידה‬occurs 67 times, of which the majority are outside the ‫ הודו‬formulae just discussed. Whether editors understood these other instances of ‫ ידה‬with the offering in view is thus more difficult to substantiate. A number of psalms do suggest a cultic context, however, such as Pss 42–43, 54:8, and 100:4 noted earlier. For instance, Ps 118’s three other instances of ‫ידה‬, in vv. 19, 21, and 28, plainly envisage a thanksgiving offering given v. 27b, “Bind the festal sacrifice with cords (‫)אסרו־חג בעבתים‬, up to the horns of the altar,”44 and offers further evidence that editors connected the ‫ הודו‬formula with the thanksgiving sacrifice. Likewise Pss 52:10–11, 122:1–4, 138:1–2, disclose the temple as the location for praise/thanksgiving (‫)ידה‬. Psalms 35 and 75 hint at a cultic context too. Psalm 35:18 locates praise/thanksgiving “in the great congregation” (‫)אודך בקהל רב‬, and Ps 75:2 follows ‫ ידה‬with a causal clause, “for your name is near” (‫)וקרוב שמך‬, suggesting a temple context.45 Verses 2–3 of Ps 92 locate the thanksgiving in the morning (‫ )בבקר‬and at night (‫ )בלילות‬and may evoke the regular offerings at the temple, though the exact significance of these temporal phrases is disputed.46 A couple of further observations are noteworthy. A few editorially important psalms use ‫ ידה‬with other key terms that Ps 50:14–15 connect closely with ‫תודה‬. First, in Davidic Ps 86:12 the psalmist declares, “I give thanks to you (‫)אודך‬, YHWH my God, with my whole heart, and 43.  Besides its use in various formulae in Book V, 27 of ‫’ידה‬s 67 instances (40%) occur in that book. 44.  On the interpretation of ‫ חג‬as “festal offering” rather than a reference to festal procession, see Goldingay, Psalms, 3:364. Cf. Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 243, who think that v. 27 denotes a “ring dance” around the altar with branches. 45.  Cf. Tate, Psalms 51–100, 258. LXX reads καὶ ἐπικαλεσόμεθα τὸ ὄνομά σου, which would amend the Hebrew to read ‫( וקראי בשמך‬cf. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 103). 46.  Goldingay, Psalms, 3:54, rejects a reference to the morning and evening sacrifices (normally referred to via the term ‫)ערב‬, explaining v. 3 as a merism meaning “all the time.” Cf. Dahood, Psalms, 2:336, who translates the pl. ‫ בלילות‬as “watches of the night.”

208

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

I will glorify (‫ )ואכבדה‬your name forever,” thus fulfilling the same two functions that God commands in 50:14–15; namely, thanksgiving and glorification. Both Pss 50 and 86 show signs of special placement; the one an isolated Asaph psalm juxtaposed with Davidic psalms (Ps 51–72), and the other an isolated Davidic psalm inserted amid Korahite Pss 84–88. These similarities between 50:14–15 and 86:12 again suggest that David fulfills YHWH’s commands in Ps 50. Second, Ps 105:1, “Oh give thanks to YHWH; call upon (‫ )קראו‬his name,” echoes commands to “Offer…a sacrifice of thanksgiving…and call upon me (‫ ”)וקראני‬in 50:14–15—even if omitting the latter’s “on day of trouble.”47 This connection is reinforced by Ps 106:47, which concludes that psalm and Book IV with the imperative, “Save us (‫…)הושיענו‬that we may give thanks (‫ )להדות‬to your holy name.” As an inclusio for this historical psalm pair, 105:1 and 106:47 effectively reiterate and follow the command in 50:14–15—a point that cannot have been lost on the editors responsible for placing them at the end of Book IV. It matters little whether they or earlier editors were responsible for Ps 50’s placement. In both cases, the similarities that Pss 86 and 105 share with Ps 50 suggest that editors understood ‫ ידה‬to entail the thanksgiving offering like in Ps 50, and intended these later psalms to answer the summons of 50:14–15. The first of these—Ps 86—is clearly Davidic, but a strong case can be made that Pss 105–106 function as a “Davidic” act of intercession to conclude Book IV; a possibility followed up in Chapter 12.

47.  Psalm 75:2 also combines ‫ ידה‬and ‫ קרא‬if the LXX is correct (see earlier note).

Chapter 10 T h e G r a c e F or m ul a i n E xodus a n d t h e P s a lt e r

The three psalms bearing “full” quotations of the formula (Pss 86, 103, and 145) amply show that the “grace formula” of Exod 34:6 and its theology was important to those who arranged the Psalter, whether one posits multiple editorial stages or a single editorial impulse behind the Psalter’s composition. That together with its Mosaic covenantal moorings in the Pentateuch make it an obvious place to examine covenant relationships in the Psalter. Notably, Pss 86, 103, and 145 are all attributed to David, despite the relative scarcity of Davidic psalms in the last half of the Psalter. Eighteen out of 78 psalms in Books III–V are Davidic, compared to a much higher proportion in the first half.1 The grace formula’s appearance in Davidic psalms is especially remarkable in Books III and IV, where only three Davidic psalms are found in total (Pss 86, 101, 103). Yet two of these three psalms quote the grace formula (Pss 86 and 103). Moreover, Book IV displays a unique interest in the figure of Moses, the great covenant mediator of ancient Israel, turning up seven times there (Pss 90:1; 99:6; 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, and 32), and only once elsewhere (Ps 77:20). Given the formula’s traditional Mosaic association (Exod 32–34; cf. Num 14:18), we may ask why we find it on “David’s” lips rather than Moses’ in Book IV. Even Ps 77:20’s mention of Moses outside Book IV is followed by Ps 78, a psalm that culminates with David as YHWH’s servant, arguably reflecting a historical progression from Moses’ premonarchic leadership to the royal office in response to the people’s repeated covenant unfaithfulness throughout that psalm (see Chapter 5). All this raises an important possibility: by selecting psalms that place the grace formula on the lips of David, could the Psalter’s compiler(s) be crediting the traditionally Mosaic role of covenant mediator and intercessor to the (awaited) Davidic king? 1.  Psalms attributed to David in Books III–V are: Pss 86, 101, 103, 108–110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138–145. Psalm 127 is attributed to Solomon.

210

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Chapters 11–13 explore this question directly by investigating its appropriation in Pss 86, 103, and 145 in their book contexts. The present chapter reviews recent literature on the grace formula then prepares for those chapters in two ways: first, by exploring its theological entailments in its traditional Mosaic context in Exod 34; and second, by engaging in preliminary survey work to identify the Psalter’s allusions to the formula. This affords a better view of how pervasive its allusions are, preliminarily assessing the extent to which it finds particular association with “David.” The Grace Formula in Recent Scholarship Recent years have seen much investigation of the “grace formula” or “credo” in Exod 34:6–7 and its reuse throughout the Old Testament.2 These studies demonstrate its importance to biblical theology and draw attention to the diverse contexts and ways in which later OT literature appropriates the formula. The grace formula recurs in prominent places within the Torah (Num 14:18), the Minor Prophets (Nah 1:3; Jonah 4:2; Mic 7:18–20; Joel 2:13), and Writings (Pss 86:15; 103:8; and 145:8).3 As further proof of its importance to OT theology, these later appropriations of the grace formula cover multiple genres and all three major divisions of the Hebrew canon. The above studies also show that these other OT texts frequently adapt the formula to their contexts in minor ways. Far from being “frozen” in nostalgic traditions from Moses’ lifetime, later authors use the formula flexibly as they apply it to other circumstances, demonstrating the formula’s versatility and ongoing relevance to the community. The conclusions offered in these studies do not, however, adequately address the particular questions demanded by our investigation. One such study, Nathan Lane’s The Compassionate, but Punishing God provides a very helpful analysis of the grace formula overall. According to Lane, the OT parallels of the grace formula “mark a movement in the canon from particularism to universalism,” thus moving from a narrower application to Israel to include the nations also.4 Its parallels in the Psalter likewise “suggest to readers a canonical movement toward YHWH as cosmic king, rather than simply Israel’s covenant partner.”5 Indeed, this “movement” 2.  See Chapter 1. See Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God, 3–18, for a summary of recent scholarship on the grace formula. 3.  This list is not exhaustive, and does not account for the lexical overlap between the formula and other important Pentateuchal texts (e.g., Exod 20:5–6; cf. Deut 5:9–10). 4.  Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God, 23. 5.  Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God, 24.

10. The Grace Formula in Exodus and the Psalter

211

seems consistent with the broader, unified view of “covenant” in the psalms discovered in Chapter 5. Negatively, Lane’s thirty-plus-page analysis of the Psalter follows the views of Wilson, McCann, and deClaissé-Walford regarding the Psalter’s editorial agenda without engaging the broader issues of editorial evidence or entertaining other models6—or indeed the Psalter’s other grace formula allusions besides those in Pss 86, 103, and 145. Accordingly, Lane notes the formula’s appearance in Davidic psalms, concluding only that “ancient Israel’s most celebrated earthly king supports the reign of YHWH.”7 Hee Suk Kim’s paper on the grace formula in the psalms likewise presupposes the editorial theories of Wilson et al.8 Kim rightly recognizes the grace formula’s original context as one of “covenant rebuilding” for Israel as a community, achieved “through a leader of a community, Moses.”9 Having recognized Moses’ agency as God renews his covenant with the community, one might expect the same possibility to be entertained for David more seriously. Kim follows Wilson, however, in interpreting the Psalter’s appropriation of the grace formula in terms of a democratizing agenda wherein king and community are alternative beneficiaries of YHWH’s grace and compassion; its association with the king in Ps 86 giving way to a broader application to the community in Pss 103 and 145.10 Unfortunately this overlooks the possibility that the community receive YHWH’s grace and compassion through and for the sake of the king, which would more nearly reflect the theological paradigm that Kim observes in Exod 33–34. Indeed, as the reexamination of Exod 34 below also shows, Israel received God’s grace and mercy through Moses because he has YHWH’s favor. Could not editors have anticipated a similar mediatory role for the (idealized) king? It remains, then, to follow up the largely unexplored idea that the Psalter presents David as Moses-like agent of covenant renewal between YHWH and the community. Already the Psalter’s presentation of David in Mosaic roles suggests the plausibility of this idea, as do Allison’s observations concerning a typological relationship between Moses and David in another postexilic work, the books of Chronicles.11 6.  See Chapter 1 and Part I. 7.  Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God, 142. 8.  Hee Suk Kim, “Exodus 34:6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 in Relation to the Theological Perspectives of Books III, IV, and V of the Psalter” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, San Francisco, CA, 20 November 2011), 1–10. 9.  Kim, “Exodus 34:6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145,” 2. 10.  Kim, “Exodus 34:6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145,” 6, 9. 11.  See Chapter 8. Allison, The New Moses, 35–39.

212

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Major Theological Entailments of the Grace Formula in Exodus 34 In the OT’s first and foundational instance of the grace formula, YHWH personally declares his name as promised to Moses in 33:19. In Exod 34:6–7 we read, YHWH passed before him and proclaimed, “YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

The terminology of the grace formula accentuates YHWH’s compassion (‫)אל רחום‬, graciousness (‫)וחנון‬, forbearance (‫)ארך אפים‬, “steadfast love”/ “faithfulness” (‫)ורב־חסד ואמת‬, and YHWH’s liberality in forgiving sin (‫)נצר חסד לאלפים נשא עון ופשע וחטאה‬. Collectively, these terms underscore YHWH’s delight in forgiving and having mercy. Nevertheless, the formula does not lose sight of YHWH’s punishment of the wicked either: YHWH does not “clear the guilty” (‫)ונקה לא ינקה‬. Importantly, Exod 34:6–7 connects these characteristics specifically with the divine name, “YHWH.” The divine characteristics proclaimed in the formula stand in apposition to the twice-declared divine name: “YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious…etc.” Clearly YHWH’s name and character go closely together: YHWH is the gracious and compassionate God. Moreover, the divine name is the means of access to this grace and favor; Israel and its priestly intercessors use the personal name of God to access his mercy and grace.12 Indeed, YHWH’s intent to speak his name before Moses in 33:19 already suggests that YHWH’s goodness is accessed through his name: “I will make all my goodness (‫ )כל־טובי‬pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘YHWH.’ ” Divine proclamation of the name and divine goodness are simultaneous experiences for Moses. Moreover, Moses would call upon YHWH’s name when beseeching him to forgive the people in 32:11–13. In Num 14:13–19, too, Moses calls on YHWH’s name, basing his petition that YHWH “pardon the iniquity of this people” (v. 19) on YHWH’s international reputation (vv. 13–16) and the grace formula (v. 18).

12.  John W. Kleinig, “What’s the Use in Naming God?,” LTJ 26 (1992): 27–34.

10. The Grace Formula in Exodus and the Psalter

213

Also significant is the broader context of the golden calf idolatry and YHWH’s gracious response to Moses’ intercession (chs. 32–34). These events are set in the midst of the book of Exodus’ instruction concerning the tabernacle as the place of regular access to YHWH’s grace, favor, and mercy. Indeed, chs. 32–34 fall neatly between chs. 25–31 on the tabernacle’s design and chs. 35–40 on its construction, which culminate in YHWH’s glory (‫ )כבוד יהוה‬filling the sanctuary (40:32–27), so that within the literary structure of Exodus the tabernacle cannot be built until the covenant is renewed.13 This reinforces the importance of both YHWH’s promise in 33:19 to declare his name and its fulfillment in 34:6–7, and points to the ongoing reality that Moses and the Israelites would regularly gain access to YHWH’s “grace and mercy” through his name at the tabernacle. Moreover, that the “name theology” occupies so central a place is not surprising in light of the broader context of Exodus, where it turns up at key points in the Israelites’ emancipation from Egyptian slavery; for example, Moses’ commissioning and request of God’s name (3:15), YHWH’s commitment to deliver his people (6:3), and the Song of the Sea (15:3).14 That the Psalter also reflects a similar interest in the divine name (e.g., the EP)15 is therefore noteworthy given its accompanying interest in the grace formula. Other important themes emerge from the grace formula’s nearer context in Exod 32–34. Prior to YHWH’s promise in 33:19, Moses had interceded for the people after YHWH had resolved to destroy them due to the golden calf, in response to which YHWH relented (32:7–14). A second crisis follows when YHWH tells Moses that he will not accompany the people on their journey lest he destroy them because of their “stiff necks” (33:1–3). Again Moses pleads with YHWH, imploring him to go with them because that alone makes them distinct among the nations, and again YHWH listens to Moses’ intercession (33:1–17). Clearly, the intercessory role of Moses is key to the preservation of the Israelites, and to YHWH’s ongoing, favorable presence with them, for YHWH is quick to heed Moses’ intercession and slow to execute judgment as the formula itself declares. YHWH’s immediate response to Moses’ intercession underscores the effectiveness of his mediatory

13.  See R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34, JSOTSup 22 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1983), 109–10. 14.  See also, e.g., Exod 4:22–23; 7:16, 26; 8:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3; 13:5; cf. 10:7–8, 24; 12:31; 20:2. 15.  See Chapter 4.

214

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

role (32:14; 33:17),16 a role already established in the cutting of the Sinai covenant in ch. 24.17 Another important contextual factor in ch. 34 has obvious relevance to our investigation: covenant renewal.18 Directly after YHWH pronounces the formula in 34:6–7 he confirms the covenant that Moses had mediated but that the people had broken (Exod 34:10–28; cf. ch. 24). Thus the formula expresses the fundamental basis of this covenant renewal: YHWH restores the covenant relationship because he is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love.” In concrete terms, then, YHWH exerts his gracious and compassionate nature precisely through forgiving the people’s breach of the covenant and renewing it. In summary, at least three major entailments attend the grace formula in this first and foundational context: the importance of the divine name “YHWH,” Moses’ intercessory role, and covenant renewal. An examination of the Exod 34:6 citations in Pss 86, 103, and 145 should therefore take account of these themes. The Psalter’s Allusions to the Grace Formula and Its Special Association with “David” Besides Pss 86:15, 103:8, and 145:8, numerous other echoes of the grace formula are audible in the Psalter. Strong allusions to Exod 34:6 are found in Pss 111:4 and 112:4, which cite the distinctive adjectival combination ‫חנון ורחום‬. These poems’ terse strophic character explains their truncated form, while their acrostic structure accounts for the reversed sequence of terms compared with ‫ רחום וחנון‬in Exod 34:6, for it belongs to the ‫ ח‬colon in each psalm. The same situation ensues for acrostic Ps 145:8. Similarly, Ps 116:5’s confession echoes these key terms, “Gracious (‫ )חנון‬is YHWH, and righteous; our God is merciful (‫)מרחם‬,” even though it concludes with a participial form of ‫ רחם‬rather than the adjective ‫רחום‬. Moreover, the placement of Pss 111–112 after Davidic Pss 108–110 and Ps 145 as the last of the Davidic Pss 138–145 seems structurally significant, for they conclude sequences of Davidic psalms that stand at the beginning 16.  Cf. YHWH’s immediate, favorable response to Moses’ intercession also in Num 14:20. 17.  Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 51, notes the scholarly tendency to underestimate Moses’s role and significance in the divine–human drama in Exod 32. By contrast, Moberly himself (At the Mountain of God, 91–93) observes Moses’ and Noah’s significance as intercessors in their respective literary contexts. 18.  See Kim, “Exodus 34:6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145,” 2; Moberly, At the Mountain of God, 109.

10. The Grace Formula in Exodus and the Psalter

215

and end of Book V.19 This, together with other allusions to the formula in Book V, suggests its editorial importance. Thus Book V accentuates the theme of YHWH’s grace and mercy already established in Books III and IV (Pss 86:15; 103:8), and continues to associate it particularly with David. Moreover, cognates of ‫ חנון ורחום‬also occur together in Pss 77 and 102. Psalm 77:9–10 combines both terms with ‫ חסד‬in its series of anguished questions, “Has [God’s] steadfast love (‫ )חסדו‬forever ceased?… Has God forgotten to be gracious (‫ ?)חנות‬Has he in anger shut up his compassion (‫ ”?)רחמיו‬On the other hand, in Ps 102:14 the psalmist announces, “You will arise and have pity (‫ )תרחם‬on Zion; it is the time to favor her (‫)לחננה‬.” Since neighboring Ps 103 bears the full grace formula, it seems that concatenation on this theme played a part in their collocation, which Chapter 12 discusses further. Other combinations from the last phrase of the grace formula, “abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (‫)ורב־חסד ואמת‬, potentially allude to the grace formula also. For example, the word-pair ‫חסד ואמת‬ occurs some eight times in the Psalms: Pss 25:10 (where we also find other key terms from Exod 34:6–7 in vv. 6–7: ‫רחם‬, ‫פשע‬, and ‫;)חטאה‬20 40:11–12 (with 2nd sg. suffixes, paralleled with ‫ אמונתך ותשועתך‬in v. 11 and again with ‫ רחמיך‬in v. 12); 57:4 (with 3rd sg. suffixes); 61:8; 85:11; 86:15 (full formula; cf. v. 5); and 89:15. In addition, ‫ חסד‬and ‫ אמת‬occur in parallel another seven times: Pss 26:3; 57:11; 69:14; 108:5; 115:1; 117:2; and 138:2—noting that 57:11 and 108:5 are doublets. Thus, almost half (16) of the 37 occurrences of ‫ אמת‬in the Psalter associate it with ‫חסד‬. The word-pair is lacking in Book IV, however. Similarly the expression “abounding in steadfast love” (‫ ;ר ֹב־חסד‬cf. ‫ ַרב־חסד‬in Exod 34:6) occurs in Pss 5:8 and 69:14. Shortly after in 69:17 the psalmist bases his petitions to “answer me” and “turn to me” on the goodness of God’s steadfast love (‫ )כי־טוב חסדך‬and the greatness of God’s compassion (‫)כרב רחמיך‬, combining several key terms of the grace formula and firming up the allusion there. In addition we find the expression “abounding in steadfast love” in the plural (‫ )רב חסדיך‬in 106:7, notwithstanding some Greek manuscripts that favor the singular. As noted 19.  Zenger, “Composition and Theology,” 91, 97–98. 20.  Another term, “your goodness” (‫ )טובך‬occurs in 25:7, which may recall “all my goodness” (‫ )כל־טובי‬in Exod 33:19 where YHWH foretells his theophany in ch. 34 and promises to “make all my goodness pass before [Moses] and…proclaim my name ‘YHWH.’ ” While the Psalter nowhere reproduces this exact expression, “your abundant goodness” (‫ )רב־טובך‬occurs in 31:20 and 145:7 in reference to YHWH, and we find the expression “the goodness of YHWH” (‫ )טוב־יהוה‬in Ps 27:13 (cf. 34:9).

216

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

in Chapter 5’s discussion of ‫ברית‬, an equivalent expression with a preposition (‫)כר ֹב חסדו‬ ְ occurs later in that same psalm in v. 45 (Qere ‫חסדיו‬, and thus plural). Only Pss 86:5, 15; 103:8; and 145:8 point it ‫רב־חסד‬,ַ as Exod 34:6 does. There is also significant lexical and thematic overlap between the grace formula and several other psalms. In Ps 32:1–2, 5 the terms “iniquity” (‫)עון‬, “transgression” (‫)פשע‬, and “sin” (‫ )חטאה‬occur multiple times in the context of forgiveness, which echoes Exod 34:7’s distinctive confession, “forgiving (‫ )נשא‬iniquity (‫ )עון‬and transgression (‫ )ופשע‬and sin (‫)וחטאה‬.” As noted in the previous chapter, David’s cry in Ps 51:3–4 echoes the grace formula: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions” (‫)חנני אלהים כחסדך כרב רחמיך מחה פשעי‬. Psalm 51 goes on to pair ‫עון‬ and ‫ חטאה‬in vv. 4, 7, and 11, and ‫ פשע‬and ‫ חטאה‬in v. 5.21 Psalm 65:4 similarly pairs ‫ עון‬and ‫פשע‬, which God “atones for” (‫)אתה תכפרם‬. Psalm 78:38 likewise combines the familiar terms of the grace formula to affirm God’s forgiving way toward the Israelites: “Yet he, being compassionate (‫)רחום‬, atoned for their iniquity (‫…)עון‬he restrained his anger (‫)אפו‬ often.” So does Ps 79:8–9 (‫עון‬, ‫רחמים‬, and ‫)חטאה‬, Ps 85:3 (‫נשא‬, ‫עון‬, and ‫ ;)חטאת‬and to a lesser extent Ps 107:17 (‫ פשע‬and ‫ עון‬only, from which YHWH “healed them” [‫ ]רפא‬in v. 20). In all these contexts the psalmist either seeks God’s forgiveness or confesses God’s forgiving character. Notably, consecutive Pss 78 and 79 each combine a cognate of ‫ רחם‬and the theme of atonement (‫)כפר‬. Psalms 78–79 directly follow Ps 77, which contains cognates of both ‫ רחם‬and ‫ חנן‬in v. 10 and concludes with a clear reference to the Exodus, Moses, and Aaron. This suggests that the Asaph psalmists drew deeply on the memory of YHWH’s gracious renewal of the Sinai covenant as they sought YHWH’s mercy and atonement for the nation’s sins. ‫ חנן‬occurs some two dozen or so times in the Psalter in appeals to YHWH to “be gracious,” usually as the stock plea: ‫חנני‬.22 Several instances occur in psalms we have already encountered above (e.g., Pss 51, 57, 86, and 102), while another, Ps 67:2, has stronger ties with different Mosaic 21.  Psalm 59:4–5 also contain ‫עון‬, ‫פשע‬, and ‫חטאה‬, but in the context of the psalmist protesting his innocence rather than citing YHWH’s forgiveness as in Exod 34:7. Psalm 109:14 also puts such terminology to different rhetorical use, for the psalmist desires that the ‫ עון‬and ‫ חטאה‬of the wicked be remembered (‫ )זכר‬rather than forgiven. 22.  Psalms 4:2; 6:3; 9:14; 25:16; 26:11; 27:7; 30:9, 11; 31:10; 41:5, 11; 51:3; 56:2; 57:2 (×2); 67:2; 86:3, 16; 102:14 (15); 119:29, 58, 132; 123:2, 3 (×2); and 142:2.

10. The Grace Formula in Exodus and the Psalter

217

covenant-related Pentateuchal texts (Num 6:24–27). It seems likely that the fuller expression of YHWH’s character as per Exod 34:6’s credo also underlies such pleas for grace elsewhere in the Psalter. To sum up: besides the full quotations of Exod 34:6 in Pss 86, 103, and 145, echoes of Exod 34:6(–7) occur in Pss 5, 25, 26, 32, 40, 51, 57, 61, 65, 69, 77, 78, 79, 85, 89, 102, 107, 108, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, and 138. Although the extent of lexical and syntactical overlap with Exod 34:6–7 varies, this list shows some 27 psalms wherein editors likely recognized allusions to this foundational description of YHWH’s attributes of grace, faithfulness, and forgiveness that he exercised when renewing the Sinaitic covenant. This list affords a few further observations. First, these psalms are spread throughout the Psalter, showing that the theology of the grace formula permeates all five books. Second, many of these psalms are consecutive (77–79; 102–103; 107–108; 111–112; 115–117). This further indicates that editors were aware of these allusions and used them as lexical and thematic connections between the psalms involved. This is especially apparent in Pss 78–79, 102–103, and 111–112. Third, the strong allusions in Book V (Pss 111–112 and 145) accentuate YHWH’s gracious (‫ )חנון‬character and occur in psalms that Zenger regards to be structurally important to that book; a point followed up in more detail in Chapter 13. Fourth, despite its Mosaic covenantal roots the psalmists and editors seem to have applied these echoes of the grace formula to “other” covenants as well (e.g., ‫ חסד ואמת‬in Ps 89:15). This is entirely in keeping with its versatility as evidenced in Numbers, Jonah, Joel, Nehemiah, and Nahum. It also sheds light on the covenants’ theological unity suggested by our survey of ‫ ;ברית‬namely, that their continuance and efficacy depends on YHWH’s renewing grace, love, forgiveness, and so on, and that therein lies a, or perhaps the, major locus of the historical covenants’ unity. Finally, at least 16 of the above psalms are Davidic, Davidized, or royal: Pss 5, 25, 26, 32, 40, 51, 57, 61, 65, 69, 89, 102, 108, 111, 112, 138, and probably 107 (see Chapter 13). This leaves Pss 77, 78, 79, 85, 115, 116, and 117, though we may recall that Ps 78 culminates with David. This confirms the impression given by Pss 86, 103, and 145 that the Psalter predominantly associates the formula with the Davidic king. Conclusion Several important outcomes arise from this chapter. First, our earlier review of scholarly literature on the grace formula showed both its importance to biblical theology and its versatility in other biblical contexts. At the same

218

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

time, studies of the formula in the Psalter usually presuppose a model like Wilson’s, illustrating the need to investigate it with an openness to other possibilities. Second, the grace formula’s original Exod 34 context indicates several major entailments: its association with the divine name “YHWH,” Moses’ intercessory role, and covenant renewal. The latter two are especially relevant to my proposal that the Psalter imbues David with an intercessory role in covenant renewal that was traditionally attributed to Moses. Third, the above survey work confirms the editorial importance of the grace formula and its theology within the Psalter, further justifying the next three chapters’ investigations of its fullest reiterations in Pss 86, 103, and 145 in the contexts of those psalms and their books. While our survey has already shown a strong connection to David, Chapters 11–13 offer a clearer view of how editors understood and employed the grace formula in relation to David and the covenant(s).

Chapter 11 T he G r a ce F orm ul a i n B ook I I I ( P salm 86:15)

The previous chapter observed the canonical importance of the grace formula and identified the divine name “YHWH,” Moses’ intercessory role, and covenant renewal as major theological entailments in its foundational context in Exod 34. What is more, Chapter 10 showed that the Psalter associates the grace formula especially with David at the editorial level. Did editors therefore expect covenant renewal through a Moses-like royal mediator? The next three chapters explore this possibility by investigating of use of the grace formula in Books III–V. The Grace Formula in Psalm 86 Nathan Lane describes the grace formula’s function in Ps 86:15 this way, “The psalmist uses the credo as an expression of the faithfulness of YHWH’s character and the reason why YHWH should come to the aid of this worshipper.”1 Thus, the formula serves as the basis of the psalmist’s petition to YHWH for help. Psalm 86 concludes: O God, insolent men have risen up against me; a band of ruthless men seeks my life, and they do not set you before them. But you, O Lord,2 are a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. Turn to me and be gracious to me; give your strength to your servant, and save the son of your maidservant. Show me a sign of your favor, that those who hate me may see and be put to shame because you, YHWH, have helped me and comforted me.

Unlike most appropriations of Exod 34:6 in the Prophets, Ps 86 does not use the formula to highlight a personal need for repentance and 1.  Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God, 118. 2.  MT has ‫אדני‬, notwithstanding MSS that have ‫יהוה‬. This is quite conspicuous given the grace formula’s close affinities with the name “YHWH” and Ps 86’s location outside the Elohistic Psalter. ‫ יהוה‬appears in v. 17, though a few MSS omit it there also.

220

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

forgiveness. Here Ps 25:6–7 provides an instructive contrast, where (historical) David alludes to the grace formula—albeit more obliquely— in a clear plea for YHWH’s mercy and favor for himself in view of his lifelong sinfulness, Remember your mercy (‫)רחמיך‬, O YHWH, and your steadfast love (‫)וחסדיך‬, for they have been from of old. Remember not the sins (‫ )חטאות‬of my youth or my transgressions (‫ ;)ופשעי‬according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, O YHWH!

By contrast, the psalmist in Ps 86 makes no pleas for forgiveness nor admits any guilt in his prayer.3 Throughout the opening verses the royal praying figure petitions YHWH to “answer me” (‫)ענני‬, “[b]e gracious to me” (‫)חנני‬, “[p]reserve my life” (‫)שמרה נפשי‬, “save” (‫)הושע‬, and “[g]ladden the soul of your servant” (‫)שמח נפש עבדך‬, but nowhere directly asks for forgiveness. Indeed, in v. 2 the psalmist refers to himself as “faithful,” ‫( חסיד‬a cognate of ‫)חסד‬, highlighting his fidelity to YHWH rather than the problem of sin.4 Jerome Creach rightly cautions that “righteousness” (‫צדק‬/‫ )צדקה‬in the Psalms normally has to do with trusting in YHWH rather than moral perfection,5 and the same could go for ‫חסיד‬ here. The point is not that ‫ חסיד‬proves the psalmist’s moral perfection but that the psalm lies open to such connotations and does not draw specific attention to the psalmist’s sin in any way. The psalmist’s problems about which he petitions YHWH are external, not internal: “insolent men have risen up against” the psalmist and “a band of ruthless men” seeks his life (v. 14), and he expects YHWH to demonstrate his gracious, compassionate, and faithful love by saving him amid these threats. The closest Ps 86 comes to the theme of sin or guilt is v. 5: “For you, O Lord, are good and forgiving (‫)וסלח‬.” Taking the psalm in isolation, one might infer from such an appeal to YHWH’s forgiving character that the psalmist seeks forgiveness for himself. But in addition to the “innocence” language of the psalm just noted, several considerations suggest that editors appropriated Ps 86’s “Prayer of David” as the prayer of an embattled and suffering royal intercessor for the people.6

3.  Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God, 121. 4.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 371, likewise observe that Ps 86 appeals “to the forgiving and merciful God without any hint of a confession of sin.” 5.  Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous, 2–5. 6.  Interestingly, “forgiving” is missing from 86:5 in the Syriac tradition, perhaps reflecting an attempt to keep v. 5 a “purer” allusion to the grace formula. Alternatively

11. The Grace Formula in Book III (Psalm 86:15)

221

First, the appearance of ‫ סלח‬with other grace-formula language in Ps 86 creates significant parallels with Exod 34:6–9 and Num 14:18–19, where Moses intercedes for the people. As an adjective, ‫ סלח‬is semantically equivalent to the participle ‫ נשא‬in Exod 34:7 and appears a few verses later as a finite verb in Moses’ petition in 34:9, “pardon (‫)וסלחת‬ our iniquity and our sin.” Interestingly, Num 14:18–19 employs both terms to similar effect. A cognate of the relatively rare ‫ סלח‬and the verb ‫ נשא‬both occur in Num 14:19 as Moses recalls his intercessory petition: “Please pardon (‫ )סלח־נא‬the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of your steadfast love, just as you have forgiven (‫)וכאשר נשאתה‬ this people, from Egypt until now.” This comes on the heels of the grace formula in v. 18. These similarities suggest a possible allusion in Ps 86, casting its praying “David” in terms reminiscent of Moses’ intercessory role in Exod 33–34 and Num 14. The confession that YHWH is “good” (‫ )טוב‬in Ps 86:5 adds another key term from YHWH’s original promise to display his “goodness” to Moses in Exod 33:19 later fulfilled in 34:6–7. By so describing YHWH, the psalmist seems to expect that YHWH once again show himself “good,” “forgiving,” and “full of mercy” (‫ )ורב־חסד‬as he had to Moses. These allusions suggest an identification of the Davidic praying figure with Moses as an intercessor, not an individual begging for forgiveness on his own behalf. Second, after vv. 3–4’s various appeals to YHWH to deal graciously (‫ )חנני‬with the psalmist and “gladden [his] soul” (‫)שמח נפש עבדך‬, v. 5 then describes YHWH’s liberality in showing forgiveness to “all who call upon you” (‫)לכל־קראיך‬. Strictly speaking, then, “all who call up on you” are the direct beneficiaries of divine forgiveness in v. 5 rather than the psalmist narrowly. It is a general statement, not a personal acknowledgment of guilt, and any connection between the psalmist’s suffering and personal guilt must be inferred. Admittedly, that inference is to some degree a natural one. But it must be asked how editors viewed the psalmist as they read and incorporated Ps 86. Was “David” praying for himself alone or the people of his kingdom? Psalm 86 can, however, be read as the prayer of an embattled king beseeching God to help his sinful people in an intercessory capacity. Indeed, v. 5’s confession puts YHWH and his character center stage—not the psalmist—and thus reminds him to act in accordance with it toward all who call on him, just as he had throughout the exodus and wilderness wanderings (esp. Exod 33–34; Num 14). the omission of “forgiving” may suggest the Syriac scribes understood the petitioning psalmist as having no personal cause to seek “forgiveness.” Of course, such conjectures are difficult to prove or disprove.

222

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Third, Ps 86’s context in the Korahite group suggests that it addresses popular guilt rather than royal. Psalm 85 pleads that YHWH renew his forgiveness toward “his people” (85:3–8), setting Ps 86 in the context the people’s experience of wrath and need for YHWH’s forgiveness. Psalm 85:3–4 even recalls YHWH’s past forgiveness to his people, “You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin” (‫נשאת עון עמך כסית‬ ‫)כל־חטאתם‬, and his turning aside “from [his] hot anger” (‫השיבות מחרון‬ ‫)אפך‬, whereupon vv. 5–8 petition YHWH to divert his anger and restore/ revive “us.” Then v. 9 anticipates the divine response via its cohortative, “Let me hear (‫ )אשמעה‬what God YHWH will speak.” Arguably, that proclamation is still coming in Davidic Ps 103 and its grace-formula language, but in keeping with Book III’s focus on the stricken/forsaken Davidic king seen especially in Ps 89, we first encounter a praying Davidic king in Ps 86 petitioning YHWH for help and appealing to the grace formula. Fourth, Hezekiah’s intercession in 2 Chr 30:18–20 offers a precedent for such a royal, intercessory role. There the royal intercessor petitions YHWH to pardon participants in the peace offering who had not been cleansed according to Levitical law. YHWH “hears” (‫ )שמע‬Hezekiah and “heals” (‫ )רפא‬the people in response to his prayer (v. 20). That editors should likewise view “David” in Ps 86 as one who intercedes for others amid his afflictions is therefore quite in keeping with other postexilic biblical literature. Finally, in Chapter 10 we observed that the different rhetorical uses of the grace formula in Books III–V broadly correspond to Asaph Ps 50:15’s divine commands. This would suggest that the Davidic psalmist “calls” on YHWH “in the day of trouble” (‫ )וקראני ביום צרה‬in Ps 86. While this is true of the whole psalm by virtue of its petitionary character, v. 7 directly says as much: “In the day of my trouble I call upon you” (‫)ביום צרתי אקראך‬. The next two chapters consider how closely Pss 103 and 145 reflect the other elements of 50:15 to which they may correspond. Psalm 86 in Its Book Context As discussed in Part I, authorial attribution plays a primary role in the editorial arrangement of Book III, which broadly speaking comprises two main author groups: Asaph Pss 73–83 and Korahite Pss 84–88 with Davidic Ps 86 at its center. Despite some obvious differences, the psalms bordering these two author groups (Pss 83–84) share the same genre (‫)מזמור‬, softening the transition between them.7 We also noted the 7.  Besides authorship, those superscriptional differences are ‫( שיר‬Ps 83) and ‫( למנצח על־הגתית‬Ps 84).

11. The Grace Formula in Book III (Psalm 86:15)

223

unique way in which Ps 88’s double superscript connects the preceding Korahite group with the final “Ezrahite” Ps 89 that concludes the Book, in contrast to the disjunctive transition from Ps 89 to Mosaic Ps 90.8 These superscriptional data thus underscore Book III as a purposefully arranged subunit of the Psalter. Within Book III Ps 86 offers the only exception to the editorial “softening” technique pointed out by Wilson, its superscript differing in authorial attribution and genre (‫)תפלה לדוד‬.9 Zenger and Hossfeld propose that editors inserted Ps 86 later.10 Whatever merit their suggestion might have, the presence of Davidic Ps 86 in the midst of the second Korahite group scarcely renders it unrecognizable as a group, though it does succeed in bringing David to prominence at the center of that group. Indeed, Ps 84:10 petitions God to “[b]ehold our shield” (‫)מגננו ראה‬, and “look on the face of your anointed” (‫)והבט פני משיחך‬. In the previous psalms, then, the Korahites already anticipate “David’s” prayer for help by praying for him themselves. Psalm 86 is therefore in keeping with the group, and arguably the Korahite group was created around a praying David as its central theological theme. Moreover, David is already central to the preceding Asaph group in Ps 78, where he appears at the theological climax in vv. 70–72 explored in Chapter 5. Other similarities discussed below further suggest that Davidic Ps 86 is at home in its present location among the Korahite psalms. On the other hand, Hossfeld’s and Zenger’s explanation of a later insertion seems an unnecessarily complicated one. Several observations about Book III are especially relevant to our investigation. First, the Asaph group concludes the so-called Elohistic Psalter, whereupon the Korahite group again takes up the name “YHWH” as the predominant term of divine address. Accordingly, Ps 86’s location at their center is consistent with the grace formula’s “name theology” entailments in Exod 34, for it shares the intimate and prayerful tone of the Korahite psalms that follow on the heels of the more historically oriented, didactic, and prophetic character of the Asaph Psalms, which accentuate God’s transcendence and judgment (e.g., Pss 78, 81, etc.).

8.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 165. 9.  Psalm 85’s superscript reads, ‫למנצח לבני קרח מזמור‬, and Ps 87’s reads, ‫לבני־קרח‬ ‫מזמור שיר‬. 10.  Recognizing phraseological similarities between Ps 86 and other psalms, Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 5 and 371, regard Ps 86 to be a late editorial creation drawing on older psalmody and inserted at the final redaction of the Psalter. Barber, Singing in the Reign, 93, notes the centrality of Davidic Ps 86 to the Korah II group as a point of interest.

224

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Second, Ps 78’s centrality to the Asaph group and its extraordinary length make it focal for the Asaph group.11 We noted in Chapter 5 that Ps 78 is didactic in character (vv. 1–4). Psalm 78 instructs its readers about Israel’s pattern of breaking faith with God and his consequent rejection of the northern tribes (v. 67) in favor or Judah, Zion, and “David” (vv. 68–72) at the end the psalm. Psalm 78 thus announces the election (‫ בחר‬in v. 70; cf. v. 68) of Judah, Zion, and “David” as YHWH’s response to Israel’s cyclical covenantal faithlessness. So, although David is mentioned only this once in the Asaph group, his appearance at the climax of this lengthy, centrally positioned psalm points squarely at kingship as God’s solution to his people’s perpetual infidelity. The structural significance of David’s centrality to the Asaph group increases dramatically when we observe his centrality also to the Korahite group via Ps 86, and the consistent way in which David is presented as “YHWH’s servant” in both places (cf. ‫ ויבחר בדוד עבדו‬in Ps 78:70; and ‫ עבדך‬in 86:2, 4, 16). Moreover, the same description of David ֹas YHWH’s “servant” appears a further three times in royal Ps 89 (vv. 4, 21, and 40).12 Thus, all three places that mention “David” in Book III reflect his status as YHWH’s servant. These observations suggest that David’s centrality to the Asaph and Korahite groups is deliberate, and that Book III’s editors sought to present “servant David” as theologically central to the whole book, not just Ps 89. David in the Asaph Group (73–83): Psalm 78:70–72 Psalm 78’s centrality to the Asaph group also raises the question of how “David” relates to the Asaph group as a whole. The best clues lie in Ps 78’s collocation with Ps 77 given conspicuous parallels between the concluding verses of each psalm. Psalm 77:20–21 reads, “Your way was through the sea, your path through the great waters; yet your footprints were unseen. You led your people like a flock (‫ )נחית כצאן עמך‬by the hand of (‫ )ביד‬Moses and Aaron.” Psalm 77 therefore ends with clear reference to the exodus and the shepherding motif, identifying “Moses and Aaron” as the leaders. Similarly, in Ps 78:72 God’s servant David “shepherded them” (‫ )וירעם‬with “upright heart” (‫ )כתם לבבו‬and “guided them (‫)ינחם‬ with his skillful hand (‫)ובתבונות כפיו‬.” The collocation of Pss 77–78 is far from random in light of this thematic and linguistic concatenation. 11.  Cf. Chapter 1, where we identified centrality as a sign of intentional editorial arrangement. 12.  See 89:4, “I have sworn to David my servant” (‫ ;)נשבעתי לדוד עבדי‬v. 21, “I have found David, my servant” (‫)מצאתי דוד עבדי‬, and v. 40, “You have renounced the covenant with your servant” (‫)נארתה ברית עבדך‬.

11. The Grace Formula in Book III (Psalm 86:15)

225

Several further observations suggest that the election of “David” in Ps 78 entails a Mosaic role as shepherd of the people. First, earlier in 78:52–53 we read that God “led out his people like sheep (‫)ויסע כצאן עמו‬ and guided them in the wilderness like a flock” and “led them (‫ )וינחם‬in safety.” As Christine Jones notes, this portion of Ps 78 recalls further the exodus and wilderness wandering where Moses’ leadership was focal. Jones observes that 78:52–53 resumes the shepherd/flock motif already seen in 77:20.13 Within Ps 78 itself, though, we see the movement to apply this shepherding motif and its traditional Mosaic overtones to David as the shepherd through whom God cared for his flock. It would seem, then, that editors’ collocation of Pss 77–78 was motivated by a similar “Moses to David” shift. Second, Ps 77 does not identify Moses as “YHWH’s servant” (cf. Deut 34:5), whereas Ps 78 clearly does describe David this way—a point that has broader significance in Book III, as we have seen. Moreover, while 77:20 only briefly refers to Moses and Aaron by whose “hand” YHWH led his flock, 78:70–72 lingers on David’s vocation as shepherd more intensely, accentuating David’s “understanding” (‫ )תבונה‬as the instrument by which he shepherds (‫ )וירעם‬and guides (‫ )ינחם‬his people (cf. ‫ לרעות‬in v. 71). Indeed, the reference to David’s “upright heart” (‫ )כתם לבבו‬makes it more natural to read David as the subject of the verbs in v. 72 rather than YHWH. Moreover, this reference also seems to characterize kingship by whole-hearted devotion to YHWH in accordance to the Shema and its associated commands, in keeping with Chapter 7’s findings. Third, in Chapter 5 we suggested that editors likely understood “David” in Ps 78:70 not as a restrictive reference to the founding figure of the Davidic monarchy, but to the royal office embodied in a present or future (eschatological?) king. This not only fits Ps 78’s contemporizing of historical traditions to later situations, but also Book III’s focus on the “present David”—whether that be amid the crisis of the historical exile (Wilson) or an eschatological one (Mitchell). This is seen most clearly in Ps 89, whose horizon clearly embraces Davidides beyond the founding figure of the Davidic dynasty when it speaks of “David.” To be sure, YHWH made his promises to the historical David, but the rub comes with the present/future Davidide who now experiences God’s apparent rejection, and it is upon his fortunes that Ps 89 focuses. Understood thus, there is a strong, virtually seamless continuity between the original David to whom YHWH had made his promises in the Davidic covenant and the present, “rejected” David. Promises made to 13.  Jones, “The Psalms of Asaph,” 87.

226

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

the historical David are promises for later Davidides, and the rejection of later Davidides is viewed as the rejection of the historical David to whom those promises were first made (e.g., Ps 89). This in turn suggests that Book III’s editors viewed the reference to David in 78:70–72 in the same way—not as a purely nostalgic, historical, exclusive reference to the historical David’s care of God’s people. If this is correct, then editors understood “David” in 78:70 denoting the royal office, not merely the historical David in a restrictive sense. This also coheres with our analysis of the 72:20 postscript, that editors understood “David” thereafter in terms of someone other than the historical David; that is, his successor(s). As the very next mention of David after 72:20, Ps 78’s historic yet contemporizing perspective fittingly transitions between the historical David as founding figure of the Davidic covenant and the Psalter’s burgeoning primary focus on the royal office occupied by a post-David “David.” The juxtaposition of Ps 79 with Ps 78 indicates a further transition. Psalm 77 celebrates the Mosaic era of the exodus and Ps 78 celebrates “servant David” as YHWH’s answer to Israel’s historic covenantal faithlessness. Then comes Ps 79’s lament that the nations have defiled and destroyed God’s inheritance (vv. 1–4), which at the editorial level depicts some kind of exile, as does Ps 80 after it. Psalm 79 is silent about David, though it laments the destroyed temple in v. 1, taking up once more the major issue of Ps 74. Rather than dwell directly on the fortunes of the king, Ps 79 laments the spilled “blood of [God’s] servants” (‫ דם־עבדיך‬in v. 10) and like its two predecessors concludes with a pastoral motif in v. 13’s use of covenant-formula language, “we your people, the sheep of your pasture…etc.” (‫)ואנחנו עמך וצאן מרעיתך‬. Thus Ps 79 shifts the focus from David as servant to the people as God’s servants. Psalm 80:2 continues the shepherd/sheep motif, addressing God as “Shepherd of Israel” in its plea for restoration of God’s people. Nevertheless it is unlikely that the editors responsible for Book III understood a simplistic historical “progression” from (historical) David to exilic people as though kingship were now left behind. For one thing, a similar shift from David as “servant” to people as “servants” can be seen in Ps 89. There the threefold reference to David as ‫ עבד‬is followed by a final petition to YHWH to “[r]emember…how your servants (‫ )עבדיך‬are mocked” (v. 51). Yet, as noted in Chapter 5, this psalm binds together the fortunes of king and people—of servant and servants. This suggests that Book III’s editors were not disposed to read Ps 79’s silence about David as though kingship were no longer God’s answer to Israel’s Mosaic covenantal failings. On the contrary, the silence concerning “David” only distances him from any culpability regarding the divine judgment through

11. The Grace Formula in Book III (Psalm 86:15)

227

exile, which contrasts sharply with how the Deuteronomic History assessed the situation of the historic exile.14 Indeed, we have already noted the lack of “fault” in David in Ps 89 as well as Ps 78’s diagnosis of Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness. Looking beyond Ps 78’s immediate neighbors, Ps 81:12–17’s admonition to God’s people continues in the same vein as Ps 78, lamenting that “my people did not listen to my voice” or “walk in my ways” (vv. 12–14). Its placement after Pss 79–80 thus offers the reason for the destruction and enemy oppression lamented in those psalms. God would “soon subdue their enemies” if only his people would listen to him (vv. 14–15). The enemies continue to be a problem through to the end of the Asaph group—seen especially in Ps 83:5–9’s league of ten nations that conspire against God. Yet Pss 78 and 81 make it clear that the people’s covenant unfaithfulness towards God is to blame, not “David,” adding weight to the suggestion that for the editors David remains God’s solution to that problem as 78:70–72 had declared. Nor is Ps 80:2’s application of the shepherd motif to YHWH significantly different from its application in Pss 77–78, for God consistently shepherded his people throughout those psalms too (77:20; 78:52– 53)—78:70 signaling a shift of agency from Moses to David. If different, earlier editors arranged the Asaph group than were responsible for Book III as a whole, then it may be possible to argue that those earlier editors intended a supercessional, quasi-dispensationalist “progression” from era to era, but this is very unlikely in my view. Jones seems to read the Pss 78–79 sequence in this way, describing it as “jarring for the reader,” and inviting “a reassessment of the Zion–David theology,” which echoes Wilson’s view of the Davidic covenant in the Psalter and follows a similar historicizing approach.15 But this view ill fits the editorial shape of Book III overall in which David remains central and focal (Pss 86; 89). David as the Central Figure of the Korahite Group (84–88): Psalm 86 As noted above, Ps 86’s “Davidic” petitioner describes himself as faithful (‫ )חסיד‬to YHWH (v. 2) and petitions YHWH for help because insolent and ruthless men threaten his life. The psalmist admits no guilt in his prayer, nor identifies any internal cause for the crisis he faces. This is also consistent with the way Book III elsewhere presents “David.” At the 14.  This dissimilarity of assessment may result from a different, eschatological exile as these psalms’ interpretive horizon (cf. Mitchell), rather than represent a different take on the same historical circumstances prior to 587 that the Deuteronomic History addresses. 15.  Jones, “The Psalms of Asaph,” 90 (also 187).

228

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

end of Book III, Ps 89 laments YHWH’s apparent rejection of “David” (v. 39), also without naming any fault in the king. Taking OT historiography as our point of comparison, Ps 89’s silence about this is remarkable. The Deuteronomic History focuses especially on the unfaithfulness of kings as the chief reason for YHWH’s judgment and the exile. Psalm 89, however, throws the ball completely in God’s court. The crisis is YHWH’s inaction and apparent breach of his promises to David. Such a picture of David coheres with Ps 78 also, for an unfaithful king could scarcely solve the nation’s perpetual faithlessness. When we draw all this together the following picture emerges from Book III: David, YHWH’s servant, appeals to YHWH’s gracious character expressed in the grace formula to aid him and the people he shepherds against the “insolent” and “ruthless.” Furthermore, 86:9 reflects the extension of God’s love and mercy to all nations: “All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name.” Although the psalmist ostensibly prays for himself, ultimately his plea benefits all nations, reconciling them to YHWH. Indeed, the inclusion of the gentiles is a major concern of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants (cf. Ps 72:17 and Chapter 9) and other OT appropriations of the grace formula. In Jonah 4:2, for instance, it applies specifically to YHWH’s mercy toward the people of Nineveh, the enemy of Israel. Moreover, Ps 86 seems to offer echoes of Isaianic theology in these respects, which gives prominent place to the restorative role of the servant (cf. Isa 40–55) and the eschatological ingathering of the nations to worship YHWH (e.g., Isa 25). Isaiah’s second Servant Song culminates with YHWH’s declaration to his servant: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (49:6). Similarly Ps 86’s Davidic psalmist—YHWH’s servant!—prays to the ultimate benefit of the nations. Korahite Ps 87 then reinforces the theme of the inclusion of non-Israelites in Zion (vv. 4–7), Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon; behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush—“This one was born there,” they say. And of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”; for the Most High himself will establish her. YHWH records as he registers the peoples, “This one was born there.”

When we consider the relationship between Ps 86 and the Korahite psalms to the proceeding Asaph group, there arise several other indications that editors viewed “David” as having a theologically central place in this

11. The Grace Formula in Book III (Psalm 86:15)

229

theme of the nations’ inclusion as well as the renewal of the sanctuary. The Asaph Psalms conclude the so-called Elohistic portion of the Psalter, and are marked by a relatively greater focus on God’s judgment. By contrast the Korahite psalms are more intimate and prayerful in tone and reflect a more directed interest in Zion, as is characteristic of Korahite psalms (e.g., Pss 46 and 48). The transition between the groups is instructive here. Psalm 83 laments a league of ten nations conspiring against God and petitions him to make an end of them (vv. 6–19). On the other hand, Korahite Ps 84 changes the tone completely when it expresses the psalmist’s delight in YHWH’s sanctuary in Zion. Even more striking, however, is the purpose for which Ps 87 presents its similarly styled list of nations. Whereas Ps 83 lamented and decried Edom, the Ishmaelites, Moab, the Hagrites, Gebal, Ammon, Amalek, Philistia, Tyre, and Asshur, Ps 87:4–6 celebrates the inclusion of Rahab, Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, and Cush, who will be regarded as natives of Zion. As noted above, however, Ps 86 already announces, “[a]ll the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name.” Within the broader structure of Book III, then, editors seem to have placed a praying David at the heart of this perspectival shift concerning the nations. Nor is it surprising that “David’s” appeal to the grace formula in Ps 86 should be nestled among the Korahite psalms with their interest in the sanctuary, for this reflects the same close association between the grace formula, covenant renewal, and the sanctuary as found in Exod 25–40. In Exodus, the tabernacle can only be constructed after YHWH graciously renews covenant through Moses as covenant mediator (Exod 32–34). In like manner Ps 87’s “On the holy mount stands the city he founded; YHWH loves the gates of Zion” follows directly from David’s appeal to YHWH’s grace and mercy in Ps 86. In the next chapter we will explore Davidized Ps 102, which also reflects this theme. Also a “prayer (‫ )תפלה‬of one afflicted,” Ps 102 announces YHWH’s restoration of Zion and the fear of kings and nations. “Of David” or “For David?” A further question requires attention; namely, whether editors understood ‫ תפלה לדוד‬atop Ps 86 as “David’s prayer” or “a prayer for David.” Zenger takes the latter view: “Psalm 86 is and remains first of all a ‘prayer for David,’ for the messianic king and for his messianic people, as the references to royal Psalm 72, but also to royal Psalm 89, which closes Book III, emphasize.”16 Granted, it could be argued that the intercessory tone 16.  Erich Zenger, “Zion as Mother of the Nations in Psalm 87,” in Lohfink and Zenger, The God of Israel and the Nations, 159.

230

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

of the surrounding Korahite prayers and Ps 89’s lament for the Davidic monarchy support an editorial rereading of ‫ לדוד‬atop Ps 86 as a lamed of advantage as was the case with ‫ לשלמה‬in Ps 72’s superscript. The editorial evidence makes this unlikely, however. First, Zenger and Lohfink’s appeal to Ps 72 as a precedent for this kind of editorial rereading of the lamed auctoris offers no specific reason why the same editorial move should apply to Ps 86. On the other hand, David replaces Solomon as the praying subject of Ps 72 because the editorial comment in v. 20 specifically indicates that editors reread it so. This is not the case for Ps 86, and Ps 72 can offer nothing more than a general precedent for such a rereading. Second, Ps 78’s prior description of David as God’s “servant” and Ps 89’s threefold affirmation of this appellation strongly suggests that editors recognized David as the praying subject of Ps 86 given his threefold selfreference as “your servant” (see above). Indeed, since both Pss 78 and 86 are central to their respective collections and since Ps 78 attributes to David an active role in leading his people, it is far more likely that editors identified the self-proclaimed servant of YHWH in Davidic Ps 86 in terms of the Davidic office first introduced in Book III at 78:70. The editor(s) of Book III apparently viewed an incumbent of the Davidic royal office to be the praying subject of Ps 86, not the one prayed for. Conclusion Psalm 86:15 is foundational to the psalmist’s petition in that psalm, which depicts “David” petitioning YHWH for help and basing his appeal in the grace formula as Moses had done (Num 14:18). Similarly, the final verses of Pss 77 and 78 suggested that the royal Davidic office supersedes Moses’s shepherding role. On the one hand, Ps 86 most obviously petitions YHWH to vindicate the psalmist from those who seek his life. On the other hand, Ps 86’s Davidic attribution broadens the potential beneficiaries of the prayer: the king prays for YHWH’s vindication, but king and people both stand to benefit from such vindication. Indeed, Book III’s final, twofold petition for “David” and “your faithful ones” in Ps 89:50–51 also parallels the fortunes of king and people, giving an important clue concerning how editors understood the Davidic psalmist’s petition in Ps 86. Arguably, Ps 86 functions as a royal act of intercession. We also observed that the praying “David” of Ps 86 is YHWH’s “servant” in Book III and, as one embattled and rejected by YHWH (Ps 89), resembles Isaiah’s suffering servant. Servant David appears at the center of both major author groups in Book III (Pss 78 and 86), attesting to his theological and structural importance in that book despite the relative

11. The Grace Formula in Book III (Psalm 86:15)

231

dearth of Davidic psalms there. As Mitchell argues, David is a shepherd to his people but stricken (Pss 78:70–72; 89:39–46, 50), very like Zech 13 depicts.17 Moreover, David’s first introduction in Ps 78:70–72 makes him central to YHWH’s solution to Israel’s cycle of rebellion. This suggests that editors regarded Ps 86 as the prayer of a royal figure central to covenant renewal, and whose role vis-à-vis the people is comparable to Moses and Israel throughout the golden calf and wilderness wandering traditions. That both 77:20 and 78:71 employ the shepherd– sheep motif to describe these figures’ relationships to the people invites such comparison. This also sets Ps 86’s passing description of YHWH as “forgiving” (v. 5) in a greater theological context. If “servant David” is YHWH’s solution to Israel’s perennial covenant faithlessness, then he must have some role in procuring YHWH’s forgiveness for the people; a role underscored by his prayerful use of the grace formula in addressing YHWH “in his day of trouble” (v. 7).

17.  See Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 201, 253–58.

Chapter 12 T he G r a c e F orm ul a i n B ook I V ( P salm 103:8)

Psalm 103’s use on the Day of Atonement is not surprising. It stands unrivaled in its declaration of YHWH’s mercy and forgiveness in the Psalter. The whole psalm celebrates the forgiveness of sins as YHWH had declared it to Moses in the grace formula. The Grace Formula in Psalm 103 Verses 7–14 read, He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the people of Israel. YHWH is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever. He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his steadfast love toward those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. As a father shows compassion to his children, so YHWH shows compassion to those who fear him. For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust.

Here the Davidic psalmist overtly recalls God’s self-revelation to Moses as he declares YHWH’s love for his people by the forgiveness of sins. In doing so he applies the grace formula to his contemporaries throughout the instruction that follows. The psalmist thus does not recall the grace formula merely as reported speech from the historic past but contemporizes and addresses it to the present. It is of course natural to read Ps 103’s proclamation of God’s forgiveness in such a way as would include the psalmist among recipients of that forgiveness, for the psalmist opens with a twofold, “Bless YHWH, O my soul,” before praising YHWH as one, “who forgives all your iniquity (‫)הסלח לכל־עונכי‬,1 who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life 1.  The f. sg. suffix refers to ‫נפש‬. On the other hand, 4QPsb has a m. sg. suffix (‫)ך‬.

12. The Grace Formula in Book IV (Psalm 103:8)

233

from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy.” But when announcing the grace formula David declares YHWH’s mercy toward “all who are oppressed” (‫ לכל־עשוקים‬in v. 6), “those who fear him” (‫ יראיו‬in v. 13), and humanity more generally (‫ אנוש‬in v. 15), without accentuating his personal guilt. Any iniquity on the part of the psalmist must be inferred from v. 3, and in any case quickly fades as the psalm announces YHWH’s lavish mercy on “grass-like” humankind. So without pushing the point too far, Ps 103 is amenable to being read as “David’s” proclamation of YHWH’s forgiveness to sinners with whom he—as one acquainted with “the pit,” etc.—identifies. Moreover, Ps 103’s use of the expression, “Bless YHWH” (‫ברכו יהוה‬/‫ )ברכי‬marks a move within the psalm from personal praise to calling on others to “bless YHWH,” forming an inclusio about the psalm in terms of name theology. In vv. 20–22 the psalmist concludes as he began in vv. 1–2, again calling on his soul to bless YHWH after calling on the angelic beings to do the same: “Bless YHWH, O you his angels…all his hosts…all his works.” A very similar shift from personal to universal praise occurs in the final Halleluiah Pss 146–150 introduced by “David” in 145:21 (see Chapter 13). It is also hard to miss the lexical resemblance between the Psalter’s doxologies and these commands to “bless YHWH,” for the doxologies punctuate the Psalter with what amounts to a response to this very command. How editors understood Ps 103 is best determined from its contextual use, however. As shown below, Ps 103’s participation in the Pss 101–103 grouping and the consistent first-person speech throughout these psalms suggest an editorial perspective whereby the king identifies with sinful humankind and acts on their behalf; Ps 101’s presentation of the ideal king amplifying his blamelessness. Moreover, several key features within Pss 101–103 affirm editorial and theological interests already seen in Book III, and suggest that very similar theological concerns drive the editorial use of the formula in both books. In sum, Ps 103 puts the grace formula to very different rhetorical use from Ps 86. Whereas “David” uses the grace formula to petition YHWH in his “day of trouble” in Ps 86, here he uses it in direct proclamation of YHWH’s forgiving character as YHWH himself had done before Moses in Exod 34:6. Functionally, then, David announces God’s forgiving way toward people in Ps 103 and, in the terminology of Ps 50:15, announces God’s “deliverance.”

234

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Psalm 103 in Its Book Context Compared to Books I–III, authorship plays a lesser role in the organization of Book IV. Apart from Mosaic Ps 90 and Davidic Pss 101 and 103, no other psalms bear authorial attribution. Nevertheless, Pss 102’s “prayer (‫ )תפלה‬of one afflicted” is Davidized by the same sandwiching technique observed in Pss 10, 33, and 66–67.2 Given this state of affairs scholars have fruitfully explored other kinds of editorial evidence in their efforts to elucidate the structure of Book IV, particularly the concatenation of lexemes and important themes and the pairing of psalms in Pss 101–106. There is general agreement that Pss 93–100 are of central and programmatic importance in Book IV.3 According to Hossfeld and Zenger, Pss 90–92 have a transitional function between the so-called Messianic Psalter (i.e., Pss 2–89) and the Pss 93–100 group declaring YHWH’s reign. Psalms 101–106 “show themselves to be a later, paired translation, explication, and concretization of the theme of Yhwh’s royal sovereignty,”4 and Book IV responds to the Messianic Psalter with a “theocratic” message befitting post-exilic life.5 At the same time Zenger suggests that all six psalms come under David’s authority.6 Michael McKelvey structures Book IV similarly to Hossfeld and Zenger, but divides it into four main sections. For him the kingship of YHWH Pss 93–100 and a Davidic group in Pss 101–104 are framed by two distinctively Mosaic groups in Pss 90–92 and the historical psalm pair 105–106.7 David Howard sees a “tripartite division made up of Psalms 90–94, 95–100, and 101–6.”8 Despite the variety of opinion most seem to agree that the transition from the Mosaic/kingship of YHWH groups of psalms in Pss 90–100 to Davidic Ps 101 and subsequent psalms is marked by relatively greater disjunction.9 Accordingly, we shall examine Ps 103 in relation to its 2.  Cf. Zenger, “The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalms 90–106),” 183, who draws the same conclusion about the quasi-Davidic status of Ps 102, but for different reasons. 3.  See esp. Howard, The Structure of Psalms 93–100, and more recently McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh. 4.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 2, 7. 5.  Zenger, “The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalms 90–106),” 161. 6.  Zenger, “The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalms 90–106),” 190. 7.  McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 272–77. 8.  Howard, The Structure of Psalms 93–100, 166. 9.  E.g., McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 266, recognizes a “clear break” between Pss 100 and 101, but nonetheless observes a

12. The Grace Formula in Book IV (Psalm 103:8)

235

immediate context (101–104), in relation to the first major groupings of psalms (90–100), and then Pss 105–106 as the concluding psalm pair of Book IV. Psalm 103 in its Immediate Context: Psalms 101–104 As was the case in Book III, Davidic psalms are rare but appear carefully placed in Book IV. Psalm 103 is the second of two psalms attributed to David in Book IV. The first, Ps 101, is a royal psalm in which “David” declares his commitment to YHWH’s way (vv. 2–4), promises to destroy and cut off slanderers, the arrogant, the wicked, and evildoers from the land (vv. 5, 7–8), and will look favorably towards the faithful of the land (v. 6). The royal speaker of Ps 101 thus speaks and acts according to an ideal of YHWH’s vice-regent, establishing God’s justice in a manner consistent with Ps 72.10 Indeed, these two royal psalms offer a consistent picture of the king as one who does justice (‫)משפט‬, suggesting that Book IV’s editors understood the royal speaker of Ps 101 in the same ideal terms as David’s successor in Ps 72. As Kselman notes, the psalmist’s resolve to “walk with integrity of heart” (‫ )אתהלך בתם־לבבי‬also echoes the description of David in Ps 78:72 who “with upright heart…shepherded them” (‫)כתם לבבו‬.11 Michael McKelvey’s carefully nuanced analysis merits discussion. For McKelvey Ps 101 “reminds the audience of both the king’s responsibilities as God’s representative and, subsequently, the failure of Judahite kings to reflect the righteousness of YHWH.”12 At the same time McKelvey sees an eschatological dimension to Ps 101 whereby God’s “fidelity to the general thematic connection: “Psalm 101 is a Davidic royal psalm that emphasises the righteous purposes of the king, who must emulate the Great High King” (i.e., YHWH). 10.  John S. Kselman, “Psalm 101: Royal Confession and Divine Oracle,” JSOT 33 (1985): 45–62, believes that Ps 101 comprises an introduction (vv. 1–2), the king’s protestation of innocence (vv. 3–5), and a divine oracle by which YHWH responds to the king (vv. 6–7). Kselman’s subtle structural analysis argues that ‫ לנגד עיני‬in vv. 3 and 7 refers to two different sets of eyes: the king’s in v. 3 and YHWH’s in v. 7 (comparing Pss 17:2; 33:18; 34:16–17; Jer 5:2–4 and 16:17). Kselman’s interesting explanation is nonetheless unconvincing, since other precedents of the “eyes of YHWH” motif in the Psalms carry little weight when Ps 101 itself applies the expression to the king in v. 3. 11.  Kselman, “Psalm 101,” 51. Besides these instances in 78:72 and 101:2, the term ‫ תם‬only occurs in Davidic Pss 7:9; 25:21; 26:1, 11; and 41:13—each time a quality of the Davidic psalmist. 12.  McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 177.

236

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

promise he made to David continues.”13 This latter point coheres well with the editorial perspective on kingship seen throughout this investigation so far. But whether editors sought to accentuate the failure of historical kings via Ps 101 is more questionable, even though Ps 101 might elicit that memory for a postexilic audience. Indeed, such editorial use of Ps 101 relies heavily on two assumptions. First, it assumes that the primary reason for Ps 101’s inclusion is to explain the confusion of the historical exile expressed in Ps 89. One issue here is that this explanation precludes the possibility that Ps 89 reflects eschatological exile as Mitchell proposes, even if McKelvey otherwise sees an eschatological and messianic relevance to Ps 101. We may also ask how Ps 101 responds to Ps 89. Does it supply a further layer of explanation for why the exile took place in addition to, for example, Ps 106? Or does it announce a coming king’s mediatory role in setting things right, whose appearance on the scene in this psalm affirms YHWH’s faithfulness to the Davidic covenant so strongly expressed in Ps 89? Although envisioning a future for kingship—and notwithstanding its other qualities—McKelvey’s analysis saddles Ps 101 with an editorial function of proclaiming royal culpability for the historical exile, which is at best very understated in the psalm and quite at odds with Ps 89’s own witness in that respect (see Chapter 5). This brings us to McKelvey’s second assumption: that Ps 101 functions as a lament together with Ps 102. McKelvey sees these psalms reflecting the failure of Davidic kings as part of Book IV’s response to the exile.14 Yet Ps 101 consists of a series of resolutions rather than laments. Indeed, the royal speaker in Ps 101 does not overtly lament anything in the psalm except the wicked whom he resolves to destroy, and this is at most an interior lament (vv. 5–8).15 Nor does the psalm elicit the historical memory of unfaithful kings, except very obliquely via contrast with the faithful king it presents—as is the thread of McKelvey’s argument. It is therefore questionable whether lamenting faithless kings from history 13.  McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 178. 14.  McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 180, 191–92, 267, 313–315. 15.  McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 176 n. 17, further explains why he understands Ps 101 as a lament, his strongest evidence being the interrogative ‫ מתי‬in v. 2, “when will you come to me.” McKelvey cites Allen with approval, who summarizes Ps 101 as “a royal complaint, more precisely a psalm of innocence” (Allen, Psalms 101–150, 4). The latter part of Allen’s description seems the more accurate, however, given the psalmist’s sustained focus on what he resolves to do.

12. The Grace Formula in Book IV (Psalm 103:8)

237

can be a major editorial function of Ps 101, since it appears to force an unnatural sense upon it. The plainer sense of Ps 101—with its Davidic “I” as speaker—rather suggests that this ideal royal figure praises and reflects YHWH’s “steadfast love and justice” (‫ חסד־ומשפט‬in v. 1), resolving to establish such ‫ משפט‬throughout the rest of the psalm (cf. Ps 72:1). He is thus instrumental in realizing the vision of the previous psalms (Pss 93–100). Between the two Davidic psalms in Book IV, we find anonymous Ps 102, whose title reads: “A prayer of one afflicted, when he is faint and pours out his complaint before YHWH.” Sandwiched between these two Davidic psalms, the afflicted psalmist of Ps 102 is thus apparently “David.” Its placement here is therefore significant, for it again shows an afflicted David (cf. Pss 86 and 89) right after encountering Ps 101’s more usual if idealized presentation of the anointed king who establishes justice. Indeed, some of Ps 102’s petitions closely resemble those of Ps 86 (e.g., “Incline your ear to me” [‫ ]הטה־אלי אזנך‬and “answer me” [‫]ענני‬ in v. 3 [cf. 86:1]). As in Ps 86, the problem is not the psalmist’s own sin and need of repentance, but enemies who taunt and attack, leaving the embattled psalmist struck down, groaning, tearful, and so on (vv. 4–12). Yet the psalmist envisages not merely his own restoration, but also and especially that of Zion, which he proclaims in v. 14. As seen in Chapter 10, v. 14 uses key terms of the grace formula in this respect: YHWH “will arise and have pity (‫ )רחם‬on Zion” since, “it is the time to favor her (‫)לחננה‬,” echoing the distinctive combination “compassionate and gracious” (‫ )רחום וחנון‬in the formula. Psalm 102 therefore anticipates the grace formula declared by “David” in Ps 103, highlighting its importance there and applying this profound expression of God’s love to the holy mountain on which his people worship. Scholars have often noted the apparently deliberate pairing of Ps 104 with Ps 103. This is reflected most obviously in their common opening, “Bless YHWH O my soul” (‫)ברכי נפשי את־יהוה‬. Hossfeld and Zenger point out numerous other features shared by these psalms as well, including their depictions of YHWH as a king in his heavenly court (103:19–22 and 104:3) and the theme of renewal (Ps 103:5 and 104:30).16 These observations are consistent with our proposal concerning Book IV, namely, that Pss 101–104 present a coming king through whom YHWH would realize the vision of Pss 93–100. Moreover, these themes take on cosmic dimensions in Ps 104, which affirms YHWH’s sustenance and ordering of the created realm. Psalm 104 thus reflects concerns central to 16.  See Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 57–59.

238

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

the Noahic covenant also. Chapter 5 briefly noted that David’s throne is “a faithful witness in the skies” (‫ )ועד בשחק נאמן‬in Ps 89:38 similar to the rainbow set “in the cloud” (‫ ;בענן‬Gen 9:13) in the Noahic covenant (cf. 148:6 discussed in Chapter 7). By pairing Ps 104 with Davidic Ps 103, it is possible editors similarly sought to Davidize its cosmic and Noahic covenant-like perspective, casting “David” as proclaimer of YHWH’s cosmic renewal, a point consistent with the universalized perspective regarding “land” in the Psalter (Chapter 8). Finally, Ps 104 concludes, “Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more!” followed by “Bless YHWH, O my soul” forming an inclusio with v. 1. This echoes the same resolve expressed by the king in Ps 101, affirming its thematic importance and suggesting David’s instrumental role in Ps 104’s vision. Altogether in Pss 101–104 we see “David” vowing to establish YHWH’s justice, afflicted and in distress because of enemies, petitioning YHWH for help, declaring YHWH’s forgiving way with humankind (especially Zion), calling on heaven and earth to “bless” YHWH for his forgiveness, and praising YHWH for sustaining all creation. This composite picture echoes the different dimensions of “David” already encountered throughout the Psalter (i.e., Pss 2, 72, and 89): a suffering “David” puts an end to wickedness, identifies with the people and intercedes for them, announces the time for restoration for Zion, and proclaims God’s forgiving way via the grace formula. Psalm 103 and Psalms 90–100 In Chapter 8 we observed the strong thematic and theological overlap between the kingship of YHWH psalm group and Moses’ Song of the Sea in Exod 15. If this “new song” (cf. Pss 96 and 98) implies a new exodus, then the placement of Pss 101–103(104) directly afterward suggests that “David” functions analogously to Moses, YHWH’s servant, by whom he saved his people in the historic exodus. These Mosaic attributes overlap with those arising from Pss 101–103’s composite picture of “David.” “David” identifies with sinners and proclaims YHWH’s restoration of Zion (Ps 102), and declares YHWH’s character as gracious and compassionate (Ps 103). Moses had identified with the suffering Hebrews like YHWH (Exod 2:11–12; cf. 2:23–25; 3:7; 6:5) and later appealed to the grace formula when interceding for the people (Num 14:18). Psalms 101–103 present David doing exactly this. We shall return to Moses’ presence in Book IV below. It would seem, then, that editors intended the “David” of Pss 101– 103(104) as an instrumental figure in realizing a new-exodus vision created by the preceding psalms. Also noteworthy is that the warnings

12. The Grace Formula in Book IV (Psalm 103:8)

239

about idolatry in 96:4–5 and 97:7 lie centrally within the 93–100 group.17 These warnings in Pss 96–97 are contrasted by the proper worship of YHWH in the group (e.g., 95 and 100) and recognize idolatry as a threat to that vision just as the golden calf had jeopardized the covenant relationship at Sinai (Exod 32). Then comes David’s grace-formulaic proclamation of God’s fatherly compassion and forgiving character in Ps 103, which, being located after the 93–100 group, appears to be instrumental in the realization of that group’s vision just as Moses’ mediatory role and YHWH’s proclamation of the grace formula were central to Israel’s restoration in Exod 32–34. Moreover, the 93–100 group also brings into focus the needs of the righteous vis-à-vis the wicked who threaten them. Psalm 94:16 even asks, “Who rises up for me against the wicked? Who stands up for me against evildoers?” The king’s vows in Ps 101 offer a direct answer to that and similar implied questions. Its royal speaker presents himself as one who, like YHWH, would look upon the meek and cut off the wicked. Thus, Pss 101–103 present “David” as the instrumental figure in the fulfilment of Pss 93–100’s vision, who destroys the wicked and protects the righteous (Ps 101), proclaiming the divine grace and mercy (Ps 103). Finally, Ps 103’s use of the grace formula elicits Book IV’s introductory psalm in significant ways. Mosaic Ps 90 begins Book IV by underscoring the transience and frailty of human life in vv. 3–11 and connects these with the wrath of God and human iniquity. Psalm 103:15–16 repeats the “grass” motif (‫ כחציר‬in v. 15; cf. 90:5), but whereas Moses says to YHWH, “You have set our iniquities before you” (‫)שת עונתינו לנגדך‬ in 90:8, in Ps 103:10 the Davidic psalmist declares that YHWH “does not…repay us according to our iniquities” (‫)ולא כעונתינו גמל עלינו‬. It seems, then, that Ps 103 uses the formula to answer the Mosaic petition in Ps 90:12–17, in which Moses beseeches YHWH, “Return (‫)שובה‬, O YHWH! How long? Have pity (‫ )והנחם‬on your servants!” (v. 13; cf. Ps 89:47, 50). David’s mediatory role between YHWH and the people in Ps 103, then, is not so much exercised through intercessory prayer but by voicing YHWH’s side of the divine–human conversation, as reflected by Ps 103’s extensive use of the grace formula. By so proclaiming YHWH’s gracious response to the transitory and frail nature of sinful humanity voiced by Moses, “David” repeats and expands on YHWH’s own selfrevelation as he had given it to Moses in 34:6 and acts as his mouthpiece. Of course, within the composite picture presented in Ps 101–103, David continues to intercede as one embattled (Ps 102; cf. Ps 86). So although 17.  McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 114, notes this theme among the conjunctive features shared by Pss 96–97.

240

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Book IV highlights Moses’ traditional role as petitioner for Israel, his prayer (‫ )תפלה‬in Ps 90 is taken up and amplified in Ps 102’s Davidized prayer (‫)תפלה‬, shifting the focus to the latter as the awaited (eschatological?) mediator. Like the mediator Moses, “David” speaks on behalf of both parties. Psalm 103 and Psalms 105–106 Chapter 5’s study of ‫ ברית‬psalms noted the theological unity of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in Pss 105–106. We also noted these psalms’ primary concern with pre-monarchic history as they contrast YHWH’s covenant faithfulness with Israel’s infidelity. As a reminder to present (post-exilic?) generations about pre-exilic Israel’s faithlessness, it is remarkable that Ps 106 does not touch the monarchic period. Yet this is consistent with the Psalter’s broader tendency not to pin blame on the kings when directly identifying the cause of Israel’s exile (e.g., Ps 89). This, as we have noted, contrasts the retrospective and historical perspective on failed kingship seen in the Deuteronomic History. Indeed, our investigation so far has demonstrated compelling reasons to conclude that editors viewed kingship favorably, and that its restoration occupies a central place in the fulfilment of covenantal history. In assessing the place that Ps 103 occupies in Book IV, a further issue needs consideration—namely, whether the strong Mosaic character of 105–106 means that these psalms are in some sense Moses’ answer to the theological crisis of exile rather than “David’s” answer as the above analysis of Pss 101–103 would suggest. So McKelvey suggests when he argues that Book IV shifts the focus away from David’s “voice”—heard in Pss 101–104—to the “voice” of Moses in Pss 105–106.18 McKelvey and Zenger appeal to similar features between Pss 90 and 106 as a Mosaic inclusio framing Book IV, seen especially in these psalms’ mentions of Moses by name (Ps 90:1 and Ps 106:16, 23, and 32). Moreover, Zenger observes key-word connections between Moses’ appeal that YHWH “turn” (‫)שוב‬, “have compassion” (‫ )נחם‬on his servants, and satisfy them with his “steadfast love” (‫ )חסד‬in 90:13–14, and Ps 106:45, “For their sake [YHWH] remembered his covenant, and relented (‫ )נחם‬according to the abundance of his steadfast love (‫)חסד‬.”19 Zenger’s observation suggests that Ps 106’s historical recollection of God’s compassion and love for his people somehow responds to the petition of “Moses” in Ps 90. 18.  McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 231, 290, 295–96. 19.  Zenger, “The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalms 90–106),” 163–66.

12. The Grace Formula in Book IV (Psalm 103:8)

241

This correlation is noteworthy, but it does not follow that Moses’ “voice”—or more accurately a Mosaic perspective—now replaces “David’s” in these two final psalms, as McKelvey posits.20 First, whereas Moses “speaks” in Ps 90, he is spoken about in Ps 106 as that psalm recollects God’s history with his people. Already in Ps 103:7 the Davidic psalmist has made a similar historical reference to Moses to whom YHWH “made known his ways,” whereupon v. 8 declares YHWH’s forgiveness via the grace formula. Except for Ps 90, then, Book IV recalls the memory of Moses as a figure of history, whereas David “speaks” in Pss 101–103 in the first person. If it is correct that the editors considered the Davidic successor a new Moses (cf. Chapter 8), then it should not be surprising when he speaks with a “Mosaic accent.” Second, although Book IV’s several mentions of Moses highlight his historical role as intercessor, the final mention of Moses in 106:32 recalls his faithlessness at Meribah amid Israel’s covenantal infidelity and rebellion. If anything, highlighting Moses’ singular failure only underscores the helplessness of covenant life “under Moses” and the continuing need for an intercessor who, while Moses-like, of course cannot be either historical Moses or David. The obvious candidate is a new “David” along the lines explored in this study. Third, rather than answer Moses’ petition in 90:13–14, 106:47 effectively repeats it. The greater rhetorical purpose of the psalm is to urge YHWH to “repeat history” by once again showing mercy despite the people’s sinfulness, just like in the exodus and wilderness (vv. 6–18, 24–33), at Horeb regarding the golden calf (vv. 19–23), and in the land (vv. 34–46). The psalm thus turns to the Mosaic era to espouse the paradigmatic salvation of YHWH toward his people. In like manner, Ps 89 declares God’s promises and faithfulness to the Davidic covenant in order to make its lament and ask its similar question, “how long?” The main difference between these two final psalms of their respective books, however, lies in the confession of human sin. Human (royal) culpability is not obviously in view in Ps 89. Psalm 106:6, on the other hand, opens with an explicit confession of covenantal infidelity: “Both we and our fathers have sinned (‫ ;)חטאנו‬we have committed iniquity (‫ ;)העוינו‬we have done wickedness (‫)הרשענו‬.” Psalm 106 presents a confession on behalf of all Israel, past and present, before calling for YHWH to “[s]ave” and “gather us from among the nations” (v. 47). 20.  Despite the many qualities of McKelvey’s book, his approach to Book IV predisposes him to overdraw distinctions between the “voices” of Moses, David, and YHWH as high king in my view.

242

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

If the psalmist speaks with a Moses-like “voice,” then, it is only in the sense that he uses Mosaic language and recalls Mosaic history to flesh out that confession, rather than to “switch voices” to Moses as an active speaker once more. Instead, the preceding Davidic Pss 101–103(104) suggest that editors intended “David” as the continuing speaker of Pss 105–106. “David” continues to speak to the end of Book IV, proclaiming God’s faithfulness (Ps 105) and confessing Israel’s (pre-monarchic!) unfaithfulness and petitioning YHWH’s help (Ps 106). If this is the case, then in Ps 106 “David” restates Moses’ original plea in Ps 90:13–14 as one who leads the people in confession of sin (v. 6) and intercedes with the petition of v. 47, “Save us (‫)הושיענו‬, O YHWH our God, and gather us (‫ )וקבצנו‬from the nations”; a petition answered in the following Ps 107:3 when YHWH “gathered” them “from the lands” (‫)ומארצות קבצם‬.21 Nehemiah 9:33–34 offers an interesting parallel, for there the “current” generation confesses the collective sins of Israel throughout its history: “Yet you have been righteous in all that has come upon us, for you have dealt faithfully and we have acted wickedly (‫)הרשענו‬. Our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers have not kept your law or paid attention to your commandments and your warnings that you gave them.” By contrast, Ps 106 lacks any explicit focus on royal culpability. The pre-monarchic content of the history recalled in Ps 106 only underscores this, for it shifts the accent away from royal to national culpability as we have seen elsewhere in the Psalter. Finally, how Book IV draws on the memory of Moses in these final psalms lends support to the notion of “David” as an intercessor. As discussed earlier, seven of the Psalter’s eight mentions of Moses occur in Book IV, including the superscript of Ps 90. Besides 99:6, the remaining five instances (103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, 32) are concentrated in just three psalms where he is the object of historical retrospection with David now the active voice at the editorial level. Significantly, J. Borger concludes that these references to Moses in Book IV especially highlight his intercessory role,22 which would suggest that Ps 106:47’s plea, “Save us…gather us… etc.,” is also intercessory in nature. Having demonstrated Israel’s need for an intercessor by recalling premonarchic history under Moses, “David” now fulfills that role by confessing Israel’s collective guilt and petitioning YHWH for help in v. 47 (cf. Neh 9 noted above). Moreover, v. 47, “that we may give thanks to your holy name” (‫)להדות לשם קדשך‬, affirms the 21.  Sanders, “Five Books of Psalms?,” 679. 22.  Borger, “Moses in the Fourth Book of the Psalter,” 173–74. Similarly McKelvey, Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh, 272.

12. The Grace Formula in Book IV (Psalm 103:8)

243

name theology integral to the grace formula—both in its original Exod 32–34 context and in Ps 103 explored above. This gives further cause to view Ps 106 as the continuing voice of David at the editorial level. As the next chapter explores further, Book V takes up this call to “give thanks,” seen in the prominence of ‫ הודו‬formulae there, beginning with Ps 107:1. Conclusion Once again it is “David” who speaks the grace formula in Ps 103, declaring YHWH’s gracious and compassionate response to human sin as YHWH himself had done in Exod 34. Indeed, the composite picture of “David” protecting the meek/righteous, cutting off the wicked, crying out to YHWH, announcing the time of favor for Zion, and declaring YHWH’s grace and compassion in Pss 101–103 suggests that he has an instrumental role in YHWH’s realization of the vision of Pss 93–100; an assemblage of psalms functioning as a “new song” for a “new exodus.” Thus, David’s significance vis-à-vis Moses’ cannot be assessed by a mere head count in Book IV. While Book IV opens with Moses’ prayer that essentially repeats Ps 89:47’s petition “How long?” (90:13), it thereafter speaks about him in historical retrospect. By contrast “David” continues to speak in first-person “contemporary” address throughout Pss 101–103 and by extension 104–106. “David” now intercedes for God’s perennially unfaithful people (Ps 106:47) and declares God’s grace and compassion (Ps 103), just as Moses had done in Israel’s pre-monarchic history.

Chapter 13 T he G r a c e F orm ul a i n B ook V ( P salm 145:8)

Having used the grace formula to “call on YHWH in the day of trouble” (Ps 86) and then to proclaim God’s gracious and forgiving way toward frail and sinful humanity (Ps 103), “David” uses it again in Ps 145:8 in the context of praise and thanksgiving. The Grace Formula in Psalm 145:8 Psalm 145:8 arguably demonstrates the grace formula’s central importance to the theology of the Psalter as a whole. In Ps 145:1–7 the Davidic psalmist declares that he and “they” will praise and extol YHWH. Then follows the grace formula and the repeated assertion that “all your works” will join him in that praise in vv. 8–12: YHWH is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding (‫ )גדל‬in steadfast love. YHWH is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made. All your works shall give thanks to you, YHWH, and all your saints shall bless you! They shall speak of the glory of your kingdom and tell of your power, to make known to the children of man your mighty deeds, and the glorious splendor of your kingdom.

Lane concludes that the grace formula in Ps 145 encapsulates “the substance of the praise promised and demanded by the psalm”1 as it praises God’s grace and compassion, slowness to anger and great steadfast love. At the editorial level, this becomes especially significant when we consider Wilson’s widely accepted claim that Ps 145:21 introduces the group of halleluiah psalms that conclude the Psalter (Pss 146–150):2 “My mouth will speak the praise of YHWH, and let all flesh bless his holy name forever and ever.” Verse 21 shifts from individual praise (“my mouth”) to corporate praise (“all flesh”), so that David leads “all flesh” 1.  Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God, 141. 2.  Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, 189 and 225–26.

13. The Grace Formula in Book V (Psalm 145:8)

245

in the climactic act of praise in the Psalter. Interestingly, Chapter 12 observed a similar shift from personal to universal praise via an inclusio of ‫ ברך‬formulae in the previous grace formula-bearing psalm, Davidic Ps 103. In further support of 145:21’s introductory function with respect to Pss 146‒150, the first and last verses of those concluding psalms reflect the same shift from personal to universal praise. Psalm 146:1 reads, “Praise YHWH, O my soul! I will praise YHWH as long as I live,” and 150:6 concludes the halleluiah psalms, “Let everything that has breath praise YHWH!” Since the grace formula occupies so prominent a place in Ps 145 it apparently provides the theological impetus for the doxological climax of the Psalter. The universal manner in which Ps 145 applies the grace formula is thus all the more noteworthy. Verses 9–12 declare God’s grace and favor to “all” and “all that he has made,” whereupon “[a]ll your works shall give thanks to you.” “David” thus announces both YHWH’s grace and mercy to all and the thankful response of praise that “all” return to God. This universalization of the formula reflects the trend we saw in Chapter 10’s summary of its canonical use and, significantly for our investigation, seems to reflect YHWH’s promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s seed (Gen 12:3; 18:22; 26:4). That “David” here declares the fulfillment of this promise comports well with Ps 72’s narrowing of that promise through David’s successor (see Chapter 9). Moreover, Ps 145:8 prefers ‫ וגדל־חסד‬rather than the more usual ‫ ורב־חסד‬seen in Exod 34:6 and Pss 86:15 and 103:8. As Reuven Kimelmann observes, this produces a stronger parallel with Moses’ petition in Num 14:19, where he asks YHWH to “pardon…according to the greatness of your steadfast love (‫)כגדל חסדך‬.”3 As noted earlier, this petition is immediately preceded by the grace formula in v. 18. On the reasonable assumption that editors knew Num 14, it is plausible that they understood 145:8 with particular reference to his hearing and answering intercessory petitions for grace and mercy. Just as God had been quick to forgive at Moses’s request, so now David praises God for his gracious and compassionate response to his own intercession. This makes a fitting conclusion to the other grace formula-bearing psalms given their petitionary (Ps 86) and proclamatory (Ps 103) character, and is true to the original intercessory context that gave rise to YHWH’s announcement of it in the first place (Exod 32‒34).

3.  Reuven Kimelman, “Psalm 145: Theme, Structure, and Impact,” JBL 113 (1994): 43–44.

246

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

Psalm 145 in Its Book Context In addition to the important relationship that exists between Ps 145 and the subsequent halleluiah psalms, Ps 145 also relates to the foregoing groups of psalms in Book V in significant ways—particularly where the grace formula is concerned. In broad terms Book V consists of two (quasi-)Davidic groups, Pss 107–112 and Pss 138–145, with the intervening psalms consisting largely of the Egyptian Hallel group (Pss 113–118) and Songs of Ascents (Pss 120–134), between which lies the giant acrostic torah Ps 119. There seems to be basic agreement about these major groupings, even if scholars disagree on some of the finer points.4 Earlier chapters discussed important themes and their implications for our thesis, so it remains here to draw some of these together as they relate to grace formula terminology in Ps 145:8. Psalm 145 and the Beginning and Ending of Book V Psalm 145 concludes the Davidic group (138–145) that mirrors Davidic Pss 108–110 at the beginning of Book V. Notwithstanding anonymous Ps 107, then, Book V begins and ends with “David.” His prominence in Book V is thus the product of deliberate editorial design; a point Snearly argues in greater detail.5 Furthermore, this symmetry is strengthened by the juxtaposition of the Pss 111–112 acrostic pair with Davidic Pss 108–110.6 Both acrostics allude to the grace formula in their ‫ ח‬cola via the distinctive phrase, “gracious and compassionate” (‫)חנון ורחום‬, just as acrostic Ps 145:8 does via the full formula at the conclusion of the last Davidic group. Editors thus crafted Pss 108–112 4.  Zenger, “Composition and Theology,” 91, believes that “Psalms 113–18 and 120–36 [sic] are two compositions which have either been shaped as liturgies or have been inspired by a liturgy in their structural schemata.” Zenger discusses proposals by Gerald Wilson, Klaus Koch, and Reinhard Kratz. His major criticism is these proposals’ over-interpretation of the structural significance of the ‫ הודו‬formula and ‫הללו יה‬, on the basis of which Wilson, e.g., splits the Egyptian Hallel group by identifying Ps 118 as the start of a new subgroup (see Chapter 2). W. Dennis Tucker Jr., “The Role of the Foe in Book 5: Reflections on the Final Composition of the Psalter,” in deClaissé-Walford, ed., The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms, 185–86, agrees with Zenger’s criticism. Similarly, Snearly, The Return of the King, 76–78, argues for stronger lexical ties binding Pss 113–118 and Pss 135–137 together that mitigate the structural value of the ‫הללו יה‬/‫ הודו‬pattern identified by Wilson. 5.  Snearly, The Return of the King, 126–27 and 155–69. 6.  On the placement of acrostics in Book V, see Zenger, “Composition and Theology,” 97–99.

13. The Grace Formula in Book V (Psalm 145:8)

247

and 138–145 as parallel groups of (quasi-)Davidic psalms to begin and end Book V; each concluded by one or two acrostic psalms bearing a grace formula. Regarding Pss 108–110 and Pss 111–112, Zenger believes that royal Ps 110 identifies 112:1’s “blessed man” (‫ )אשרי־איש‬as the sacerdotal king (110:4), so that this arrangement of psalms accentuates “David” as the God-fearer par excellence who keeps YHWH’s commands (112:1). Moreover, this Davidic identification of the psalmist suggests that he possesses attributes normally associated with YHWH, as was the case with Pss 72 and 101. In fact, it is sometimes not clear to whom certain stock phrases apply in Ps 112—whether to YHWH or the “blessed man” in question. This includes the grace-formula allusion, “gracious, merciful, and righteous,” in the ‫ ח‬colon (v. 4), since the “blessed man” has theretofore been the main personal subject. Another example includes, “his righteousness endures forever” (‫ )צדקתו עמדת לעד‬in v. 9, which, while similar to the stock formula used to praise YHWH (e.g., Ps 111:3), follows directly after “he has distributed freely; he has given to the poor” and precedes “his horn (‫ )קרנו‬is exalted in honor”— “horn” commonly having royal entailments in the Psalter (see Chapter 7, Addendum). Once again this refers most obviously to the “blessed man” of whom the psalm ostensibly speaks, suggesting that “David” embodies the divine characteristics of grace and mercy and/or in some sense facilitates them as God restores the people. Indeed, Chapter 5’s analysis of Ps 111 suggested that v. 9 praises YHWH specifically for covenant renewal, and that the psalmist embodies the righteousness that Moses commands in Deut 6:5. Furthermore, if editors identified the blessed man with David, then Ps 112’s “blurring” of YHWH and David’s identities affirms their close association seen, for example, in Ps 2:2. Returning once more to Ps 107, it might seem that its anonymous nature spoils an otherwise “neat” symmetry between the two Davidic groups at each end of Book V. Quite apart from the potentially Davidizing influence of Book IV’s concluding psalms, however, Book V’s opening psalms indicate that editors deliberately sought to “Davidize” if not the psalm itself then its repeated call, “Let them thank YHWH for his steadfast love, for his wondrous works to the children of man!” (‫יודו‬ ‫ )ליהוה חסדו ונפלאותיו לבני אדם‬in vv. 8, 15, 21, and 31. After this call to praise God’s ‫ חסד‬toward humanity there follows the (Davidic) psalmist’s declaration in Ps 108:4, “I will give thanks to you, YHWH, among the peoples” (‫ )אודך בעמים‬and “sing praises to you among the nations” (‫)ואזמרך בל־אמים‬. This transition from Ps 107’s repeated call to “give

248

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

thanks” to David’s vow of praise in 108:4 suggests particular editorial interest in David as a leader of praise and thanksgiving.7 Moreover, Ps 107 indicates that “David” praises God specifically for his exodus-like redemption of his people (‫ גאלם‬in v. 2; cf. ‫עם־זו‬ ‫ גאלת‬in Exod 15:13) and gathering them from the lands (v. 3). Psalm 107:38 also accentuates the Abrahamic promises of blessing and multiplication as we noted earlier. YHWH blesses them and “they multiply greatly” (‫)ויברכם וירבו מאד‬, terms strongly reminiscent of God’s promises to Abraham and his seed in Gen 12:3 (cf. 15:5), which are reiterated in similar terms when Isaac blesses Jacob in Gen 28:3: “God Almighty bless you (‫ )יברך אתך‬and make you fruitful (‫ )ויפרך‬and multiply you (‫)וירבך‬.” We see the same combination of verbs (‫ ברך‬and ‫ )רבה‬earlier in the Pentateuch in the creation account in Gen 1:22 and 28, and within the divine address to Noah (Gen 9:1) culminating in the Noahic covenant. The Pss 107–108 sequence therefore implies that David praises YHWH for responding to exile by redeeming his people and fulfilling his Abrahamic promises to make them a great nation. These allusions to Genesis and Book V’s universal focus on “all flesh” (e.g., 145:21; 150:6), suggest editors arranged 107–108 to praise God for fulfilling also the creational and Noahic covenantal “First Commission” to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7).8 Whereas the Abrahamic covenantal texts above particularize such promises in terms of Abraham and his seed, Pss 107–108 both universalize and focus them in terms of the king in a manner strikingly similar to Ps 72. Understood thus, “David” in Ps 107 and subsequent psalms effectively provides the response to (his own?) intercessory petition in Ps 106:47. When it comes to Ps 145’s more immediate context in Davidic Pss 138–145, a few observations are noteworthy. First, Ps 138 begins very similarly to Ps 108, suggesting another parallel between the two groups of Davidic psalms. Just as David, a man of “steadfast heart” (‫;נכון לבי‬ 7.  Zenger, “Composition and Theology,” 89, notes the connection between Ps 107’s refrain and 145:12, which he regards the “structural center” of Ps 145. There “David” announces that God’s works would “make known to the children of man (‫ )לבני האדם‬your mighty deeds and the glorious splendor of your kingdom,” thus reinforcing David’s role as declarer of YHWH’s wonders to all flesh. 8.  In both cases “God blessed (‫ ”)ברך‬precedes the command to “be fruitful and multiply (‫)פרו ורבו‬.” Cf. ‫ פרה ורבה‬in Gen 35:11 (+ ‫ ברך‬in v. 9) regarding Jacob. Although ‫ פרה‬is absent from Ps 107:38, there is strong conceptual and lexical overlap with these texts via ‫ ברך‬and ‫רבה‬. Another term Ps 107 shares in common with Gen 12 is “families” (‫ )משפחות‬in v. 41b, albeit here in reference to “the poor” (cf. ‫ אביון‬in v. 41a) rather than “families of the earth” in Gen 12:3 and its reiterations.

13. The Grace Formula in Book V (Psalm 145:8)

249

cf. 111:1), vows to “give thanks” in Ps 108:1–3, so he vows in Ps 138:1, “I give you thanks…with my whole heart” (‫)אודך בכל־לבי‬.9 Psalm 138’s proximity to Ps 136, which echoes the call to “give thanks” more than any other psalm, underscores the significance of this vow and its identification with David in Ps 138. The first psalm of both Davidic groups—that is, Ps 108 and Ps 138—responds to the summons of preceding ‫ הודו‬psalms to “give thanks to YHWH” with “David” promising to do precisely that whole-heartedly. Again, this suggests editorial intent to present “David” as the one who fulfills Book V’s call to “give thanks to YHWH.” In addition, the psalms preceding Ps 138 indicate that YHWH should be praised for fulfilling covenantal promises, just as Ps 107 does immediately prior to the first Davidic group in Pss 108–110(111–112). We already noted concatenation between Pss 135:12 and 136:21–22 regarding God’s promise of land in Chapter 8, evidencing editors’ interest in this Abrahamic promise. More generally, Ps 136 praises God’s past victories over the Egyptians and Canaanite kings as YHWH fulfilled this promise to give the land. Then follows Ps 137’s lament about exile, Babylon, and so on, thus shifting the focus to a new, later historical crisis (cf. Ps 107’s praise for YHWH’s deliverance from exile). In light of the 135–137 sequence—a group that transitions between the Songs of Ascent and final Davidic group—Ps 138 apparently responds to Ps 136’s call to thanksgiving, announcing YHWH’s redemption amid present or eschatological exile as a new exodus/conquest—a picture consistent with the previous chapter’s discussion of Book IV. Interestingly, the series of laments found at the heart of the final Davidic group (i.e., Pss 140–143) portray a “David” still embattled, crying out to YHWH for help. It seems, then, that “David” still calls upon YHWH in the day of trouble even at this late stage of the Psalter (cf. Pss 86 and 102). Indeed, Robert Wallace understands the final few Davidic psalms’ depiction of David in a similar manner, describing David as, “a humble supplicant interceding on his own behalf and, by extension, interceding on behalf of his people.”10 David’s kingship and his role as praise-leader are not thereby lost to view, however, for in Ps 144:9–11 “David” declares, “I will sing a new song to you, O God; upon a ten-stringed harp I will play to you,” because he “gives victory to kings,” and “rescues David his servant from the cruel sword. Rescue me and deliver me from the hand of foreigners.”

9.  ESV follows several MSS that include ‫יהוה‬. 10.  Wallace, “Characterization of David,” 204.

250

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

The Egyptian Hallel Group (113–118) In broad terms the Egyptian Hallel group (Pss 113–118) reactualizes exodus traditions (Ps 114), calling for trust in YHWH (rather than idols) and announcing that God has “remembered” his people and will bless them anew (Ps 115:12–13). Significantly, when the psalmist of Ps 116 then praises God for his deliverance, he does so via allusion to the grace formula in v. 5: “Gracious (‫ )חנון‬is YHWH, and righteous; our God is merciful (‫)מרחם‬.” At the editorial level, who is the anonymous psalmist of Ps 116? Already Chapters 8 and 9 discovered several compelling reasons to think that editors regarded Ps 116’s psalmist as royal. There we noted that the ‫ עבד‬and ‫ בן‬language in Ps 116:16 echoes similar references to David as YHWH’s ‫ עבד‬and ‫ בן‬in editorially prominent psalms, while in v. 14 the psalmist will “fulfill [his] vows” (‫ נדר‬+ ‫)שלם‬, as David characteristically resolves throughout the Psalter. Additionally, Ps 116 resembles other key psalms in our analysis in a prominent way. In vv. 1–2 the psalmist declares, “I love [YHWH]…[b]ecause he has inclined his ear to me (‫)כי־הטה אזנו לי‬.” Elsewhere we read the petition to “incline your ear to me” in Davidic or Davidized psalms that have featured prominently in our investigation: Pss 71:2; 86:1; and 102:3 (also 88:3 closely associated with the suffering king in Ps 89; see Chapter 4). Although these comparisons are drawn from outside Book V, Book V’s editors would have known the psalms found in Books I–IV—whether as an arrangement they themselves constructed (e.g., Mitchell), or as an existing collection. And if they recognized the Davidic character of these themes throughout the Psalter, it seems highly likely that they also understood them with David in view in Ps 116. Accordingly, Ps 116 seems to praise YHWH for answering the royal petition of Ps 86 (cf. Ps 88) and intercession of Ps 102—YHWH has heard “David’s” plea and now David renders thanks in the manner anticipated by Ps 50:14–15. In a similar way, Ps 118 seems to recall Ps 101, where “David” resolves to cut off the wicked. Three times in vv. 10–12 the psalmist declares “in the name of YHWH I cut them off” (‫ )בשם יהוה כי אמילם‬in reference to the nations. As noted earlier, Jamie Grant sees Ps 118 as a quasi-royal psalm deliberately paired with Ps 119 in a broader editorial effort to collocate torah psalms with royal psalms.11 It is also hard to ignore vv. 10–12’s similarities to Ps 2:9’s divine promise that YHWH’s anointed would “dash in pieces” the nations like pottery. Thus the Egyptian Hallel and Ps 119 evoke a royal figure who keeps torah with his “whole heart,” cuts off the enemy nations “in the name 11.  Grant, The King as Exemplar, 121–88.

13. The Grace Formula in Book V (Psalm 145:8)

251

of YHWH,” and gives thanks to YHWH who has heard his cry to “give ear.” By reactualizing exodus traditions (Ps 114) this group of psalms also implies that this royal figure leads a new exodus or has some prominent role in it analogous to Moses’ role in the first exodus—a picture consistent with Chapter 12’s analysis of Book IV. The Songs of Ascent (120–134) As a group, the Songs of Ascent envision a return or pilgrimage to the land from foreign places (Ps 120), praying for restoration (e.g., Ps 126).12 They therefore fit in well with the ingathering and restoration themes announced in Ps 107. When considering Pss 120–134 vis-à-vis Ps 145:8, however, we find that the term ‫ חסד‬itself is rare, occurring only once in penitential Ps 130:7 where it is paired with “redemption” (‫)פדות‬. The psalmist urges Israel to “wait” on YHWH in v. 7, “[f]or with YHWH there is steadfast love (‫)החסד‬, and with him is plentiful redemption.” Besides this, Ps 123:3 offers a fainter allusion to the grace formula in the petition, “Have mercy upon us (‫)חננו‬, YHWH, have mercy upon us (‫)חננו‬, for we have had more than enough (‫ )רב‬of contempt.” A possible allusion to the grace formula is discernible here via the imperative “have mercy on us” (cf. “gracious” [‫ ]חנון‬in the formula) and “more than enough (‫)רב‬ contempt” (contrasting “abounding [‫ ]רב‬in steadfast love”). To the extent editors appreciated an allusion here, it would seem the psalmist was appealing to YHWH to act according to his proper character expressed by the grace formula, implying that their present troubles belie YHWH’s abundant ‫חסד‬. Significantly, Ps 123 lies between Davidic Pss 122 and 124, suggesting that once again it is “David” who voices the petition on behalf of the people. Moreover, “David” declares, “Our help is in the name of YHWH” in 124:8, shortly after v. 6’s “Blessed be YHWH, who has not given us as prey to their teeth!” Accordingly, Davidic Ps 124 apparently answers Ps 123’s petition via its “name theology,” effectively declaring that God has lived up to his character of being gracious. Though most Songs of Ascent are anonymous, the theme of kingship remains prominent. This is especially evident in Ps 122:5’s reference to Zion as the place where David’s thrones establish justice: “There thrones for judgment (‫ )כסאות למשפט‬were set, the thrones of the house of David (‫)כסאות לבית דויד‬.” While petitioning God’s help, the 12.  Hendrik Viviers, “The Coherence of the Ma‘alôt Psalms (Pss 120–134),” ZAW 106 (1994): 275–89, considers the Songs of Ascent “sophisticated, (original) unitary poetic works” (277), describing the arrangement of the collection overall as “a non-rigid chiasmus” (286, italics original) based primarily on his form-critical and thematic analysis of the psalms.

252

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

group also announces God’s salvation as just seen in Davidic Ps 124. Moreover, Ps 132’s explicit focus on the Davidic covenant accentuates its ongoing importance in this group, which argues strongly against Wilson’s contention that the Psalter’s latest editors thought the Davidic covenant failed. YHWH’s election of Zion (v. 13) follows directly from vv. 11–12’s recounting of YHWH’s sure promises to David (vv. 11–12). Then the psalm describes Zion as YHWH’s eternal resting place in v. 14. There YHWH provides for and blesses its provisions and priests (vv. 15–16), and causes “a horn to sprout for David” (‫ )קרן לדוד‬and erects a “lamp for [his] anointed” (‫)נר למשיחי‬, giving victory over his enemies (vv. 17–18). Far from envisioning a kingless theocracy, Ps 132 underscores the primacy of God’s faithfulness to his Davidic covenantal promises in its vision of a prosperous Zion, and seems also to recall Ps 2:6’s vision of the anointed on his throne in Zion. Moreover, Ps 132 has been sandwiched between Davidic Pss 131 and 133. Davidized thus, it seems clear that editors sought to amplify the already strong focus on David in this psalm. Indeed, the whole collection is arranged with particular interest in David and Solomon more broadly. The only attributed psalms in the 120–134 group are Davidic Pss 122, 124, 131, and 133, as well as the Psalter’s second Solomonic psalm, Ps 127. Interestingly, Ps 127 is the eighth psalm of the group and therefore central to the 15 psalms that comprise it.13 At the center of the group, then, we find Ps 127 affirming the importance of YHWH “building the (royal) house” (v. 1) and declaring that sons are a blessing (vv. 3–5; cf. 128:3–6). This suggests an allusion to YHWH’s promise in 2 Sam 7:11–12 to establish David’s dynasty and “raise up [his] offspring after [him],” indicating that YHWH’s faithfulness in preserving or restoring kingship is central to the Psalter’s vision of a restored Israel. We have already seen that the other Solomonic psalm, Ps 72, also reflects specific editorial interest in royal sonship and succession. When it comes to the four Davidic psalms, we find them divided in pairs either side of Ps 127, with each pair separated by an anonymous psalm (i.e., Pss 123 and 132). It appears, then, that the Songs of Ascent affirm the centrality of kingship in the restoration of God’s people, and confirm Book V’s interest in “David” as more than one of nostalgic historical reflection. It seems rather to envision a David redivivus.14 13.  Cf. the centrality of the king in Pss 15–24, bracketed by entrance liturgies. 14.  As noted above, Viviers, “The Coherence of the Ma‘alôt Psalms (Pss 120– 134),” 286–87, similarly sees a concentric arrangement in the Songs of Ascent, but does not discuss the significance of attributed psalms for its arrangement.

13. The Grace Formula in Book V (Psalm 145:8)

253

Conclusion The grace formula is integral to the structure of Book V. It is also strongly associated with “David,” who whole-heartedly praises God (Pss 108:2; 111:1; 138:1) and leads all flesh in a “new song” (Pss 144:9; 145:21). In Book V the grace formula expresses the essential content of praise: YHWH graciously and mercifully restores and multiplies his people in faithfulness to his Abrahamic/Mosaic covenantal promises. It is therefore central to Book V’s response to Book IV’s petition that YHWH “save” and “gather” his people (cf. 106:47). The new exodus motif also enjoys considerable prominence in Book V, and it seems that Pss 108–112, 116, and 118 identify “David” as its (Moses-like) leader and singer of its “new song.” Overall, then, Book V gives “David” the leading role in declaring YHWH’s grace and compassion and the fulfilment of his covenant promises. Concluding Remarks on the Grace Formula in Books III–V Lane is undoubtedly correct that parallels to Exod 34:6 in the Psalter “enunciate the compassionate rule of YHWH over the entire cosmos.”15 The preceding three chapters show that it also accentuates the role of “David” in the restoration of God’s people, however. David is depicted as a Moses-like mediator who prays as one embattled (Ps 86), declares forgiveness and the time of Zion’s restoration (Pss [102–]103), and gives thanks to YHWH (Ps 145) for his grace and compassion as expressed in the grace formula. As suggested in Chapter 9, these three uses of the grace formula broadly echo Ps 50:14–15’s commands to his “covenant people” (v. 5), “Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and perform your vows to the Most High, and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.” Indeed, in Ps 86:7 “David” specifically says, “In the day of my trouble I call upon you, for you answer me,” praying exactly as Ps 50:15 commands and fulfilling God’s summons to his covenant people in that psalm. Moreover, “David” identifies with weak and sinful humanity (Pss 86; 102; 103:15–16; 142–143), as one who is faithful (Ps 86:2) and characterized by whole-hearted piety (108:2; 111:1; 138:1) and blameless integrity (101:2). It must be acknowledged that it is possible to read texts such as Pss 86:5 and 103:3 so that the psalmist includes himself as a sinner in need of mercy and forgiveness. Such statements are, however, general 15.  Lane, The Compassionate, but Punishing God, 141.

254

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

or even creedal in their declaration of God’s forgiving character—like the grace formula. Those psalms focus rather on concerns other than personal guilt, whether external oppressors (Ps 86) or YHWH’s grace and mercy toward the “oppressed” (103:6) and “us” (Ps 103:10–14). Consistent with our study of Ps 89, Books III–V nowhere explicitly ascribe guilt to the king; instead, they highlight the people’s covenantal infidelity (e.g., Pss 78, 81, 106, etc.). In this light, it seems more likely that editors saw in these psalms the king’s identification with sinners as a petitioner on behalf of God’s people, not his personal guilt per se. Beyond this we have also seen other aspects of how “David” is depicted in Books III–V. These other aspects give further theological context to “David” as speaker of the grace formula. He is YHWH’s embattled servant (Pss 78, 86, 89, 102), vindicator of the meek/righteous and destroyer of the wicked (Pss 101, 110), and a sacerdotal figure closely connected to Zion (Pss 110, 132). Moreover he is the leader and thanksgiver for an anticipated “new exodus” sung about in such groups as Pss 93–100 and the so-called Egyptian Hallel, Pss 113–118. Indeed, Ps 144:9 suggests that, like Moses before him, “David” himself sings this “new song” as he leads the people and all flesh in praise of YHWH for his grace and compassion (Ps 145:21).

Chapter 14 E nding with the B eginning: P salms 1–2 as an I ntroduction to the P salter

The previous chapters examined the idea that editors regarded David as a mediatory figure central to YHWH’s renewal of the covenant. Psalms 1–2 have come up at numerous points in the course of this investigation. As Part II determined, these psalms contain some of the strongest allusions to the covenant. They also open the Psalter and thus have unquestioned editorial importance. The ensuing discussion is confined to three important issues related to the thesis being explored. First is the question of these psalms’ editorial function with respect to each other and the rest of the Psalter; that is, whether Ps 1 alone or Pss 1–2 together introduce it.1 For instance, scholars like Wilson hold that Ps 1 was a later addition that usurped or greatly modified Ps 2 as an introduction to an earlier Psalter (Pss 2–89). On this view wisdom or Mosaic covenantal themes refocus the newly expanded Psalter away from the older royal introduction in Ps 2. Against this, however, one can posit the reverse theological move: Psalm 2 narrows Ps 1’s torah/Mosaic vision in terms of YHWH’s anointed, with both of them functioning as a dual introduction to the Psalter. A related issue here is the classification of Pss 1 and 2 as a wisdom/torah psalm and royal psalm, whose collocation suggests a deliberate effort to relate Ps 1’s two-way theology with Ps 2’s Davidic covenantal theology.2 But what is that relationship? This leads to a second important matter: Ps 2’s identification of the “blessed man” of Ps 1 as the anointed king, which suggests that Pss 1–2 1.  For a good summary of views see Susan Gillingham, A Journey of Two Psalms: The Reception History of Psalms 1 & 2 in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 270–87, 297–98. See further Willgren, Formation, 136–71. 2.  Wallace, “Characterization of David,” 197, observes, “If a Torah psalm (Ps 1) and a royal psalm (Ps 2) introduce the Psalter, it would seem to be an affirmation of both traditions.”

256

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

promote the king as YHWH’s covenant partner par excellence, as Part II’s investigation indicated. Finally, a third issue discussed below is the characterization of David in the wider Psalter compared with that arising from Pss 1–2. This broader question impacts all theories of the Psalter’s theological agenda and is in part prompted by Robert Wallace’s recent thoughts on the matter. Questions of Genre and Editorial History Scholars often emphasize the distinctiveness of Pss 1–2 according to their common form-critical classifications as a torah/wisdom psalm (Ps 1) juxtaposed with a royal psalm (Ps 2). Psalms 1–2 bring some obvious distinctive emphases when read independently, raising several possibilities regarding what editors intended them to communicate. As noted above and in Chapter 2, Wilson believes Ps 1 effectively replaced Ps 2 as the opening psalm of the Psalter. In an effort to address the failure of royal covenantal theology, editors added Ps 1 and Books IV–V to the earlier Psalter framed by royal Pss 2 and 89, creating a new “wisdom” frame that reorients hope away from kingship. Several objections may be raised, however. The first is methodological: Wilson’s conclusion relies heavily on his composition-historical model for which the evidence is at best only suggestive (see Part I). Moreover, that evidence takes precedence in Wilson’s theory despite relatively clear evidence that Pss 1–2 have been deliberately conjoined to align Ps 1’s “righteous/wicked contrast” with Ps 2’s contrast between the royal anointed son and the recalcitrant nations (see below). Indeed, these correspondences suggest theological continuity and complementarity rather than an editorial intention that one psalm so drastically modify or trump the theological perspective of the other. Second, Wilson’s theory survives on the assumption that the Mosaic and Davidic covenants are alternatives in the Psalter, the former coming to the rescue when the latter “fails.” Chapter 5’s analysis of ‫ ברית‬revealed a strong theological unity between the covenants, however. The Psalter neither stresses their separateness nor plays them off against each other. On the other hand, other scholars view Pss 1–2 as a dual introduction in view of the conspicuous links between them, albeit with varying views on the significance of their collocation.3 Most obvious among 3.  See, e.g., Grant, The King as Exemplar, 60–65; Robert L. Cole, “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2,” JSOT 98 (2002): 75–88, and Psalms 1–2: Gateway to the Psalter, HBM 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012); Patrick D. Miller,

14. Ending with the Beginning

257

those links are the lack of a superscript atop either psalm, which stands out against the backdrop of Book I, the ‫ אשרי‬formulae in 1:1 and 2:12 that form an inclusio, and shared terminology such as “meditate” (‫)הגה‬ in 1:3 and 2:1 and the combination of “way” (‫ )דרך‬and “perish” (‫)אבד‬ in 1:6 and 2:12. While recognizing such connections, Patrick Miller describes the influence of Ps 1’s alleged addition thus: Psalm 1 placed before Psalm 2, therefore, joins Deuteronomy in a kind of democratizing move that stands in tension with the royal one arising out of the placing of Psalm 2 as the lead into Psalms 3ff. While Psalm 2 invites the reader to hear the voice of the Lord’s anointed in the following psalms, Psalm 1 says that what we hear is the voice of anyone who lives by the Torah, which may and should include the king. But as such, the anointed one is simply a true Israelite even as he is a true king.4

Read in the sequence presented, however, these psalms communicate a royalization of the torah-observance lauded in Ps 1, not a democratization of Ps 2’s royal vision. Indeed, while Ps 1’s ‫ האיש‬can be read in the sense of “everyman,” Ps 2’s royal identification of ‫ האיש‬indicates a progression toward a royal focus, not away from it.5 The point is not to play off people and ideal king—the former are surely to do as the latter does (cf. Grant’s thesis)—but rather to recognize these opening psalms’ apparently intentional narrowing of focus on kingship. To assume a broadening focus, on the other hand, requires reading these psalms in reverse sequence, and it is hard to imagine ancient editors expecting their audiences to appreciate Ps 1 as part of a democratizing “frame” intended to dampen Ps 2’s very pointed affirmation of kingship.

“The Beginning of the Psalter,” in Shape and Shaping of the Psalter, ed. J. Clinton McCann Jr. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 83–92; Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter, 73–74; Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous, 55–59. 4.  Miller, “The Beginning of the Psalter,” 91–92 (italics original). 5.  Pressing this point further, Cole reasons that the definite article in ‫האיש‬ precludes a general “everyman” identity for the “blessed man.” Cole, Psalms 1–2, 56, cites Esth 4:11 as an instance where such generalizing is achieved through ‫כל‬ and gender differentiation (‫)כל איש ואשה אשר‬. He writes, “The specificity expressed through the articular ‫( האישׁ‬as opposed to an anarthrous form ‫ )כל איׁש ואׁשה‬is significant in that Hebrew poetry, in contrast to prose, generally eschews use of the article and the relating particle ‫ אׁשר‬as well, both of which appear in Ps. 1.1.” Although not conclusive, Cole’s comparison with Esth 4:11 is at least suggestive.

258

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

At the other end of the spectrum, Robert Cole calls into question the usual form-critical classifications of Ps 1–2 altogether, warning that scholars inconsistently apply the usual criteria for identifying wisdom psalms, citing, for example, Ps 2’s use of wisdom terminology such as ‫( הגה‬2:1).6 Instead, Cole claims that Pss 1–2 “were deliberately composed for their present place and function.”7 While Cole rightly warns that such classifications can diminish our appreciation of the links between Pss 1–2,8 one may wonder why the author/editor composed two psalms rather than one if in fact both of them were originally authored for the purpose of introducing the Psalter. Moreover, it can hardly be denied that Pss 1 and 2 bear distinct emphases on wisdom/torah and the Davidic covenant respectively, and that editors combined these torah/ Mosaic and royal themes by so collocating Pss 1–2—whatever their authorial history. In summary, while the origins of Pss 1–2 remain enigmatic, they clearly reflect editorial intention to pair psalms focused on torah and kingship respectively to introduce the Psalter. Unless one presupposes a compositional history like Wilson proposes, this pairing reads more naturally as Ps 2 royalizing Ps 1 rather than the other way around. Psalms 1–2 and the King As noted above, Ps 2 identifies Ps 1’s “blessed man (‫ ”)איש‬as the Davidic son and YHWH’s anointed. Psalm 2 thus interprets Ps 1’s righteous– wicked contrast via its own contrast between YHWH’s “anointed”/“son” (2:2, 7, 12) and recalcitrant nations (2:1, 8).9 The former “meditates” (‫ )הגה‬on torah in accordance with Deut 17’s kingship law (1:2) while the latter “plot (‫ )הגה‬in vain” (2:1). Accordingly, Grant rightly argues that the editorial juxtaposition of Pss 1–2 promotes an idealized king who exemplifies torah-piety and is contrasted with the “wicked” nations.10

6.  Cole, Psalms 1–2, 24, reacting to the form-critical assumptions of Jean-Marie Auwers, La Composition littéraire du Psautier: Un état de la question (Paris: J. Gabalda, 2000). ‫ השכילו‬in 2:10 could be added here. 7.  Cole, Psalms 1–2, 19. 8.  Cole, Psalms 1–2, 46, describes “an almost seamless transition between what are originally two discreet compositions.” 9.  Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous, 58–59. 10.  Grant, The King as Exemplar, 41–70. Similarly Creach, The Destiny of the Righteous, 59.

14. Ending with the Beginning

259

This collocation of psalms has important implications for our proposal, for the warning to kings and judges of the earth to “be wise” in 2:10–12 implies the royal son’s intermediary role between YHWH and the nations. After v. 10’s initial imperative to “be wise” (‫)השכילו‬, vv. 11–12 instruct the kings and rulers to “[s]erve (‫ )עבדו‬YHWH with fear (‫)ביראה‬ and rejoice with trembling,” commanding them to “[k]iss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way (‫)ותאבדו דרך‬.” These kings’ relationship with YHWH thus depends directly on their relationship with and response to the royal son. Indeed, the strong parallel between the perishing “way of the wicked” (1:6) and 2:12’s warning, “lest…you perish in the way”—the result of provoking the son to anger—has long been noted. But this also produces a corresponding parallel: the “way of the righteous” known to YHWH (1:5) and “kissing the son” (2:12). So if Ps 2 identifies Ps 1’s torah-observing blessed man as the king, it also suggests that the righteousness of nations consists of their homage to the king. Furthermore, the final ‫ אשרי‬formula announces “blessed” those “who take refuge in him” (‫)כל־חוסי בו‬. Since the “son” is the nearest antecedent, a natural reading of the psalm suggests that obeisance to the royal son is tantamount to taking refuge in him (as opposed to incurring his wrath). Common idiom normally expects that all who take refuge in YHWH are blessed, and this is certainly possible (cf. Pss 7:2; 11:1; 16:1; etc.). Nonetheless the antecedent of the third singular pronoun is at least ambiguous, and surely involves the royal son who enjoys pride of place together with YHWH elsewhere within Ps 2 (vv. 2, 11–12). Moreover, in v. 8 YHWH has already invited the royal son to “[a]sk of me (‫ )שאל ממני‬and I will make (‫ )ואתנה‬the nations (‫ )גוים‬your heritage (‫ )נחלתך‬and the ends of the earth (‫ )אפסי־ארץ‬your possession.” Usually Israel is YHWH’s ‫נחלה‬, as seen in Moses’ Song in Deut 32 and in Moses’ recollection of his intercession for Israel in Deut 9:25–29. YHWH’s invitation to the royal son in v. 8 thus amounts to an invitation to intercede for nations just as Moses had done toward Israel more narrowly, and thereby gain the ends of the earth as his inheritance.11 Moreover, Chapter 6’s analysis of ‫ נחלה‬in Pss 28:9; 33:12; 78:62; 94:5, 14; 106:5 and 40 showed that Moses-like intercession was frequently in view when the Psalter speaks of people as God’s ‫נחלה‬. The Psalter’s

11.  Mays, The Lord Reigns, 101, observes that ‫ נחלה‬ordinarily does not extend to “the ends of the earth” in the OT, making the universalization of the promise here remarkable.

260

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

introduction thus announces that the royal son does for “the ends of the earth” what Moses had done for Israel as God’s “inheritance” (‫)נחלה‬: ask of YHWH and receive them from him. To sum up so far, the juxtaposition of Pss 1–2 offers compelling support for several key aspects of the proposal. First, Pss 1–2 introduce the Psalter by presenting the king and YHWH as a “joint force” that cannot be played off against each other as Wilson’s theory does. Second, the “blessed” torah-observer of Ps 1 is royal and lives according to torah as Grant, Cole, and others argue. Contrary to commending life under the Mosaic covenant as an alternative to failed Davidic covenantal theology, Pss 1–2 depict the king as fulfiller of Mosaic torah.12 Third, the relationship of the nations and their leaders toward YHWH depends on their disposition toward the king. Through the king they either receive peace and refuge in right relationship to YHWH (1:10) or their way is destroyed through his wrath (vv. 9, 12). Indeed, Pss 101 and 110 confirm that this aspect of kingship persists into Books IV–V. Fourth, the king has a mediatory role with respect to YHWH and the nations (2:8) as Moses had with respect to YHWH and Israel. He is in effect a “new Moses.” As an intercessor he “asks of” YHWH, who gives him nations as his inheritance to the ends of the earth, and in so doing fulfills the now-universalized Abrahamic covenantal promise of inheriting the land. Other features of Ps 1 support this. Gillingham, Creach, and Cole all observe that Ps 1:3’s simile of the tree alludes to Eden/the temple even before 2:6’s explicit reference to Zion. Creach explains that Ps 1:3, “consistently includes vocabulary drawn from other texts in which Zion or the temple is depicted as a garden paradise. Thus, the writer of Ps 1:3a transforms the simile of the tree (as it appears in Jer 17:8) into a comparison of the righteous to trees planted in the temple precincts.”13 In that case Ps 1’s “blessed man” is already very amenable to the kind of

12.  As noted in Chapter 7, McCann, A Theological Introduction, 27, sees the twofold ‫ תורה‬in Ps 1:2 as a reference to the Psalter as an object of meditation. While this is an intriguing possibility, it is hard to imagine editors overlooking the natural Mosaic association of ‫תורה‬, especially given oft-noted similarities between Ps 1 and texts like Deut 17 and Josh 1:7–8. See also Cole, Psalms 1–2, 58–63; and Willgren, Formation, 141–44. 13.  Jerome F. D. Creach, “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3,” CBQ 61 (1999): 36. Gillingham, A Journey of Two Psalms, 7–9; and Cole, Psalms 1–2, 64–68. Cole (24–25) sees Ps 1 offering “the portrait of a royal sacerdotal conqueror established upon the waters of the eschatological sanctuary of Eden.”

14. Ending with the Beginning

261

royalization suggested by Ps 2’s depiction of an intercessor king. These psalms’ collocation therefore accentuates Ps 2’s convergence of king, intercession, and sanctuary, and reflect editorial intent to cast the king in priestly tones (cf. Ps 110:4). In all these ways, then, Pss 1–2 suggest editors’ intent to “royalize” the Mosaic covenant rather than “democratize” the Davidic. These psalms support major tenets of my proposal by identifying Ps 1’s “blessed man” as a torah-observing anointed king, royal son, and mediator, who is opposed by nations yet ultimately triumphs over them. The ways of the righteous and the wicked in 1:5–6 (“known” by YHWH and “perishing” respectively) are further defined in 1:10–12. Those kings—and by extension their peoples—who pay homage and take refuge in the royal son and fear YHWH walk in the way of the righteous, whereas those who reject the son and continue their recalcitrant ways perish in them. After all, the king has been installed on Zion and, in Abrahamic covenantal terms, stands to “inherit the earth” at YHWH’s invitation to “[a]sk of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (2:8). Further Reflections on the Characterization of David As the above analysis suggests, Pss 1–2 introduce David and YHWH as effective coregents, calling Wilson’s low estimation of human kingship into question. Indeed, Robert Wallace has raised probing questions about Wilson’s characterization of David in Book V, which arguably apply to the Psalter more broadly. Wallace asks, how should one read the character of David in book 5? Is there a case to be made for Wilson’s subjugation of David to YHWH’s kingship? Could David and YHWH be considered coregents? With the conflation of the thrones of YHWH and David in Ps 2, and the kingship of God celebrated in the last psalm of David in the Psalter, Ps 145, when one speaks of the reign of David and the reign of YHWH, is it textual to speak of their kingships interchangeably?14

Indeed, the relationship between divine and Davidic kingship is a foundational one. Our investigation has offered the beginnings of an answer by suggesting that Davidic psalms after Ps 72 chiefly have in mind (a) Davidic successor(s) whose identity and kingdom embraces Ps 72’s universalized vision. The juxtaposition of Pss 1 and 2 seem to confirm

14.  Wallace, “Characterization of David,” 197.

262

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

this characterization, while also introducing other key dimensions of the king’s role we observed earlier, such as his intercession for the peoples/ all the earth and inheritance thereof. David’s reign, then, is but one aspect of his characterization in the Psalter, and his role as a royal and priestly covenant mediator/intercessor cannot be overlooked if we take full account of Davidic psalms and their careful placement in Books III, IV, and V. In this light it does not seem helpful to describe “David” vis-à-vis YHWH as though it were a choice between them, and so Wallace is on the right track when speaking of their coregency as part of a greater picture of the fulfilment of the covenant.15 Moreover, Wallace’s criticism of Wilson’s characterization of David relates directly to the latter’s view of the Davidic covenant as failed and replaced by Mosaic covenantal life. Again, Wallace writes, Wilson’s reading only works if…the character “David” in the Psalter is really referring to the character David from the Deuteronomistic history, and if, therefore, the royal psalms that celebrate David and Davidic monarchy are really celebrating David and Davidic monarchy. “David” could be a metonym for YHWH’s reign. Wilson would likely not accept a devalued YHWH in the text. “David” could represent an exilic Israel throughout the centuries or, more basically, Wilson could simply be reading the character of “David” wrongly. Perhaps, instead of David as YHWH’s “priest,” David remains “king.”16

Wallace offers an intriguing array of possibilities here, the last of which relates most closely to my proposal. Rather than decide between the priestly and royal characterization of David, however, this study has shown that the Psalter offers a larger view of David that includes both of these characterizations in addition to others; for example, a new, Moses-like, suffering “servant,” and leader of a new exodus. Each dimension of David’s characterization identified in the course of this study offers an important perspective from which to view the relationship between YHWH and “David,” none of them complete by themselves. As king, David’s throne seems conflated with YHWH’s in Ps 2, suggesting their identification there and elsewhere (cf. Ps 45:7–8). As priestly mediator/intercessor, “David” stands in a theological position to represent both YHWH and people. In Ps 103, for instance, David is the mouthpiece 15.  Drawing on Robert Cole’s and David Mitchell’s work, Wallace, “Characterization of David,” 201, identifies Pss 110:1, 45:7, and Book III as places where YHWH’s and David’s reigns appear to be “deliberately conflated.” 16.  Wallace, “Characterization of David,” 195.

14. Ending with the Beginning

263

of the divine self-revelation of Exod 34:6, while elsewhere he is a royal “suffering servant” (Book III; cf. Ps 102) who identifies with people and petitions on their behalf. Such dimensions of the characterization of David could be explored further.

Part IV C onc l usion

Chapter 15 S u m m i n g U p t h e I n v est i gat i on

The foregoing investigation set out to elucidate how editors of the Psalter perceived the relationship between the Davidic covenant and its premonarchic counterparts, the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants, bringing the question of covenant relationships into sharper focus. Indeed, it has received very little direct investigation even though it lies at the heart of scholarly debate about the Psalter’s editorial agenda. Nevertheless scholarly theories on the Psalter presuppose answers to this question. Scholars like Wilson understand the Psalter’s editorial agenda according to a “problem–solution” paradigm, in which post-exilic life under the Mosaic covenant replaces “failed” royal covenantal theology. Other scholarly views presuppose the “democratization” of the Davidic covenant. Against such views our hypothesis contended that editors royalized the premonarchic covenants and their associated promises and obligations. The editors anticipated an ideal Davidic successor who keeps torah and intercedes for God’s people, who are consistently portrayed as unfaithful to Mosaic covenantal stipulations, and inherits all the nations of the earth. To test this proposal, Part I surveyed and reassessed major kinds of editorial evidence identified by scholars in the field. This enabled us to assess their capacity to reflect demonstrable editorial intent and to reevaluate their significance in certain cases. We agreed with Wilson that superscriptional data—particularly author and genre—play an important organizational role and confirm the five books as the Psalter’s major subgroups. While varying in strength, common lexemes and themes in adjacent or nearby psalms were deemed another useful kind of evidence for inferring editorial intentionality in collocating psalms. The recent scholarly interest in concatenation also reflects this. On the other hand, scholars’ views about the significance of such concatenation for editorial agenda often owe much to their macro-structural assumptions. The significance of another intriguing feature of the Psalter, the “doublets,” is also somewhat enigmatic, and scholars’ diachronic explanations have tended to be very speculative. By contrast, the 72:20 postscript

268

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

is explicitly editorial in nature. After considering the varied explanations for this feature, this investigation suggested that 72:20 signals a shift in focus from “historical” David ben Jesse to a future “David” in subsequent Davidic and Davidized psalms in the latter three books. While much remains unclear about the history of the so-called Elohistic Psalter, theologically oriented explanations have more merit and underscore the importance of “name theology” to the editors. Chapter 3 also examined what bearing external evidence from Qumran and the LXX has on the editing of the Psalter, finding Wilson’s evidence for a two-stage redaction less secure than commonly assumed. Part II then investigated the Psalter’s references and allusions to covenant. Chapter 5 examined the term ‫ ברית‬in Pss 25, 44, 50, 74, 78, 89, 103, 105, 106, 111, and 132. While several instances make it plain which historical covenant is chiefly in view (e.g., Pss 89 and 105), more normally ‫ ברית‬is used in an absolute way, lacking explicit description but nevertheless presupposing that the term is understood. This, together with the fact ‫ ברית‬is always singular, suggested an essential unity and theological continuity undergirding the distinct covenants. We also found that psalms with ‫ ברית‬typically allude to one covenant or another—most often the Mosaic covenant— primarily by specifying promises or commitments pertaining to them. Chapters 6–8 examined “criteria” in the Psalter that elicit the biblical covenants, identifying their distribution and examining their particular association with David. Though preliminary in nature and sometimes inconclusive, this investigation showed that in many cases these allusive “criteria” gravitate around David. For instance, allusions to the covenant formula accentuate David as YHWH’s covenant partner par excellence. Likewise allusions to foundational texts like Deut 6:5 occur predominantly in Davidic or Davidized psalms, highlighting David’s “whole-hearted” piety towards YHWH. Similarly, allusions to the Aaronic blessing, while relatively few, suggest that the king announces YHWH’s blessing (esp. Ps 67). Part III then examined key psalms in their book contexts and Pss 1–2 as the Psalter’s introduction. Chapter 9 explored Ps 72:17 within Ps 72 as an allusion to Gen 12:3, 22:18, and 26:4, exploring how it relates to the key structural concerns of Book II. Psalm 72 identifies the “seed” of Abraham as the royal son (v. 1) for whom David ben Jesse prays (v. 20). The analysis suggested that the editors responsible expected the key Abrahamic covenantal promise of blessing for the nations to be realized through an ideal royal successor. In considering the structure of Book II the most conspicuous structural feature in Book II, Ps 50’s

15. Summing Up the Investigation

269

dislocation from the main Asaph group (Pss 73–83), can be accounted for by editors’ presentation of David as God’s covenant partner who responds to Ps 50’s summons in vv. 14–15. In the Davidic group that follows David calls on YHWH in his day of trouble (Ps 51; cf. 86:7), and in the Psalter more broadly it is consistently David who will “fulfill [his] vows” to YHWH and “offer thank-offerings” in accordance with 50:14–15. Chapter 9 also examined the arrangement of Korahite Pss 42–49, seeing a close association between David, YHWH, and Zion in Pss 45–48 that presents the group’s immediate response to its own lament in Ps 44. This group brings together the same complex of major themes found in Moses’ Song of the Sea in Exod 15, responding to Ps 44’s lament by envisaging a “new exodus.” Chapters 10–13 examined the grace formula. Its full citations occur only in Davidic psalms: Pss 86, 103, and 145; even in Books III and IV where there are only three Davidic psalms altogether. Despite relatively few mentions in Book III, David enjoys a theologically and structurally central place. Central to the Asaph group, Ps 78 identifies God’s election of David and Zion as his divine response to Israel’s covenantal unfaithfulness. Central to the Korahite group, Ps 86 presents “David” as the faithful servant of YHWH who appeals to the grace formula when petitioning YHWH for help from threatening enemies. We also noted a strong resonance with Isaiah’s suffering servant, especially in light of Pss 88–89, where, in contrast to the Deuteronomic History, the crisis suffered by king and people is not attributed to the failure of kings. Furthermore, editors plausibly viewed Ps 86 as a royal intercession for the kingdom and people. In Book IV “David” announces YHWH’s grace and compassion in the forgiveness of sins. This was a third major aspect of a composite picture of the Davidic ruler formed by Pss 101–103, who also succors the blameless and cuts off the wicked (Ps 101) and cries out to YHWH under the oppression of enemies as he announces the time of YHWH’s restoration of Zion (Ps 102). This trifold portrait is located after Pss 93–100 with their multiple allusions to the Song of the Sea (Exod 15). Accordingly, editors seem to have viewed “David” as instrumental in bringing about a “new exodus,” whose “new song” of YHWH’s reign is announced in Pss 93–100. Moreover, we saw that although Book IV emphasizes Moses, it does so predominantly in historical perspective (Pss 103, 105, and 106). Book IV highlights his historic roles in the YHWH–Israel relationship, especially that of intercessor, apparently to accentuate “David’s” exercise of those same Mosaic qualities. “David” therefore takes on such historically Mosaic roles as the leader of a new

270

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

exodus, destroyer of idols and idolaters, and intercessor. At the same time Ps 103 presents him as revealer of YHWH’s gracious character. David’s declaration of the grace formula in Ps 103 more nearly parallels that of YHWH in Exod 34, who had himself declared his name and character before Moses. Although Ps 90 gives similar “present-tense” voice to Moses, we observed that the later Davidic group (Pss 101–103) both amplifies Moses’ lament and petitions and answers them. In light of this, it seems wrong to speak of one covenant superseding another in Book IV, and even more false to say that “Mosaic covenantal life” is Book IV’s proposed solution to a failed Davidic covenant. Rather, the two are presented in continuity with each other, whose fulfillments are realized through the speaker of Pss 101–103. The last instance of the grace formula, Ps 145:8, expresses the core reason for the Psalter’s climactic crescendo of praise in Pss 146–150 and therefore confirms the formula as a major focal point of the Psalter. Structurally, Book V accentuates the grace formula and reasserts its particular association with “David” seen also in the earlier books. Book V reiterates the major theological concerns seen so far, such as a “new exodus” whose leader appears to be royal (Pss 113–118, esp. 116), and “David” as victorious sacerdotal king (Ps 110; cf. Pss 2, 15–24). Moreover, the beginning and ending of Book V presents “David” as the leader of thanksgiving who calls all people to thank YHWH for fulfilling key covenantal promises (Pss 107–108; Pss 136 and 138), and it is in this context that we find him declaring the grace formula in Ps 145. The Psalter consistently presents David as an inseparable and focal part of its solution to covenantal crises, not their cause. Finally, the pairing of Psalms 1–2 at the beginning of the Psalter further reflects editorial intent to royalize premonarchic covenants and their major promises. The opening psalms of the Psalter present YHWH’s anointed as a priestly intercessor who “asks of YHWH,” and receives the nations as his “heritage” and “the ends of the earth” as his possession, thereby fulfilling a now universalized Abrahamic covenantal promise of land and blessing for the nations (Gen 12:3). The earthly kings’ relationship to YHWH depends on their disposition toward the royal son. Conclusion In conclusion, although each book brings its distinctive emphases, there is strong continuity between their perspectives on the covenant and “David’s” place in its fulfilment. Diachronic questions remain. But attempts to deduce editors’ theological agendas from purported stages

15. Summing Up the Investigation

271

of the Psalter’s growth yield conclusions every bit as speculative as the diachronic assumptions on which they depend. Accordingly the approach taken above was more synchronic in its attention to existing textual data, while remaining mindful of diachronic possibilities. Repeatedly our analysis of such data suggested a consistency and coherence between the Psalter’s books regarding covenant relationships. While it is possible to explain the movement between specific groups of psalms with a democratizing theological agenda, such movements are explained by a “royalizing” agenda at least as plausibly. Furthermore, our investigation of Books II–V and the Psalter’s introduction (Pss 1–2) showed that a royalizing editorial agenda seems to permeate the Psalter overall. This also seems to fit Book I well with its strong Davidic focus and the arrangement of subgroupings like Pss 15–24 that centers on a torah-observing king (Pss 18–21) who enters the sanctuary (Pss 15 and 24). On the other hand, to limit the substance of editors’ hopes to their postexilic historical circumstances— that is, a temple theocracy whereby divine kingship now replaces human kingship and “David” is reduced to a nostalgic example whose covenantal promises are now democratized—seems to me unduly and anachronistically indebted to modern notions of searching for meaning amid existential angst.1 In the words of St Paul, “who hopes for what he sees?” (Rom 8:24). Accordingly, although more detailed work could be done on each book, the foregoing investigation substantially bears out our proposal. Editors seem to have anticipated an ideal future Davidide who, being faithful and observing torah, identifies with frail, dust-like humanity and intercedes for them. Rather than abandon the positive, central role of kingship in covenant renewal through their purification of the cult that H. J. Kraus described from the Deuteronomic History,2 the Psalter’s editors seem inspired by it. The Psalter and its books are crafted around the hope of a coming “David” through whom YHWH would renew his people and Zion (e.g., Pss 102–103) and lead them in the thanksgiving and praise of God (Ps 145 et al.). Announced as YHWH’s “anointed” and “son” in Ps 2, the king both conquers his enemies (Pss 2, 101, 110, 118, cf. 143:12) and suffers as he identifies with the people as YHWH’s servant (Pss 78, 86, 88–89, 102; cf. 18:1). This “David” is instrumental in YHWH’s fulfilment of his covenant promises to Abraham and exodus-like salvation of his people, announcing YHWH’s grace and favor as YHWH himself had done before Moses (Ps 103). 1.  Pace deClaissé-Walford, Introduction to the Psalms, 53. 2.  Kraus, Worship in Israel, 195. See Chapter 1.

272

Covenant Relationships and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter

In Ps 90 we see Moses presented as an intermediary figure, and scholarship has justifiably noted his prominence in Book IV and what that might mean for expectations concerning royalty. David soon takes the active intermediary role at the close of that book (101–103[–106]) and in Book V, however. Just as renewal of the Davidic covenant entails the renewal of the Mosaic within the Psalter’s singular view of “YHWH’s covenant,” the Psalter anticipates “David” as a “new Moses” fulfilling the latter’s historic role as covenant mediator. Thus, the Davidic and pre-monarchic covenants exhibit a theological unity through their common fulfillment. As the New Testament proclaims, this coming Χριστός and υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (Ps 2) would realize YHWH’s covenantal promises through his suffering and death, intercession, and vindication by God as the resurrected and ascended king. Soli Deo Gloria

Appendix A l l u si on s to t h e C ov enant F or mula

Tables 1, 2, and 3 tabulate the number of times that ‫ עם‬and ‫אלהים‬/‫אל‬ appear with pronominal suffixes in possible allusions to the covenant formula (see Chapter 6). Specific psalms and verses are indicated in the footnotes. Some suffix forms are irrelevant to the formula and not represented here, such as plural suffixes on ‫עם‬. The tables distinguish instances where the term in question is vocative in direct address from references in the third person, while also indicating instances that conform closely to one of Rendtorff’s three categories of the formula; for example, “we are your people” (‫ )ואנחנו עמך‬in Ps 79:13. Table 1. Suffixed Incidences of ‫עם‬

“my people” (‫)עמי‬1 “your people” (‫)עמך‬ “his people” (‫)עמו‬

4

Vocative/Direct Address

Third Person Reference

Formula B/C

22

23

–

–

14

5

16

–

287

18

1.  Omitting Pss 14:4 (= 53:5); 59:12; 78:1, where the 1st sg. suffix on ‫ עמי‬refers to the psalmist rather than YHWH; and 144:2 (Sebir, Aquila, the Syriac and Jerusalem Targum have ‫ עמים‬in Ps 144:2, and thus may read, “He subdues peoples under me”). 2.  Psalms 50:7 and 81:9. ‫ עמי‬is vocative in Ps 50:7’s divine address. 3.  Psalm 81:12, 14. 4.  Omitting 45:11, which has a f. sg. suffix referring to the royal wife. 5.  Psalms 3:9; 28:9; 44:13; 60:5; 68:8; 72:2; 77:16, 21; 80:5; 83:4; 85:3, 7; 94:5; 106:4. The 2nd sg. suffix in 110:3 refers to the royal, priestly figure celebrated in the psalm. 6.  Psalm 79:13. 7.  Psalms 14:7 (= 53:7); 29:11 (×2); 50:4; 73:10(?); 68:36*; 78:20, 52, 62, 71; 85:9; 94:14; 105:24, 25, 43; 106:40; 111:6, 9; 113:8; 116:14, 18; 125:2; 135:12, 14; 136:16; 148:14; 149:4. Psalm 73:10 is uncertain. LXX has ὁ λαός μου (= ‫)עמי‬, and BHS speculates that it and the following word (‫ )עמו הלם‬be read ‫עם אליהם‬. *The MT lacks a possessive suffix in 68:36 (‫)לעם‬, but numerous witnesses add a 3rd sg. suffix: LXX (except Sinaiticus), Syriac, and Targum. 8.  Psalm 100:3. N.B. the Qere ‫ ולו‬for ‫ולא‬.

274

Allusions to the Covenant Formula Table 2. First Person Suffixed Incidences of ‫ אלהים‬and ‫אל‬ Vocative/Direct Address

Third Person Reference

Formula A/C

“my God” (‫)אל(ו)הי‬

309

1310

311

“my God” (‫)אלי‬

312

113

614

“our God” (‫)אלהינו‬

2

25

317

15

16

9.  Psalms 3:8; 5:3; 7:2, 4; 13:4; 18:29; 22:3; 25:2; 30:3, 13; 35:23, 24; 38:16, 22; 40:6, 9, 18; 43:4; 59:2; 71:4, 12, 22; 83:14; 84:4; 86:12; 91:2; 104:1; 109:26; 118:28; 145:1. In 38:16 and 40:6 ‫ אתה‬is an emphasizing pronoun so that ‫ אלהי‬is vocative rather than a complement to ‫ אתה‬as per Formula A. Whether 18:29 is vocative or a third-person reference is somewhat ambiguous. 10.  Psalms 18:7, 22, 29 (see previous note), 30; 42:6/7, 12; 43:5; 69:4; 84:11; 94:22; 104:33; 119:115; 146:2. Like 18:29, in 84:11 ‫ אלהי‬is preceded by secondperson address to God, so may assume the same vocative force even though its own clause indicates a third-person reference. Witnesses are divided as to whether ‫אלהי‬ concludes Ps 42:6 (as a 3rd per. reference) or begins v. 7 (as a vocative). 11.  Psalms 31:15; 86:2; 143:10. Combined with ‫ אתה‬the psalmist also speaks these in direct address to YHWH. The LXX omits ‫אתה‬, which would render ‫ אלהי‬a vocative (ὁ θεός μου). 12.  Psalms 22:2 (×2); 102:25. 13.  Psalm 68:25 is somewhat ambiguous. ‫ אלי‬in the second colon switches to 3rd per., but perhaps retains the vocative force of ‫ אלהים‬in the first colon. 14.  Psalms 18:3; 22:11; 63:2; 89:27; 118:28; 140:7. In Ps 18:3 ‫ אלי‬is the fourth of eight complements for ‫יהוה‬, so syntactically follows the “He is/you are my God” pattern in third-person discourse. The other five instances combine with ‫ אתה‬in second-person address. A similar instance not included here is Ps 90:2. Moses’ declaration, “you are God” (‫)אתה ֵאל‬, replicates Formula A’s syntax minus suffix (cf. 95:3), though LXX witnesses μή [= ‫]אל‬ ַ instead of “God,” conjoining it with v. 3 as an imperative. 15.  Psalms 99:8 and 106:47. In Ps 99:8 ‫ אתה‬and ‫ אלהינו‬form a chain of vocatives constituting the collective subject of the verb “you answered them” (‫יהוה אלהינו אתה‬ ‫ )עניתם‬rather than subject-complement (Formula A). 16.  Psalms 18:32; 20:6, 8; 40:4; 44:21; 48:2, 9; 50:3; 66:8; 67:7; 90:17; 92:14; 94:23; 98:3; 99:5, 9 (×2); 113:5; 115:3; 116:5; 122:9; 123:2; 135:2; 147:1, 7. Psalm 90:17 uses ‫ אלהינו‬in a jussive clause, after which it addresses God with 2nd per. imperatives. 17.  Psalm 48:15 (with ‫ זה‬the subject pronoun: ‫ ;)זה אלהים אלהינו‬95:7 (full bilateral formula); and 105:7 (with ‫ הוא‬the subject pronoun: ‫)הוא יהוה אלהינו‬



275

Allusions to the Covenant Formula Table 3. Second and Third Person Suffixed Incidences of ‫ אלהים‬and ‫אל‬ Vocative/ Direct Address

Third Person Reference

Formula A/C

“your [sg.] God” (‫)אלהיך‬

–

618

219

“your [pl.] God” (‫)אלהיכם‬

–

120

–

“his God” (‫)אלהיו‬

–

221

222

“their God” (‫)אלהיהם‬

–

2

–

23

18.  Psalms 42:4, 11; 45:8; 68:29(?); 146:10; 147:12. Some witnesses omit the 2nd sg. suffix in Ps 68:29 (i.e., ‫ אלהים‬for ‫)אלהיך‬, presumably due to a second (vocative) ‫ אלהים‬and the 2nd per. discourse of the surrounding context. 146:10 and 147:12 show a fem. sg. suffix referring to Zion. 19.  Psalms 50:7 (see also Table 1); 81:11. These combine with ‫ אנכי‬in direct address: “I am [God/YHWH] your God.” 20.  Psalm 76:12. 21.  Psalms 37:31 and 146:5. 22.  Psalm 33:12 expresses Formula C. Psalm 144:15 reflects Formula A and to some extent Formula C: ‫אשרי העם שיהוה אלהיו‬. 23.  Psalms 79:10 and 115:2.

B i b l i og ra p h y

Allen, Leslie. C. Psalms 101–150. WBC 21. Nashville: Nelson, 2002. Allison, Dale C. Jr. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1993. Anderson, R. Dean Jr. “The Division and Order of the Psalms.” WTJ 56 (1994): 219–41. Auffret, Pierre. “ ‘Allez, Fils, Entendez-Moi!’ Etude Structurelle du Psaume 34 et son Rapport au Psaume 33.” EgT 19 (1988): 5–31. ———. La Sagesse a bâti sa maison: Études de structures littéraires dans l’Ancient Testament et spécialement dans les Psaumes. OBO 49. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1982. Augustine. Expositions on the Book of Psalms. In vol. 8 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1886–89. 14 vols. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Auwers, Jean-Marie. La Composition littéraire du Psautier: Un état de la question. Paris: J. Gabalda, 2000. ———. “Le Psautier comme livre biblique: édition, rédaction, fonction.” Pages 67–89 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Barber, Michael. Singing in the Reign: The Psalms and the Liturgy of God’s Kingdom. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road, 2001. Barbiero, Gianni. “The Risks of a Fragmented Reading of the Psalms: Psalm 72 as a Case in Point.” ZAW 119 (2007): 67–91. Barth, Christoph. “Concatenatio im ersten Buch des Psalters.” Pages 30–40 in Wort und Wirklichkeit: Studien zur Afrikanistik und Orientalistik 1: Eugen Ludwig Rapp zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Brigitta Benzing, Otto Böcher, and Günter Mayer. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1976. Beckwith, Roger T. “The Early History of the Psalter.” TynBul 46 (1995): 1–27. Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985. Borger, J. “Moses in the Fourth Book of the Psalter.” Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002. Bos, Johanna W. H. “Psalms and Sinai Covenant.” Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1977. Bridge, Edward J. “Loyalty, Dependency and Status with YHWH: The Use of ‘bd in the Psalms.” VT 59 (2009): 360–78. Britt, Brian. “Unexpected Attachments: A Literary Approach to the Term ‫ חסד‬in the Hebrew Bible.” JSOT 27 (2003): 289–307. Broyles, Craig C. Psalms. NIBC 11. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Bibliography

277

Brueggemann, Walter. “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon.” JSOT 50 (1991): 63–92. Brueggemann, Walter, and Patrick D. Miller. “Psalm 73 as a Canonical Marker.” JSOT 72 (1996): 45–56. Brunet, A. M. “La théologie du Chroniste: Théocratie et Messianisme.” Pages 384–97 in Sacra Pagina: Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica. Edited by J. Coppens, A. Descamps, and E. Massaux. BETL 12. Gembloux: Duculot, 1959. Bullock, C. H. Encountering the Book of Psalms: A Literary and Theological Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001. Burnett, Joel S. “Forty-Two Songs for Elohim: An Ancient Near Eastern Organizing Principle in the Shaping of the Elohistic Psalter.” JSOT 31 (2006): 81–101. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ———. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. ———. “Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis.” JSS 16 (1971): 137–50. Clark, Gordon R. “Chesed—A Study of a Lexical Field.” AbrN 30 (1992): 34–54. Clements, Roland E. Abraham and David: Genesis XV and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1967. Cole, Robert L. “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2.” JSOT 98 (2002): 75–88. ———. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Psalms 1 and 2: Gateway to the Psalter. HBM 37. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012. ———. The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73–89). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Craigie, Peter. Psalms 1–50. WBC 19. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1983. Creach, Jerome F. D. The Destiny of the Righteous in the Psalms. St. Louis: Chalice, 2008. ———. “Like a Tree Planted by the Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in Psalm 1:3.” CBQ 61 (1999): 34–46. ———. “The Mortality of the King in Psalm 89 and Israel’s Postexilic Identity.” Pages 237–49 in Constituting Israel: Studies in the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr. Edited by John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. ———. “The Psalms and the Cult.” Pages 119–37 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. ———. “The Shape of Book Four of the Psalter and the Shape of Second Isaiah.” JSOT 80 (1998): 63–76. ———. Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOTSup 217. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Croft, Steven J. L. The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms. JSOTSup 44. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987. Dahmen, Ulrich. Psalmen- und Psalter-Rezeption im Frühjudentum: Rekonstruktion, Textbestand, Struktur und Pragmatik der Psalmenrolle 11QPsa aus Qumran. STDJ 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms. 3 vols. AB 16–17A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965–70. Day, John. Psalms. OTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990.

278 Bibliography deClaissé-Walford, Nancy L. “The Canonical Approach to Scripture and The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter.” Pages 1–11 in The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. Edited by Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. ———. “The Canonical Shape of the Psalms.” Pages 93–110 in An Introduction to Wisdom Literature and the Psalms: Festschrift Marvin E. Tate. Edited by H. Wayne Ballard and W. Dennis Tucker Jr. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2000. ———. Introduction to the Psalms: A Song from Ancient Israel. St. Louis: Chalice, 2004. ———. “Reading Backwards from the Beginning: My Life with the Psalter.” LTQ 41 (2006): 119–30. ———. Reading from the Beginning: The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997. Delitzsch, Franz. Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. Translated of the 2nd German ed. by Francis Bolton. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871. Dentan, R. C. “The Literary Affinities of Exodus XXXIV 6f.” VT 13 (1963): 34–51. Dozeman, Thomas B. “Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character.” JBL 108 (1989): 207–23. Eaton, John H. Kingship and the Psalms. London: Student Christian Movement, 1976. Edwards, Timothy M. “The Targum of Psalms.” Pages 279–94 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. Eissfeldt, Otto. “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1–5.” Pages 196–207 in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper, 1962. Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “Der Psalter in Qumran.” Pages 137–63 in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Erich Zenger. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1998. Firth, David G. “Speech Acts and Covenant in 2 Samuel 7:1–17.” Pages 79–99 in The God of Covenant: Biblical, Theological and Contemporary Perspectives. Edited by Jamie A. Grant and Alistair I. Wilson. Leicester: Apollos, 2005. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Flint, Peter W. “The Book of Psalms in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” VT 48 (1998): 453–72. ———. “The Contribution of Gerald Wilson Toward Understanding the Book of Psalms in Light of the Psalms Scrolls.” Pages 209–30 in The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. Edited by Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. ———. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. “The Psalms Scrolls from the Judean Desert: Relationships and Textual Affiliations.” Pages 31–52 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings from the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by George J. Brooke. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ———. “Variant Readings of the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint Psalter.” Pages 337–65 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter und seine Tochterübersetzungen. Edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus and Udo Quast. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Flint, Peter W., and Patrick D. Miller, eds. The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. VTSup 99. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Bibliography

279

Freedman, David Noel. “The Chronicler’s Purpose.” CBQ 23 (1961): 436–42. ———. “God Compassionate and Merciful.” Western Watch 6 (1955): 6–24. Gelston, Anthony. “Editorial Arrangement in Book IV of the Psalter.” Pages 165–76 in Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Katharine J. Dell, Graham Davies, and Yee Von Koh. VTSup 135. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. “Covenant and Commandment.” JBL 84 (1965): 38–51. ———. Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. FOTL 14. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations. FOTL 15. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Gese, Harmut. “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters.” Pages 159–67 in Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie. BEvT 64. Munich: Kaiser, 1974. Gillingham, Susan. A Journey of Two Psalms: The Reception History of Psalms 1 & 2 in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. ———. “The Levitical Singers and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter.” Pages 91–123 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. ———. “The Messiah in the Psalms: A Question of Reception History and the Psalter.” Pages 209–37 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. ———. “The Zion Tradition and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter.” Pages 308–41 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. Goldingay, John. The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary. London: T&T Clark International, 2005. ———. Psalms. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006–2008. Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe H. “The Psalms Scroll (11QPsa): A Problem of Canon and Text.” Text 5 (1966): 22–33. Gosse, Bernard. “Abraham and David.” JSOT 34 (2009): 25–31. Gottwald, Norman K. The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Grant, Jamie A. The King as Exemplar: The Function of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the Book of Psalms. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. ———. “The Psalms and the King.” Pages 101–18 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. ———. “Royal Court.” Pages 668–72 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings. Edited by Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008. ———. “Wisdom and Covenant: Revisiting Zimmerli.” EuroJTh 12 (2003): 103–13. Gregory, Bradley C. “The Legal Background of the Metaphor for Forgiveness in Psalm CIII 12.” VT 56 (2006): 549–51. Grisanti, Michael. “The Davidic Covenant.” MSJ 10 (1999): 233–50. Groenewald, Alphonso. “Exodus, Psalms and Hebrews: A God Abounding in Steadfast Love (Ex 34:6).” HvTSt 64 (2008): 1365–78. Grogan, Geoffrey W. Psalms. Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.

280 Bibliography Grol, Harm van. “David and His Chasidim: Place and Function of Psalms 138–145.” Pages 309–37 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Gunkel, Hermann. An Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998. Heim, Knut. “The (God-)Forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and Intertextual Enquiry.” Pages 296–322 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Higgins, A. J. B. “Priest and Messiah.” VT 3 (1958): 321–36. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. “Bund und Tora in den Psalmen.” Pages 66–77 in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition: Festschrift für J. Maier. Edited by H. Merklein. BBB 88. Frankfurt: Anton Hain, 1993. ———. “Bundestheologie im Psalter.” Pages 169–76 in Der neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by Erich Zenger. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1992. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar and Erich Zenger. Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Translation of Psalmen 51–100. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2000. ———. Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. Translation of Psalmen 101–150. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2008. ———. “The So-Called Elohistic Psalter: A New Solution for an Old Problem.” Pages 35–51 in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller. Edited by Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. ———. “ ‘Wer darf hinaufziehn zum Berg JHWHs?’ Zur Redaktionsgeschichte und Theologie der Psalmengruppe 15–24.” Pages 166–82 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschäftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ. Edited by Georg Braulik, Walter Groß, and Sean McEvenue. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1993. Houston, Walter. “David, Asaph and the Mighty Works of God: Theme and Genre in the Psalm Collections.” JSOT 68 (1995): 93–111. ———. “The King’s Preferential Option for the Poor: Rhetoric, Ideology, and Ethics in Psalm 72.” BibInt 7 (1999): 341–67. Howard, David M., Jr. “Editorial Activity in the Psalter: A State-of-the-Field Survey.” WW 9 (1989): 274–85. ———. “The Psalms and Current Study.” Pages 23–40 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. ———. “Recent Trends in Psalms Study.” Pages 329–68 in The Face of Old Testament Studies. Edited by David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999. ———. The Structure of Psalms 93–100. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Hutchinson, James Hely. “A New-Covenant Slogan in the Old Testament.” Pages 100–121 in The God of Covenant: Biblical Theological and Contemporary Perspectives. Edited by Jamie A. Grant and Alistair I. Wilson. Leicester: Apollos, 2005. ———. “The Psalms and Praise.” Pages 85–100 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005.

Bibliography

281

Joffe, Laura. “The Answer to the Meaning of Life, Universe and the Elohistic Psalter.” JSOT 27 (2002): 223–35. ———. “The Elohistic Psalter: What, How and Why?” SJOT 15 (2001): 142–66. Jones, Christine D. B. “The Psalms of Asaph: A Study of the Function of a Psalm Collection.” Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2009. Jones, G. H. “The Decree of Yahweh (Ps II 7).” VT 15 (1965): 336–44. Kalluveettil, Paul. Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and Ancient Near East. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982. Kidner, Derek. Psalms 1–72: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973. ———. Psalms 73–150: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1975. Kim, Hee Suk. “Exodus 34:6 in Psalms 86, 103, and 145 in Relation to the Theological Perspectives of Books III, IV, and V of the Psalter.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL. San Francisco, CA, 20 November 2011. Kim, Jungwoo. “Psalm 89: Its Biblical-Theological Contribution to the Presence of Law within the Unconditional Covenant.” Ph.D. diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989. Kimelman, Reuven. “Psalm 145: Theme, Structure, and Impact.” JBL 113 (1994): 37–58. Kleinig, John W. Leviticus. ConcC. St. Louis: Concordia, 2003. ———. “What’s the Use in Naming God?” LTJ 26 (1992): 27–34. Knauf, Ernst Axel. “Psalm LX und Psalm CVIII.” VT 50 (2000): 55–65. Koch, Klaus. “Der Psalter und seine Redaktionsgeschichte.” Pages 243–77 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: für Walter Beyerlin. Edited by Klaus Seybold and Erich Zenger. Herders biblische Studien 1. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1994. Koh, Yee Von. “G. H. Wilson’s Theories on the Organization of the Masoretic Psalter.” Pages 177–92 in Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for His Eightieth Birthday. Edited by Katharine J. Dell, Graham Davies, and Yee Von Koh. VTSup 135. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Kratz, Reinhard Gregor. “Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters.” ZTK 93 (1996): 1–34. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ———. Psalms 60–150: A Continental Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ———. Theology of the Psalms. Translated by Keith Crim. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986. ———. Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament. Translated by Geoffrey Buswell. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1965. Kruse, Heinz. “David’s Covenant.” VT 35 (1985): 139–64. Kselman, John S. “Psalm 101: Royal Confession and Divine Oracle.” JSOT 33 (1985): 45–62. Lane, Nathan C. The Compassionate, but Punishing God: A Canonical Analysis of Exodus 34:6–7. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Laney, J. Carl. “God’s Self-Revelation in Exodus 34:6–8.” BSac 158 (2001): 36–51. Lenzi, Alan C. “The Metonic Cycle, Number Symbolism, and the Placement of Psalms 19 and 119 in the MT Psalter.” JSOT 34 (2010): 447–73.

282 Bibliography Levenson, Jon D. “The Davidic Covenant and Its Modern Interpreters.” CBQ 41 (1979): 205–19. ———. Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. New York: HarperCollins, 1985. Levin, Christoph. “Die Entstehung der Büchereinteilung des Psalters.” VT 54 (2004): 83–90. ———. “Psalm 136 als Zeitweilige Schlussdoxologie des Psalters.” SJOT 14 (2001): 17–27. Lohfink, Norbert L. “The Concept of ‘Covenant’ in Biblical Theology.” Pages 11–31 in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Norbert Lohfink and Erich Zenger. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. ———. “Covenant and Torah in the Pilgrimage of the Nations.” Pages 33–84 in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Norbert Lohfink and Erich Zenger. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. ———. “The Covenant Formula in Psalm 33.” Pages 85–112 in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Norbert Lohfink and Erich Zenger. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. Lohfink, Norbert, and Erich Zenger. The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. ———. “Theological Relevance: The Drama of Covenant History.” Pages 191–98 in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Norbert Lohfink and Erich Zenger. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. Longman III, Tremper. “The Psalms and Ancient Near Eastern Prayer Genres.” Pages 41–59 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. Longman III, Tremper, and Peter Enns, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008. Maloney, Les D. “Intertextual Links: Part of the Poetic Artistry within the Book I Acrostic Psalms.” ResQ 49 (2007): 11–21. Martilla, Marko. Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms: A Study of the Redaction History of the Psalter. FAT 2/13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Mays, James L. The Lord Reigns: A Theological Handbook to the Psalms. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. ———. “Past, Present, and Prospect in Psalm Study.” Pages 147–56 in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Edited by James L. Mays, D. L. Petersen, and K. H. Richards. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. ———. “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in the Psalter.” JBL 106 (1987): 3–12. ———. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1994. McCann, J. Clinton Jr. The Book of Psalms. NIB 4. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. ———. “Books I–III and the Editorial Purpose of the Hebrew Psalter.” Pages 93–107 in Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. Edited by J. Clinton McCann Jr. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. ———. A Theological Introduction to the Book of Psalms: The Psalms as Torah. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994. McCarthy, Dennis J. “Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry.” CBQ 27 (1965): 217–40. McFall, Leslie. “The Evidence for a Logical Arrangement of the Psalter.” WTJ 62 (2000): 223–56.

Bibliography

283

McKelvey, Michael G. Moses, David and the High Kingship of Yahweh: A Canonical Study of Book IV of the Psalter. Gorgias Dissertations in Biblical Studies 55. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010. Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” BA 17 (1954): 50–76. ———. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955. Michel-Mainz, Andreas. “Ist mit der ‘Gnadenformel’ von Ex 34,6 (+7?) der Schlüssel zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments gefunden?” BN 118 (2003): 110–23. Millard, Matthias. Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein formgeschichtlicher Ansatz. FAT 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Miller, Patrick D. “The Beginning of the Psalter.” Pages 83–92 in Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. Edited by J. Clinton McCann Jr. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. ———. “The End of the Psalter: A Response to Erich Zenger.” JSOT 80 (1998): 103–10. ———. “Kingship, Torah Obedience, and Prayer: The Theology of Psalms 15–24.” Pages 279–97 in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. JSOTSup 267. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Mitchell, David C. “God Will Redeem My Soul from Sheol: The Psalms of the Sons of Korah.” JSOT 30 (2006): 365–84. ———. “Lord, Remember David: G. H. Wilson and the Message of the Psalter.” VT 56 (2006): 526–48. ———. The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms. JSOTSup 252. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Moberly, R. W. L. At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34. JSOTSup 22. Sheffield: JSOT, 1983. Moran, William L. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy.” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas. 2 vols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. Munnich, Olivier. “Indices d’une Septante originelle dans le Psautier grec.” Bib 63 (1982): 406–16. Murphy, Roland E. A Study of Psalm 72 (71). The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology (Second Series) 12. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1948. ———. The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Murphy, S. Jonathan. “Is the Psalter a Book with a Single Message?” BSac 165 (2008): 283–93. Nasuti, Harry P. “The Editing of the Psalter and the Ongoing Use of the Psalms: Gerald Wilson and the Question of Canon.” Pages 13–19 in The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. Edited by Nancy L. deClaisséWalford. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Newsome, James D. Jr. “Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purposes.” CBQ 44 (1982): 25–44. Ndoga, Sampson S. “Revisiting the Theocratic Agenda of Book 4 of the Psalter for Interpretive Premise.” Pages 147–59 in The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. Edited by Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Noonan, Benjamin. “Abraham, Blessing, and the Nations: A Reexamination of the Niphal and Hitpael of ‫ ברך‬in the Patriarchal Narratives.” HS 51 (2010): 73–93.

284 Bibliography Pang, Philip K. “Exodus 34:6–7 and Its Intertextuality in the Old Testament.” Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002. Parker, N. H. “Psalm 103: God Is Love. He Will Have Mercy and Abundantly Pardon.” CJT 1 (1955): 191–96. Petter, Donna L. “Exodus 34:6–7: The Function and Meaning of the Declaration.” Master’s thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 1997. Pietersma, Albert. “The Present State of the Critical Text of the Greek Psalter.” Pages 12–32 in Der Septuaginta-Psalter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Pigott, Susan Marie. “God of Compassion and Mercy: An Analysis of the Background, Use and Theological Significance of Exodus 34:6–7.” Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Renaud, Bernard. “Le Psautier sous le signe du jugement.” Pages 225–42 in Le Jugement dans l’un et l’autre Testament. Edited by Eberhard Bons. LD 197. Paris: Cerf, 2004. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Translated by M. Kohl. OTS. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Romerowski, Sylvain. “Que signifie le mot ḥesed?” VT 40 (1990): 89–103. Rose, Martin. “Psaumes.” Pages 562–78 in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament. Edited by Thomas Römer, Jean-Daniel Macchi, and Christophe Nihan. MdB 49. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2004. Rösel, Christoph. Die messianische Redaktion des Psalters: Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie der Sammlung 2–89. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1999. Sakenberg, Katherine Doob. The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Enquiry. HSM 17. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978. Sanders, James A. “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon.” McCQ 21 (1968): 284–98. ———. “The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Quarter Century of Study.” BA 36 (1973): 110–45. ———. The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa). DJD 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1965. ———. “Variorum in the Psalms Scroll (11QPsa).” HTR 59 (1966): 83–94. Sanders, Paul. “Five Books of Psalms?” Pages 677–87 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Sarna, N. “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis.” Pages 29–46 in Biblical and Other Studies. Edited by Alexander Altman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. Saur, Markus. “Die theologische Funktion der Königspsalmen innerhalb der Komposition des Psalters.” Pages 689–99 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Schaper, Joachim. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WUNT 2/76. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Seybold, Klaus. Introducing the Psalms. Translated by R. Graeme Dunphy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1990. Skehan, Patrick. “A Liturgical Complex in 11QPsa.” CBQ 35 (1973): 202–5. ———. “Qumran and Old Testament Criticism.” Pages 163–82 in Qumran: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu. Edited by M. Delcor. BETL 46. Gembloux: Leuven University Press, 1978. Smith, Mark S. “The Theology of the Redaction of the Psalter: Some Observations.” ZAW 104 (1992): 408–12.

Bibliography

285

Snearly, Michael K. The Return of the King: Messianic Expectation in Book V of the Psalter. LHBOTS 624. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Sohn, Soeck-Tae. “ ‘I Will Be Your God and You Will Be My People’: The Origin and Background of the Covenant Formula.” Pages 443–65 in Ki Baruch Hu: Essays in Honor of Baruch A. Levine. Edited by R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Steinmann, Andrew E. The Oracles of God: The Old Testament Canon. St. Louis: Concordia, 1999. Swanson, Dwight D. “Qumran and the Psalms.” Pages 247–61 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Pisqah Be’emsa‘ Pasuq and 11QPsa.” Textus 5 (1965): 11–21. Tate, Marvin. Psalms 51–100. WBC 20. Waco, TX: Word, 1990. Tatu, Silviu. “The Book of Psalms: A Survey of Modern Approaches.” ST 5 (2007): 124–32. Terrien, Samuel. The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. ———. Review of The Psalms: A Commentary, by Artur Weiser. JBR 4 (1963): 334–36. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–87. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “The Steadfast House: What Was David Promised in 2 Sam 7:11b–16?” HUCA 34 (1963): 71–82. Tov, Emmanuel. “Excerpted and Abbreviated Biblical Texts from Qumran.” RevQ 16 (1995): 581–600. ———. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Tucker, W. Dennis Jr. “Democratization and the Language of the Poor in Psalms 2–89.” HBT 25 (2003): 161–78. ———. “Empires and Enemies in Book V of the Psalter.” Pages 723–31 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. ———. “The Role of the Foe in Book 5: Reflections on the Final Composition of the Psalter.” Pages 179–91 in The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. Edited by Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Van Leeuwen, R. The Book of Proverbs: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. Vanderzee-Pals, Mary. “God’s Moral Essence: Exodus 34:6–7a and Its Echoes in the Old Testament.” PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 1996. Vangemeren, Willem A. Psalms. The Expositors Bible Commentary 5. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Vincent, Marvin A. “The Shape of the Psalter: An Eschatological Dimension?” Pages 61–82 in New Heaven and New Earth—Prophecy and the Millennium: Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston. Edited by P. J. Harland and C. T. R. Hayward. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Viviers, Hendrik. “The Coherence of the Ma‘alôt Psalms (Pss 120–134).” ZAW 106 (1994): 275–89. Wallace, Howard N. “King and Community: Joining with David in Prayer.” Pages 267–77 in Psalms and Prayers. Edited by Bob Becking and Eric Peels. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. Psalms. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009.

286 Bibliography Wallace, Robert E. “Gerald Wilson and the Characterization of David in Book 5 of the Psalter.” Pages 193–207 in The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. Edited by Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. ———. The Narrative Effect of Book IV of the Hebrew Psalter. StBibLit 112. New York: Lang, 2007. Walton, J. H. “Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant.” JSOT 34 (1991): 21–31. Weinfeld, Moshe. “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by H. Hartwell. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962. Whybray, Norman. Reading the Psalms as a Book. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Willgren, David. The Formation of the ‘Book’ of Psalms: Reconsidering the Transmission and Canonization of Psalmody in Light of Material Culture and Poetics of Anthologies. FAT 2/88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Williams, Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Williams, Tyler F. “Towards a Date for the Old Greek Psalter.” Pages 248–76 in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma. Edited by Robert J. V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter J. Gentry. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Willis, Timothy M. “ ‘So Great is His Steadfast Love’: A Rhetorical Analysis of Psalm 103.” Bib 72 (1991): 525–37. Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBLDS 76. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. ———. “A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter?” JBQ 28 (2000): 102–10. ———. “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter.” Pages 391–406 in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception. Edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ———. “Psalms and Psalter: Paradigm for Biblical Theology.” Pages 100–110 in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. ———. “The Qumran Psalms Manuscripts and the Consecutive Arrangement of Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” CBQ 45 (1983): 377–88. ———. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) and the Canonical Psalter: Comparison of Editorial Shaping.” CBQ 59 (1997): 448–64. ———. “The Qumran Psalms Scroll Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate.” CBQ 47 (1985): 624–42. ———. “The Shape of the Book of Psalms.” Int 46 (1992): 129–42. ———. “Shaping the Psalter: A Consideration of Editorial Linkage in the Book of Psalms.” Pages 72–82 in Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. Edited by J. Clinton McCann Jr. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. ———. “The Structure of the Psalter.” Pages 229–46 in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches. Edited by David Firth and Philip Johnston. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005. ———. “Understanding the Purposeful Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and Promise.” Pages 42–51 in Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. Edited by J. Clinton McCann Jr. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993. ———. “The Use of Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter.” JSOT 35 (1986): 85–94.

Bibliography

287

———. “The Use of ‘Untitled’ Psalms in the Hebrew Psalter.” ZAW 97 (1985): 404–13. Wittman, Derek E. “Let Us Cast Off Their Ropes from Us: The Editorial Significance of the Portrayal of Foreign Nations in Psalms 2 and 149.” Pages 53–69 in The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms: The Current State of Scholarship. Edited by Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford. Atlanta: SBL, 2014. Zenger, Erich. “The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of the Psalms, Psalms 107–145.” JSOT 80 (1998): 77–102. ———, ed. The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. ———. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 7th ed. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2008. ———. “The God of Israel’s Reign over the World (Psalms 90–106).” Pages 161–90 in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Norbert L. Lohfink and Erich Zenger. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. ———. “Psalmenexegese und Psalterexegese: Eine Forschungsskizze.” Pages 17–65 in The Composition of the Book of Psalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. ———. “Der Psalter als Buch: Beobachtungen zu seiner Entstehung, Komposition und Funktion.” Pages 1–57 in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Erich Zenger. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1998. ———. “Zion as Mother of the Nations in Psalm 87.” Pages 123–60 in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms. Norbert L. Lohfink and Erich Zenger. Translated by Everett R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000. Zimmerli, Walter. “Zwillingspsalmen.” Pages 105–13 in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten: Festschrift für J. Ziegler. Edited by J. Schreiner. Würzburg: Echter, 1972.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament Genesis 1.6–8 154 1.14–19 154 1.22 248 1.28 248 9.1 248 9.7 248 9.12–14 99 9.12 85 9.13 238 9.17 85 12 169, 185, 248 12.1–3 166, 189, 191 12.1 78, 163 12.2–3 185, 191 12.2 189 12.3 78, 167, 185–87, 192, 193, 245, 248, 268, 270 12.7–8 78 15.1 191 15.5–7 191 15.5 189, 248 15.6–7 193 15.6 193 15.7 78, 83, 163, 192 15.16 78 15.18–21 191 15.18 82 17.1 147 17.1–8 191

17.5–6 189 17.7 113 17.8 78, 114 18.22 245 22 185 22.18 186, 187, 191, 192, 268 22.28 193 26 185 26.3–4 104 26.4 186, 187, 192, 245, 268 26.5 132 28.3 248 28.4 163 31.14 121 35.9 248 35.10–12 195 35.11 248 Exodus 2.11–12 238 2.23–25 238 3.6 194 3.7 238 3.15–16 194 3.15 213 4.5 194 4.22–23 213 4.22 93 4.23 177 5.5 138 6.2 125 6.3 213 6.5 238 6.6 125, 159

6.7 84, 113, 114 6.8 125 7.16 213 7.26 213 8.16 213 9.1 213 9.13 213 10.3 213 10.7–8 213 10.24 213 12.31 213 13.5 213 13.13 198 13.14–15 198 13.15 198 14 159 15 78, 86, 88, 159–61, 166, 197, 198, 238, 269 15.1–18 159 15.1 159 15.2 96, 160, 161, 197 15.3 213 15.6 160 15.13 86, 198, 248 15.14 160 15.16 86, 159, 197 15.17 198 15.18 86, 160, 198 15.21 161 17 120 18.20 132 19.5 119 20.2 115, 116, 213 20.3 83, 138

20.4–6 138 20.5–6 173, 210 20.5 172 20.6 172 20.7 83, 137, 138 20.8 138 20.13–17 137 20.13 138 20.14–15 84 20.16 84, 137, 139 20.17 139 20.20 141, 150 21.28 138 23.30 83 24 84, 214 24.7 85 24.8 85 25–40 229 25–31 158, 213 25 158 25.9 158 29.6 125 29.45–46 117 29.45 114 30.13–14 132 31.3 158 32–34 10, 107, 105, 209, 213, 229, 239, 243, 245 32 214, 239 32.7–14 213 32.11–13 212 32.12 105 32.14 105, 214 33–34 9, 221 33.1–17 213 33.1–3 213 33.17 214 33.19 82, 212, 213, 215, 221 34 79, 107, 210, 211, 212–14, 215, 218, 219, 223, 243 34.6–9 221

289

Index of References 34.6–7

12, 77, 82, 88, 89, 105, 111, 115, 210, 212–15, 217, 221 34.6 12, 78, 103, 105, 107, 167, 200, 209, 214–17, 219, 233, 239, 245, 263 34.7 216, 221 34.9 221 34.10–28 214 34.10 88 34.24 163 34.28 85 35–40 213 35.30–35 158 38.13 132 40.32–27 213 Leviticus 4 204 4.10 204 7 203 7.12–15 202 7.13 204 7.16 203 8 204 9.4 204 9.18 204 9.19 204 11.44–45 114, 117 11.44 125 11.45 114 16 204 17.3 204 20.10 139 20.24 83, 163 22 203 22.18 203 22.21 203 22.23 203, 204 22.27 204 22.28 204

22.29 202 22.33 114 23.18 204 23.38 203 25.24 83 25.38 114 26.12–13 114, 117 26.12 113, 114 26.13 125 26.44–45 114, 117 26.45 113, 114 26.46 132 Numbers 1–4 132 6 169, 171 6.24–27 159, 167, 169–71, 217 6.24–26 78, 170 6.27 170 11 120 12.7 171 14–18 12 14 82, 221 14.13–19 212 14.13–16 212 14.18–19 82, 221 14.18 209, 210, 212, 221, 230, 238 14.19 212, 221 14.20 214 14.24 163 15.3 203 15.8 203 15.39–40 103 15.41 114 16.14 163 18.19 152 18.20–24 163 18.20 121 20 157 29.39 203 31.14 132 31.48 132 32.13 180 35.53 83

290 Deuteronomy 1.8 163 1.21 163 2.24 163 3.12 163 3.18 83, 163 3.20 163 4 119 4.1 132 4.10 141 4.14 83 4.20 113, 114, 119, 120 4.26 154 5.1 132 5.7 83, 138 5.8–11 138 5.9–10 210 5.9 138, 172, 173 5.10 172, 173 5.11 83, 138 5.12 138 5.17–21 137 5.18–19 84 5.20 137, 139 5.21 139 5.29 141 5.31–33 163 6.1 83, 94, 132, 163 6.2 141 6.4–7 78, 80, 88, 124–30 6.4 125, 126, 130, 153 6.5 80, 108, 125, 128–29, 130, 131, 152, 247, 268 6.6 125, 129 6.7 125, 126, 129–30, 131 6.13 141 6.18 163 6.24–25 141 6.24 141

Index of References 6.25 140 7 97, 98, 173 7.6–7 83 7.6 113, 114, 119 7.9–10 78, 80, 128, 159, 171–74, 182 7.9 85, 86, 97–99, 117, 128, 171–75 7.10 172, 174 7.11 94, 132 7.13 189 8.6 140, 141 9 119, 120 9.4–6 140 9.4–5 83 9.9 85 9.11 85 9.12 140 9.15 85 9.16 140 9.22–24 167 9.25–29 119, 121, 122, 259 9.26 78, 120, 159, 167–69, 182 9.29 120 10.9 121 10.12 125, 140, 141 10.20 141 11.1 125, 128 11.13 125 11.17 189 11.22 125, 128, 140 11.32 132 12.1 132 12.11 203 12.12 121 12.17 203 12.26 203 13.4 80 13.5 141 13.11 141

14.2

113, 114, 119 14.27 121 14.29 121 17 10, 94, 101, 102, 136, 141, 258, 260 17.13 141 17.15 94 17.19–20 94 17.19 132, 136, 141 18.1 121 19.9 125, 128 19.20 141 21.21 141 24.13 140 26.16 132 26.17–19 114 26.17 113, 114 26.18 119 26.19 93, 114 27 66 27.9 114 27.15–26 66 28 143, 193 28.1 93 28.9 113, 114 28.11 189 28.58 141 29.11–12 114 29.11 113 29.12 113, 114 30 140 30.6 125 30.15 140 30.16–17 140 30.16 125, 128 30.19 154 30.20 125 31.7–8 158 31.12–13 141 31.14–15 158 31.23 158 31.30 159

32

88, 119, 120, 159, 259 32.4 96 32.9 120 32.15 96 32.18 96 32.30–31 96 32.37 96 33.9 81 33.10 81 34.5 176, 225 Joshua 1 136, 157 1.5 157 1.7–8 158, 260 1.8 136, 141, 158 1.9 158 2.17–20 138 3.6 85 3.8 85 3.14 85 4.9 85 6.6 85 11.23 158 18.1 158 18.7 121, 122 19.9 121 24.25 152 Judges 5 88, 162 5.5 162 5.14 162 5.16 162 5.18 162 1 Samuel 2.35 171 3.20 171 12.22 113, 114 15.23 99 15.26 99 22.14 171 25.28 171

291

Index of References 2 Samuel 3.28 138 7 7, 53, 79, 91, 96, 109 7.2 181 7.9 185 7.11–12 252 7.11 175, 181 7.12–16 108 7.12–15 91 7.12 91 7.13 91 7.14 92, 108–10, 153, 177, 178, 180, 189 7.15 99 7.16 91, 171 7.24 113, 114 11 139, 157 12.13 199 14.9 138 20.1 121 23.1 53 1 Kings 8.23–26 97, 174 8.23 97 11.38 171 12.16 121 15.5 157 2 Kings 11.12 153 11.17 113, 114 17.34 94 17.37 94 1 Chronicles 16 66 16.7–36 66, 70 16.17 152 16.36 66 22 100, 158 22.6–13 157 22.9 158

22.11 157 22.12 157 22.13 157 28 158 28.11–21 100 28.11–19 158 31 157 31.8 157 31.23 157 2 Chronicles 2–5 100 10.16 121 29.31 202 30.18–20 222 30.20 222 33.16 202 Nehemiah 9 242 9.8 171 9.17 12 9.33–34 242 Esther 4.11 257 Job 20.29 121 27.13 121 28.28 141 31.2 121 Psalms 1–119 52 1–89 34, 36, 37 1–72 22 1–2 11, 15, 31, 32, 42, 72, 77, 95, 151, 153, 255, 256, 258, 260, 261, 268, 270, 271

292 Psalms (cont.) 1 10, 27, 31, 32, 51, 63, 135–37, 141, 142, 145, 146, 149, 255–57, 259–61 1.1–2 136 1.1 146, 157, 257 1.2 133, 135, 136, 141, 258, 260 1.3 149, 150, 257, 260 1.5–6 261 1.5 136, 259 1.6 136, 141, 146, 148, 257, 259 1.9 260 1.10–12 261 1.10 260 1.12 260 2–89 24, 27, 28, 34, 50, 69, 102, 151, 234, 255 2–72 52 2 6, 10, 12, 28, 32, 50, 51, 63, 136, 141, 149, 151, 155, 164, 165, 168, 173, 175, 177, 178, 180, 189, 190, 196, 205, 238, 255–59, 261, 262, 270–72 2.1 257, 258

Index of References 2.2

112, 153, 173, 178, 190, 247, 258, 259 2.4 168 2.6 178, 252, 260 2.7–9 175 2.7 96, 117, 133, 153–55, 174, 177, 178, 258 2.8 107, 164, 166, 258, 260, 261 2.9 250 2.10–12 193, 259 2.10 259 2.11–12 141, 173, 259 2.11 150, 166 2.12 141, 174, 257–59 3–72 22 3–41 23, 42, 60, 63, 151 3–14 31 3–6 46 3 12, 20, 48, 150 3.8 274 3.9 118, 150, 273 4–6 48 4.2 126, 216 4.3 138 4.4 127 4.5 129 5 144, 151, 217 5.3 274 5.4 127 5.5–9 143 5.5–7 142 5.8–9 142 5.8 142, 143, 150, 215

5.9 142 5.12 128 5.13 193 6.3 216 6.9 127 6.10 127 7 48 7.2 259, 274 7.4 274 7.7 133 7.9–10 148 7.9 235 8–14 48 8–9 48 8 51, 165 8.2 174 8.10 174 9–11 44 9–10 39 9 31, 39, 40, 42 9.2 129, 131 9.5–6 148 9.5 148 9.6 148, 154 9.14 216 9.17–18 148 10 40, 42, 43, 56, 146, 148, 234 10.2–4 146 10.5 133, 145, 146 10.12 146 10.13 146 10.16 154 10.17–18 146 10.19 134 10.24 134 10.27 134 10.28 134 10.42 134 11–100 28 11 190 11.1 259 11.2–7 148 12 48, 139, 148

12.3–6 147 12.3–5 134 12.3 139 12.7 134 12.9 145–47 13.4 274 13.6 162 13.19 138 14 57, 58, 61 14.4–5 150 14.4 273 14.6 146 14.7 273 15–24 13, 31, 72, 81, 122, 135, 137, 138, 165, 170, 193, 252, 270, 271 15 122, 137, 139, 140, 145, 148, 151, 165 15.1 81, 137, 145, 180 15.2–5 145 15.2 129 15.3 137 15.4 180 16 122, 123, 138, 139 16.5–6 121, 122 16.5 122 16.4 138 16.1 259 17 54, 122 17.1 126 17.2 235 17.4 134 17.6 126 17.9 134 17.13 134 17.14 122 18–21 122, 138, 271 18–22 48

Index of References 18–19 18

31, 95, 135 10, 12, 48, 81, 118, 134, 135, 143, 144, 165 18.1 155, 174, 175, 271 18.3 96, 116, 274 18.7 127, 274 18.21–27 143 18.21 143 18.22 142, 143, 274 18.23 133, 134, 143 18.25 143 18.28 146, 274 18.29 118, 274 18.30 274 18.31 134 18.32 96, 274 18.34 154 18.47 67, 96 19–24 46 19 10, 31, 32, 51, 134, 135, 151, 165 19.8–10 134, 150 19.8 133, 153, 155, 171 19.9 103, 133 19.10 132, 133, 134, 150 19.11 139 19.12 175 19.14 175 19.15 96, 129 20–21 81, 165 20 118, 170, 181 20.1 200 20.2–4 170 20.2 170, 194 20.5–6 170 20.6 274 20.7 170

293 20.8 274 20.10 200 21 170 21.2–8 170 21.5 154, 170 21.14 162 22 48, 130, 195, 201, 206 22.2 274 22.3 274 22.11 116, 274 22.17 150 22.22 155 22.25 127 22.26 201 22.28–29 192 22.28 165, 166, 192 22.31 129 24 122, 137, 139, 140, 165 24.3 81, 137, 180 24.4 137, 138, 180 25–34 31 25 77, 81(–82), 84, 93, 106, 111, 143, 144, 165, 181, 217, 268 25.2 81, 274 25.4 81, 142, 143 25.5 81 25.6–7 82, 215, 220 25.7 215 25.8–10 143 25.8 81 25.9–10 77 25.9 81 25.10 80, 81, 106, 109, 133, 143, 215 25.12–13 165

294 Psalms (cont.) 25.12 81, 82, 106 25.13 82, 164 25.14 80–82, 106 25.16 146, 216 25.18 124 25.21 235 26 81, 145, 146, 148, 149, 217 26.1 81, 145, 146, 235 26.3–5 145 26.3 145, 146, 215 26.4–5 145, 146 26.4 138 26.6–7 145 26.6 81, 146, 203 26.7 202–204 26.11 146, 216, 235 26.12 146 27 143, 144 27.6 162 27.7 126, 216 27.9 175 27.11 142–44 27.12 139, 143, 144 27.13 215 28 120, 123 28.1 96 28.2 126 28.6 67, 127 28.9 118, 120, 259, 273 29–31 46 29 31 29.1 177 29.11 273 30.3 274 30.8 154 30.9 216 30.11 126, 216 30.13 274

Index of References 31

48, 128, 131, 139, 169, 170, 173, 174 31.3 96 31.7 138 31.10 216 31.15 116, 274 31.17 169, 175 31.18–19 148 31.20 215 31.22 67 31.23–25 67 31.23 127 31.24 128, 173 31.34 174 32–33 44 32 43, 56, 124, 145, 148, 217 32.6 145 32.8–11 145 32.8 145 32.9 145 32.10–11 145 32.1–2 216 32.5 216 33 23, 42, 43, 56, 117, 151, 159, 161, 165, 166, 172, 181, 234 33.3 160, 161 33.4–5 171, 172 33.4 134 33.6 134 33.8 150 33.12 114, 117, 120, 181, 259, 275 33.18 235 34 43, 48, 125, 131, 148, 151

34.3 126 34.7 127, 146 34.9 215 34.10 148, 150 34.12 125, 148, 150 34.15 148 34.16–22 148 34.16–17 148, 235 34.16 129 34.20 149 34.22 149 34.23 176 35 207 35.10 146 35.18 207 35.23 274 35.24 274 35.27 175 36 48, 148, 172, 174 36.1 172, 175 36.2–5 147 36.5 145–47 36.6 98, 171, 174 36.11 172 36.12 147 37 51, 136, 137, 144, 165, 181, 193, 195, 206 37.3–4 143 37.5 143 37.7 143 37.9 143, 164, 165, 192 37.10 143 37.11 143, 164, 165 37.12 143 37.14 143 37.16 143 37.17 143 37.20 143 37.21–22 193 37.21 143, 193

37.22

164, 165, 192, 193 37.23 143 37.25 143 37.28 143 37.29 143, 164, 165, 192 37.30 143 37.31 129, 133, 135–37, 275 37.32 136, 143 37.34 142, 143, 164, 165 37.35 143 37.38 143 37.39 143 37.40 143 38–40 46 38–39 46 38 56, 124 38.16 274 38.22 274 39–42 48 39 145, 148 39.2 145, 146 39.12 139 39.13 126 40 46, 57, 58, 61, 118, 136, 137, 151, 159, 172, 181, 217 40.2 127 40.4 150, 161, 197, 274 40.5 136 40.6 274 40.7–15 204 40.9 133, 135–37, 274 40.10–11 172 40.11–12 215 40.11 98, 129, 171, 215 40.12 215 40.14–18 57 40.14 57

Index of References 40.17 57, 128 40.18 57, 274 41–42 63 41 46, 66, 139 41.5 216 41.7–8 139 41.11 216 41.13 235 41.14 24, 46, 62– 64, 66, 194 42–93 62 42–89 61 42–88 63 42–83 22–24, 30, 58–61, 72 42–72 21, 62, 64 42–49 23, 26, 31, 43, 60, 61, 64, 192, 195(–99), 269 42–45 46 42–44 44 42–43 46, 82, 195, 197, 203– 205, 207 42 43, 46 42.3 203 42.4 195, 275 42.5 195, 202– 204 42.6–7 203 42.6 43, 274 42.7 195, 274 42.9 197 42.11 275 42.12 43, 203, 274 43 43 43.4 274 43.5 43, 203, 274 44–47 48 44–45 46 44 77, 82–83, 84, 118, 126, 137, 139, 165, 195, 197, 198,

295 205, 268, 269 44.1–9 82 44.2–4 197 44.2 126 44.3–4 83, 164, 165 44.5–9 83 44.10–17 82, 83 44.10 83, 195, 197 44.12 205 44.13 118, 195, 197, 273 44.14–17 195 44.15 205 44.17–18 77 44.17 80 44.18 82, 83 44.19 83 44.21 83, 137, 274 44.24–27 205 44.24 83 44.27 83 45–48 130, 196, 198, 205, 269 45–46 46, 48 45 130, 196, 198, 199 45.3 198 45.7–8 196, 262 45.7 154, 196, 262 45.8 148, 275 45.11 174, 273 45.12 174 45.17 130 45.18 154, 129, 130 46–48 198 46 31, 130, 165, 196, 229 46.2 117 46.8 194 46.12 194 47–51 46 47–49 46

296 Psalms (cont.) 47 130, 151, 165, 189, 191, 195, 196, 198, 206 47.3 150 47.5 128, 181 47.7–9 198 47.9–10 179 47.9 4, 104 47.10 191, 194, 195, 197 48 46, 130, 163, 165, 196, 198, 229 48.2 274 48.9 126, 274 48.12 133 48.13–14 126 48.14–15 130 48.14 130 48.15 117, 154, 274 49–51 43, 45 49 48, 125, 131, 148, 195, 196 49.2 125, 148 49.4 196 49.11 147 49.14 145–47 49.21 196 50–100 28 50–83 53 50–72 197 50–51 199, 200 50 8, 23, 26, 43, 61, 64, 75– 77, 83–85, 93, 111, 112, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 137, 139, 145, 148, 152, 195, 197,

Index of References 199–202, 204–208, 268, 269 50.1–6 84 50.2 75, 84 50.3 274 50.4 202, 273 50.5 80, 84, 206, 253 50.7–23 84, 199 50.7–8 131 50.7 84, 117, 118, 124, 125, 148, 273, 275 50.13 202 50.14–15 200–202, 204, 207, 208, 250, 253, 269 50.14 84, 201–203, 207 50.15 142, 144, 200, 206, 222, 233, 253 50.16–22 131 50.16 80, 133 50.17–18 77 50.17 201, 202 50.18 84, 122, 137, 139 50.20 84 50.22–23 145, 146 50.23 84, 202 50.24 148 51–72 23, 24, 26, 43, 52, 53, 60, 61, 64, 85, 125, 148, 195, 199(–205), 208 51–65 61 51–62 48 51 20, 46, 48, 83, 124, 125,

139, 140, 144, 195, 199–201, 216, 217, 269 51.3–4 216 51.3 198, 200, 206, 216 51.4 216 51.5 216 51.7 216 51.11 216 51.13–19 199 51.18–22 84 51.18–19 200 51.18 199 51.20–21 199 51.20 199 51.21 199 52–68 64 52–55 46 52 48, 151 52.8 150 52.10 150, 154 52.10–11 207 53–61 48 53 57, 58, 61 53.5 273 53.7 273 54 48, 202, 204 54.4 126 54.8 202, 204, 206, 207 55 149, 151 55.4 148, 149 55.9 80 55.18 127 55.20 127, 148–50 55.21 80 55.23 148, 149 56–60 46, 167 56 48, 201, 204 56.2 216 56.5 134 56.10 116, 117 56.11 134 56.13–14 205

56.13 201–204, 206 57–59 167, 168, 182 57 48, 58, 61, 165, 168, 216, 217 57.1 54 57.2 216 57.4 215 57.8–12 57 57.8 162 57.10 57 57.11 215 58 168 58.4 148 58.7 168 58.11–12 148 58.11 168 59 48, 161, 165, 166, 168, 169, 181 59.2–8 168 59.2–7 168 59.2 161, 168, 274 59.3 168 59.4–5 216 59.6 168, 194 59.7–8 168 59.9 168 59.12–14 168 59.12 168, 169, 273 59.17–18 161 59.17 162 60 48, 58, 61, 153 60.5 118, 273 60.7–14 57 61 165, 201, 217 61.2 126, 127 61.6 127, 201, 206 61.8 215 61.9 201, 206

Index of References 62–68 46 62–65 46 62 126, 173, 174 62.3 96 62.7 96 62.8 96 62.12 126, 131, 174 62.13 173 63 48 63.2 116, 274 63.12 180 64–70 48 64 151 64.2 126 64.3 150 64.10 150 64.11 150 65–68 45, 46 65–66 151 65 44, 46, 151, 201, 217 65.2 201, 206 65.4 216 65.5 181 65.6 150, 165 65.9 151 65.14 162 66–67 44–46, 234 66 70, 118, 125, 131, 151, 165, 201 66.3 151 66.5 151 66.8 274 66.13 201, 206 66.16 125 66.19 127 66.20 67 67 48, 70, 118, 151, 169–71, 181, 205, 206, 268 67.2 169, 193, 205, 216 67.3 142, 205

297 67.4–6 205 67.7–8 169, 193 67.7 274 67.8 150, 165, 166 68–70 61 68 44, 46, 146, 149, 151, 162, 172–74 68.2 173 68.3–4 145, 146 68.5 160 68.6 177 68.8–9 115 68.8 118, 273 68.9 162, 194 68.13 162 68.17 139, 163 68.18–19 163 68.18 162 68.20 67 68.21 115 68.22 145, 146 68.25–27 163 68.25 274 68.28 162 68.29 275 68.30 162, 163 68.33 160 68.36 67, 150, 194, 273 69 48, 56, 165, 204, 217 69.4 274 69.9 177 69.7 194 69.14 215 69.17 215 69.18 175 69.31 202–205 69.32 204 69.34 127 69.36–37 165 69.36 164 69.37 128, 176 70–71 56

298 Psalms (cont.) 70 44, 56–58, 61 70.2–6 57 70.2 57 70.5 57, 128 71–72 13, 54, 55, 64, 90 71 12, 43, 44, 55, 56, 64, 72, 130 71.2 250 71.3 96 71.4 274 71.5–6 55 71.9 55 71.12 274 71.17–18 55 71.18 130 71.22 274 72–73 63 72 12, 15, 20, 22, 26, 44, 46, 50, 52–56, 61, 64, 72, 90, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 124, 130, 140, 150, 151, 164–67, 185–92, 194–96, 199, 205, 206, 229, 230, 235, 238, 245, 247, 248, 252, 261, 268 72.1–7 188 72.1–3 188 72.1 12, 54, 133, 151, 188, 190, 237, 268 72.1

Index of References 72.2–11 188 72.2–4 188, 189 72.2 118, 273 72.4–11 188 72.5–7 188 72.5 150 72.8–14 188 72.8–11 188, 189 72.8 92, 189 72.9–11 191, 192 72.12–17 188 72.12–14 188, 189 72.15–17 188 72.16–17 194 72.17 8, 77, 78, 95, 179, 185–89, 191–93, 195, 206, 228, 268 72.18–19 24, 62–64, 67, 185 72.18 194 72.20 12, 21–24, 30, 42, 44, 46, 47, 51–56, 59, 61, 63, 64, 67, 69, 71, 72, 124, 152, 185, 190, 194, 226, 230, 267, 268 73–93 61 73–89 52, 62, 64 73–83 8, 23, 43, 64, 83, 195, 199, 200, 222, 224(–27), 269 73–74 190 73 26, 31, 61, 96 73.10 273 73.15 177, 179 73.26 96, 122

74

85–86, 95, 97, 100, 112, 190, 226, 268 74.1 86, 197 74.2 86 74.3–8 85 74.3 86 74.7 86 74.12–13 86, 159 74.17 86 74.18 85 74.20 80, 85, 86, 97, 171 74.22–23 85 75–77 46, 48 75 167, 168, 207 75.2 207, 208 75.3–4 168 75.5 148, 155 75.6 155 75.8–9 168 75.9–11 148 75.10 194 75.11 155 76 151, 201 76.2 201 76.7 194 76.8 150 76.9 150 76.10–12 36 76.12 201, 275 76.13 150, 166 77–79 116, 217 77–78 37, 224, 225, 227 77 215–17, 224, 225, 230 77.1 36 77.9–10 215 77.10 216 77.12–20 159 77.14 142 77.16 118, 177, 273 77.18–21 36

77.20–21 224 77.20 121, 209, 225, 227, 231 77.21 4, 116, 118, 158, 273 78–79 216, 217, 227 78 43, 48, 77, 86–90, 93, 104, 106, 108, 111, 120, 123, 129, 131, 135, 138, 139, 152, 159, 163, 176, 178, 180, 190, 216, 217, 223–28, 230, 254, 268, 269, 271 78.1–4 224 78.1 36, 133, 273 78.3 88, 126 78.4 88 78.5–67 131 78.5 88, 133, 153, 155 78.6–7 36 78.7 81, 133 78.9 177 78.10 80, 87, 88, 134, 144, 145 78.12–13 159 78.18 129 78.20 273 78.21 127 78.31–33 36 78.32–39 89 78.35 96 78.37 80, 87, 88 78.38 88, 89, 216 78.41 194 78.43–53 159

Index of References 78.52–83 225 78.52–53 227 78.52 273 78.56 133 78.58 138 78.59 127 78.61–64 89 78.62 119–21, 259, 273 78.65–67 89 78.67–68 181 78.67 224 78.68–72 87–90, 100, 108, 163, 224 78.68 87, 88, 108, 128, 224 78.69 89 78.70–72 87, 90, 179, 223–27, 231 78.70–71 120 78.70 43, 87, 89, 93, 95, 74, 175, 181, 224–27 78.71 119–21, 225, 231, 273 78.72 87, 89, 116, 120, 129–31, 225, 235 79–80 227 79 95, 100, 216, 217, 226 79.1–4 226 79.2 176 79.7–9 179 79.8–9 216 79.10 176, 226, 275 79.13 86, 116, 130, 179, 226, 273 80–81 48 80 95, 153, 169, 170, 179, 226 80.1 130

299 80.2 75, 226, 227 80.4 169, 179 80.5 118, 273 80.8 169, 179 80.9–18 169 80.9–12 159 80.13–19 179 80.15–18 179 80.15 179 80.16 169, 177, 179 80.18 169, 177, 179 80.20 169, 179 81 75, 76, 125, 126, 128, 130, 135, 144, 152, 153, 155, 172–74, 223, 227, 254 81.1 117 81.2–4 153 81.2–3 36 81.2 194 81.5–8 159 81.5–6 134, 153 81.5 133, 153, 194 81.6 133, 153, 155 81.8 145, 153 81.9 118, 125, 273 81.10–11 125, 153 81.11 159, 275 81.12–17 227 81.12–14 131, 227 81.12 118, 125, 126, 131, 153, 273 81.14–15 227 81.14 118, 126, 131, 142, 144, 273 81.16 173 82 148

300 Psalms (cont.) 82.4–5 146, 147 82.5 145 82.6 177 83–84 222 83 28, 45, 61, 172, 174, 222, 229 83.3 173 83.4 118, 273 83.5–9 227 83.6–19 229 83.6 80 83.13 165 83.14 274 84–150 59 84–89 23 84–88 62, 208, 222, 227(–29) 84–85 43, 47, 48, 60–62, 64 84 45, 48, 148, 222, 229 84.3 22 84.4 274 84.6 129, 147 84.8–12 146 84.8 145, 147 84.9 126, 194 84.10 223 84.11 147, 274 84.12 145 85 43, 217, 222 85.3–8 222 85.3–4 222 85.3 118, 216, 273 85.5–8 222 85.7 118, 273 85.9 126, 131, 222, 273 85.11 215 85.14 142 86 6, 12, 13, 15, 23, 43,

Index of References 48, 52–54, 61, 62, 78, 131143, 144, 151, 167, 176, 178, 180, 200, 206, 208–11, 214, 216–24, 227–31, 233, 237, 239, 244, 245, 249, 250, 253, 254, 269, 271 86.1 205, 237, 250 86.2 43, 116, 175, 176, 220, 224, 227, 253, 274 86.3–4 221 86.3 216 86.4 43, 175, 176, 224 86.5 215, 216, 220, 221, 231, 253 86.7 222, 231, 253, 269 86.9 228 86.10–11 36 86.11 142, 144, 151 86.12 129, 131, 207, 208, 274 86.14 220 86.15 77, 185, 200, 210, 214–16, 219, 230, 245 86.16 43, 175, 177, 178, 216, 224 86.17 219 87–89 44, 47

87–88

43, 61, 62, 64 87 43–45, 179, 223, 228, 229 87.2 128 87.4 179 87.5 179 87.6 179 88–89 45, 269, 271 88 23, 44, 45, 48, 99, 118, 223, 250 88.1–5 36 88.1 47, 48 88.3 250 88.12 98, 12 171 89–90 63 89 11, 12, 20, 27, 29, 43, 45, 50, 61– 63, 75, 77, 83, 90–102, 106, 111, 112, 124, 130, 135, 151, 152, 154, 155, 168, 171, 172, 174, 175, 177–80, 182, 190, 205, 217, 222–28, 230, 236–38, 240, 241, 250, 254, 268 89.105 268 89.1 162 89.1–38 93 89.2–38 6 89.2–5 93, 100 89.2–4 175 89.2–3 99 89.2 98, 102, 130, 171

89.3–5 93 89.3 98, 102, 171 89.4 43, 77, 80, 91–93, 95, 96, 175, 180, 224 89.5 93, 102, 130 89.6–38 100 89.6–15 93 89.6 98 89.7 177 89.8 150 89.9–10 159 89.9 98 89.15 98, 215, 217 89.16–38 93 89.16 180 89.18 155 89.19 194 89.20–38 96, 99 89.20 93, 94, 181 89.21 43, 175, 224 89.23–24 96 89.25 98, 99, 155, 171 89.26–28 91 89.26 92, 96 89.27 96, 116, 117, 174, 177, 178, 274 89.28 93 89.29 77, 80, 93, 96, 97, 102, 171 89.30 96, 102 89.30–33 94 89.31–33 92, 98, 101, 108, 110, 189 89.31–32 94, 97, 135 89.31 92, 133, 134 89.32 98, 133 89.34–38 92 89.34–35 97, 98, 171 89.34 97–99, 171 89.35–36 91

Index of References 89.35

77, 80, 93, 96–98 89.36–46 231 89.37–38 93, 96, 98, 154 89.37 96, 102 89.38 94, 98, 99, 102, 238 89.39–51 100 89.39 83, 99, 197, 228 89.40 43, 77, 80, 91, 93, 99, 175, 224 89.44–48 36 89.47–52 102 89.47 95, 239, 243 89.50–53 36 89.50–51 230 89.50 11, 91, 98, 102, 171, 177, 180, 181, 231, 239 89.51–52 177 89.51 94, 176, 177, 226 89.52 62 89.53 24, 62–64 90–150 24, 50 90–106 65, 66, 68 90–100 172, 235, 238(–40) 90–99 28 90–94 234 90–92 44, 234 90 26, 44, 54, 150, 151, 223, 234, 239–42, 270, 272 90.1 4, 68, 158, 209, 240 90.2 274 90.3–11 239 90.5 239

301 90.8 239 90.11 150 90.12–17 239 90.13–14 240–42 90.13 176, 239, 243 90.16 176 90.17 274 91.2 274 92 96, 118, 138, 139, 149, 172, 174, 207 92.2–3 172, 207 92.3 98, 171, 207 92.7–10 149 92.8–13 148 92.11 155 92.13–16 149 92.14 274 92.16 96 93–100 24, 30, 68, 160, 161, 166, 181, 197, 204, 234, 237, 239, 243, 254, 269 93–99 3, 160, 162 93 37, 61, 160, 198 93.5 133 94 96, 118–20, 123, 136–39, 149 94.1 75 94.3–7 138 94.3 148 94.4–5 239 94.5 120, 259, 273 94.6 138 94.7 194 94.12–15 148, 149 94.12 134–38 94.13–15 136

302 Psalms (cont.) 94.14 118–20, 138, 259, 273 94.16 239 94.20 153 94.21–23 148 94.22 96, 274 94.23 274 95–100 234 95 76, 96, 116, 144, 160, 203, 239 95.1 96 95.2 202–204 95.3 274 95.7 86, 114, 115, 117, 274 95.8 144, 145 95.10 144, 180 96–97 239 96 151, 159, 160, 165, 181, 193, 195, 238 96.1–13 66, 70 96.1–2 160 96.1 193 96.2 160 96.3 160 96.4–5 160 96.4 150 96.6–9 160 96.7 193 96.9 193 96.10 160 96.13 160 97 61, 128, 131, 138, 139, 160, 165, 196, 198 97.5 175 97.7 138, 239 97.8 133 97.10–12 148 97.10 128

Index of References 98

118, 159, 160, 165, 172, 174, 238 98.1–3 160 98.1 160, 172 98.2–3 172 98.3 98, 165, 171, 174, 274 98.6 4, 68, 160 99 61, 115, 118, 135, 151, 153, 155, 160, 181, 196, 198 99.1–5 153 99.3 151 99.4 160 99.5 274 99.6–8 160 99.6 153, 158, 209, 242 99.7 133, 134, 153 99.8 115, 274 99.9 160, 274 100–103 6 100 116, 160, 162, 165, 172, 174, 203, 234, 239 100.1 202, 204 100.3 86, 114, 115, 119, 273 100.4 202–204, 207 100.5 98, 171 101–106 68, 234, 272 101–104 234, 235–38, 240, 242 101–103 10, 44, 137, 159, 166, 172, 204, 233, 238–43, 269, 270, 272

101

4, 44, 51, 52, 103, 145, 148, 209, 233–37, 239, 247, 250, 254, 260, 269, 271 101.1–2 235 101.1 162, 237 101.2–4 235 101.2 129, 131, 145, 236 101.3–5 235 101.3 235 101.4 235 101.5–8 236 101.6–7 235 101.6 145, 235 101.7–8 235 101.7 235 102–103 217, 253, 271 102 44, 54, 124, 127, 130, 151, 205, 215–17, 229, 234, 236–40, 249, 250, 253, 254, 263, 269, 271 102.2 126, 127 102.3 237, 250 102.4–12 237 102.9 180 102.14 215, 216, 237 102.15 176, 216 102.16 151, 166 102.19 130 102.21 127 102.25 274 102.29 176 103–105 40

103

4, 12, 13, 15, 44, 52, 78, 102–103, 105, 107, 135, 162, 167, 200, 206, 209–11, 214, 215, 217, 218, 222, 232–35, 237–40, 243–45, 262, 268–71 103.1–2 102, 233 103.3–5 103 103.3 233, 253 103.5 237 103.6 133, 135, 233, 254 103.7–14 232 103.7 4, 68, 142, 158, 209, 241, 242 103.8–13 103 103.8 77, 103, 185, 200, 210, 214–16, 232, 241, 245 103.10–14 254 103.10 239 103.13 177, 233 103.15–16 239, 253 103.15 233, 239 103.17 103 103.18 3, 80, 103, 133, 135 103.19–22 237 103.20–22 102, 233 104–106 26, 68, 172 104 37, 118, 148, 237, 238 104.1 118, 238, 274 104.3 237 104.5 154 104.30 237 104.33–35 148

303

Index of References 104.33–34 148 104.33 162, 274 104.35 148 105–106 7, 20, 30, 68, 95, 96, 104–107, 111, 112, 134, 154, 159, 208, 234, 235, 240–43 105 37, 87, 93, 95, 103–104, 105, 112, 135, 152, 163–65, 176, 181, 190, 195, 208, 242, 268, 269 105.1–15 66, 70 105.1–2 165 105.1 206, 208 105.2 160 105.5–11 104 105.5–10 3 105.5 103, 105, 133 105.6 4, 104, 176 105.7 117, 133, 274 105.8–11 77, 195 105.8 80, 104, 105, 133, 134, 152, 191 105.9–10 104 105.9 4, 95, 104, 180 105.10 80, 104, 152, 154 105.11 104, 107, 164 105.12–41 103 105.19 134 105.23–45 159 105.24 273

105.25

176, 177, 273 105.26 4, 68, 104, 158, 163, 176, 181, 209, 242 105.27–38 176 105.27 176 105.39–41 176 105.42–45 103 105.42 4, 104, 176 105.43 273 105.44 104, 164, 165 105.45 81, 104, 105, 133, 134, 163 106–48 24 106 37, 49, 65– 68, 87, 103, 104–106, 112, 119, 121, 123, 138, 139, 151, 152, 190, 240–43, 254, 268, 269 106.1 65–67, 70, 206 106.3 148 106.4–5 121 106.4 118, 273 106.5 120, 259 106.6–18 241 106.6–7 105 106.6 148, 241, 242 106.7–33 159 106.7 215 106.12 134, 162 106.13 162 106.16 4, 68, 158, 209, 240, 242 106.19–23 105, 241 106.19–22 121

304 Psalms (cont.) 106.19 163 106.22 151 106.23 4, 68, 121, 158, 209, 240, 242 106.24–33 241 106.25 126, 131 106.32 4, 68, 158, 209, 240–42 106.34–36 159, 241 106.36–38 138 106.40 120, 121, 259, 273 106.44–45 104 106.45 3, 8, 80, 105, 106, 216, 240 106.46 65 106.47–48 66, 70 106.47 121, 208, 241–43, 248, 253, 274 106.48 49, 62–68, 194 107–117 48 107–112 246 107–108 217, 248, 270 107 49, 65, 66, 68, 193–95, 202, 217, 246–49, 251 107.1 27, 206, 243 107.2 248 107.3 65, 242, 248 107.7 142 107.8 206, 247 107.15 206, 247 107.17 216 107.20 134, 216 107.21 206, 247 107.22 202, 204 107.31 206, 247 107.37 194 107.38 194, 248 107.41 248

Index of References 108–112 108–110

246, 253 5, 7, 44, 52, 108, 151, 194, 195, 201, 202, 209, 214, 246, 247, 249 108 57, 58, 61, 165, 217, 248, 249 108.1–3 249 108.2–14 57 108.2 162, 253 108.4 57, 247, 248 108.5 215 109 48 109.14 216 109.26 274 109.28 175, 193 110 4, 11, 12, 51, 180, 181, 189, 201, 247, 254, 260, 270, 271 110.1 167, 169, 174, 262 110.3 273 110.4 167, 180, 247, 261 110.5–7 167 111–117 26, 45 111–112 30, 108, 111, 149, 151, 201, 214, 217, 247, 249 111 93, 106–108, 149, 151, 164, 165, 217, 247, 268 111.1 108, 129, 249, 253 111.3 247 111.4–6 107, 165

111.4

107, 165, 214 111.5 80, 106, 107, 165 111.6 107, 164, 165, 273 111.7 103, 133 111.8 154 111.9–10 150 111.9 80, 106, 107, 149, 247, 273 111.10 106, 149 112–116 40 112 149, 151, 155, 217, 247 112.1 106, 133, 149, 150, 247 112.4 107, 149, 214, 247 112.6 148, 149 112.9–10 148 112.9 155, 247 112.10 149 113–118 24, 49, 246, 250(–51), 254, 270 113–117 49 113 39, 118 113.1 176 113.5 274 113.8 273 114–115 39 114 250, 251 114.7 174, 194 115–117 217 115 118, 138, 139, 217 115.1 215 115.2 275 115.3 274 115.4–8 138 115.12–13 193, 250 115.16 164

116

39, 118, 128, 131, 178, 180, 201, 202, 217, 253, 270 116.1–2 250 116.1 127, 128, 178 116.5 178, 179, 214, 250, 274 116.13 179 116.14 201, 250, 273 116.16 176–78, 250 116.17 179, 202, 204 116.18 179, 201, 273 117 217 117.2 215 118–135 48, 49 118–119 31, 95, 170 118 10, 37, 49, 116, 161, 162, 166, 170, 181, 207, 246, 253, 271 118.1 27, 37, 206 118.10–12 250 118.14 161 118.15–16 37 118.19 207 118.21 207 118.26–27 170 118.27 155, 170, 207 118.28 116, 118, 207, 274 118.29 37, 206 119 10, 32, 86, 103, 118, 128, 129, 132–35, 145, 148, 150, 151, 169,

305

Index of References 170, 176, 246, 250 119.1 133, 145 119.2 81, 133 119.4 133 119.5 133 119.6 133 119.7 129, 133 119.8 133 119.10–21 67 119.10 129, 133 119.12 67, 133 119.13 133 119.14 133 119.15 133 119.16 133 119.17 176 119.18 133 119.19 133 119.20 133 119.21 133 119.22 81, 133 119.23 133, 176 119.24 133 119.26 133 119.27 133 119.29 133, 145, 216 119.30 133 119.31 133 119.32 133 119.33 133 119.34 129, 133 119.35 133 119.36 133 119.37 138 119.38 150, 151, 176 119.39 133 119.40 133 119.43 133 119.44 133, 154 119.45 133 119.46 133 119.47 133 119.48 133 119.49 176

119.51 133 119.52 133 119.53 133 119.54 133 119.55 133 119.56 133 119.57 122, 123 119.58 129, 216 119.59 133 119.60 133 119.61 133 119.62 133 119.63 133, 151 119.64 133 119.65 176 119.66 133 119.68 133 119.69 133 119.70 133 119.71 133 119.72 133 119.73 133 119.75–76 171, 172 119.75 133 119.76 176 119.77 133 119.78 133 119.79 133 119.80 133 119.83 133 119.84 133, 176 119.85 133 119.86–88 171 119.86 133 119.87 133 119.88 133 119.91 133, 176 119.92 133 119.94 133 119.95 133 119.96 133 119.97 133 119.98 133 119.99 133 119.100 133 119.102 133 119.104 133

306 Psalms (cont.) 119.105 170 119.106 133, 180 119.108 133 119.109 133 119.111 133 119.112 133 119.113 133 119.115 133, 274 119.117 133 119.118 133 119.120 133, 151 119.121 133 119.122 176 119.124 133, 176 119.125 133, 176 119.126 133 119.127 133 119.128 133 119.129 133 119.131 133 119.132 128, 133, 216 119.134 133 119.135 133, 169, 170, 176 119.136 133 119.137 133 119.138 133 119.140 176 119.141 133 119.142 133 119.143 133 119.144 133 119.145 81, 129, 133 119.146 133 119.149 126, 133 119.150 133 119.151 133 119.152 133 119.153 133 119.155 133 119.157 133 119.159 133 119.160 133 119.163 133 119.164 133

Index of References 119.165 133 119.166 133 119.167 133 119.168 133 119.171 133 119.172 133 119.173 133 119.174 133 119.175 133 119.176 133, 176 120–136 246 120–134 8, 24, 49, 246, 251–52 120 251 121 39 122 5, 39, 44, 118, 155, 156, 209, 251, 252 122.1–4 207 122.4 133, 153, 155 122.5 155, 251 122.9 274 123 39, 44, 45, 118, 251, 252 123.1 45 123.2 174, 176, 216, 274 123.3 216, 251 124 5, 39, 44, 209, 251, 252 124.1–2 117 124.6 67, 251 124.7 67 124.8 117, 251 124.12 117 125 147, 148 125.2 273 125.3–5 145 125.3–4 146 125.3 147 125.4 129, 147 125.5 147 126 251

127

44, 190, 209, 252 127.3–5 252 128 144 128.1 142, 144, 150 128.3–6 252 128.4–5 193 129 170 129.8 170 130.2 126 130.4 150 130.5 134 130.7 251 131 5, 44, 209, 252 132 5, 12, 51, 54, 108–110, 111, 180, 181, 252, 254, 268 132.1 5, 108 132.2 180, 194 132.5 194 132.6–10 108 132.10 5, 175 132.11–12 108, 189, 252 132.11 5, 108, 180 132.12 80, 81, 108–10, 133, 134, 181 132.13 108, 181, 252 132.14 108, 252 132.15–16 108, 252 132.15 193 132.17–18 108, 252 132.17 5, 108, 155 133 5, 35, 37, 44, 209, 252 134 40 134.1–3 119 134.1 176 135–137 49, 68, 246, 249

135

26, 68, 118, 119, 138, 139, 164, 165, 181 135.1 176 135.2 274 135.4 119, 181 135.5–6 165 135.5 174 135.9 176 135.10–12 164 135.10 164 135.11 164 135.12 164, 249, 273 135.14 176, 176 135.15–18 138 135.19–21 193 135.20 68 135.21 67, 68 136–145 49 136 24, 68, 164, 181, 249, 270 136.1 27, 206 136.2 206 136.3 175, 206 136.4 165 136.16 273 136.17–22 164 136.17–18 164 136.19–20 164 136.21–22 164, 249 136.26 206 137 249 137.4 162 138–145 5, 44, 49, 135, 209, 214, 246–48 138 131, 133, 217, 248, 249, 270 138.1–2 207 138.1 129, 131, 249, 253 138.2 215 138.5 142, 162

307

Index of References 139

139, 145, 146, 148, 151, 172, 174 139.14 151 139.19–20 173 139.20 138 139.21 173 139.24 145, 146 140–143 249 140 161, 162, 166, 181 140.7 116, 274 140.8 161 140.9 148 140.13–14 148 140.25 148 141 35, 37 141.4–5 148 141.10 148 142–143 253 142 54, 123 142.1 48, 54 142.2 216 142.6 122 143 124, 126, 172 143.1 126, 171 143.2 124, 175 143.8 126, 131 143.10 116, 274 143.12 171, 172, 175, 271 144 5, 35, 37, 51, 117, 139, 159, 181 144.1–7 67 144.1 67, 96 144.2 273 144.8 139 144.9–11 249 144.9 161, 162, 253, 254 144.10 5, 175 144.11 139 144.15 117, 275 145–147 40

145

12, 13, 15, 41, 45, 51, 78, 128, 130, 131, 151, 167, 200, 201, 206, 209–11, 214, 217, 218, 222, 244–46, 248, 253, 261, 269–71 145.1–7 244 145.1–2 127 145.1 45, 154, 274 145.2 154, 274 145.4 130 145.5 134 145.6 151 145.7 215 145.8–12 244 145.8 77, 185, 200, 210, 214, 216, 244–46, 251, 270 145.9–12 245 145.12 248 145.13 41 145.17 142 145.19 127 145.20 128 145.21 31, 62, 154, 161, 233, 244, 245, 248, 253 146–150 24, 26, 31, 42, 49, 62, 72, 135, 145, 154, 179, 233, 244, 245, 270 146–148 40 146–147 39, 40 146 37, 145, 148 146.1 245 146.5 194, 275 146.8–9 145 146.8 128

308 Psalms (cont.) 146.9 145 146.10 275 147 37, 39, 40, 118, 135, 179, 199, 204 147.1 135, 274 147.5 174 147.7 135, 202, 204, 274 147.12–20 40 147.12 40, 135, 179, 275 147.13 177, 179, 193 147.19–20 133, 135 147.19 133–35 148 40, 154, 204 148.3–4 154 148.5 154 148.6 133, 153–55, 238 148.14 155, 273 149 40, 159, 161, 162, 166, 181 149 149.1 160, 161 149.2 180 149.4 273 149.7–9 180 150 25, 31, 41, 62 150.6 245, 248 151 39–41, 53 Proverbs 1.7 141 8 148 9.10 141 10.29 146 13.6 146 Ecclesiastes 12.13 141

Index of References Isaiah 24.5 152 25 228 25.1 116 30.8 154 40–55 160, 228 40.3 142, 147 42.1–6 160 42.10 160 42.17 83 43.13–19 160 48.20–21 160 49.6 228 49.7 171 50.5 83 51.9–12 160 51.9 197 52.10–12 160 54.17 176 55 177 55.3–5 176 59.14 83 63.16 178 64.8 178

42.5 171 46.5 83 51.19 122

Jeremiah 5.2–4 235 7.23 114 10.16 122 11.4 113, 114 13.11 114 16.17 235 17.8 260 24.7 114 30.22 114 31.1 114 31.18 116 31.31–34 113 31.31 114 31.33 114 32.36–40 113 32.38 114 33.10–11 206 33.11 206 33.20 154 38.22 83

Micah 7.18–20 210

Ezekiel 11.20 114 14.11 114 22.30 121 34.23–24 55 34.24 113, 114 36.28 114 37.23 113, 114 37.24–25 55 37.27 113, 114 Hosea 3.5 55 11.1 177 Joel 2.13

12, 210

Jonah 4.2

12, 210, 228

Nahum 1.3

12, 210

Habakkuk 3.1–19 47 Zechariah 8.8 114 9.10 189 13 231 New Testament Romans 8.24 271 Galatians 3 187



Index of References

Dead Sea Scrolls 4QPsa 56 I 67

Early Jewish Works Midrash on Psalms 20–22, 157

4QPsb 232

Classical and Ancient Christian Literature Augustine Expositions on the Psalms 20

4QPsd 37 4QPse 35–37 4QPsh 67 4QPsk 38 11QPsa

33–41, 44, 45, 49, 50, 67, 109, 155 II 37 IV 67 VI 109 11QPsb 35–38 MasPsb 35–36

Hippolytus On the Psalms 1 20 Inscriptions Sumerian Temple Hymns 42, l. 542 25

309

I n d ex of A ut hor s Allen, L. C. 107, 128, 133, 134, 170, 236 Allison, D. C. 157, 158, 211 Anderson, R. D., Jr. 39, 43, 56, 70 Auffret, P. 31, 43 Auwers, J.-M. 6, 28, 258 Barber, M. 10, 11, 151, 160, 197, 223 Barbiero, G. 188 Barth, C. 30 Beckwith, R. T. 29, 38, 39, 47, 62, 70 Blenkinsopp, J. 177 Borger, J. 13, 121, 158, 242 Bos, J. 76, 85 Braude, W. G. 20–22 Bridge, E. J. 175 Broyles, C. C. 188 Brueggemann, W. 29, 31 Brunet, A. M. 101 Bullock, C. H. 3 Burnett, J. S. 60 Childs, B. S. 1, 12, 48, 54 Clements, R. E. 187 Cole, R. L. 29, 256–58, 260 Craigie, P. 84, 130 Creach, J. D. 4, 5, 29, 32, 95, 101, 127, 142, 145, 146, 151, 160, 220, 257, 258, 260 Croft, S. J. L. 168 Dahmen, U. 33, 37 Dahood, M. 137, 138, 162, 170, 191, 204, 207 Day, J. 52, 65 deClaissé-Walford, N. L. 1, 5, 9, 271 Delitzsch, F. 22, 30, 60, 62, 69 Eaton, J. H. 175 Eissfeldt, O. 176 Fabry, H.-J. 38 Firth, D. G. 2 Fishbane, M. 79, 91, 108, 193 Flint, P. W. 27, 34–37, 40, 44, 65 Freedman, D. N. 101

Gelston, A. 71 Gerstenberger, E. S. 24, 25, 58, 76 Gese, H. 25 Gillingham, S. 7, 32, 163, 255, 260 Goldingay, J. 83, 88, 91, 93, 94, 99, 107, 128, 130, 137, 138, 154, 155, 163, 169, 170, 175, 176, 187–89, 203, 204, 207 Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 33, 36 Gosse, B. 7 Gottwald, N. K. 107 Grant, J. A. 4, 5, 7, 10, 32, 81, 94, 95, 124, 127, 132, 134, 136, 141, 142, 170, 250, 256, 258 Groenewald, A. 12 Grogan, G. W. 84, 107, 155, 169, 188 Gunkel, H. 1, 23, 25, 52, 203, 206 Heim, K. 91, 92 Higgins, A. J. B. 167 Hirsch, S. R. 21 Hossfeld, F.-L. 24, 28, 31, 53, 57, 59, 64, 76, 87–89, 103, 107, 154, 155, 163, 186–88, 199, 200, 207, 220, 223, 234, 237 Houston, W. 189, 190 Howard, D. M., Jr. 29, 30, 68, 161, 234 Hutchinson, J. H. 2, 5, 6, 102, 206 Joffe, L. 59 Johnston, P. S. 2 Jones, C. D. B. 85, 87, 199, 225, 227 Kalluveettil, P. 80, 153, 174, 175, 178 Kidner, D. 154, 189 Kim, H. S. 211, 214 Kim, J. 92, 94, 95, 102 Kimelman, R. 245 Kleining, J. W. 132, 212 Koch, K. 65 Kratz, R. G. 49, 63 Kraus, H.-J. 3, 24, 57, 76, 120, 128, 143, 187–89, 191, 199, 204, 207, 271 Kselman, J. S. 235, 236



Index of Authors

Lane, N. C. 12, 13, 210, 211, 219, 220, 244, 253 Levenson, J. D. 85, 86, 89, 90 Levin, C. 19, 62–66 Lohfink, N. L. 6, 43, 114 Maloney, L. D. 81, 106 Martilla, M. 7 Mays, J. L. 4, 6, 12, 32, 94, 134, 136, 161, 259 McCann, J. C., Jr. 5, 90, 134, 135, 142, 160, 163, 196, 260 McCarthy, D. J. 3 McFall, L. 46, 47, 60, 69, 70 McKelvey, M. G. 4, 160, 234, 239, 240, 242 Mendenhall, G. E. 3 Millard, M. 19, 28, 30, 31, 57, 59, 61 Miller, P. D. 31, 81, 257 Mitchell, D. C. 4, 5, 8, 9, 19, 21–24, 28, 29, 39, 59, 60, 101, 155, 196, 197, 231, 257 Moberly, R. W. L. 213, 214 Moran, W. L. 125 Mowinckel, S. 1, 23–25, 52, 59, 67 Munnich, O. 40 Murphy, R. E. 141 Nasuti, H. P. 202 Ndoga, S. S. 7 Newsome, J. D., Jr. 101 Noonan, B. 186 Pang, P. K. 12 Petter, D. L. 12 Pigott, S. M. 12 Rad, G. von 1 Rendtorff, R. 84, 113, 114, 125 Ringgren, H. 132, 153 Rose, M. 28, 59 Rösel, C. 28

311

Sanders, J. A. 27, 66, 70 Sanders, P. 21, 65, 242 Sarna, N. 91 Schaper, J. 40 Seybold, K. 62 Skehan, P. 33, 38, 41, 66 Smith, M. S. 48, 54 Snearly, M. K. 4, 6, 11, 19, 30, 49, 62, 66, 68, 98, 102, 246 Steinmann, A. E. 38 Talmon, S. 33 Tate, M. 163, 187, 207 Terrien, S. 76, 85, 155, 169 Tov, E. 36 Tsevat, M. 102 Tucker, W. D., Jr. 6, 176, 177, 246 Van Leeuwen, R. 141 Vanderzee-Pals, M. 12, 88 Vangemeren, W. A. 84, 161, 169, 191 Viviers, H. 251, 252 Wallace, R. E. 3, 4, 13, 29, 249, 255, 261, 262 Weinfeld, M. 92 Weiser, A. 24, 75 Willgren, D. 11, 14, 28, 34, 42, 45, 63, 255, 260 Williams, R. J. 55 Williams, T. F. 40 Wilson, G. H. 2–4, 8, 26, 27, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 43, 44, 49–52, 56, 62, 63, 66– 68, 70, 102, 122, 140, 151, 223, 244 Wittman, D. E. 180 Zenger, E. 6, 24, 28, 31, 44, 49, 53, 57–59, 64, 65, 68, 69, 87–89, 103, 107, 154, 155, 163, 186–88, 199, 200, 207, 215, 220, 223, 229, 234, 237, 240, 246, 248 Zimmerli, W. 30